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 18-10-07, 10:18 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 - October 20th, '07

Since 2002


































"We’re not in the business of keeping the media companies alive." – Trevor Edwards


"I am in the business of selling records and I want to be in a place where we have the opportunity to sell the most records. It's also nice that Wal-Mart pays us a very lucrative royalty; a royalty that no record company could come close to matching. But that's because we are not a loss leader at Wal-Mart. If the Eagles put out a record at Warner or any other major record label, part of the reason they can't pay up is we've got to pay for all of the bad acts they sign and release." – Glenn Frey


"Everyone has been screaming let's have a new paradigm in the record industry; let's figure out a way to do this ourselves. Let's figure out a way to leave the big dinosaur record companies behind that have been robbing from us -- and the consumer -- for the last 60-80 years. Ever since the record business became big business, the labels have been suspect. We just thought we would try something different." – Don Henley


"I can't just call their customer-service center and ask about my drive. There's nothing I can do. I don't know if we can hire an attorney ... is there a black-hole attorney? You can't take a black hole to court." – Chris Walla


"I can do this in the name of Allah, and I will not fail. I could slaughter him in the name of Allah." – Amatullah


"My name is Fountain Hughes. My grandfather belonged to Thomas Jefferson. My grandfather was 115 years old when he died. And now I am 101 years old."


"Dumbledore is gay." – J.K. Rowling






























RIAA Targets Usenet

It was bound to happen sooner or later, a matter of when, not if. The dreaded day has arrived and as hard as it may be for Usenet junkies to contemplate, this old and beloved service which swarms petabytes of content almost daily has met the foes that could conceivably reduce its output to a trickle: the US courts and the international recording industry. Or maybe not. The RIAA has announced a lawsuit (167 pg. pdf) against a branch of the system, accusing operators of massive copyright violations and generally boorish behavior - but the amorphous nature of newsgroups, dreamed up nearly thirty years ago by two grad students, makes them a lot tougher to control than a more typical semi decentralized P2P operation like Fasttrack or the newer Bittorrent trackers like the Piratebay. If the courts came down hard on Fasttrack the record companies haven't had much luck lately shutting those other sites down.

When dealing with platforms as opposed to individuals however international courts have generally ignored bedrock legal principals such as who is actually infringing, considering these mere technical trifles, preferring instead to find copyright violations anytime there may be unauthorized distribution, no matter how far removed from the defendant it is. In the states this means the US arms of an organization would likely be found liable, spelling potential headaches for North Dakota's Usenet.com specifically or any US-based operations feeding the giant newsgroup.

The DMCA may provide some harbor for these companies. According to this controversial law takedown notices must be sent by copyright holders before legal action can succeed. If it is within the power of the host, assuming it is the host, to remove disputed material and it does, lawsuits are generally not effective.












Enjoy,

Jack












October 20th, 2007




Ex-Phone Chief Says N.S.A. Sought Data Earlier
Scott Shane

The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the company’s lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the former head of the company contends in newly unsealed court filings.

The executive, Joseph P. Nacchio, also asserts in the filings that the agency retaliated by depriving Qwest of lucrative outsourcing contracts.

The filings were made as Mr. Nacchio fought charges of insider trading. He was ultimately convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading and has been sentenced to six years in prison. He remains free while appealing the conviction.

Mr. Nacchio said last year that he had refused an N.S.A. request for customers’ call records in late 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks, as the agency initiated domestic surveillance and data mining programs to monitor Al Qaeda communications.

But the documents unsealed Wednesday in federal court in Denver, first reported in The Rocky Mountain News on Thursday, claim for the first time that pressure on the company to participate in activities it saw as improper came as early as February, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks.

The significance of the claim is hard to assess, because the court documents are heavily redacted and N.S.A. officials will not comment on the agency’s secret surveillance programs. Other government officials have said that the agency’s eavesdropping without warrants began only after Sept. 11, 2001, under an order from President Bush.

But the court filings in Mr. Nacchio’s case illustrate what is well known inside the telecommunications industry but little appreciated by the public: that the N.S.A. has for some time worked closely with phone companies, whose networks carry the telephone and Internet traffic the agency seeks out for intercept.

Some of the cooperation is related to the agency’s second major responsibility — the protection of classified government communications systems against eavesdropping or hacking by adversaries. The documents reflect constant meetings and negotiations between the agency and Qwest officials over the global communications network.

The claims could influence a battle in Congress over whether companies that assist the N.S.A. should be given immunity from civil or criminal liability. Some Democrats have opposed granting such immunity unless the Bush administration agrees to reveal more about the companies’ participation in eavesdropping and data mining programs.

Jeffrey Speiser, a lawyer for Mr. Nacchio, declined to comment yesterday.

As part of his defense, Mr. Nacchio claimed that he had knowledge of top secret contracts with the N.S.A. and other government agencies that made the company’s financial prospects brighter than was publicly known. Prosecutors denied the claims.

At the time of the claimed meeting at the N.S.A.’s Fort Meade, Md., headquarters on Feb. 27, 2001, Mr. Nacchio was chairman of the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, whose members included top executives of most of the major communications companies. Like nearly every chief executive in the industry, he had been granted a security clearance to work with the government on secret projects.

In the court papers, Mr. Nacchio’s lawyers said he and James F. X. Payne, then Qwest’s head of government business, spoke with N.S.A. officials about the agency’s Groundbreaker project, in which the agency’s non-secret information technology would be contracted to private companies.

At the same meeting, N.S.A. officials made an additional proposal, whose exact nature is not made clear in the censored documents.

“The court has prohibited Mr. Nacchio from eliciting testimony regarding what also occurred at that meeting,” one of the documents states. Another passage says: “The court has also refused to allow Mr. Nacchio to demonstrate that the agency retaliated for this refusal by denying the Groundbreaker and perhaps other work to Qwest.”

Another document, a transcript of an interview that the F.B.I. conducted with Mr. Payne in 2006, stated that the N.S.A. pressed its request for months afterward. “Nacchio said it was a legal issue and that they could not do something their general counsel told them not to do,” Mr. Payne told the F.B.I. “Nacchio projected that he might do it if they could find a way to do it legally.”

Mr. Payne declined to comment.

In support of Mr. Nacchio’s accusations, his lawyers quoted from one of several lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies, accusing them of violating their customers’ privacy. That lawsuit, filed last year against several companies, asserts that seven months before the Sept. 11 attacks, at about the time of Mr. Nacchio’s meeting at the N.S.A., another phone company, AT&T, “began development of a center for monitoring long distance calls and Internet transmissions and other digital information for the exclusive use of the N.S.A.”

The lawsuit contends that the center would “give the N.S.A. direct, unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access” to phone call information and Internet traffic on AT&T’s network.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/bu...4qwest.html?hp





Phone Companies Refuse to Provide Data on Spy Program
Neil Roland

Three of the largest U.S. telephone companies declined to answer lawmakers' questions about Bush administration efforts to spy on Americans' phone calls and e- mails, saying the government forbade them from doing so.

``Our company essentially finds itself caught in the middle of an oversight dispute between the Congress and the executive relating to government surveillance activities,'' AT&T Inc. General Counsel Wayne Watts said in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee that was released today by the panel.

Verizon Communications Inc., the second largest U.S. phone company after AT&T, and Qwest Communications International Inc., the fourth largest, also declined to answer many of the committee's questions.

Among the questions, posed by the committee on Oct. 2, were what information the carriers gave the administration without a court warrant, whether they were paid for any of it and whether the administration asked them to install equipment to intercept e-mails.

John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who heads the Energy and Commerce Committee, and other Democrats called on the administration to answer questions about the spying.

``The water is as murky as ever on this issue, and it's past time for the administration to come clean,'' Representative Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who leads the panel's telecommunications subcommittee, said in a statement.

State Secrets

Verizon and Qwest said the Justice Department prohibited them from offering any substantive comment on their roles in the spy program. AT&T said Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell invoked the state-secrets privilege to prevent the carrier from commenting.

McConnell's spokesman, Ross Feinstein, said in an interview today that the House and Senate Intelligence committees have the authority to oversee intelligence activities under the 1947 National Security Act.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel declined immediate comment. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd declined to comment.

Verizon did answer a question from lawmakers about whether the administration asked it to provide ``communities of interest,'' the network of people with whom particular phone customers were in contact. The New York Times reported last month that the FBI had sought details on these networks.

`Calling Circle'

Verizon said the administration asked it to identify a `calling circle' for some telephone numbers. The carrier told the committee: ``Because Verizon does not maintain such `calling circle' records, we have not provided this information in response to these requests.''

Congress approved a temporary measure in July allowing spy agencies to continue intercepting, without a court warrant, phone calls and e-mails of foreign-based terrorists that are routed through the U.S. Lawmakers currently are working on new surveillance legislation.

McConnell acknowledged the existence of the program in August and said telecommunications companies should be given immunity from lawsuits claiming privacy violations. AT&T, Verizon and other carriers are being sued for providing customer information to the government.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Democrats' No. 2 Senate leader, said last week he will resist the administration's demand for immunity for the carriers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...refer=politics





Senate Deal on Immunity for Phone Companies
Eric Lichtblau

Leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee reached a tentative agreement on Wednesday with the Bush administration that would give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program approved by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a Congressional official said Wednesday.

Senators this week began reviewing classified documents related to the participation of the telephone carriers in the security agency program and came away from that early review convinced that the companies had “acted in good faith” in cooperating with what they believed was a legal and presidentially authorized program and that they should not be punished through civil litigation for their roles, the official said.

As part of legislation on the security agency’s wiretapping authorities, the White House has been pushing hard for weeks to get immunity for the telecommunications companies in discussions with Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the ranking Republican. A tentative deal was first reported by The Washington Post.

The Intelligence Committee will begin reviewing the legislation at a closed session on Thursday.

The agreement between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Bush administration would also include a greater role for the secret intelligence court in overseeing and approving methods of wiretapping used by the security agency, the official said.

But it is not clear whether this and other toughened civil liberties safeguards included in the agreement will go far enough to mollify senators on the Senator Judiciary Committee, who will also review the plan once the intelligence panel finishes its work.

Word of the deal came hours after House Republicans used a parliamentary maneuver to scuttle a vote on a measure that would have imposed new restrictions on the security agency’s eavesdropping powers.

At the start of the day, Democrats were confident that the measure would gain approval in the House despite a veto threat from President Bush. But after an afternoon of partisan sniping, Democratic leaders put off that vote because of a competing measure from Republicans that on its face asked lawmakers to declare where they stood on stopping Osama bin Laden from attacking the United States again.

The Republican measure declared that nothing in the broader bill should be construed as prohibiting intelligence officials from conducting the surveillance needed to prevent Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda “from attacking the United States.” Had it passed, it threatened to derail the Democratic measure altogether.

Democrats denounced the Republicans’ poison pill on Mr. bin Laden as a cynical political ploy and “a cheap shot.” But Democratic leaders realized that they were at risk of losing the votes of a contingent of more moderate Democrats who did not want to be left vulnerable for voting against a resolution to stop Al Qaeda, officials said. So the leaders pulled the measure, promising to take it up again next week once they could solidify support.

The Republican maneuver “would have killed the bill, and we couldn’t risk that,” said a senior Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal leadership deliberations. “We thought we’d be able to defeat it, but it became clear that we couldn’t.”

The episode revealed, once again, fault lines within the Democratic Party over how to tackle national security questions without appearing “soft” on terrorism in the face of Republican criticism.

Indeed, Republican leaders immediately praised their ability to block the N.S.A. measure as a sign of the Democrats’ weakness on that issue. Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi “underestimated the intelligence of the American people and the bipartisan majority in the Congress to understand what matters most: preventing another terrorist attack.”

Democrats, clearly thrown on the defensive, countered that Republicans were the ones playing politics with national security.

“Once again, House Republicans have chosen to engage in politics rather than substantively address the challenges that face the American people,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democratic leader. “Once again, they have offered an amendment that, if passed, would have substantially delayed this important legislation which is designed to protect the American people by proposing language already provided in the bill.”

The Democratic measure would have sought to restore some of the restrictions on the security agency’s wiretapping powers that had been loosened under a temporary measure approved by Congress just before its August recess. The new bill would give the secret foreign intelligence court a greater oversight role in the agency’s interception of foreign-based communications into the United States, and it would provide for more reporting and accountability when the communications of Americans were involved.

The Bush administration has lobbied hard against the measure. One of its chief complaints is that the House bill would not provide immunity for telephone carriers as the Senate measure does.

A day after threatening to veto the House measure, Mr. Bush kept up the political pressure Wednesday in the hours before the bill was to come up for a vote. He said at a news conference that the Democratic plan would weaken national security, and he urged Congress instead to make permanent the measure it passed in August, which broadened the security agency’s authority to wiretap terrorism suspects without court oversight. That measure expires in February.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/wa.../18nsa.html?hp





The Beltway Establishment's Contempt for the Rule of Law
Glenn Greenwald

The Washington Post's Editorial Page, in the establishment-defending form of Fred Hiatt, today became but the latest Beltway appendage to urge the enactment of a special law providing amnesty to our nation's poor, put-upon, lawbreaking telecoms:

There is one major area of disagreement between the administration and House Democrats where we think the administration has the better of the argument: the question of whether telecommunications companies that provided information to the government without court orders should be given retroactive immunity from being sued. House Democrats are understandably reluctant to grant that wholesale protection without understanding exactly what conduct they are shielding, and the administration has balked at providing such information. But the telecommunications providers seem to us to have been acting as patriotic corporate citizens in a difficult and uncharted environment.

Let's leave to the side Hiatt's inane claim that these telecoms, in actively enabling the Bush administration to spy on their customers in violation of the law, were motivated by the pure and upstanding desire to be "patriotic corporate citizens" -- rather than, say, the desire to obtain extremely lucrative government contracts which would likely have been unavailable had they refused to break the law. Leave to the side the fact that actual "patriotism" would have led these telecoms to adhere to the surveillance and privacy laws enacted by the American people through their Congress in accordance with the U.S. Constitution -- as a handful of actual patriotic telecoms apparently did -- rather than submit to the illegal demands of the President.

Further leave to the side that these telecoms did not merely allow warrantless surveillance on their customers in the hectic and "confused" days or weeks after 9/11, but for years. Further leave to the side the fact that, as Hiatt's own newspaper just reported yesterday, the desire for warrantless eavesdropping capabilities seemed to be on the Bush agenda well before 9/11.

And finally ignore the fact that Hiatt is defending the telecom's good faith even though, as he implicitly acknowledges, he has no idea what they actually did, because it is all still Top Secret and we are barred from knowing what happened here. For all those reasons, Hiatt's claim on behalf of the telecoms that they broke the law for "patriotic" reasons is so frivolous as to insult the intelligence of his readers, but -- more importantly -- it is also completely irrelevant.

There is no such thing as a "patriotism exception" to the laws that we pass. It is not a defense to illegal behavior to say that one violated the law for "patriotic" reasons. That was Oliver North's defense to Congress when he proudly admitted breaking multiple federal laws. And it is the same "defense" that people like North have been making to justify Bush's violations of our surveillance laws -- what we call "felonies" -- in spying on Americans without warrants.

By definition, the "rule of law" does not exist if government officials and entities with influential Beltway lobbyists can run around breaking the law whenever they decide that there are good reasons for doing so. The bedrock principle of the "rule of law" is that the law applies equally to everyone, even to those who occupy Important Positions in Fred Hiatt's social, economic and political circles and who therefore act with the most elevated of motives.

In a 1998 essay in Foreign Affairs entitled "The Rule of Law Revival," Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote optimistically that the "rule of law" has now become the centerpiece, the prime consensus, for most international relations and has been recognized as the linchpin for third-world countries developing into functioning democracies. Here is how he defined the basic principles of "the rule of law":

Legal Bedrock

THE RULE of law can be defined as a system in which the laws are public knowledge, are clear in meaning, and apply equally to everyone. They enshrine and uphold the political and civil liberties that have gained status as universal human rights over the last half-century. . . . Perhaps most important, the government is embedded in a comprehensive legal framework, its officials accept that the law will be applied to their own conduct, and the government seeks to be law-abiding. What is happening now in Washington is -- in every respect -- the exact opposite of this. Already, it was revealed that our highest government officials, including the President, broke the law deliberately and for years by spying on Americans without the warrants required by the laws we enacted, and all of official Washington immediately agreed that nothing should happen as a result. And nothing did happen.

And now, some of our country's richest, largest, most powerful and most well-connected corporations were caught breaking laws that have been in place for decades, such as Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, which provides that "[e]very telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of . . . customers." 18 U.S.C. 2511 makes warrantless eavesdropping a felony; 18 U.S.C. 2702 requires that any "entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication" without a court order; and 18 U.S.C. 2520 provides for civil damages for any violations.

Here, the Government will not prosecute telecoms for breaking the law, because the government itself conspired in that lawbreaking. Thus, public interest groups and private citizens, including the telecoms' own customers, are attempting to hold them accountable for their lawbreaking by suing them in courts of law.

In response, these corporations are using their vast resources to give money to key lawmakers and pay huge lobbying fees to politically well-connected former government officials to pressure the Congress to write a new law that has no purpose other than to declare that they are immune from accountability for their lawbreaking. They're conniving, literally, to be specially exempted from the rule of law.

And our opinion-making elite is eagerly defending this -- insisting that while the poor irrelevant souls who buy and sell drugs near the corners of their offices are real criminals and those people belong in prison, our nation's telecoms and other high officials, when they get caught breaking the law, should have special laws written decreeing that they are immune from all consequences.

This has become the norm for the Beltway. It is exactly what happened when poor, persecuted Lewis Libby was so unfairly subjected to a mean criminal trial and the possibility of prison -- just because he "technically" committed some felonies. Libby was one of them, not the kind of person who belongs in prison. As Hiatt wrote, in defending Bush's extraordinary commutation of Libby's sentence on the ground that 30 months was just too harsh (while generously allowing that Libby should spend a little time in prison): given "Mr. Libby's long and distinguished record of public service, [] we sympathize with Mr. Bush's conclusion 'that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.'"

And thus, just as they did for George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping crimes and Lewis Libby's obstruction of justice and perjury felonies, the Beltway establishment is now banding together to demand that the telecoms be bequeathed with the legal right to break the law. In his Foreign Affairs essay, Carothers warned of the primary obstacle to the installation of the "rule of law" in developing third-world countries:

The primary obstacles to such reform are not technical or financial, but political and human. Rule-of-law reform will succeed only if it gets at the fundamental problem of leaders who refuse to be ruled by the law. Respect for the law will not easily take root in systems rife with corruption and cynicism, since entrenched elites cede their traditional impunity and vested interests only under great pressure.

Is it possible to find a more accurate description than this of what has been taking place over the last six years in Washington, as the rule of law for our political elites has completely eroded?

If it is actually true that the telecoms did nothing wrong -- if their armies of internal and outside lawyers were actually correct that they had such a strong basis for doing what they did -- then they will not be found liable. They will only be liable if -- despite the best teams of lawyers that money can buy (just like Lewis Libby had) -- they are found by a court to have broken the law. And "good faith" violations are already exempted from the statute (see 2520(d)), a defense they can raise and prove in a court of law if -- as Hiatt and his friends claim -- it is actually valid.

That is how a country that lives under the "rule of law" functions -- whether someone is found to have acted illegally is determined by a court of law, not neatly resolved after the fact with special amnesty laws passed by Congress that they buy. Here is what Carothers identified as the most "crucial" step for third-world countries to take in order to develop a healthy "rule-of-law" culture:

Type three reforms aim at the deeper goal of increasing government's compliance with law. A key step is achieving genuine judicial independence. . . . But the most crucial changes lie elsewhere. Above all, government officials must refrain from interfering with judicial decision-making and accept the judiciary as an independent authority.

The corruption and sleaze here is so transparent and extreme. We're just sitting by watching as telecoms right in front of our faces purchase from government officials the right to be exempt from lawsuits currently pending in our court system. Government officials, more or less on a bipartisan basis, are about to intervene in these lawsuits and prevent them from proceeding to a determination of whether telcoms violated numerous, long-standing laws. And Fred Hiatt and David Ignatius and Joe Klein and virtually all Beltway "journalistic" opinion-makers think that is the right thing to do, just as they insisted that the President and his aides should never be subjected to consequences for their lawbreaking either.

By definition, our Beltway establishment does not believe in the rule of law -- at least not for them. They are creating a completely segregated, two-track system where high Beltway officials and their corporate enablers arrogate unto themselves the power to decide when they can break the law. They are thus literally exempt from our laws, even our criminal laws, while increasingly harsh, merciless, and inflexible punishments are doled out for the poorest and least connected criminals -- who receive no consideration of any kind, let alone presidential commutations or special laws written for them by Congress retroactively rendering legal their patently criminal behavior.

The Telecom Immunity law that Congress seems well on its way to enacting is one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence yet not only that our Royal Beltway Court is corrupt and decayed at its core. It also proves that they no longer care who knows it.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...law/index.html





Senator Chris Dodd Will Put A Hold On Telecom Immunity Bill
Greg Sargent

Senator Chris Dodd plans to put a hold on the Senate FISA renewal bill because it reportedly grants retroactive immunity to telephone companies for any role they played in the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Election Central has learned.

Dodd will send a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this afternoon informing him of his decision. Dodd also plans to put up a page today at his campaign Web site where opponents of the immunity provision can register their opposition.

“Later today Senator Dodd will be sending a letter to Majority Leader Reid informing him that he plans to put a ‘hold’ on a bill that would provide for retroactive amnesty for telecom giants that were complicit in the Bush Administration’s assault on the United States Constitution," Dodd spokesman Hari Sevugan told Election Central. "Senator Dodd said that he would do what he could do to stop this bill, and with this announcement he has again shown that he delivers results.”

By doing this, Dodd can effectively hold up the telecom immunity bill, because bills are supposed to have unanimous consent in the Senate before going forward. One Senator can make it very difficult to bring a bill to the floor by objecting to allowing it to go to a vote.

Dodd's planned action comes amid reports that the Senate Intelligence Committee has reached a deal with the White House on the legislation that would give telephone carriers legal immunity for whatever role they played in the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program, which was approved by President Bush after 9/11. The White House and the phone companies have been lobbying aggressively for immunity, and the announcement of the immunity deal today dismayed many opponents.

The bill is getting marked up by the Senate Intelligence Committee this afternoon.

Dodd, who has aggressively courted the liberal blogosphere as part of his Presidential run, was being loudly appealed to by top liberal bloggers today to put a hold on the bill. Dodd has for some time now spoken out against the immunity provision but had stopped short of saying that he would exert his power as a Senator to hold up the legislation.

Now, however, he is going to do just that.

More soon.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/1... nity_bill.php





Implementing Domestic Intelligence Surveillance

Upon lawful request and for a thousand dollars, Comcast, one of the nation's leading telecommunications companies, will intercept its customers' communications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The cost for performing any FISA surveillance "requiring deployment of an intercept device" is $1,000.00 for the "initial start-up fee (including the first month of intercept service)," according to a newly disclosed Comcast Handbook for Law Enforcement (pdf).

Thereafter, the surveillance fee goes down to "$750.00 per month for each subsequent month in which the original [FISA] order or any extensions of the original order are active."

With respect to surveillance policy, the Comcast manual hews closely to the letter of the law, as one would hope and expect.

"If your [FISA intercept] request pertains to individuals outside the U.S., please be sure you have complied with all the requirements in 50 U.S.C. sections 105A and/or 105B," the manual says, referring to provisions of the Protect America Act that was enacted last month. "Requests such as these can not be honored after one year and must be dated prior to February 5, 2008, unless extended by Congress."

Comcast will also comply with disclosure demands presented in the form of National Security Letters. However, the manual says, "Attention must be paid to the various court proceedings in which the legal status of such requests is at issue."

In short, "Comcast will assist law enforcement agencies in their investigations while protecting subscriber privacy as required by law and applicable privacy policies."

At the same time, "Comcast reserves the right to respond or object to, or seek clarification of, any legal requests and treat legal requests for subscriber information in any manner consistent with applicable law."

A copy of the manual was obtained by Secrecy News.

The role of telecommunications companies in intelligence surveillance is under increased scrutiny as the Bush Administration seeks to shield the companies from any liability associated with their cooperation in what may be illegal warrantless surveillance.

Also, there are new indications that the unauthorized warrantless surveillance program pre-dated 9/11. The Rocky Mountain News, the Washington Post, and others reported allegations that the government may have penalized Qwest Communications for refusing to participate in a pre-9/11 National Security Agency surveillance program that the company believed might be illegal.

The Washington Post editorialized yesterday that the telecommunications companies should indeed be immunized against liability, as the Bush Administration desires. Even though it is not known exactly what the companies did, the Post said, they "seem to us to have been acting as patriotic corporate citizens in a difficult and uncharted environment."

Writing in Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald disputed that view, arguing that patriotism lies in compliance with the law, not in mere obedience to executive authority.
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007..._intellig.html





Governor Kills California Data Protection Law
Evan Schuman

Schwarzenegger claims the proposed data breach security law would have driven up costs for small businesses.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Oct. 13 vetoed—and effectively killed—one of the nation's most stringent proposed e-tail data breach security laws, saying that the bill would have "driven up the costs of compliance, particularly for small businesses."

The proposed California law—AB 779—would have required retailers to protect data in a manner more demanding than the current PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard) requires.

The bill included a ban on sensitive consumer data information except when the merchant has a payment data retention and disposal policy, "which limits the amount of payment related data and the time that data is retained to the amount," according to the bill.

But it also outright prohibited much data being stored at all after a purchase is authorized by banning a retailer from storing "sensitive authentication data subsequent to authorization, even if that data is encrypted."

Read here about TJX's data breach.

Schwarzenegger, in his veto message explaining why he killed the bill, left the door open to possibly signing a reworked version of the bill. "I encourage the author and the industry to work together on a more balanced legislative approach," he said.

However, the current version of the bill, Schwarzenegger said, "attempts to legislate in an area where the marketplace has already assigned responsibilities and liabilities that provide for the protection of consumers. In addition, the Payment Card Industry has already established minimum data security standards when storing, processing, or transmitting credit or debit cardholder information."

The governor argued that "the industry"—presumably a reference to credit card companies and the PCI Council—is in a better position to know what is realistic and reasonable for credit card security." Also, he said, signing such a bill could actually create a conflict.

"This industry has the contractual ability to mandate the use of these standards, and is in a superior position to ensure that these standards keep up with changes in technology and the marketplace," he said. "This measure creates the potential for California law to be in conflict with private sector data security standards."

Schwarzenegger also said that he objected to ambiguities in the bill's phrasing. "While I support many of the provisions of this bill, it fails to provide clear definition of which business or agency 'owns' or 'licenses' data," the governor said, "and when that business or agency relinquishes legal responsibility as the owner or licensee."

But the Democratic author of the bill suggested that the Republican governor caved in to pressure from the retail community.

"Big business, hackers and ID thieves won today, and consumers and common sense lost," said Assemblyman Dave Jones of Sacramento, the bill's author. "I'm shocked and disappointed that the governor thinks our personal information should be left out in the open for identity thieves and hackers to pilfer. If your slack security leads to a data breach, then you ought to pay for what you caused. 'You broke it, you bought it,' as retailers like to say. How could anybody disagree with this, let alone the governor?"

The bill had passed so easily through both chambers in California—it passed the 40-member state senate last month in a 30-6 vote and had earlier unanimously passed the assembly 73-0—that it is theoretically possible bill supporters could try for a veto override, which would need two-thirds majorities in each body. But as of Oct. 14, no one had publicly said they were going to try to do that.

The concerns about the cost of compliance for smaller retailers has scuttled other state attempts at mandating strong data security rules, including Connecticut, where an initial supporter of such a law backed off as being lobbied by smaller merchants.

Federal efforts to pursue national standards on retail data have also gone nowhere, with hearings on the TJX data breach—which has been seen as a catalyst for state and federal data protection legislative efforts—repeatedly postponed and now tentatively scheduled for November. In January, TJX announced a data breach where the credit card data of some 46 million consumers fell into unauthorized hands, a move widely regarded as the worst retail data security breach ever reported.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2197107,00.asp





House Panel Questions Yahoo Official’s Testimony
Dibya Sarkar

A Yahoo Inc. executive was accused Tuesday of giving false testimony to Congress last year regarding the company's role in the arrest of a Chinese journalist.

A House committee wants Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and general counsel Michael Callahan to clarify at a Nov. 6 hearing the allegedly untruthful testimony Callahan gave Congress in February 2006.

''We want to clarify how that happened, and to hold the company to account for its actions both before and after its testimony proved untrue,'' Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., chairs of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a press release. ''And we want to examine what steps the company has taken since then to protect the privacy rights of its users in China.''

Yahoo spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in an e-mailed statement that the committee's accusation is ''grossly unfair and mischaracterizes the nature and intent of our past testimony.'' She said Yahoo's representatives have been truthful with the committee.

The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company said it is considering the committee's request to have Yang and Callahan appear before it.

San Francisco-based Dui Hua Foundation released documents in late July showing that the Beijing State Security Bureau had written Yahoo saying it wanted evidence about journalist Shi Tao, who was suspected of ''illegally providing of state secrets to foreign entities,'' the committee said.

Shi was arrested at his home after posting material about a government crackdown on media and democracy activists on an overseas Web site. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2005.

The case has raised questions about whether Internet companies should cooperate with governments that deny freedom of speech and frequently crack down on journalists.

Callahan told lawmakers at that 2006 hearing that his company had no information ''about the nature of the investigation'' into Shi, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said in the same statement.

Shares of Yahoo rose $2.58 -- or 9.7 percent -- to $29.27 in after-hours trading. After markets closed, the company reported third-quarter earnings of $151.3 million, or 11 cents per share, which was a slight decline compared with the same period last year. The stock closed at $26.69 during the regular session.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rss_technology





G.P.S. P2P

Navigating With Feedback From Fellow Drivers
Roy Furchgott

At about 8:15 on a sunny San Francisco morning I received a call from Gina Bender, spokeswoman for Dash Navigation. She was in her car and running late. “We just got a traffic alert; it looks like there is a little accident or something. E.T.A. will be closer to 8:48.”

It seems like a small thing, but the technology behind that call represents a big change in car navigation systems.

Ms. Bender’s navigation device, a Dash Express, had done something that no other can currently do. It not only reported that there was a tie-up — many systems already do that — but it also told her how long it would take to get through it, based on current traffic reports and its record of past journeys.

What makes the Dash device so different is that it not only receives location data from the satellites of the Global Positioning System, like other navigation units, but it also broadcasts information about its travels back to the Dash network.

The continuous two-way reporting lets the system accomplish several things. It can measure how fast traffic really travels on a given road, and use that to compile a highly detailed and accurate database of traffic information. Dash units can talk to each other, warning the network the second they hit a traffic slowdown. And because the units stay connected to the Internet, information on nearby points of interest like restaurants is instantly available. Dash was conceived by Mike Farmwald, a serial entrepreneur and computer science Ph.D., while he was sitting in traffic on Interstate 280 in the Bay Area on the way to Stanford University. “There was a traffic slowdown for no reason, and I thought, ‘This is crazy, why shouldn’t I know ahead of time?’” he said. “There’s this long chain of cars up ahead. What if the cars could talk to one another?”

The company was formed in 2003 and is backed primarily by Mr. Farmwald; Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; Sequoia Capital; and Crescendo Ventures. Its system is still in the testing phase, but the company hopes to make Dash units available through major electronics retailers early next year for less than $600 each.

To demonstrate how Dash works, Ms. Bender and Robert Acker, the company’s senior vice president for marketing, drove me from downtown San Francisco to the city’s airport on a Wednesday morning.

Ms. Bender started by typing in the airport address on the Dash unit’s touch-screen keyboard. The Dash then made a calculation and offered three routes, with an estimated time of arrival for each. Even though the major highway, Route 101, showed some congestion, Dash still estimated that it would be fastest.

Behind the calculation were three sources of data. First was standard traffic and traffic flow data from Inrix, a firm that collects data on about 50,000 of the 4 million miles of highways in the United States. This is the same data most G.P.S. units with traffic reporting now use.

Added to that was the individual information Dash had collected. That database helps adjust time estimates based on a motorist’s personal driving habits.

In addition, data collected anonymously from Dash units is added to the group database.

As we drove out of the city, Mr. Acker tapped the screen to search for a restaurant. Most G.P.S. units now have the locations of millions of restaurants, stores and entertainment sites programmed in at the factory. But Dash’s information comes from an instant search on Yahoo Local, so the listings are more likely to be up to date, and you aren’t constrained to search terms listed in a menu like “Mexican” or “Asian.”

To demonstrate, Mr. Acker typed in “dim sum.” The Dash unit sent the request and the car’s location back to the company’s servers. (Drivers can also choose to search for places near their destination or somewhere else.)

Yahoo generated the results, which Dash formatted into one line address cards and sent back to the unit. When the line on the screen was touched, more information was displayed, like the description of a restaurant, its phone number and a star rating.

Dash’s outgoing information is sent over a cellular data network, which is also used to receive things like minor software updates and traffic alerts. Large amounts of data, like major map revisions, come through the Dash’s built-in Wi-Fi receiver. The unit will automatically spot open Wi-Fi networks and connect. Drivers opposed to piggybacking on a strange Wi-Fi can set the Dash to connect only with specified networks.

Dash also uses two specialized information sources: the Oil Price Information Service, which provides current gas prices at specific stations, and West World Media’s Cinema-Source for movie listings and show times.

Garmin, the big maker of G.P.S. units, also offers gas, movie, traffic and weather information through the MSN Direct service in collaboration with Microsoft, but it works very differently.

The data is received over the FM band in the roughly 150 cities where it’s available. It is broadcast in a continuous loop, and it can take up to two days for complete information to transfer.

As we approached the airport, the Dash screen showed a yellow section of road, and sure enough, we hit a slowdown. “Do we detour?” I asked.

Mr. Acker pointed to the screen. “The road ahead is green, which means it clears up in about a half mile,” he said. If there had been red ahead of the yellow, we would have known it was a traffic jam and perhaps detoured. Still, the unit offered up alternate routes, but the time estimates showed them to be no faster. As we passed exits for the alternate routes the Dash offered, they disappeared from the screen one by one.

Whether our traffic alert was coming in from a road sensor or a car up ahead was impossible to determine. To get the system going, 2,014 prototype units were distributed to test drivers, primarily in 25 large cities. About 350 units were in the San Francisco Bay area, and that helped create a database for the demonstration.

The network is what really distinguishes Dash from its competitors, but it can also be seen as its Achilles’ heel because the real benefit of the system isn’t apparent until enough units are collecting data.

“We started seeing that data becomes material with several hundred units in an area,” Mr. Acker said. To really become effective, Mr. Farmwald added, the number would need to be in the low thousands. In the meantime, he said, “it should never be any worse than the other guys.”

The prospect of a G.P.S. unit continuously reporting a car’s speed gives some drivers the willies, but Ms. Bender said that the information was sent anonymously — there was no way to know which car it came from. If the unit is stolen, the company can send a signal to destroy all information in its memory, including driving data and the address book, so that it can’t be extracted.

As we reached the end of the yellow portion of the map, our speed picked up again, as promised. If only the Dash could help with the next jam, the one at airport security.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/te...sics.html?8dpc





Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic

Tests confirm data discrimination by number 2 U.S. service provider
Peter Svensson

Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.

If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.

The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.

Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.

Number two provider
Comcast, the nation's largest cable TV operator and No. 2 Internet provider, would not specifically address the practice, but spokesman Charlie Douglas confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections running smoothly.

"Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent," he said.

Douglas would not specify what the company means by "access" — Comcast subscribers can download BitTorrent files without hindrance. Only uploads of complete files are blocked or delayed by the company, as indicated by AP tests.

But with "peer-to-peer" technology, users exchange files with each other, and one person's upload is another's download. That means Comcast's blocking of certain uploads has repercussions in the global network of file sharers.

Comcast's technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user.

Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer — it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."

Matthew Elvey, a Comcast subscriber in the San Francisco area who has noticed BitTorrent uploads being stifled, acknowledged that the company has the right to manage its network, but disapproves of the method, saying it appears to be deceptive.

"There's the wrong way of going about that and the right way," said Elvey, who is a computer consultant.

All types of content
Comcast's interference affects all types of content, meaning that, for instance, an independent movie producer who wanted to distribute his work using BitTorrent and his Comcast connection could find that difficult or impossible — as would someone pirating music.

Internet service providers have long complained about the vast amounts of traffic generated by a small number of subscribers who are avid users of file-sharing programs. Peer-to-peer applications account for between 50 percent and 90 percent of overall Internet traffic, according to a survey this year by ipoque GmbH, a German vendor of traffic-management equipment.

"We have a responsibility to manage our network to ensure all our customers have the best broadband experience possible," Douglas said. "This means we use the latest technologies to manage our network to provide a quality experience for all Comcast subscribers."

The practice of managing the flow of Internet data is known as "traffic shaping," and is already widespread among Internet service providers. It usually involves slowing down some forms of traffic, like file-sharing, while giving others priority. Other ISPs have attempted to block some file-sharing application by so-called "port filtering," but that method is easily circumvented and now largely ineffective.

Comcast's approach to traffic shaping is different because of the drastic effect it has on one type of traffic — in some cases blocking it rather than slowing it down — and the method used, which is difficult to circumvent and involves the company falsifying network traffic.

The "Net Neutrality" debate erupted in 2005, when AT&T Inc. suggested it would like to charge some Web companies more for preferential treatment of their traffic. Consumer advocates and Web heavyweights like Google Inc. and Amazon Inc. cried foul, saying it's a bedrock principle of the Internet that all traffic be treated equally.

To get its acquisition of BellSouth Corp. approved by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T agreed in late 2006 not to implement such plans or prioritize traffic based on its origin for two and a half years. However, it did not make any commitments not to prioritize traffic based on its type, which is what Comcast is doing.

The FCC's stance on traffic shaping is not clear. A 2005 policy statement says that "consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice," but that principle is "subject to reasonable network management." Spokeswoman Mary Diamond would not elaborate.

Opposition
Free Press, a Washington-based public interest group that advocates Net Neutrality, opposes the kind of filtering applied by Comcast.

"We don't believe that any Internet provider should be able to discriminate, block or impair their consumers ability to send or receive legal content over the Internet," said Free Press spokeswoman Jen Howard.

Paul "Tony" Watson, a network security engineer at Google Inc. who has previously studied ways hackers could disrupt Internet traffic in manner similar to the method Comcast is using, said the cable company was probably acting within its legal rights.

"It's their network and they can do what they want," said Watson. "My concern is the precedent. In the past, when people got an ISP connection, they were getting a connection to the Internet. The only determination was price and bandwidth. Now they're going to have to make much more complicated decisions such as price, bandwidth, and what services I can get over the Internet."

Several companies have sprung up that rely on peer-to-peer technology, including BitTorrent Inc., founded by the creator of the BitTorrent software (which exists in several versions freely distributed by different groups and companies).

Ashwin Navin, the company's president and co-founder, confirmed that it has noticed interference from Comcast, in addition to some Canadian Internet service providers.

"They're using sophisticated technology to degrade service, which probably costs them a lot of money. It would be better to see them use that money to improve service," Navin said, noting that BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer applications are a major reason consumers sign up for broadband.

BitTorrent Inc. announced Oct. 9 that it was teaming up with online video companies to use its technology to distribute legal content.

Affecting others
Other companies that rely on peer-to-peer technology, and could be affected if Comcast decides to expand the range of applications it filters, include Internet TV service Joost, eBay Inc.'s Skype video-conferencing program and movie download appliance Vudu. There is no sign that Comcast is hampering those services.

Comcast subscriber Robb Topolski, a former software quality engineer at Intel Corp., started noticing the interference when trying to upload with file-sharing programs Gnutella and eDonkey early this year.

In August, Topolski began to see reports on Internet forum DSLreports.com from other Comcast users with the same problem. He now believes that his home town of Hillsboro, Ore., was a test market for the technology that was later widely applied in other Comcast service areas.

Topolski agrees that Comcast has a right to manage its network and slow down traffic that affects other subscribers, but disapproves of their method.

"By Comcast not acknowledging that they do this at all, there's no way to report any problems with it," Topolski said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376597/





Major Pirate Website Shut Down
Katie Allen

The site allowed users to illegally download shows like 24

One of the world's most-used pirate film websites has been closed after providing links to illegal versions of major Hollywood hits and TV shows.

The first closure of a major UK-based pirate site was also accompanied by raids and an arrest, the anti-piracy group Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact) said today.

A 26-year-old man from Cheltenham was arrested on Thursday in connection with offences relating to the facilitation of copyright infringement on the internet, Fact said.

The arrest and the closure of the site - www.tv-links.co.uk - came during an operation by officers from Gloucestershire County Council trading standards in conjunction with investigators from Fact and Gloucestershire Police.

Fact claims that tv-links.co.uk was providing links to illegal film content that had been camcorder recorded from cinemas and then uploaded to the internet. The site also provided links to TV shows that were being illegally distributed.

Visitors to the site could get access to major feature films, sometimes within days of their initial cinema release. Recent links took users to illegal versions of the Disney/Pixar animation sensation Ratatouille as well as to most of this summer's blockbusters.

"Sites such as TV Links contribute to and profit from copyright infringement by identifying, posting, organising, and indexing links to infringing content found on the internet that users can then view on demand by visiting these illegal sites," said a spokesman for Fact.

The group's director general Kieron Sharp said TV Links was the first major target in a campaign to crackdown on web piracy.

"The theft and distribution of films harms the livelihoods of those working in the UK film industry and in ancillary industries, as well as damaging the economy," he said.

Roger Marles, from Trading Standards said sites such as TV Links allowed people to break UK copyright law.

"The 'users' are potentially evading licence fees, subscription fees to digital services or the cost of purchase or admittance to cinemas to view the films," he added.

The British Video Association estimates that at least £459m was lost to the video, film and TV industries due to piracy in 2006.
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2195407,00.html





After Demonoid, Canadian Music Labels Take on BitTorrent Trackers
enigmax

After the CRIA forced Demonoid to block access to Canadian users, four recording labels have turned their attention to two other BitTorrent trackers hosted in Canada, issuing them with Cease and Desists. At least one intends to stand and fight.

There was quite a stir during the last month when we announced that Demonoid had been forced to temporarily close following legal pressures. The site returned but blocked Canadian users under orders of the CRIA. Now it appears that this was just the start of action against Canadian BitTorrent trackers.

Following a Canadian newspaper article which branded them ‘The Pirates of Quebec’, two BitTorrent trackers have been targeted by a collective of Canadian music labels.

The administrator of the 1 year old, 46,000 member ‘QuebecTorrent‘ has received Cease and Desist letters from 4 record labels and is being threatened with further action if they don’t comply.

The demands are:

a) Close the site www.quebectorrent.com and any other site of similar nature which you operate.

b) You must agree to never again directly or indirectly operate any other service which enables the sharing of music.

c) You must post a message clearly indicating the closure of the site and inform your users that sharing music via p2p networks is forbidden by Canadian copyright law unless permission is obtained and royalties paid.

In contrast to the situation at Demonoid who chose to block Canadian users rather than close or re-locate, it appears that QuebecTorrent (QT) don’t want to take this lying down and are hoping to fight this action.

Currently the members are being rallied with a view to obtaining donations - the administrator of QT told TorrentFreak that their lawyer is charging 250$ CAD/hour and although he is financing some of the fight, he simply cannot raise all of the funds.

He told us: “The fees so far are confirmed at 2000$ CAD. I am asking the users for 1500$ and I will pay the rest.”

He also outlines two scenarios - if QuebecTorrent loses in court, it will be very bad for P2P as a favorable legal precedent for the majors would result in an anti-p2p ‘crusade’.

Equally, victory could create a favorable legal precedent for P2P which would benefit the whole file-sharing community.

In summing up, the administrator says that he has a stark choice - either people donate to support the legal defense of the site or he will have no choice but to close it in the face of pressure from these labels.

Anyone wanting to help QuebecTorrent fight should consider donating.
http://torrentfreak.com/canadian-mus...ackers-071018/





The RIAA Attacks Usenet
enigmax

Basking in glory after orchestrating a record punishment for a petty file-sharer in the US, the RIAA takes its legal campaign to the next level. Many may want newsgroups to stay under the radar but it’s too late - major labels have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Usenet.com and it won’t be going away.

In an ideal world, people would not talk about Usenet. In an ideal world there would be no such things as copyright infringement lawsuits. Sadly, we do not live in an ideal world.

Today we simply have to talk about Usenet and we have to talk about lawsuits.

Major record labels - Arista, Atlantic, BMG, Capitol, Caroline, Elektra, Interscope, LaFace, Maverick, Sony BMG, UMG, Virgin, Warner Bros. and Zomba have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Usenet.com.

According to Billboard, the complaint filed in the District Court in New York states that Usenet.com provides access to millions of copyright infringing files and, with a nod towards the Grokster Decision, apparently “touts its service as a haven for those seeking pirated content.”

During the Grokster court case, it was ruled that even if a service or tool has substantial non-infringing uses, its owners would be liable for the infringing activities of its customers, should it be deemed that they encouraged their customers to commit copyright infringement. The complaint says that Usenet.com encourages its customers to commit copyright infringement and furthermore, facilitates such actions with its infrastructure.

Therefore it’s no surprise that the lawsuit seems to hang on statements allegedly made by Usenet.com to their customers, claiming that they told them their service is “the best way to get ‘free’ music now that ‘file sharing websites are getting shut down.”

Usenet.com does state that it’s possible to get increased levels of privacy by using their extra ‘anonymous’ service: “Shh… Quiet! We believe it’s no one’s business but your own what you do on the Internet or in Usenet! We don’t log your activity. We don’t track your downloads, and neither can your ISP when you use Secure-Tunnel.com privacy package.” However, helping to ensure the privacy of your customers does not equal encouragement to commit copyright infringement and right at this moment, there doesn’t appear to be any other text on the site that would make Usenet.com fall foul of the Grokster Decision. More details should follow in due course.

The lawsuit states that despite repeated requests by the labels for Usenet.com to remove infringing content, Usenet.com continued to fill its servers with infringing material from the Usenet network and then charges its users for access. It’s claimed that many of the groups offered by Usenet.com have no other use other than to disseminate copyright works and are “explicitly dedicated to copyright infringement.”

The labels want Usenet.com to admit they are committing copyright infringement with a view to obtaining an injunction and damages. To date, Usenet.com has refused to remove content or discontinue offering certain newsgroups.

It will be interesting to see if other Usenet providers come out in support of Usenet.com.

Further updates to follow.
http://torrentfreak.com/the-riaa-attacks-usenet-071016/





P2P Industry Frowns as Court Bans Its Service
Bae Ji-sook

The online file sharing service is fluctuating between hope and fear as a local court ordered the nation's No. 1 peer-to-peer (P2P) company to cease services Thursday.

The company argued that such an order could harm the user created content (UCC) market, which is expected to boom in three-to-four years.

Seoul High Court ordered Soribada to shut down its servers that provide connections between users' computer hard drives to download content, which includs music, audio files and some texts. The order is expected to affect other P2P service companies, too.
Earlier, recording company JYP, singer Han Dae-soo and 30 others applied for a provisional disposition against Soribada saying it infringed upon copyrights and asked the court to place sanctions on the company's file copying service.

The P2P company said it will once again improve its file-screening system to avoid the business sanction. The new service will only allow the exchange of files that are allowed by copyright owners.

However, the company argued that the court order had not taken UCC into consideration. The company has been focusing on a new type of UCC P2P service, and said sanctions could hinder the development of the next upgrade. UCC is widely used to share knowledge or ideas and in many cases copyright is unclear.

``The aggressive screening of UCC content will clean up the whole Internet-based service industry,'' a Soribada spokesperson told the Kukmin Ilbo newspaper.

He said the dispute between the music industry and P2P services could determine whether online companies and UCC will survive.

``If you apply the law elsewhere, nearly all portal sites or large Web sites such as Youtube.com, which provide all kinds of UCC, may have to shut down, too,'' he added.

According to the order, Soribada may have to pay a fine of one-to-two million won a day should it be caught providing downloading connections of content without the copyright owner's consent.

Soribada was established in 2000 and became a listed company in 2003. In 2002 a court ruled that its service could violate music copyright, but the company developed a filtering system where singers who wish to ban the free distribution of their music can block the connection.

On Friday, a day after the court ruling, the stock price of the company almost halved, from 6,560 won to 3,655 won per share.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...113_11840.html





Appeal in RIAA Case to Focus on "Unconstitutionally Excessive" Punishment
Eric Bangeman

A week after signaling her intention to appeal the $222,000 copyright infringement verdict handed down by a federal jury, Jammie Thomas has filed her notice of appeal with the US District Court for the District of Minnesota. Somewhat surprisingly, Thomas is citing the amount of the award as her grounds for the appeal, rather than the jury instructions.

According to a copy of Thomas' motion seen by Ars, Thomas wants a retrial on the actual damages allegedly suffered by the record labels as the result of the sharing of the 24 recordings she was found to have distributed via KaZaA. Her argument is that the award handed down by the jury is unconstitutionally excessive.

It's an argument that has been raised in other file-sharing cases. We first saw it made in the case of UMG v. Lindor, where Marie Lindor's attorney Ray Beckerman argued that the RIAA's actual damages are in the neighborhood of 70¢ per song, less than 0.1 percent of the minimum statutory damage award of $750. Lindor—and others—have argued that, since the labels get about 70¢ of each 99¢ download sale, that's all the damages the record labels are entitled to collect.

The labels have fought hard to keep their wholesale pricing a secret, although RIAA counsel Richard Gabriel—who argued Capitol v. Thomas—later admitted that the 70¢ figure was "in the correct range."

In this, and all of the file-sharing lawsuits, the record labels seek only statutory damages (which are theoretically related in some way to the actual damages suffered), and not punitive damages (awarded to punish the infringer). The range of statutory damages is broad: from $750 to $30,000 for nonwillful infringement and up to $150,000 for willful infringement. Thomas is arguing that any damage award above and beyond the labels' actual damages is "purely punitive" and should be "scrutinized by the Court."

Thomas would like to see the record companies forced to prove their actual damages due to downloading, a figure that Sony BMG litigation head Jennifer Pariser testified that her company "had not stopped to calculate." In her motion, Thomas argues that the labels are contending that their actual damages are in the neighborhood of $20. Barring a new trial over the issue of damages, Thomas would like to see the reward knocked down three significant digits—from $222,000 to $151.20.

In the motion, Thomas' attorney Brian Toder argues that cases like BMW of North America v. Gore and State Farm v. Campbell suggest that statutory damages should be capped at 10 times the actual damages suffered. Damages in excess of that are unconstitutional, he argues.

"In the instant matter, defendant Thomas urges the Court to consider the statutory damages to be tantamount to an award of punitive damages, since it is based not upon plaintiffs' losses, but rather defendant's conduct," concludes the motion. "Whether the Court recognizes actual damages of zero dollars, $20 or whatever figure plaintiffs suggest is a fair measure of their actual damages for the 24 subject recordings, the ratio of actual damages to the award is not only astronomical, it is offensive to our Constitution and offensive generally."

In a statement given to Ars Technica, an RIAA spokesperson accused Thomas of not taking responsibility for her actions, and said that they want to resolve the case in a "fair and reasonable" fashion. "It is unfortunate that the defendant continues to avoid responsibility for her actions," the spokesperson told Ars. "We will continue to defend our rights."

Should the court decide against a new trial, Thomas would then have 30 days to appeal the original verdict, and she could use that opportunity to argue that the infamous jury instruction no. 15 was flawed. As we noted in our post-mortem of the trial, the question of whether making a file available over a P2P network is infringement as defined by the Copyright Act is still an open one.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...unishment.html





EFF to File Amicus Brief in RIAA File-Sharing Case Appeal
Mark Hefflinger

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital civil liberties advocate, will file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Jammie Thomas' appeal of a jury verdict ordering her to pay $220,000 to the record industry for offering music in a shared folder on a file-sharing network, Wired News reported.

EFF attorney Fred von Lohmann told Wired News that the brief, to be filed with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, will likely focus on a jury instruction that stated the "making available" of copyrighted material on a peer-to-peer network constitutes infringement, "regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."

"If the appeals court rejects that jury instruction, the verdict against Ms. Thomas would have to be thrown out and the case re-tried," voh Lohmann wrote, in a post on EFF.org.
http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/10...ng-case-appeal





2,000,000 songs

iTunes Plus DRM-Free Tracks Expanding, Dropping to 99 Cents
Jacqui Cheng

It's been a while since Apple launched iTunes Plus, its version of DRM-free tracks sold through the iTunes Store. Only EMI tracks were sold as 256kbps, DRM-free AAC files through the iTunes Store in May, and in June, EMI reported that the iTunes Plus tracks were selling well. Since then, however, we haven't heard much news about it. But according to people familiar with the matter, we will tomorrow.

Apple plans to expand iTunes Plus to include certain indie music labels starting Wednesday, October 17 (or sometime this week, at least). This tiny step is encouraging for those of us who like freedom with our music, but it sucks that more of the larger labels are still holding off from hopping on board. This expansion won't include all independent music labels just yet, although we're optimistic that more will be included in the future.

The bigger news on the iTunes Plus horizon, however, is that Apple plans to drop the price of all iTunes Plus tracks. Currently, each track is $1.29 while "normal" DRMed tracks are 99¢ apiece. That discrepancy will be no longer, as Apple will begin pricing all of its iTunes Plus songs at 99¢ apiece (DRMed tracks will also remain at 99¢).

While we have no information on whether the iTunes Plus songs are selling well, we assume that the decision to drop the price is a response to the Amazon MP3 store. Amazon sells individual tracks for between 89¢ and 99¢ apiece, all without any DRM restrictions. With that in mind, it's kind of hard for Apple to compete at $1.29.

We look forward to hearing more details directly from the horse's mouth very soon.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...ng-to-99-cents





Peer-to-Peer Lending Offers Solution for Strapped Consumers
Aleksandra Todorova

A YEAR AGO, Nicole Newberry was in a financial hole so deep that she had trouble making the minimum payments on her credit cards. Worse, the then 22-year-old had gotten tangled up in the predatory cycle of payday loans. Every two weeks, when she repaid the two loans she owed, she borrowed the money right back to pay for groceries and diapers for her two toddlers. Her predicament was cruelly simple: "Each month, I was making all these minimum payments and getting nowhere," she says.

Then a co-worker told her about Prosper.com1, a peer-to-peer lending web site that facilitates loans between strangers. Consumers seeking a loan list the details of how much they need and why, while those with cash to spare scour the listings and make loans to the ones they choose. Generally, borrowers get lower interest rates than they would with a bank or credit card, while lenders can earn better returns than they would in a money market or savings account.

Within 10 days of posting on Prosper, Newberry received a $9,000 loan at 19%: Enough to pay off the pesky payday loans and all her credit cards, which at that time carried 25% to 27% interest rates. As a result, her monthly payment dropped significantly, to $330 from $800 before consolidation. Her credit score, once a subprime 580, is now 680 and steadily rising. And then there's the 1,800-square-foot icing on the cake: Three months ago, Newberry purchased her first home, a four-bedroom house in Sacramento, Calif.

With the surging popularity of peer-to-peer lending sites, feel-good stories like Newberry's are becoming increasingly common. Since its launch in February 2006, Prosper.com has facilitated $90.5 million in loans among nearly 440,000 individuals. LendingClub.com2, which launched in May exclusively for users of social-networking site Facebook, opened up its services to all consumers in mid-September. Now the site has 20,000 users and has handled more than $1 million in loans. Starting Oct. 15, CircleLending.com3, which sold a majority stake in the company to Virgin USA in May, re-brands itself as Virgin Money. The site manages more than $200 million in loans between friends and family.

Eliminating the bank or credit-card issuer as the middle-man isn't currently the norm, but it's gaining momentum, says Christine Barry, research director of Aite Group, a financial industry research firm. The credit crunch and soft housing market combined have all but killed the idea of using home-equity loans to refinance high-interest credit-card debt and homeowners looking to refinance high-interest mortgages are unable to do so if they have less-than-pristine credit records. And small-business loans, always hard to get from traditional banks, have pretty much dried up.

The result: People are seeking financing from, well, other people. At Virgin Money, loan volume in the past six months has been growing twice as fast compared with the pace last year, according to Asheesh Advani, Virgin Money's CEO. (This is also partly due to the acquisition of CircleLending by Virgin USA, he notes.) At Prosper.com, $62.1 million in loans changed hands year-to-date, compared with only $16.8 million during the same period last year.

But the allure of peer-to-peer lending goes beyond better interest rates and improving one's bottom line. These web sites have become somewhat of a mix of Match.com, Facebook and eBay, with emphasis as much on social networking as on closing a deal. Being part of a group, whether it's an alumni association, employees of a specific company or simply being a friend of a friend, plays a big role. At Prosper, users can create groups that, based on members' repayment history, receive star ratings and can help borrowers get lower rates. At LendingClub, lenders pick borrowers based not only on their credit profile, but also on their affiliations.

"Peer-to-peer lending reminds me very much of the credit union model," says Aite Group's Barry. "You're usually lending to people that belong to the same kind of affinity group. There's a certain degree of trust."

And then there's the fuzzy feeling of helping ordinary people fulfill their financial goals, whether it's getting out of debt, fixing a roof or purchasing a dream wedding dress. "You, as the lender, can feel like Jimmy Stewart [in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life"] and invest in people who you know, and fight the evil banks," says Andrew Nelson, a 48-year-old freelance writer in Alpine, Texas, who has so far loaned more than $20,000 to more than 500 people on Prosper.com. When searching for borrowers, Nelson says he looks as much at their "numbers" — a borrower's credit rating, loan-to-income ratio and repayment history on other loans — as the stories behind them. "If I trust the story, I'll lend the money," he says.

To be sure, peer-to-peer lending doesn't come without risks. For lenders, the biggest danger is default. Of the $3 million lent through Prosper.com in September 2006, for example, $300,000 in loans have already defaulted and more than $200,000 are two or more months late, according to WiseClerk.com4, a web site that tracks Prosper.com activity. Default on mortgage loans taken through Virgin Money is impressively low — 0.5% — but that's because most troubled borrowers choose to restructure loans, for example by tacking missed payments onto the unpaid loan balance. Because their lenders are close friends or family members, "people restructure all the time," Advani says.

For borrowers, meanwhile, there's no guarantee they'll find the money they need. Generally, the basic principle of lending applies here as well: The lower your credit score, the lower your chance of getting financed. (Both Prosper.com and LendingClub.com employ letter grades to assess borrowers' credit worthiness, based mainly on credit scores.) According to WiseClerk.com, of the 14,534 Prosper.com loan listings for borrowers with a "C" rating — that's for borrowers with credit scores between 640 and 679 — only 2,668, or 18%, have been funded. Of the 4,608 "AA"-borrower listings, meanwhile — "AA" are borrowers with scores of 760 or higher — 1,557, or 33%, have been funded.

To make sure her $9,000 loan request got noticed, Newberry shared as much personal information as she felt necessary about why she needed the money and how she would repay them. She even included photos of her with her children and listed the grades for the college classes she attends. She patiently and truthfully answered all questions from potential lenders. "You can't be rude or defensive," she says. "You have to put all your business out there, be honest, and it'll pay off."

Tips for navigating peer-to-peer lending sites

Borrowers
1. Be honest. Don't withhold the details when composing your listing. Be specific about why you need the money and how you'll pay the loan back. Break down your current debts and other monthly expenses and income, says Nelson, the lender on Prosper.com. And don't worry: Sensitive information, such as your Social Security number and full name, isn't published.

2. Pay back responsibly. Peer-to-peer lending services hire collection agencies if you fall behind on a payment. Prosper.com does so as soon as you are more than 30 days late. More importantly, they report to the credit bureaus. "This is not a free lunch," says Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com. "It's something you have to treat very seriously."

3. Factor in fees. These services aren't free. At Prosper.com, you'll pay between 1% and 2% and at LendingClub.com, 0.75% to 2% of the loan balance, depending on your credit grade. (No fees are due if your loan doesn't get funded.) Virgin Money charges a one-time fee between $249 and $2,299, depending on the extent of services received.

Lenders
1. Think like an investor. Before plunging in, make sure you understand the logistics of the peer-to-peer site of your choice. Each site has its own grading method for borrowers' creditworthiness, for example. Lower credit grades command higher interest rates, but the risk is also higher. When picking borrowers, it helps to think like an investor. Diversify among different borrowers. If you have $1,000, for example, split that among 10 or even 20 borrowers. Sure, $50 per person may sound like peanuts, but that's exactly how most peer-to-peer loans get funded. Also, diversify among credit grades. "You can put some money into the high-risk category, but then put some into the less-risky borrowers who are paying lower rates," McBride advises.

2. Factor in fees. Prosper.com lenders pay a 0.5% to 1% annual servicing fee, based on the balance of the loan outstanding. LendingClub.com charges 1% of all payments received each month. Should a loan go to collections, you will also be responsible for the collection agency's fees.

3. Don't lend money you'll need. The loans are generally paid over three years, so make sure you don't lend any money you'll need soon. Think of it as a CD, but one where your investment isn't guaranteed.
http://www.smartmoney.com/consumer/i...story=20071015





The New Advertising Outlet: Your Life
Louise Story

STEVE SAENZ used to run a 10K race in 36 minutes. But last spring — 20 years, 2 children and 50 pounds later — he found himself seriously out of shape. A new Web site from Nike, he says, has brought him back on track.

Since April, Mr. Saenz, 53, has been running with a Nike+, a small sensor in his running shoes that tracks his progress on an Apple iPod he carries. After each run near his home in Louisville, Ky., he docks the iPod into his computer and posts details of his run on the Nike+ Web site. There, he has made friends with other runners around the world who post running routes, meet up in the real world and encourage one another on the site.

Nike’s famous swoosh is there all along. For Nike, this is advertising.

“It’s a very different way to connect with consumers,” says Trevor Edwards, Nike’s corporate vice president for global brand and category management. “People are coming into it on average three times a week. So we’re not having to go to them.”

The success of Nike+ is bad news for the traditional media companies that have long made money from Nike’s television commercials and glossy magazine ads.

Last year, Nike spent just 33 percent of its $678 million United States advertising budget on ads with television networks and other traditional media companies. That’s down from 55 percent 10 years ago, according to the trade publication Advertising Age.

“We’re not in the business of keeping the media companies alive,” Mr. Edwards says he tells many media executives. “We’re in the business of connecting with consumers.”

Mr. Edwards may be more blunt than most. But many large marketers are taking huge chunks of money out of their budgets for traditional media and using the funds to develop new, more direct interactions with consumers — not only on the Internet, but also through in-person events.

Adventurous companies like Nike have been experimenting with these alternatives since the 1990s. But now, even the most conventional marketers are making these alternatives a permanent — and ever bigger — part of their advertising budgets.

Last year, Johnson & Johnson decided to boycott the so-called upfronts, an annual event when advertisers get together with television executives to negotiate for commercial time. In August, General Motors said that 2008 would be the last year for its longtime sponsorship of the Olympics. In May, A. G. Lafley, the chief executive of Procter & Gamble, told financial analysts that the company would spend less on traditional media and more on its Web site, in-store advertising and promotional events.

“If you step back and look at our mix across most of the major brands,” Mr. Lafley said, “it is clearly shifting.”



Add it up, and the money flowing out of the traditional media is huge — even at a time when ad budgets in general are growing, advertising research shows. The 25 companies that spent the most on advertising over the last five years cut their spending last year in traditional media by about $767 million, according to Advertising Age and TNS Media Intelligence. And in the first half of this year, those companies decreased their media spending an additional 3 percent, or $446 million, to $14.53 billion, according to TNS Media Intelligence.

True, Nike increased its spending on traditional media in the United States by 3 percent from 2003 to 2006, to $220.5 million. But in the same period, it increased its nonmedia ad spending 33 percent, to $457.9 million, according to the Advertising Age data.

Behind the shift is a fundamental change in Nike’s view of the role of advertising. No longer are ads primarily meant to grab a person’s attention while they’re trying to do something else — like reading an article. Nike executives say that much of the company’s future advertising spending will take the form of services for consumers, like workout advice, online communities and local sports competitions.

“We want to find a way to enhance the experience and services, rather than looking for a way to interrupt people from getting to where they want to go,” said Stefan Olander, global director for brand connections at Nike. “How can we provide a service that the consumer goes, ‘Wow, you really made this easier for me’?”

BUT media companies rely on advertising to pay the bulk of their programming and newsroom costs. Traditionally, the “service” provided by advertising was cheaper media content for consumers. But the services of the future may be virtual workout coaches, map applications for cellphones, health advice and matchmaking services.

Nike executives portray the shift in strategy as a return to the company’s roots in the 1970s, when, in the words of an early magazine ad, Nike grew through “word-of-foot marketing.” In the early days, Nike displayed posters from local races in stores and was host for local runs on the West Coast. Most early employees at Nike were runners themselves, often disciples of Bill Bowerman, the former college track coach, who founded Nike with Phil Knight, the company’s current chairman.

In the 1980s, Nike began the large television campaigns that propelled the brand to global fame. Early ones included ads starring Michael Jordan and Spike Lee. Its “Revolution” ad in 1987 featured the Beatles song of the same name to introduce the Air Max shoe. And the “Just Do It” series in 1988 showcased images of athletes, including a wheelchair racer and a runner who was 80. In the 1990s, Nike ran ads with Tiger Woods and the United States women’s soccer team that inspired fans and became part of sports culture.

Nike continues to have a strong and ubiquitous presence on television by sponsoring famous athletes. And almost 70 percent of the company’s traditional ad spending was for TV commercials in 2006, though that share dropped to 45 percent for the first half of this year, according to Nielsen Monitor-Plus.

Today, however, many Nike ads are shown only on the Internet. Wayne Rooney, the British soccer player, is currently featured in a series of online videos for Nike. In 2005, Nike placed a 2-minute, 46-second clip of the Brazilian soccer player Ronaldinho online, instead of on TV. The video has had more than 17 million views on YouTube and became so well known that some television networks like Sky Sports and the BBC showed it in their news coverage — free.

“We don’t automatically think about television anymore,” said Joaquin Hidalgo, vice president for global brand marketing at Nike. “There was a time when brands like Nike could tell kids through the medium of television what was cool, what was in, what was not in, because that was the only window they had into the world. That has completely changed now.”

More confirmation that television ads were losing influence came in 2005, when a series of commercials for the Nike ID shoe flopped. The 10 ads for the Nike ID, a design-it-yourself shoe, ran that April on MTV — just the place a marketer might consider ideal for such a message. Now, Mr. Edwards laughs about that campaign.

“I could question whether the work was too creative or just ineffective, but it didn’t work in terms of conversion,” he said in an interview at Nike’s headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. “We didn’t see sales go up. It was just nothing. It was like we ran them, and waited and nothing happened.”

SOMEWHERE along the path toward big-box stores and blockbuster brands, mass advertising lost a good part of its impact. Consumers began splitting their time on the couch between more and more diversions — video games, instant messaging and hundreds of TV channels. Content exploded on the Internet, with free articles and videos available whenever consumers wanted them. And for some people with digital video recorders, the idea of watching a television commercial has started to seem quaint.

“We are all concerned about when DVR penetration has reached critical mass and consumers have been trained to skip all advertising,” said Lee Doyle, chief executive for North America at Mediaedge:cia, an agency that buys ad space. “That’s the world we’re all afraid of.”

A glance at ad revenue at several big companies from last year shows the trend. At the Tribune Company and The New York Times Company, ad revenue increased less than 1 percent last year. Time Inc., the magazine unit of Time Warner, reported ad revenue increases of only 2 percent last year. GemStar TV Guide was down 9 percent. In radio, ad revenue at Westwood One fell 11 percent.

Of course, consumer brands have never spent every cent of their advertising budgets on television commercials, radio spots and print ads. For many years, companies have also mailed promotions to people’s homes, sponsored sports and community events and paid for signs within stores. But there is a growing interest in these and other, newer alternatives to commercials and newspaper pages.

Kraft is paying to advertise in a virtual supermarket in the online world called Second Life. Continental Airlines advertises on chopstick packets, Geico on turnstiles, McDonald’s on the floor of sports arenas and Walt Disney on the paper used on examination tables in doctors’ offices.

Well-known brands are also trying new approaches, hoping to generate buzz both online and off. Procter & Gamble, for example, opened a temporary Charmin-brand public bathroom in Manhattan. Microsoft dropped thousands of parachutes holding software onto a town in Illinois last year, and Target suspended the magician David Blaine in a gyroscope above Times Square for two days.

Some advertisers make their own content and post it online, sidestepping the media outlets. Burger King has created video games, and Sprite, which is owned by Coca-Cola, is running a social networking site for cellphone users.

Digital media spending is doubling every year at many big companies, industry data indicate. But the research firm Outsell found this year that 58 percent of marketers’ online spending went to their own Web sites, rather than to paid ads. More than two million people visited Nike-owned Web sites in July, according to Nielsen//NetRatings.

Nike’s global sales have climbed in the last four years — to more than $16 billion from $10 billion. And executives say the new type of marketing is a part of that trend.

The company plans to use the Nike+ idea in other sports categories, which could include basketball, tennis and soccer. While $29 for a Nike+ sensor hardly covers the cost of the device and the site maintenance and customer service, Mr. Edwards coolly points out that Nike+ is as much about marketing as it is about product.

AS consumers spend more time online, running their virtual lives and connecting with other people more through typing than talking, Nike executives contend that they also want more physical interaction with brands. Nike is running more events on the ground, like last year’s three-on-three soccer matches for youths in 37 countries and its San Francisco marathon for women.

Nike even calls the third floor of its New York store the “Nike Running Club.” There, runners can map out running routes, receive training advice and attend an evening speaker series — all free, even if they trot in wearing Adidas or Brooks sneakers.

The company pays 5 coaches and 17 pacers to lead runs three times a week in Central Park. Nike running-gear sales clerks are expected to join in. The goal is to use the club to endear people to the brand and to provide opportunities for them to try products.

At a recent Tuesday night gathering, Linda Martello, 34, an executive assistant, said she was grateful to Nike. After she injured one of her calf muscles, she said, a Nike coach helped her figure out that she was wearing the wrong shoes. (She, of course, bought a pair of Nikes.)

“I love it here, I do,” she said as she stretched for the evening run.

Ms. Martello stood to head out on the run.

“And they’re not pushing product in my face, as if I was shopping,” she continues. “That’s why I come here. I’m not pressured.”

The group — 131 that night — sprinted out of the store’s 57th Street entrance, up Fifth Avenue, past the Plaza Hotel and into the southeast entrance to Central Park. Their footwear was varied: some wore New Balance, Saucony, Reebok and Adidas. But Nike dominated, and anyone who saw them jogging would surely notice the Nike swoosh on most of their shirts. The group, though sweaty and of varied athletic abilities, flashed by — turning heads of passers-by and other runners.

A human billboard for Nike.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/bu...edia/14ad.html





Telecoms Outfit Banned From BitTorrent Advertizing
enigmax

A federation of video and media outlets has taken out an injunction against a major telecoms company to forbid them from advertising on a BitTorrent site and any other P2P site in the future.

Arcor, the fixed network operator for Vodafone in Germany has received an injunction forbidding it to advertize on P2P sites in the future.

The injunction was issued by the state court in Frankfurt after the German Association of Video and Media Retailers has complained that Arcor had been advertizing on the BitReactor.to BitTorrent tracker, a site it claims is used to facilitate the sharing of movies, tv shows and music.

The court agreed with the complaint and declared that Arcor must stop advertizing on P2P services or face fines in the future.

TorrentFreak spoke the administrator of the popular BitTorrent site btjunkie, and he said in a response to this news: “Telling companies which web sites they are allowed to advertise on is a big step towards a non-neutral Internet. P2P web sites consist of a hard to reach demographic and blocking companies from accessing that is also I blow to free economic principles.”

Acor stole a few headlines back in September after claims that following pressure from a porn media outlet to clamp down unauthorized sites, it blocked free porn sites (such as YouPorn) at the router level.
http://torrentfreak.com/telecom-outf...tizing-071019/





Competing for Clients, and Paying by the Click
Adam Liptak

You can do cool things with Google, like take the pulse of the legal profession.

Google is, of course, more than a search engine. It also sells advertising, including the shaded “sponsored links” that run next to the real search results. It auctions off those ads to advertisers, who agree to pay a given amount each time someone clicks on their link.

“Christmas recipes,” for instance, was going for 54 cents per click the other day. “Britney Spears” cost 36 cents, and “Britney Spears nude” only 21 cents.

But “Oakland personal injury lawyer” cost $58.03. “Asbestos attorney” cost $51.68. And “mesothelioma attorney Texas” — mesothelioma is a kind of cancer caused by inhaling asbestos — cost $65.21.

A Web site called CyberWyre, at www.cwire.org, posts a regularly updated list of the most expensive search terms. “The four leading industries are definitely law, medicine, finance and travel,” said Sam Elhag, who writes for the site. On a recent visit, lawyers and lung cancer dominated the top 10.

Ted Frank, the director of the Legal Center for the Public Interest at the American Enterprise Institute, said the fact that some personal injury lawyers were willing to pay $60 a click was telling, particularly given that relatively few of those clicks would bring in actual business.

“These lawyers don’t really litigate cases — they settle cases,” Mr. Frank said. “And they need a big inventory of cases. The only job of the attorney is to come up with the clients.”

“There is nothing wrong with what Google is doing,” he added. “There is nothing wrong with advertising for clients. It’s just fascinating that clients are worth so much.”

And there is no client more lucrative than one with mesothelioma. That word has hovered near the top of the CyberWyre list since 2003, Mr. Elhag said.

William G. Childs, an assistant professor at Western New England College School of Law, explained why, as he put it, “mesothelioma is clearly the highest-dollar value.”

“It doesn’t happen except through asbestos, with vanishingly small exceptions,” Professor Childs said. “The vast majority of cases settle and settle rather easily. And they’re not hard to work up.”

The market for Google search terms says something, then, about the market for plaintiffs’ lawyers. For reasons that baffle economists, personal injury lawyers all charge roughly the same amount for their services, typically a third to 40 percent of any recovery.

“What explains this puzzle?” asked Alex Tabarrok, who teaches economics at George Mason University. “No one knows.” It may be, he said, that offering to work for less might be thought to signal that you are a bad lawyer.

In any event, Mr. Frank said, the high prices on Google are a direct consequence of this economic anomaly.

“Instead of competing on price,” he said of plaintiffs’ lawyers, “they compete on Google.”

Google advertising has the benefit of being narrowly focused, said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative research group. “I assume relatively few people searching for ‘mesothelioma’ are doing it out of idle curiosity,” Mr. Olson said.

But some of them are looking for medical information, and they are often disappointed. “If you are searching for information on mesothelioma,” Mr. Olson said, “you will have to dodge dozens and dozens of lawyer advertisements.”

The top sponsored link that came up yesterday with a search for “mesothelioma,” for instance, was for a site that promised information “about mesothelioma’s causes, symptoms and types of treatment.” It urged readers to contact a toll-free number for more information. In the fine print at the bottom, the site revealed that it was sponsored by a Texas law firm.

For what it’s worth, what little medical information appeared on the site seemed sound and disinterested. That is not always the case, Mr. Olson said. “In areas like cerebral palsy,” he said, lawyers’ Web sites “will steer you into highly tendentious information.”

Personal injury lawyers are not the only ones who advertise on Google. “Tax lawyer” cost $34.32 the other day, “bankruptcy lawyer” $8.46 and “patent lawyer” $5.08.

“Pro bono lawyer” — the kind who handles cases without a fee — went for $2.89. (The top advertiser was a referral service for criminal defense lawyers. And no, they were not volunteering to handle cases pro bono.)

Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said lawyers’ enormous enthusiasm for Internet advertising meant the medium might have reached middle age. “Lawyers are usually the slowest to adopt any form of new technology,” she said.

Professor Childs, who has written about advertising by lawyers on Google on his TortsProf blog, lawprofessors.typepad.com

/tortsprof, said he sometimes typed in Web site addresses rather than clicking on sponsored links when doing his research.

“It feels a little weird to cost them 50 bucks to satisfy my curiosity,” he said.

That had not occurred to me. In working on this column, I looked at a bunch of lawyers’ Web sites, at a cumulative cost to them of, oh, $1,000. Sorry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/us/15bar.html?hp





Google Skimps on Its Own Advertising
AP

Like a gourmet chef who rarely eats out, Google Inc. feeds advertising services to hordes of other businesses while skimping on its own marketing.

The recipe has been extremely fruitful. While the Internet search leader has sold more than $30 billion in advertising since 2001, Google has become a household name without buying expensive ad campaigns on television or radio or in print.

''It's almost as if they have this cultural allergy to advertising,'' said Mark Hughes, author of ''Buzzmarketing,'' a book about unconventional ways to build a brand. ''It has been an advantage because it has helped keep them cool. They have zigged while everyone else has been zagging.''

This advertising aversion has freed up money for engineers, computing hardware and other resources that fuel Google's search engine while leaving plenty of profit to keep shareholders happy and lift the company's stock ever higher.

Some marketing experts view Google as the archetype of an Internet-driven age that has made it possible for startups like YouTube, MySpace and Facebook to permeate pop culture with little or no advertising.

That's a change from the dot-com boom era in 1999 and 2000 when Internet entrepreneurs went broke paying for Super Bowl ads and other theatrics in a mostly fruitless effort to stand out from the rest of the crowd.

Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin were among the first to break that free-spending mold, deciding that advertising didn't make a lot of sense for a company that started out 1998 with just $100,000 before raising $25 million in venture capital a year later. But they have remained marketing misers even as Google accumulated a cash hoard that now stands at $12.5 billion.

The Mountain View-based company believes its austere approach will become more common as major advertisers learn to deploy technology to target consumers.

''We are at an inflection point that could radically change the way marketing is done,'' said David Lawee, who became Google's marketing chief a year ago.

More than 300,000 advertisers already rely on Google's online marketing platform, which primarily shows text-based ads on the search engine's results pages and other online destinations.

Google tries to deliver those ads to the people who are most likely to be interested in the messages, making an educated guess based on the words used in a search request as well as information gathered about visitors' past preferences and Web surfing patterns.

Drawing upon some of the same data-mining techniques, Google is developing marketing tools for TV, radio, print and even video games to help advertisers reach potential customers more effectively -- and perhaps less expensively.

Although Google regularly promotes its brand and services on its own online ad network, that soapbox hasn't been the key to its ubiquity.

Instead, Google has relied on word-of-mouth and the media's obsessive coverage of its every move to establish a prized brand just nine years after Page and Brin first set up shop in a Silicon Valley garage.

Consulting firm Millward Brown Optimor estimates Google's brand is worth $66 billion and calls it the world's most valuable. A separate study by Interbrand estimated the brand's value at $17.8 billion and ranked it 20th in the world.

While major rivals like Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. pour more than 20 percent of their annual revenue into sales and marketing, Google devoted 8 percent of its revenue to the category in 2006, spending a total of $849.5 million. Microsoft spent $11.5 billion on marketing and sales in its last fiscal year, while Yahoo spent $1.3 billion. On advertising and promotions alone, Google spent $188 million in 2006 -- roughly the same amount Microsoft spends every two months.

Another Internet bellwether, online auctioneer eBay Inc., consistently earmarks 14 percent to 15 percent of its revenue for advertising. Last year, eBay spent $871 million on advertising, with much of the money winding up in Google's wallet. The Coca-Cola Co., the brand ranked first in the Interbrand survey, spent more than $2.5 billion on advertising last year.

When Google does buy ads, it's often to recruit employees (the company has hired more than 11,000 in the past three years). On a few occasions, Google also has bought ads to highlight lesser-known products, such as a free telephone directory service, GOOG-411, recently featured on billboards in the San Francisco Bay area and rural parts of New York.

Some well-known companies are even more frugal advertisers than Google.

Starbucks Corp. spent just $95 million on advertising last year, 49 percent less than Google did. Like Google, Starbucks made a name for itself by developing a distinctive product that quickly resonated with consumers whose enthusiasm became infectious.

Google believes happy users are worth infinitely more than any goodwill advertising might buy, said marketing chief Lawee.

''If our products are great, our reputation soars,'' he said.

Google's brand also has been bolstered by the media's fixation on the company. Hardly a day goes by without Google's name being splattered across television, radio, magazines, newspapers and, of course, the Internet. That gives the company even more clout with advertisers and even less reason to advertise itself.

''They are at the crest of this wave that gives them a lot of free publicity,'' said Roland Rust, chairman of the University of Maryland's marketing department.

Google has proven adept at orchestrating stories that have little to do with its day-to-day business.

The company attracted headlines last month by funding a $30 million race to the moon. And it made news last year by investing in solar energy to power its headquarters. Some news outlets even filed stories on Google's 2005 search for a new executive chef.
Not all the coverage has been flattering, but even negative stories build brand recognition. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said the company benefited from a spike in usage of its search engine after The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Page and Brin engaged in a petty spat about the size of the beds on their personal jet.

Industry experts say Google may have to invest more heavily in advertising as it branches in new directions.

It already is selling a suite of online software applications to businesses and reportedly is mulling lending its name to a line of mobile phones. Ventures like those typically rely on more conventional advertising.

''It's inevitable that they will have to advertise more,'' said veteran marketing consultant Bob Kahn, who runs his a Darien, Conn., firm. ''At some point, the power of the Google brand will cease to support all those extremities.''

Although he declined to provide specifics, Lawee also hinted that Google probably will need to increase its marketing budget because many longtime users of the search engine don't know about the company's peripheral products.

''Even with all the attention we get,'' he said, ''that tells me we are still not getting all our messages out.''
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/busi...ing-Miser.html





Google Passes Microsoft in U.S. Internet Users, Nielsen Says
Nielsen: Web site is No. 1

Google passed Microsoft to become the most visited U.S. Web site, according to research firm Nielsen/NetRatings. Google's visitors rose 17 percent to 118 million in September from a year earlier, ahead of Microsoft and Yahoo, Nielsen said. In August, Microsoft was first and Google was second. Microsoft's visitors rose less than 1 percent to 117.7 million in September from a year earlier, while Yahoo's rose 2.7 percent to 109.1 million, Nielsen said. ComScore, which competes with Nielsen in the Internet research market, ranked Yahoo as the most popular U.S. Web site in August.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7156667





P.&G., the Pioneer of Mixing Soap and Drama, Adds a Web Installment
Bob Tedeschi

Can young Ashley find success and happiness in the big city? Will the dashing Eric win her heart? Can she make consumers buy more Tide detergent?

Stay tuned. Or logged on.

The company that brought soap operas to radio, then television, Procter & Gamble, is trying the same strategy online with “Crescent Heights,” a new show intended to reach young viewers where they watch the most — their PCs and cellphones.

The series, which is more sitcom than soap, focuses on a recent college graduate, Ashley, who moves to Los Angeles from Wisconsin to start a career in public relations, and her emerging circle of friends and romantic interests. Written, directed and produced by Hollywood veterans, the three-minute episodes are as polished as any television sitcom.

While the Tide logo makes occasional appearances, clothes are front and center. In one episode, Ashley attends a party and is horrified that her bright yellow dress is the only color in a sea of black, but the dress helps get her noticed by Eric, who plays the early foil to Ashley’s other suitor, Will.

“We want to speak to people about more than just laundry,” said Kevin Crociata, Tide’s associate marketing director. “We provide benefits to the fabrics she wears on daily basis. They have much more meaning.”

The initiative follows that of other marketers and retailers who have found that, especially among their younger customers, sometimes the best way to advertise is to, well, not advertise.

“The product message is there, but it’s not as direct,” said Mr. Crociata. “If the content wasn’t entertaining, we wouldn’t be successful.”

“Crescent Heights,” which Tide is promoting on its television commercials, print ads and packaging, is too new to affect sales. “The reaction so far has been great,” Mr. Crociata said. “We feel like we’ve hit on something that’s entertaining and, in our testing, has shown it’s influencing purchase intent.”

Mr. Crociata said the series, which was taped in an initial set of 10 segments, will help Procter & Gamble evaluate its broader strategy regarding online entertainment. At least one other Procter & Gamble brand, Always feminine care products, has rolled out a scripted online entertainment series.

Procter & Gamble has a long history with such projects, having pioneered radio soap operas at the dawn of that medium, as well as televised dramas. “Guiding Light,” TV’s longest running soap, began on radio 70 years ago, and was first televised in 1955. The “Light” in its title is a reference to candles, which, along with soap, made up Procter & Gamble’s first product line in 1837.

Mr. Crociata said Tide’s executives did not rely on Procter & Gamble Productions Inc., which still produces “Guiding Light,” to deliver “Crescent Heights.” Rather, it used GoTV Networks, a video production company based in Sherman Oaks, Calif., that has also developed technology to create the show in collaboration with P.& G. and distribute shows online and on mobile phones.

Chris Greenleaf, GoTV’s vice president for entertainment, declined to say how much Tide or any of the company’s other clients pay to develop an online series. “Scripted series are more expensive than reality TV, and fewer characters is less expensive,” he said. The show contains only four main characters.

Despite the costs, Mr. Greenleaf said marketers increasingly are developing original series to distribute online and over mobile phones. “Just from us personally, you’ll see a lot more of this in the next year,” he said. “Advertisers are aware that this is where a lot of the activity is, among their demographics.”

Not all marketers have scored successes with online series. Executives at Anheuser-Busch recently said the company would continue its BudTV.com initiative, which features dozens of original programs, despite disappointing viewership since its February introduction.

Procter & Gamble’s chief competitor, Unilever, has fared better in developing multiple series, having created original online programs for its Degree deodorant, Dove soap and Caress skin products, among others. The company’s most successful online entertainment asset, however, revolves around Spraychel, the animated mascot for Unilever’s I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter! brand (at TasteYouLove.com).

Spraychel currently anchors the company’s third online series, “Sprays in the City,” in which she and other vegetables and toppings vie for romantic and gastronomic supremacy. Javier Martin, Unilever’s brand manager for I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!, said this year’s Spraychel series has been viewed more than one million times online, with visitors watching for more than six minutes. (Episodes last about three minutes.)

In surveys, Mr. Martin said, viewers were “significantly” more likely to purchase the product than they were before watching the shows.

Retailers, too, are suddenly becoming sitcom producers. American Eagle Outfitters, which is based in Pittsburgh, in August released “It’s a Mall World,” a series of webisodes directed by Milo Ventimiglia, star of the television series “Heroes.” The series revolves around five twentysomethings who work in a mall, one as an American Eagle greeter.

In seeking an offline distribution partner for the series, American Eagle struck gold in MTV, which agreed this fall to run “Mall World” episodes during the first three-minute commercial spot of its “Real World: Sydney” series on Wednesday nights. In exchange, American Eagle agreed to pay MTV an undisclosed sum, and run “Real World” on screens in its 972 stores.

Kathy Savitt, American Eagle’s executive vice president for marketing, said the Web site’s visits jump every Wednesday night by more than 20 percent. More than 75 percent of the new visitors who come to the site to watch the show also purchase items, she added.

Ms. Savitt said the “Mall World” campaign is an adjunct to other marketing approaches.

“While our customers really appreciated MTV programming, they were, through TiVo and other devices, disintermediating a lot of the spots we ran on the network,” she said. “With this, we suddenly feel like we’re truly creating a strategy that’s responsive to the way our customers actually consume media.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/bu...ia/15ecom.html





A Site Warhol Would Relish
Randall Stross

JUSTIN.TV, a San Francisco start-up that provides live video programming on the Web, wants to make you a star as a “lifecaster.” No singing, dancing or storytelling skills are required — only a willingness to broadcast every moment of your quotidian existence in real time. That’s 24 hours a day, seven days a week, wherever you go.

But can a business be built upon an audience limited to those willing to watch excruciatingly real “reality TV”? After all, shows like “Survivor,” “Kid Nation” and “Big Brother” are tightly edited highlight reels that squeeze life into a compact entertainment package. Lifecasting, on the other hand, shows life in unabridged form, programming without a thematic concept, without a casting director, without an editor, without anything in the subject’s life that is much different than the audience’s, other than the willingness to be on view.

The technologists at Justin.tv have figured out ways to make video streaming on the Internet inexpensive but haven’t gotten much further than that in puzzling out a business.

When the four co-founders, whose average age is 23, began investigating the costs of distributing video online last year, the major companies that dominate the business of serving video streams quoted charges that would have cost a start-up about 36 cents a user for each hour of video viewed. That’s too expensive to make an advertising-based business feasible. The Justin.tv team pushed the cost of streamed video to less than a penny an hour per user by building its own software that would work with Amazon Simple Storage Service, an inexpensive offering that is open to any Web developer.

With a cost structure that makes video streaming all but free, they thought, they surely could follow YouTube’s example, letting the Crowd supply the programming and the Crowd figure out what’s good. If only it were so easy. YouTube traffics in very short entertainments; lifecasting does not. The Crowd, wise though it may be, probably does not have infinite patience to watch thousands of hours of lifecasting chaff to find a single grain of wheat.

This month, after seven months of beta-phase broadcasting, Justin.tv formally declared that it was open for business to one and all. In its first five days, the company said, it created 18,500 hours of video and pulled in 500,000 unique visitors. What those statistics do not show is how long anyone stuck around. In a sampling I did last week during a weekday, only 44 viewers, on average, could be found at each of the eight most heavily visited channels.

Before Justin.tv began, other live video sites like Stickam and Ustream.tv, had appeared, hosting live shows supplied by anyone wishing to broadcast longer-form video, unconstrained by YouTube’s 10-minute limit. But no other video site had ventured to make lifecasting the centerpiece of its branding.

Lifecasting — as a form of conceptual art — has been around for quite a while. Jennifer K. Ringley’s JenniCam ran for seven pioneering years, from 1996 to 2003; Ms. Ringley was willing to allow the Webcam to stay on, even during times of intimacy. Once the boundary was crossed separating the private and the public, however, lifecasters who followed couldn’t hold an audience’s attention just by crossing the same line — it’s been done. Justin.tv has decided to adopt a PG-13 version of lifecasting: nudity is deemed “unacceptable.”

To start Justin.tv, Justin Kan, one of the co-founders, began his own lifecasting last March. (Whether in the office or at home in bed, he seems to spend an awful lot of time staring at a computer.) Justine Ezarik, Justin.tv’s second volunteer and an attractive young woman, has become one of the site’s most popular lifecasters. When Ms. Ezarik explains to the world every nuance of her just-completed purchase of a sandwich at an airport shop — or when she invites us to watch her watch television for hours in a hotel room — she left me wondering whether her show was a parody of lifecasting and whether she, like Stephen Colbert, never breaks character.

Stewart Alsop, a partner in the venture capital firm Alsop Louie Partners of San Francisco, which invested in Justin.tv last summer, is aware of the limitations of the site’s current lifecast offerings. The future, he hopes, will bring more and better choices.

“If there are 6 billion people in the world,” he said, “imagine one million people broadcasting live, 999,000 of whom are boring — but the other 1,000 are really interesting.”

All of Justin.tv’s live video streams are archived, and the best snippets are culled by each show’s owner as “episodes” or by any viewer as a “highlight.” The problem is that once Justin.tv archives, edits and labels these clips, the resulting “best of” shorts become indistinguishable from YouTube videos, vitiating the supposed power of live broadcasts.

Justin.tv’s lifecasters now have the technical ability to broadcast live from anywhere that has wireless Internet service. When Mr. Kan began lifecasting, he had to carry a 15-pound camera and 7-pound battery pack. It was only marginally lighter than the giant satellite dish that Al Franken wore on his hat when he pretended to be a one-man correspondent-and-video crew in “Saturday Night Live” sketches in the 1980s.

Subsequently, the Justin.tv team was able to redesign its system so that a special camera is no longer needed. A tiny Webcam, easy to affix to a shoulder strap, hat or eyeglasses, can be connected to any lightweight Windows laptop with an Internet connection. A 3-pound laptop is still too heavy, however, to be carried everywhere one goes, day in, day out — assuming, of course, that the lifecasters have a destination other than their own home or office.

The current roster favors a stationary camera pointed at themselves seated and immobile, participating in a text chat session that unfolds on half of the screen.

ANDY WARHOL, were he still with us, would enthusiastically embrace lifecasting, not because it enables everyone to become world-famous for 15 minutes, but because the medium is perfectly suited to Mr. Warhol’s taste.

“I like boring things,” he once wrote, and his experimental films deliberately tested his audience’s appetite for tedium. His 1963 classic, “Sleep,” was a black-and-white silent film that had a single actor, single scene and single plot point: the poet John Giorno sleeping — for 5 hours and 21 minutes. When it was shown for the first time in Los Angeles, an audience that was 500 strong began shrinking even before the 45-minute close-up of Mr. Giorno’s abdomen was complete. Still, 50 people lasted for the full 321 minutes.

Those masochistic souls would love Justin.tv.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/te...gy/14digi.html





As Writers’ Strike Looms, Stakes Are Higher for TV Than Film
Edward Wyatt

At lunch in Hollywood last Thursday, Neal Baer, an executive producer of the NBC hit “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit,” got a telephone call from North Bergen, N.J., where the series is filmed.

An actor on the set of a forthcoming episode of that popular series wanted to change a line of dialogue. To do so he needed the permission of Mr. Baer, who as the show runner of “Special Victims Unit” is the writer and producer who has final say over the program’s scripts and production.

Movie executives generally consider screenwriters to be expendable. But television writers — and particularly the writer-producers who serve as show runners — wield considerable power over a television show, so much so that it often is not clear where their writing duties end and their producing duties begin.

That has big implications if Hollywood writers go on strike next month. Certainly Mr. Baer and the dozens of other producers who also serve as writers on some of television’s biggest hits, and are members of the writers’ union, would not be able to do at least half of their jobs. Whether they could perform any of their duties — or whether most television shows would have to shut down production almost immediately — is an open question.

All of which makes the immediate stakes far higher for television networks than for movie studios, with the writers’ unions — the Writers Guild of America, both West and East — scheduled to announce on Thursday whether their members have voted to authorize a strike when their contract expires on Oct. 31.

In the film business, once a script is completed and turned in, screenwriters rarely are intimately involved on the set with the production of a film. As such, film producers have been stockpiling scripts in anticipation of a writers’ strike.

Television series operate with more of a just-in-time approach to script inventory, however, with the writers, who are employees of a television series, often stepping in to make changes to a script between scenes on the set.

While some series started shooting earlier than usual last summer, few are expected to have more than a half-dozen new episodes taped before a strike begins. That has caused studios to order more reality shows, because those shows do not employ union writers. Some networks have also ordered early production of pilots for new series for the fall of 2008, in case a strike interferes with planning for next season. While some writer-producers say they believe they could perform one job function without the other, others say they cannot.

“If there’s a strike, I do neither,” said Matt Olmstead, the writer-producer who is the show runner for Fox’s “Prison Break.” “I walk out.”

Stephen McPherson, the president of ABC Entertainment, said in an interview on Tuesday that because of the guidelines that the Writers Guild has put out regarding what it expects from its members in the case of a strike, he believes that most of the network’s big scripted shows, including “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Desperate Housewives,” would have to shut down production almost immediately in the event of a strike.

“If there were scripts fully written, then normally they would be able to supervise them,” he said of the show runners. “But as per the new rules or guidelines they put out, they’re saying that’s not O.K.”

The Writers Guild of America West, the larger of the two writers’ groups that are negotiating with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers — that is, the film and television studios — is encouraging that more militant stance.

As part of a set of “strike rules” it circulated to its members this week, the guild said that in addition to being prohibited from writing new dialogue, writer-producers will be prohibited from changing “technical or stage directions,” and from making “changes in the course of production as are made necessary” by the weather, accidents or other “unforeseen contingencies.”

In addition the guild said it “strongly believes” that its members should not even show up for work “for any purpose” at a production where its writers are on strike.

In the minds of some show runners that leaves them in a quandary.

“As a writer I’m labor,” said one show runner, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified because he was unsure what course he would take in the event of a strike. “But I also handle a lot of issues on behalf of the people who we are negotiating with,” overseeing budgets, casting and hiring actors, and controlling the pace of production.

During the last Hollywood writers’ strike, which lasted for five months in 1988, it was the show runners who played a major role in ending the walkout, in part through their threat to secede from the writers’ union, according to news reports at the time.
Those show runners — also known as “hyphenates” because of their dual roles — often own production companies that are under contract with television studios, which are themselves often owned by the networks. Some writer-producers have privately expressed nervousness that if they do not come to work in any capacity, they could be in violation of their broader contracts and risk losing their production deals, which are essentially retainers that typically pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

Show runners are playing a far bigger role in the early negotiations this year than they did in 1988, when the Writers Guild limited their ability to serve on the union’s negotiating committee, citing their potential conflict of interest.

This time around several writer-producers are members of the union’s 17-person negotiating committee, including Mr. Baer; Marc Cherry, the creator of “Desperate Housewives”; and Carlton Cuse, an executive producer of “Lost.”

Even if the writers go on strike at the end of the month, most scripted series will not immediately find themselves without new episodes. Because they have been filming since mid-summer, many series have completed enough work to provide them with new episodes through the end of the year.

On the Fox hit “House,” for example, the producers expect that they will be able to start shooting the season’s 11th episode by the end of this month, said David Shore, the writer-producer who oversees the series. That episode is currently scheduled to be broadcast on Jan. 8, although if there is a strike, the network might rerun some episodes to try to stretch its new installments into February, a sweeps month.

“I will work as a producer for as long as we have stuff to produce,” Mr. Shore said. “I won’t be working as a writer. That means we won’t have any new scripts coming along. As I see it, should there be a strike, we won’t have any choice but to shut down shortly after.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/ar...on/18show.html





Fearless Digital Pirates Don’t Care About Lawsuits
enigmax

The year 2005 saw the first person sentenced to prison for sharing a movie. In 2007, the possibility of being fined huge amounts became a reality as a music sharer snared by the RIAA picks up a $222,000 bill. So presumably file-sharers are in hiding? Hardly. This fearless internet breed never stops sharing.

Once it became clear that the ‘Grokster Decision’ was actually a win for file-sharing and not the golden bullet against sharers that the industry had hoped for, it became increasingly clear - sharing was simply not going to go away. Today, if one visits the Grokster site, you’re greeted by this message:

There are legal services for downloading music and movies.
This service is not one of them.

YOUR IP ADDRESS IS 83.233.168.134 AND HAS BEEN LOGGED.
Don’t think you can’t get caught. You are not anonymous.

Apart from the fact that I am anonymous (the IP is owned by the anonymous Relakks service), this message is typical of the type of useless scare tactics employed by the industry. Time and again the message is “Don’t think you can’t get caught” and “You are not anonymous” or “You can click but you can’t hide”

Millions upon millions of file sharers are responding to these slogans, not with words, but with actions. They ARE clicking and the vast majority simply don’t care about hiding. It’s true that when you use a standard connection on the internet you aren’t anonymous and of course, it’s certainly possible to ‘get caught’. However, as ever more serious headline-grabbing events come and go, file-sharers are getting wise and making their own risk assessments, probably based on: “I’m clicking every day, they never find me. Or any of my friends. Or their friends.”

When Scott McCausland and a handful of other people went to jail for uploading a pre-release movie in 2005, the industry put out the message: You will go to jail for sharing. Well, it’s 2007 now and surprise, surprise - no one else did. It was a special case, it doesn’t apply to 99.99% of file-sharers and it’s useless in the battle against them.

Today in 2007, we hear about Jammie Thomas, the most famous of the 26,000 recipients of legal action at the hands of the RIAA. Sure, she really got hammered with that huge fine and it will deter some from sharing, but the overwhelming majority either haven’t heard about the case or don’t think they’ll be caught - and they could be forgiven for thinking that.

Even if we super over-compensate and say that 100,000 people worldwide had legal action taken against them (it’s nowhere near), this number pales into insignificance when put alongside the conservative estimate of 100 million worldwide file-sharers. Furthermore, take away the legal actions in the United States and the chances of being ‘caught’ edge ever closer to zero. The odds of being ‘caught’ in the rest of the world aren’t quite zero but they’re substantially slimmer than in the States.

Whatever the reality, it’s the perception that really matters and the perception among file-sharers is that while they’re downloading the latest blockbuster movies or millions of TV shows every single week, the chances of being ‘caught’ are close to zero. Therefore the chances of paying a ‘fine’ are close to zero and the chance of going to jail, closer still.

So maybe digital pirates aren’t fearless, brave or even reckless. Maybe they just like to gamble when the odds are hugely - massively - tipped in their favor.
http://torrentfreak.com/fearless-pir...wsuits-071013/





First Alpha Release Of A New Torrent Client
Bogaa

A while back we announced that we were working on a new torrent client. About a year later we have almost finished coding the core of the beast. Currently the client resides in alpha state and a GUI is still missing. However we do plan on finishing everything within a few months. The client is written in C#, mainly because C# is easy to manage and best of all it's portable to other platforms like linux. For now we will focus on windows and move on from there. A few people might think that C# uses a ton of memory and other resources, this is not true, the advantages of using C# instead of C++ are much bigger in our case. The final version will have the following features:

• MultiTracker
• Torrent Creation
• Custom DHT (faster)
• Rss Feeds
• Integrated Search Function (with commenting)
• Custom Peer Exchange
• Fast Resume
• Global/Per torrent Settings
• Download Priority
• more...

The client currently uses about 15MB worth of Ram, the final GUI version should be using around the same amount of memory, which is very reasonable considering the number of features it will have.

For those who wonder, here's a screenshot:



The alpha client is available for download, don't expect to much of it for now: Download
http://seedpeer.com/sitenews/article/31.html





AT&T Ordered to Apply for Local TV License

Blumenthal calls decision 'a landmark victory'
AP

State utility regulators have ordered AT&T to get a cable television license for the Internet service it is currently providing in Connecticut.

Department of Public Utility Control commissioners say a recent federal court decision makes it clear that AT&T is operating its "U-verse" Internet Protocol Television service without proper authorization.

Commissioners have rejected AT&T's video franchise application, which would have allowed the company to operate "U-verse" under regulations that are less-strict than those for cable television.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called the decision a landmark victory for consumers because it will ensure "real" cable television competition throughout the state.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/ci_7184686





State Employee Who Lost Data Suspended
AP

A supervisor at the state Department of Revenue Services was suspended without pay Monday after an investigation into the theft of his laptop computer that contained the names and Social Security numbers of 106,000 Connecticut taxpayers.

Jason Purslow was suspended for six weeks.

His computer was stolen from his car in August at a hotel in New York. Police say it was possible the vehicle was not locked because there were no signs of a break-in.

Purslow violated agency policies regarding the handling of confidential taxpayer information, the Department of Revenue Services said.

Purslow's home number in Cheshire is unlisted and he could not be reached for comment.

Commissioner Pam Law said in a statement that Purslow "exhibited a disregard for sensitive data," but his actions did not constitute willful neglect, which would have been grounds for dismissal.

Purslow, 40, has been at the Revenue Services agency for more than 15 years and earns more than $87,000 a year.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/ci_7184672





Audit Finds Ex-Workers had Access to State Computers
Ken Dixon

The state Department of Revenue Services has allowed former employees, even those who were fired, to retain their access to critical state computer systems, state auditors have found.

The Auditors of Public Accounts, in a report issued Friday, said the DRS is failing to follow its own procedures -- and those ordered in recent years by Gov. M. Jodi Rell -- to secure sensitive data.

The report comes at a time when the DRS is the target of sharp criticism after an employee allowed an agency laptop computer, containing information on 106,000 state taxpayers, to be stolen from an apparently unlocked car at a Long Island hotel during the summer.

Auditor Robert G. Jaekle said Friday that the DRS is only one of "several" state agencies that have failed to remove the computer access of terminated and voluntarily separated employees.

The audit for the two-year period ending June 30, 2006, found more than half of former employees -- 10 of 17 cases surveyed -- retained access to one or more "critical" systems.

Jaekle warned of the potential for former employees to vent dissatisfaction on the department's system.

"It only takes one disgruntled employee with pretty good computer skills to, at the very least, cause some mischief for the state of Connecticut by inappropriately accessing and using system data after they've been discharged," Jaekle said.

"The potential for some hard feelings are there, and that's why these basic questions should be addressed."

The DRS on Friday disputed many of the audit findings, stressing it does cut off computer access in a timely manner following the departure of agency employees. A spokesman for the department said the audit study is "misleading" about exit interview procedures.

The 37-page auditors' report said in 15 of 17 cases examined, the employees were separated without a required exit interview process, and that mandatory interviews with an ethics liaison officer were never conducted.

"There was supposed to be a checklist for terminated employees," Jaekle said. "There have also been new ethics rules over the last few years. In this case there was no checklist on file, and the ethics officer did not conduct exit interviews."

Employees on the threshold of separation from state employment are supposed to hand in ID badges, keys to doors, and card keys to restricted areas, and have their computer passwords and user names deleted.

"A lot of the safeguards ... that prevent unauthorized access to buildings' hardware (and) data on computers should all be taken care of on separation," Jaekle said.

He recalled that in several agencies in recent years, his staff has found similar problems with the timely termination of computer access.

As recently as July, auditors found the state's new $125 million computer system called Core-CT -- operated by the Department of Information Technology, the state comptroller, the Department of Administrative Services and the Office of Policy and Management -- had similar potential problems.

Of the 30 user-identification codes sampled, auditors found three separated Core-CT employees still had active computer sign-ons.

"This was right in the heart of the centralized computer program," said Jaekle, who coincidentally was among the 106,000 state residents whose personal information was on the missing DRS laptop.

One way to prevent access invasion is to upgrade encryption software, Jaekle said. Another, more obvious, solution is for departments such as the DRS to follow the governor's security directive and the agency's own procedures.

"Our recommendation is to follow good business practices when dealing with employees leaving voluntarily or involuntarily, including the disabling of access to the computer system that might have confidential or sensitive data in it," Jaekle said. "When an employee leaves agency service, all their employee rights should end."

Overall, Jaekle said that the two-year DRS audit, which contained 13 areas for improvement, found no evidence of "material or significant" weaknesses.

"We try to point out where agencies aren't meeting the letter of the law and their own operation standards and controls," Jaekle said, pointing to the computer-access issue. "These are areas where potentially some harm can occur."

Sarah Kaufman, spokeswoman for the DRS, said Friday that there are exit procedures.

"While we agree with some of the findings, such as our exit liaison officer was not included in exit interviews, we have taken steps to remedy that," Kaufman said.

"We believe that the report incorrectly suggests that DRS did not have an exit process in place to ensure proper notification when employees were separated or terminated," she said, adding that the agency has had the protocol for 15 years and updated it in May 2006.

"We feel that we are properly notifying specific areas of the agency when an employee is separated or terminated," Kaufman said.

"Some of the steps include notifying our information systems development when an employee has been terminated, so they can eliminate their access to the legacy processing system, e-mail, etc."
http://www.newstimes.com/ci_7233577





TSA Demands Encryption Following Dual Laptop Loss
Lisa Vaas

All data must be encrypted, the TSA orders, after the loss of laptops holding hazmat driver data.

Following the loss and possible theft of two laptops containing the personal data of 3,930 truckers who handle hazardous materials, the Transportation Security Administration has mandated that contractors must encrypt any and all data on top of any deletion policies they have in place.

According to a letter the TSA sent to lawmakers on Oct. 12, the laptops—both of which belonged to a TSA contractor—contain names, addresses, birthdays, commercial driver's license numbers and, in some instances, Social Security numbers of the affected truckers.

First, one laptop was lost. At that time, the contractor, L-1 Identity Solutions' Integrated Biometric Technology division, told the TSA that the truckers' information had been deleted from the system, TSA Public Affairs Manager Ann Davis told eWEEK.

Then, another laptop disappeared. After the second theft or loss, the TSA conducted an IT forensic investigation that ascertained that the deleted information could be retrieved if a thief had the proper training.

"So even though [there's only a] small chance of [the data being misused], we did notify all affected individuals and advised them of what steps to take to protect themselves, and we mandated that contractors need to encrypt any and all data in addition to any deletion procedures that might be in place," Davis said.

The TSA requires that all individuals who transport hazardous waste provide information for a security clearance in a program called the Hazardous Materials Endorsement Threat Assessment that's mandated under the Patriot Act.

This isn't the first time the TSA has found itself in data-breach hot water, and it isn't the agency's biggest data breach, by a long shot. On May 7, the agency announced that a hard drive containing personal information belonging to 100,000 government workers had been lost.

The TSA is also requiring Integrated Biometric Technology to provide free credit reporting to the affected individuals.

L-1 Identity Solutions couldn't immediately provide a spokesperson to give information to eWEEK on the incident.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2199122,00.asp





A Mock Columnist, Amok
Maureen Dowd

I was in my office, writing a column on the injustice of relative marginal tax rates for hedge fund managers, when I saw Stephen Colbert on TV.

He was sneering that Times columns make good “kindling.” He was ranting that after you throw away the paper, “it takes over a hundred years for the lies to biodegrade.” He was observing, approvingly, that “Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream is driving a bulldozer into The New York Times while drinking crude oil out of Keith Olbermann’s skull.”

I called Colbert with a dare: if he thought it was so easy to be a Times Op-Ed pundit, he should try it. He came right over. In a moment of weakness, I had staged a coup d’moi. I just hope he leaves at some point. He’s typing and drinking and threatening to “shave Paul Krugman with a broken bottle.”


I Am an Op-Ed Columnist (And So Can You!)

By Stephen Colbert

Surprised to see my byline here, aren’t you? I would be too, if I read The New York Times. But I don’t. So I’ll just have to take your word that this was published. Frankly, I prefer emoticons to the written word, and if you disagree

I’d like to thank Maureen Dowd for permitting/begging me to write her column today. As I type this, she’s watching from an overstuffed divan, petting her prize Abyssinian and sipping a Dirty Cosmotinijito. Which reminds me: Before I get started, I have to take care of one other bit of business:

Bad things are happening in countries you shouldn’t have to think about. It’s all George Bush’s fault, the vice president is Satan, and God is gay.

There. Now I’ve written Frank Rich’s column too.

So why I am writing Miss Dowd’s column today? Simple. Because I believe the 2008 election, unlike all previous elections, is important. And a lot of Americans feel confused about the current crop of presidential candidates.

For instance, Hillary Clinton. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to be scared of her so Democrats will think they should nominate her when she’s actually easy to beat, or if I’m supposed to be scared of her because she’s legitimately scary.

Or Rudy Giuliani. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to support him because he’s the one who can beat Hillary if she gets nominated, or if I’m supposed to support him because he’s legitimately scary.

And Fred Thompson. In my opinion “Law & Order” never sufficiently explained why the Manhattan D.A. had an accent like an Appalachian catfish wrestler.

Well, suddenly an option is looming on the horizon. And I don’t mean Al Gore (though he’s a world-class loomer). First of all, I don’t think Nobel Prizes should go to people I was seated next to at the Emmys. Second, winning the Nobel Prize does not automatically qualify you to be commander in chief. I think George Bush has proved definitively that to be president, you don’t need to care about science, literature or peace.

While my hat is not presently in the ring, I should also point out that it is not on my head. So where’s that hat? (Hint: John McCain was seen passing one at a gas station to fuel up the Straight Talk Express.)

Others point to my new bestseller, “I Am America (And So Can You!)” noting that many candidates test the waters with a book first. Just look at Barack Obama, John Edwards or O. J. Simpson.

Look at the moral guidance I offer. On faith: “After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up.” On gender: “The sooner we accept the basic differences between men and women, the sooner we can stop arguing about it and start having sex.” On race: “While skin and race are often synonymous, skin cleansing is good, race cleansing is bad.” On the elderly: “They look like lizards.”

Our nation is at a Fork in the Road. Some say we should go Left; some say go Right. I say, “Doesn’t this thing have a reverse gear?” Let’s back this country up to a time before there were forks in the road — or even roads. Or forks, for that matter. I want to return to a simpler America where we ate our meat off the end of a sharpened stick.

Let me regurgitate: I know why you want me to run, and I hear your clamor. I share Americans’ nostalgia for an era when you not only could tell a man by the cut of his jib, but the jib industry hadn’t yet fled to Guangdong. And I don’t intend to tease you for weeks the way Newt Gingrich did, saying that if his supporters raised $30 million, he would run for president. I would run for 15 million. Cash.

Nevertheless, I am not ready to announce yet — even though it’s clear that the voters are desperate for a white, male, middle-aged, Jesus-trumpeting alternative.

What do I offer? Hope for the common man. Because I am not the Anointed or the Inevitable. I am just an Average Joe like you — if you have a TV show.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/op...14dowd.html?hp





Why Commercials Before Movies Is Worse Than Piracy
John

Being subjected to advertising is just something we’ve come to expect in our daily routines, and for most of us, we’ve become so conditioned to various advertising methods that we don’t even think twice about it. There is nothing wrong with advertising in and of itself. It’s how we learn about products, services and entertainment. Advertising is also the big main source of revenue for things we hold dear like television and The Movie Blog (which is 100% funded by advertising), so I’m certainly never going to rail on the evils of advertising.

However, advertising in movie theaters is a topic that has been brought up here on The Movie Blog more than a few times, and a recent report by the Cinema Advertising Council in the New York Post begs us to once again revisit the issue. We’ve all figured that commercials playing in movie theaters was worth a lot of money… but did you realize its worth almost HALF A BILLION DOLLARS? The IMDB gives us this:

Revenue from in-theater advertising rose more than 15 percent to $456 million from $395 million a year ago… The Post quoted CAC Chairman Cliff Marks as expressing the belief that moviegoers are becoming “more accepting” of screen advertising. A recent Arbitron poll indicated that two-thirds of moviegoers “don’t mind” the ads.

Don’t mind the ads? DON’T MIND THE ADS???

First, I should mention here that I don’t mind the idea of movie theaters making money. It’s a business. They exist to make money, and if they can find new creative ways to generate money then I say more power to them. If they can come up with new ways to get my money while providing me with some new service or product that I’m willing to pay for… then good for them.

Second, there are types of advertising in movie theaters I “don’t mind”. For example, if the movie is supposed to start at 7pm and I get into my seat at 6:45pm, I really don’t mind commercials and ads being shown on the screen until showtime. I’m just sitting there anyway, it’s not taking away from my time since the show isn’t advertised to start for another 15 minutes… so really… showing ads in that vacuum is no skin off my nose, it gives me something to look at while I wait, and it generates some income for the theaters. GREAT! It’s a win/win for everyone.

But you don’t have to have a degree in advertising to know that the bulk of that $456 million in ad money doesn’t come from those “pre-show” commercials. Oh no no no no… most of that money comes from the ads I LOATHE. The commercials (not trailers… I like those) that they start playing at the time they advertised the MOVIE was supposed to start.

I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating.

- When you take my money for popcorn, at least I’m getting a tasty treat

- When you take my cash at the box office, I’m getting to come in to watch the movie

- When you take my time for commercials on TV, I’m getting a “free” TV show out of it

But what are we getting for our time with commercials in movie theaters? When the ad says “Movie starts at 7pm” and I’m in my seat (that I paid admission for) at 7pm, it’s time for you to start giving me what I paid you for… the movie. If you want to show me commercials, fine… give me the movie for free then.

The theater industry is pulling in RECORD amounts of income from those commercials, and unlike TV (where we get a free show), WE GET NOTHING IN RETURN FOR OUR TIME SITTING THERE WHEN THE MOVIE IS SUPPOSED TO START.

Movie theaters have in essence found the PERFECT advertising. Ads that take to audiences time, without giving them anything in return.

I don’t mind theaters making money off me when I get a product, service or entertainment in return… but commercials playing at 7pm when you told me the movie would be starting is doing nothing but STEALING my time. You are taking from me without giving anything in return. HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM ONLINE MOVIE PIRACY!?!?

When we download a movie without giving the movie industry anything in return, they call that a crime (and it is). But when the industry takes our time (sometimes up to 15 or 20 minutes) without giving us anything for that time in return they call it “smart marketing”.

How about I start calling pirating movies “Smart Shopping”. Will piracy be considered ok then?

Remember, YOU ARE GOING TO DIE SOME DAY. That means time has value, and when anything else in life takes your time, you get compensated in one form or another. Let’s think of it this way.

TIME

I see approximately 8 films in theater each month. At about 15 minutes of commercials per film (remember, these are ads that begin to play at the movie advertised start time), I end up spending about 2 hours per month watching ads in theaters uncompensated. That’s 24 hours, or a full day of uncompensated ad watching in a year.

MONEY

I’m not a doctor or lawyer, so let’s say my time is worth a measly $20/hour. Since I spent about 24 hours watching uncompensated ads in theaters last year, I figure the movie industry owes me about $480 out of that Half Billion they made last year off my time. Seems fair.

The principle for piracy and time theft is the same. Taking an asset (a movie, or your time) without providing the due compensation for taking that asset. So where do we start the class action lawsuit?

If you tell me the movie starts at 7pm, then when I PAY YOU to get into the movies, there is an implied contract that you give me what I paid for… a movie at 7pm. When you instead put up 15-20 minutes of commercials at 7pm you are stealing my time, and also stealing MY SHARE OF THAT $456 MILLION you made off my time.

So the next time you’re pirating a movie (which is neither something I do nor endorse), let that ease your conscience, because although you’re stealing the $10 you would have paid in admission… they probably owe you about $150 for stolen ad time anyway.
http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/10/...se-than-piracy





Blast from the past

Big Ten Media Conglomerates – Cross Ownership, 2001

http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html??




Britney's New Album Cover Looks Like a Magic Eye Picture
TomZ

Britney Spears' new album cover and tracklisting have been revealed. Without further ado, here is the album cover:



Yep. This leaked to the Internet -- can an album cover leak? -- a couple days ago, but everyone assumed it was a fake, because, you know, it looks like something that was done on Photoshop. Actually, it looks like one of those Magic Eye pictures. If you look closely at this image and unfocus your eyes, you can see the hologram of a hot chick with a snake around her neck.

Here is the tracklisting for Blackout, which comes out October 30th:

1. Gimme More (04:11)
2. Piece of Me (03:32)
3. Radar (03:49)
4. Break The Ice (03:16)
5. Heaven on Earth (04:52)
6. Get Naked
7. Freakshow (02:55)
8. Toy Soldier (03:21)
9. Hot As Ice (03:16) (Formerly called "Cold As Fire")
10. Ooh Ooh Baby (03:28)
11. Perfect Lover (03:02)
12. Why Should I Be Sad (03:10)

[Thanks to Sony BMG]


"Gimme More" is of course the first single. Out of the other 11 songs, 9 of them have already leaked to the Internet (the exceptions being "Freakshow" and "Toy Soldiers," but who knows, they could be out there somewhere - I'm also not entirely convinced these aren't just Silverchair and Eminem covers).

I'd direct you to some of these songs, but with Britney's label getting lawsuit-happy, it's probably not a good idea. Let's just say, if you look hard enough, you can find them. And by the way, here's a link to my recent dissertation on the human mind. It's fascinating, you should check it out.
http://www.shoutmouth.com/index.php/news/Britney's_New_Album_Cover_Looks_Like_a_Magic_Eye_Picture





Led Zeppelin to Make Its Songs Available Digitally
Jeff Leeds

It’s been a long time, but Led Zeppelin, one of the last superstar acts to refrain from selling its music online, is finally offering its catalog to digital-music fans.

The shift by Led Zeppelin, whose reunion concert in London next month has already incited a frenzy for tickets, highlights the clout of digital sales in the music market as mass merchants reduce the shelf space devoted to compact discs. Under a series of new agreements expected to be announced today, the band will make its songs available first as ringtones and similar mobile features starting this week in an exclusive deal with Verizon Wireless. Digital downloads of songs from the band’s eight studio albums and other recordings are expected to be available through Verizon and digital-music services, including iTunes, on Nov. 13.

Led Zeppelin’s decision to sell its music online coincides with the end of a fierce bidding war over the rights to administer the band’s catalog of songs, which includes the classics “Stairway to Heaven” and “Rock and Roll.” Under a separate deal the band is to receive an estimated $60 million in exchange for extending its ties to its longtime music publisher, Warner/Chappell Music, for at least 10 years, said three people briefed on the agreement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to discuss it.

The deals come as the group, which disbanded in 1980 after the death of its drummer, John Bonham, is back in the limelight. The three surviving members — Robert Plant, Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones — are performing in concert together next month for the first time in 19 years as part of a memorial tribute to Ahmet Ertegun, the co-founder of Atlantic Records, which released the band’s albums. (Mr. Bonham’s son, Jason, will play drums.)

The Nov. 26 concert, which is to benefit Mr. Ertegun’s educational charity, also coincides with the release of an expansive two-disc hits collection. Mr. Plant is also releasing a new album he recorded with the blue-grass artist Alison Krauss.

Declining to sell music online hasn’t made Led Zeppelin’s songs unavailable; they are regularly traded on unauthorized file-sharing services. But executives charged with marketing the band insist it still matters to the rapidly evolving legal digital market when a superstar act — particularly one that might mark a rite of passage for young fans — gets on board.

“The great thing about this band, unlike almost any other band that you could think of, is that every single day there is a new 13-year-old kid who’s just starting to get into music” and will discover the group, said David Dorn, senior vice president of e-commerce at Rhino Entertainment, which is marketing the band’s catalog. “That’s a customer that’s coming along for the future.”

Of the few remaining digital holdouts, only the Beatles and Garth Brooks have outsold Led Zeppelin in the United States. The digital-sales potential was one reason the rights to oversee Led Zeppelin’s song copyrights sparked months of wrangling among competing music publishers. (Publishers represent songwriters, who may or may not also be recording artists.) Warner/Chappell spiced its offer with an enticement no competitor could match: Its corporate parent, Warner Music Group, distributes the band’s albums and agreed to raise the royalty rate on certain recordings, according to people briefed on the negotiations.

Preventing the exit of a marquee act was a victory for the publishing company, particularly at a time when competition for copyrights — which generate income through licenses to commercials, radio airplay and the like — is coming from a variety of new players. Songwriters like Elton John and Quincy Jones have defected from Warner/Chappell in recent years, though its revenue overall has edged up so far this year.

Even without digital sales Led Zeppelin’s music had made money steadily. The band remains one of the most-played acts on rock radio stations and recently had an unusual encounter with the Top 40. Sean Kingston, a Jamaican-American pop singer, was permitted to use a few notes of the Led Zeppelin song “D’yer Mak’er” in his song “Me Love” in exchange for granting the band an ownership stake in the copyright, people involved said. The band has also licensed its songs in recent years for a Cadillac advertising campaign and an episode of the television show “One Tree Hill,” among others.

Still, the band is considered selective. “It’s a very special thing to have one in your movie,” said Randall Poster, a music supervisor who licensed a Led Zeppelin song for a scene in the film “School of Rock” after its star, Jack Black, made a personal plea to the band. “It’s the holy sound of the temple of rock.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/ar...ic/15musi.html





When It Takes Three People to Make a Duet
Jon Pareles

PERHAPS it was a coincidence that Robert Plant chose a Russian tearoom called Trojka, which means a threesome or triumvirate, to talk about his new duet album with Alison Krauss, “Raising Sand.” Or maybe it was a subliminal reminder that the album is really a three-way collaboration by an improbable alliance: Mr. Plant, who will be forever known as the lead singer of Led Zeppelin; Ms. Krauss, whose clear voice and deft fiddle style hail from Appalachia; and the producer and guitarist T Bone Burnett, the Texan who is best known for concocting haunted, pensively anachronistic Americana.

They represent three different musical spheres: Mr. Plant’s worldly hard rock, Ms. Krauss’s limpid update of rural traditions and Mr. Burnett’s rangy Texas twang. “Raising Sand” (Rounder), all three say, is like nothing any of them could have made on their own. But Mr. Burnett saw a link between the singers: “They’re two very mystical voices, and the blend of them is mystical,” he said in a telephone interview from his home and studio in Los Angeles. “They both sound like they’re singing from some other time. Alison sounds like she just stepped out of the Black Forest, and Robert sounds like Ozymandias,” the Egyptian pharaoh.

With Mr. Burnett leading a malleable studio band, Mr. Plant and Ms. Krauss share old and recent songs, drawing on Gene Clark, the Everly Brothers, Townes Van Zandt, Allen Toussaint, Mel Tillis and Tom Waits. It’s a collection of, mostly, sad songs — tales of love betrayed — floating in their own limbo. Together the collaborators triangulate a terra incognita somewhere between swamp and mountain, memories and eternity. Mr. Plant happily called it “the most amazing collision of styles.”

Sipping a latte and wearing a washed-out brown T-shirt that revealed robust biceps, Mr. Plant was far more eager to talk about “Raising Sand” than about the impending Led Zeppelin reunion. That concert is scheduled for Nov. 26 at the O2 arena in London as a benefit for a educational charity supported by Ahmet Ertegun, the chairman of Atlantic Records until his death last year. “It’s a one-night stand,” Mr. Plant said. “I’m taking emotional condoms.” Then he changed the subject.

“Raising Sand” started as Mr. Plant’s project, the latest swerve in a long post-Zeppelin career that has delved into the wide-open-spaces rock of Mr. Plant’s 1983 hits “Big Log” and “In the Mood”; the reimagined vintage R&B of the Honeydrippers; and the rhythms and modalities of Mali and echoes of psychedelia in his current band, Strange Sensation.

“I think that Robert has always done exactly what he wants, and I mean that in a beautiful way,” Ms. Krauss said by telephone from her home in Nashville.

Mr. Plant has been a longtime fan of Ms. Krauss and her string band Union Station, which uses traditional instruments for music that’s steeped in old-timey and bluegrass styles but not bound by them. When the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland asked Mr. Plant to perform at a 2004 tribute to the bluesman Lead Belly, he invited Ms. Krauss to sing with him. The collaboration went so well that they began to consider recording together.

“Alison and I started talking about material,” Mr. Plant said. “We come from such different worlds that we only knew the top of each other’s world, the cream, the stuff that comes to the surface. We didn’t really know too much about the infinite myriad of influences underneath. And so it was an absolute coup that T Bone came on the scene.”

Ms. Krauss, 36, had already worked with Mr. Burnett on albums including the multimillion-selling, neo-Appalachian soundtrack album for “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” Mr. Plant and Mr. Burnett, who were both born in 1948, are connoisseurs of older American music who share a taste for the deepest blues.

Mr. Plant came to realize, however, that he had long focused on African-American music, while he had virtually ignored the other side of the racial divide, Ms. Krauss’s stomping ground and part of Mr. Burnett’s down-home foundations.

“I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about American music, but I’d missed out on an entire area,” Mr. Plant said. “I now know that American music is a total panorama. I was cutting it off and thinking it was redneck hell down there. But it’s not.”

Mr. Plant has spent decades as a lead singer, wailing across arenas as Led Zeppelin’s golden-haired belter and, since then, improvising at whim as the front man for his own bands. For “Raising Sand” he would have to harmonize as well.

“I was quite nervous about the idea of finding out just how much of a one-trick pony I am,” he said. “I’ve always been a lead singer. That’s the gig, you know. Especially an English one. You translate usually black music, American music, in a particular fashion which is very English. But melody, and the structure of melody, I can be quite loose with.”

Harmony singing is Ms. Krauss’s element; it’s at the core of bluegrass and the vocal blend she shares in Union Station. Her “stretch” for the album, she said, was riding the rhythm. “It was really an ear-opening experience,” she said. “It’s just a different thing, singing with drums. You have to find a different place to sit.”

Mr. Plant said, “I wanted her to slur more, to become more sassy. She used to say to me, ‘But, Robert, I’m too white.’ I said: ‘No, you’re not white. You’ve only been given that shell. But inside it you’ve got everything.’ And she certainly does.”

As they planned the album, the three principals traded lists of potential songs. “Robert called up and said send five-six songs over, and I played him a couple,” Mr. Burnett said. “He said, ‘That’s a nice little ditty, but Alison wants to do something dark.’ And that was the starting point.”

Although none of the material on the album is new, Mr. Burnett insists there’s no nostalgia. “I think this album is looking into the skull of the present,” he said. “It represents all of the danger and the darkness and the outsiderness and the bleakness that seemed appropriate to this time.”

Mr. Plant brought his own countryish goodbye song, “Please Read the Letter,” and rock-tinged oldies like “Fortune Teller,” which was written by the New Orleans songwriter Allen Toussaint (under the pseudonym Naomi Neville), and “Gone Gone Gone,” a threat and kiss-off by the Everly Brothers.

When she saw one group of potential songs, Mr. Krauss recalled, she said she felt “I can’t do that.” She called Mr. Burnett, who she said told her, “You’ve called me and said you’re afraid. Robert has said sort of the same thing. And it’s exactly what I wanted to happen.”

The core of the band consisted of Mr. Burnett’s regular studio musicians, who know their way around all kinds of roots music. Despite Mr. Plant’s years of savoring American music “Raising Sand” is the first full album he has made with an American band.

The arrangements use silences and echoes with strategic grace; another factor, Mr. Burnett revealed, is the underlying rhythm. The songs often seem to hover because the beat is understated, elastic or only implied. “We’ve been getting completely away from the notion of beats and more into the notion of rumble or waves,” Mr. Burnett said.

Mr. Plant sings with barely a hint of arena bluster; his voice is aching and androgynous. Townes Van Zandt’s “Nothin’,” one of the most desolate songs ever written, has distorted guitar chords and Ms. Krauss’s biting Celtic fiddle looming up suddenly out of quiet dobro picking. In “Polly Come Home,” Gene Clark’s testament of utter loneliness, Ms. Krauss sings disembodied layers of harmony that drift around him like ghosts.

Ms. Krauss sings all alone on “Trampled Rose,” a parable of spurned love by Tom Waits and Kathleen Brennan. And she sings lead in “Through the Morning, Through the Night,” a waltz about murderous jealousy written by Clark. Hearing a woman rather than a man sing, “To know that another man’s holding you tight/hurts me little darling” gives the song a bisexual twist, although Ms. Krauss was taken aback by the thought.

“It’s just leaving the song as it was written,” she said. “It wasn’t about anything other than the integrity of the song.”

Unlike Led Zeppelin, Mr. Plant, Ms. Krauss, Mr. Burnett and the band are likely to tour together. “I think the music will change a bit,” Mr. Plant said. “There’s lots and lots and lots of opportunities to do different things within this little format.” A mischievous grin crossed his face. “God only knows how it will affect her audience and my audience. They’ll go, ‘Hell, what’s going on?’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/ar...ic/21pare.html





Rock’s Balkanized Route to the Indies
Will Hermes

SURE, the half-naked acrobat suspended by her ankles from the ceiling was remarkable. So was the battered tuba wrapped in red Christmas lights, played by a musician in a black cocktail dress.

Yet the most striking thing about DeVotchKa’s circuslike show at the Spiegeltent at the South Street Seaport in Manhattan in August was the music, a quilt of sounds from the international section of the iTunes store. One could hear mariachi ballads, polkas, horas and Gypsy tunes played on accordion, bouzouki, violins. But those sounds informed songs that also echoed the rhythmic bluster and vocal drama of 1980s alternative-rock acts like the Smiths and Talking Heads. The band’s cross-cultural recipe was made explicit when the young crowd began sloshing its beers to a bouncy, Balkanized version of the Velvet Underground’s “Venus in Furs.”

On any given night in an American rock club you can hear bands like Gogol Bordello, Man Man, Beirut and Balkan Beat Box playing odd-metered songs drawing on the rhythms of Eastern European Gypsy music. You might encounter Antibalas or Vampire Weekend riffing on African sounds, Dengue Fever making psychedelic Cambodian pop or a D.J. like Diplo spinning Brazilian funk. On the recent “Kala,” a contender for the year’s most exciting pop album, the British-Sri Lankan rapper M.I.A., who works from Brooklyn, draws on Indian, African and West Indian sounds. The folk-rocker Devendra Banhart creates fusions with Mexican and Brazilian musicians on his recent CD, “Smokey Rolls Down Thunder Canyon.” And the veteran musical adventurer Bjork toured this year with a West African percussion troupe and Chinese pipa virtuoso.

Increasingly the back-to-basics movement that has characterized cutting-edge rock this century, from the blues-based hard rock of the White Stripes to the new wave-postpunk revivalism of Interpol, is giving way to music that looks further afield for its influences. And one result is a clutch of acts, many of them from New York, that are internationalizing rock’s Anglo-American vernacular.

This is not the first time. Artists like Paul Simon, Peter Gabriel, the Clash and Talking Heads drew polyglot styles into their mix back in the 1980s, often with politics in tow. (Mr. Simon and Mr. Gabriel were exploring African pop during the Apartheid era.) But the impulse has been largely missing from rock’s bag of tricks for a while. And in the case of Beirut and Vampire Weekend, it is producing some of the year’s most buzzed-about new music — music that often feels less studied and less overtly political than that of these groups’ fusion-minded forebears.

Why now? Partly it seems the natural cycle of genres; every back-to-basics art movement dead-ends and requires an infusion of new ideas. And certainly the Internet has made even the most obscure global music easily available.

“Access is key,” said Bill Bragin, director of the Manhattan club Joe’s Pub, which books a large number of international acts. “A blogger or someone says: ‘Check out this cool record by Konono No. 1. It’s really bizarre, super loud Congolese thumb piano music.’ And suddenly all these people are checking them. Also, bands like Antibalas and Balkan Beat Box and Gogol Bordello and Beirut are very good about positioning themselves in the context of youth culture. They’re not pigeonholed as speaking only to the age-30-to-50 world-music crowd.”

You might guess that current global politics have also had a role in spurring the trend. And they have, though not always explicitly. M.I.A. and Bjork both address politics directly on their recent albums. Gogol Bordello and Antibalas, two of melting-pot New York’s fusion-minded veterans, also make politically charged music. Fronted by the Kiev-born Eugene Hutz, Gogol Bordello mixes Slavic and Balkan music with punk rock and plenty of other styles, peppered with lyrics addressing the immigrant experience and “cultural revolution.” Antibalas has revived and advanced Afrobeat, the Africanized funk fusion pioneered by the Nigerian bandleader Fela Kuti, from whom they have also adopted a strong anti-authoritarian demeanor. Both bands have addictively kinetic new records and are beginning to attract wider attention. (Mr. Hutz recently performed with Madonna at the Live Earth festival, and he and his band have contributed to her forthcoming short film, “Filth and Wisdom.”)

But a new wave of bands is using ethnic styles in less pointed ways. One of last year’s more left-field Internet success stories was the debut by Beirut, a project initiated by Zach Condon, a 21-year-old singer-songwriter who began a love affair with the Balkan brass-band tradition while exploring electronic music at his parents’ home in Albuquerque. Mr. Condon played almost everything on that album, “Gulag Orkestar,” and its arrangements for trumpet, accordion, ukulele, mandolin, violin and percussion conjure the image of a street-corner Gypsy band somewhere in postwar Europe. For the new Beirut record, “The Flying Club Cup,” released this month on the tiny Ba Da Bing label, he employs a full band to play his Eurail rock, which continues to roam.

“I’m going for a style that’s really outdated: 1940s French chanson,” Mr. Condon said over Korean barbecue and beer at a restaurant in his neighborhood in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. “I’m really obsessed with Jacques Brel, Charles Aznavour and early Serge Gainsbourg.” Mr. Condon, waifish and blue-eyed, was dressed in an old T-shirt with a bedhead hairdo, and it was easy to imagine him ministering to swooning jeunesse back in the day. Yet his dramatic, warbly vocal style also conjures ’80s rock crooners like Morrissey and the Cure’s Robert Smith.

While Mr. Condon, whose ethnic heritage is primarily Irish-English, has been spending time in Paris of late, he admits his approach to international styles is more instinctive than studied. Nick Urata, lead singer of the Denver band DeVotchKa, operates similarly. Speaking from a tour stop in Germany, he noted that while some of his band mates were schooled in Eastern European music, he was not, and in any case stylistic accuracy was not the point. “The ‘authentic’ Gypsy brass-band stuff is great, but it’s better to leave it to the masters,” he said. “We figured we were never going to nail it exactly, so why not just take it into our own realm?”

Vampire Weekend, which came together while its members were students at Columbia and has a debut CD slated for January on the independent label XL, makes its music in the same spirit. It’s noted for using African-flavored rhythms and guitar phrases in its upbeat pop-rock, notably on its signature “Cape Cod Kwassa Kwassa” (myspace.com/vampireweekend), whose title refers in part to a Congolese style. But rather than replicating an “authentic” sound (the song isn’t, in fact, kwassa kwassa), the band is more interested in collage, understandable for a young group weaned on the cut-and-paste aesthetic of hip-hop.

“I was always a big rap fan,” said Ezra Koenig, 23, the group’s singer and guitarist. “I’d go to that Web site The-Breaks.com to find the sample source for a song, and I was always excited when the music came from some weird place.”

Mr. Koenig also noted his affection for older rock acts that experimented with reggae and/or world music. Records like “Remain in Light” by Talking Heads and “Sandinista!” by the Clash were cited as touchstones by nearly all the artists interviewed. Which makes sense: Just as those bands were reacting to punk rock’s creative cul-de-sac in the 1970s and ’80s, many of the current bands are reacting to a modern retro-rock trend that has grown stale. “That was definitely something we didn’t want to do,” Mr. Koenig said. “And one way to do something new was to look at different sources.”

Some groups have gone to greater lengths to tap these sources. Ian Eagleson and Alex Minoff, who played together in the indie-rock band Golden in the late 1990s, formed Extra Golden with local musicians in Kenya, where Mr. Eagleson was working on a doctoral dissertation in ethnomusicology. Their experience has been more challenging than that of many of their peers. For instance there was the time Nairobi police showed up at a party at Mr. Eagleson’s apartment and discovered an uninvited guest had some marijuana cigarettes, an incident that cost the band roughly $10,000 to keep the members out of jail.

Then there was the problem of getting the band’s Kenyan members, some of whom lacked passports, to the United States for a debut tour last year. The process took months and was not complete until an 11th-hour intervention by staff members for Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, who were assisting promoters of the Chicago World Music Festival, where the group was scheduled to play. By way of a thank-you, one of the standouts on the group’s spirited new album, “Hera Ma Nono” — a fluid mix of American rock, New Orleans funk and the guitar-based Kenyan benga style on the indie-rock label Thrill Jockey — is a traditional-style African praise song titled “Obama.”

American pop musicians adopting styles of other nations have often been accused of cultural colonialism or dismissed as dilettantes. In the Web magazine PopMatters (popmatters.com), one critic wondered if Beirut’s music is simply “a tourist’s picture postcard” that devalues its cultural source material. Vampire Weekend, perhaps hoping to pre-empt criticism, cheekily calls its music “Upper West Side Soweto.” But neither group is pretending to be anything but what it is: an indie-rock band with diverse musical appetites.

Yet in an age when an Anglo-Sri Lankan pop act like M.I.A. raps over samples of Brazilian dance music that reshapes American electro-funk, ideas of authenticity and cultural ownership are slippery. And there is something encouraging in the way younger acts like Beirut and Vampire Weekend can draw on world music styles without needing to turn the act into a political statement, an imperative that doesn’t always serve the art in question. It’s also worth noting, as Mr. Bragin points out, that musicians outside the Anglo-American axis of indie rock, like Nação Zumbi and DJ Dolores from Brazil, are busy making cutting-edge fusions. “There’s a lot more dialogue lately,” he said.

A result, in some cases, is a new breed of fusion that keeps its politics implicit and exists in a nether region between genres. That’s a place Jeremy Barnes is happy to be. A former member of the influential ’90s indie-rock band Neutral Milk Hotel (which he notes was strongly influenced by Bulgarian traditional music) and briefly a participant in Beirut, Mr. Barnes now lives in Hungary, where he records neo-traditional music with local musicians and his collaborator, Heather Trost, under the name a Hawk and a Hacksaw.

“Aesthetically I love indie rock,” he said by cellphone from Tura, a small town where he was collaborating with the cymbalon player Unger Balazs. “And I find the world-music industry nauseating. There’s a lot of bad recordings and bad artwork. But when people define us in either of those categories, I cringe.”

“We love Hungarian music and think it’s beautiful, so how can we ignore it?” he added. “You can’t lie to yourself.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/ar...ic/21herm.html





Radiohead’s Warm Glow
Eduardo Porter

I didn’t pay anything to download Radiohead’s “In Rainbows” last Wednesday. When the checkout page on the band’s Web site allowed me to type in whatever price I wanted, I put 0.00, the lowest I could go. My economist friends say this makes me a rational being.

Apparently not everybody is this lucid, at least not in matters related to their favorite British rock band. After Radiohead announced it would allow fans to download its album for whatever price they chose, about a third of the first million or so downloads paid nothing, according to a British survey. But many paid more than $20. The average price was about $8. That is, people paid for something they could get for free.

This phenomenon is not new. It’s called tipping. We do it when we go to the restaurant or the barber, or when we ride in a taxi. Though one could argue there are real tangible reasons for this payment — like not losing an ear the next time we get a haircut — the practice of paying more money than we are legally bound to do is still mystifying in an economic sense. For instance, why tip a cabdriver you will probably never see again?

“Since we economists don’t understand tipping, we can’t really say whether this new scheme will work,” Greg Mankiw, a Harvard professor of economics, said in an entry on his blog. He is not the only economist who is fascinated by the phenomenon. His Harvard colleague, Dani Rodrik, asked his blog readers, “Has Radiohead gone bonkers?” He concluded, “Not at all.” Radiohead will make money. But those who are paying for the download may truly be nuts.

One could argue that rationality isn’t everything. Radiohead fans might just be altruistic beings who out of the goodness of their hearts would like to give some money to a spectacularly successful and probably stinking rich rock band. But somehow, that doesn’t work as an explanation.

Or does it? Some economists suspect that what is going on is that people get a kick from the act of giving the band money for the album rather than taking it for free. It could take many forms, like pleasure at being able to bypass the record labels, which many see as only slightly worse than the military-industrial complex. It could come from the notion that the $8 helps keep Radiohead in business. Or it could make fans feel that they are helping create a new art form — or a new economy. People who study philanthropy call it the “warm glow” that comes from doing something that we, and others, believe to be good.

Mr. Rodrik tested some of this with an experiment of his own. He offered his blog readers the opportunity to get a copy of his new book on globalization and economic growth for whatever price they wanted to pay, and said proceeds would go to the charity Save the Children.

The response suggested that “warm glow” is in demand. A third of the people offered nothing. But the average bid was $21, and he received bids for as much as $145, more than four times the list price. The most interesting part was to hear bidders explain themselves. Those who bid little felt it necessary to provide a reason, like being a poor student. But those who bid high justified it too: many said they liked saving children.

This is all good news for Radiohead, which has boosted its indie credibility, while all the attention might actually boost its revenues. The band also offered online a package of two CDs, two vinyl records and a booklet for about $80, and it plans to release “In Rainbows” as a single CD in January for fans who would rather hear the music with a better resolution than the medium-quality MP3 file available for download.

It is also potentially comforting news for the recording business. The industry has been struggling to find a business plan that will work in an online market in which — despite billions invested in antipiracy measures — fans can pretty much get their music for free if they want to.

Today, music lovers are left but two options: pay list price for an album, or perform what a fan might call a free download and a record company would call theft. Radiohead’s experiment suggests a third way out: let fans pay what they want and give them lots of touchy-feely reasons to want to give as much money as they can.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14sun3.html





Radiohead Proves Fans Will Pay for Downloads
Mathew Ingram

When Radiohead announced its recent "pay what you want" album-downloading experiment, one of the first questions industry watchers had was whether the move might create a snowball effect and encourage other bands to do the same.

If the early speculation about the band's success turns out to be true, however, it could lead to something more like an avalanche than a snowball: According to some estimates, the group may have made over $10-million (U.S.) in a single day.

The day after In Rainbows went on sale on Oct. 10, the Gigwise music blog said it had learned from sources close to the band that the album had been downloaded 1.2 million times.

Although it's impossible to know what downloaders paid, several media polls indicated that a majority of people buying the album were paying $1 to $20.

That suggests that Radiohead could have made more than $10-million in the first 24 hours of making its new record available online, and likely substantially more than that by now.

And those figures don't include the number of fans who chose to pay $80 for the deluxe boxed-set CD version.

Considering that the band will keep the majority of that revenue - in contrast with the small percentage most groups get with a traditional label - more than one band has to be looking at Radiohead's move as a model.

Even before the rumours about Radiohead's windfall, there were reports that the experiment had triggered a wave of interest among other artists.

Two other British bands - Oasis and Jamiroquai - were said to be considering a similar idea, while Nine Inch Nails' front man Trent Reznor announced on his website last week that he had quit his record label and was looking forward to developing a "direct relationship" with his fans.

Even rock dinosaurs Led Zeppelin have apparently decided the Internet might be good for something, although it's unclear whether Radiohead had anything to do with it.

Led Zeppelin, which until now has been one of the major holdouts in online sales, said yesterday that its music will be available as of Nov. 13 through iTunes and other online stores.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ainment/Music/




Free? Steal It Anyway
Andy Greenberg

Piracy, it seems, is about more than price.

That's one of the surprising discoveries to come out of an experiment by the British band Radiohead last week. On Thursday, the group made its latest album, In Rainbows, available for direct downloading from the Web at an unusual price: whatever fans feel like paying. Downloaders who want to pay nothing can enter "zero" in the site's price field and download the album for free.

But for hard-core music pirates, even free hasn’t been enough of a draw. According to music industry analysts, hundreds of thousands of Web users who frequent copyright-infringing file-sharing sites, including The Pirate Bay and TorrentSpy, have chosen to download In Rainbows illegally, distributing their contraband around the Internet just as they might with any other pirated album.

On the first day that Radiohead's latest became available, around 240,000 users downloaded the album from copyright-infringing peer-to-peer BitTorrent sources, according to Big Champagne, a Los-Angeles-based company that tracks illegal downloading on the Internet. Over the following days, the file was downloaded about 100,000 more times each day—adding up to more than 500,000 total illegal downloads.

That's less than the 1.2 million legitimate online sales of the album reported by the British Web site Gigwise.com. But Eric Garland, Big Champagne's chief executive, says illegal file-sharing is likely to overtake legal downloads in the coming weeks, given that many of those 1.2 million legitimate sales were pre-orders taken during the 10 days between when the band announced the album and its actual release last Thursday.

With popular album releases, illegal download volumes normally outstrip sales, says Garland. But more surprising is that fans chose to steal music they could legally download for any price they choose.

Garland argues that this kind of digital theft is more a matter of habit than of economics. "People don't know Radiohead's site. They do know their favorite BitTorrent site and they use it every day," he says. "It's quite simply easier for folks to get the illegal version than the legal version."

In Garland's experience, the store price of a new album plays little role in determining how often it will be pirated. Similarly irrelevant are the protective locks that recording companies put on files to try to stop pirates from copying and sharing file, so called digital rights management systems.

"Albums that are popular in retail are popular among pirates," Garland says. "In the big picture, if people want something, some will pay, and others will find a way to take it for free."

Despite the hundreds of thousands of illegal downloads, Radiohead's innovative online release could still be a smart fiscal strategy. By cutting out record companies, the band retains the full revenue stream of album sales, and monies from touring and merchandise sales.

The buzz generated by the band's pay-what-you-want publicity stunt may also boost sales. Radiohead's previous album sold only 300,000 copies in the first week—about one-sixth the number of copies of In Rainbows now in circulation.

An internal memo circulated at EMI, Radiohead's former record label, and obtained by Forbes.com, demonstrates the album's tectonic effects on the music industry.

"The recorded music industry … has for too long been dependent on how many CDs can be sold," writes Guy Hands, EMI's chairman. "The industry, rather than embracing digitalization and the opportunities it brings for promotion of product and distribution through multiple channels, has stuck its head in the sand. Radiohead's actions are a wake-up call which we should all welcome and respond to with creativity and energy."

But for Doug Lichtman, an intellectual property professor at the UCLA School of Law, the volume of piracy following In Rainbows' release erodes the success of Radiohead's innovation. "If the community rejects even forward-thinking experiments like this one, real harm is done to the next generation of experimentation and change," he says.

Lichtman speculates that users may have interpreted Radiohead's offer as a giveaway and so felt more comfortable downloading the album from other free sources. Fans may also have been turned off by the band's requirement that users register by providing their name and e-mail and postal addresses.

The ultimate lesson may simply be that it's hard to compete with free, Lichtman says. "Registration is a small barrier," he says. "Sadly, even that little bit of cost might too much."
http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...radiohead.html





Were Radiohead Fans Duped by the Download?
Korina Lopez

At the end of Radiohead's pay-what-you-like download album In Rainbows, will you find pots of gold or fool's gold? That depends on where you stand on the debate.

Fans who downloaded the label-bypassing seventh studio album by the British stars quickly learned that there were a few caveats to the donation-based download. First, the sound quality is not necessarily optimum, encoded at a bit rate of 160 kbps (kilobits per second), lower than Radiohead's earlier albums (though higher than a standard iTunes track download).

Second, Radiohead's management also confirmed that a physical CD of In Rainbows will hit shelves sometime in January, possibly with extra songs.

In an interview last week with British trade magazine Music Week, Radiohead's longtime managers, Chris Hufford and Bryce Edge, acknowledged that the download offer was a piece of a larger puzzle to generate more publicity for the CD release. "If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn't do what we are doing," Edge said.

Now fans who anted up a reasonable sum for an album they could have gotten free will have to buy the album again come January if they want the improved sound.

"They never said that downloading the album would be the only way to purchase it," says Nate Wilholt, 21, of Grand Rapids, Mich., who spent $2 for the download. "I pretty much figured there would be an eventual traditional release … I would hope fans knew what they were getting into."

Some fans criticized the band's failure to disclose the downloadable version's quality and the release date of the CD. "I would've appreciated knowing the bit rate," says David Sandell, 27, a Chicago fan who spent $6.50 for the download. "But if I knew the MP3 would be low audio quality, I would have paid less."

Others lauded the band's pioneering effort to get the music to their fans quickly. "I think this band is doing the right thing and cutting out the middleman, and they should be rewarded," says Susan Alvare, 30, of Dallas. She plans to buy the download for $15.

Other fans don't miss the difference in sound quality. "I didn't notice that the sound quality is subpar and don't know if I will notice upon my next listen," says Nadia Tuma, 25, of New York. "I'm here for the art and can still appreciate the music for what is it, regardless of minute differences in sound production." She donated $20 for the download.

But Roger Wade, 42, of Portland, Ore., who has not ordered the download, is still unhappy with the band on both counts. "This honor-system gimmick has turned out to be sloppy at best and dishonest and devious at worst. It's common knowledge that 192 kbps is the accepted minimum bit rate among nearly everyone who even knows what a bit rate is.

"And then word that this honor-system release might just be a promotional tool for a longer and higher-quality release in the future is a real kick in the teeth to their hard-core fans who wanted to reward the band for this unique approach to distributing their new material. If I'd offered to pay $10 or more for the download, I would feel like a real sucker at this point."

More fan reaction:

•Bryan Ward, 38, of Westmont, Ill., spent $2. "I plan to buy the box set and the actual CD, but I don't have the money right now. Now I feel guilty that I paid too little."

•Jacob David Sawyer, 27, of Manchester, N.H., donated not a cent. "I'm planning on buying the CD when it comes out, anyway. Why pay for it twice?"

•Jami Sams, 26, of Corona, Calif., spent $7. "I really like the album; in hindsight, I think I should have paid more."

•Michael Gallaugher, 33, of Columbus, Ohio, spent $10 "because it's what it would have cost on iTunes. It just would have been nice to know what the options were going to be beforehand."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/n...download_N.htm





P2P vs Radiohead's "Free" Rainbows: Why P2P Can be a Hard Habit to Break
Nate Anderson

Radiohead's innovative digital distribution arrangement for their new album, In Rainbows, lets people pay whatever they want for the music, including nothing at all. Despite that, BitTorrent swapping of the album has been on the level of other major releases. Are people really so cheap that they won't even register with the band in order to snag a free download? The answer appears to be yes.
Radiohead still needs major label to let world see its “Rainbows”

By handling the recording, mastering, and distribution themselves, the band managed to keep the tubes clear of any Rainbows before the official launch (no mean feat for a hotly anticipated album). Once the album became available for download, though, it spilled immediately onto P2P networks, primarily BitTorrent. According to BigChampagne CEO Eric Garland, who spoke with Ars about the issue, the album was grabbed by BitTorrent users roughly 240,000 times in the first day of release and has tailed off since in "a perfect half-life curve."

Unlike most BitTorrent song swapping, In Rainbows is generally being shared as a complete album. Radiohead, which hasn't been known for singles in the last decade, might be pleased that their work is being downloaded as a whole, but would no doubt prefer that people get it from the band's website.

Garland speculates that convenience is the main factor at work here; price doesn't enter into the equation. Radiohead's site does request a number of user details that go beyond the e-mail address needed to create an account and retrieve the download code, and such a process will put some people off at any price. Plenty of users have simply become accustomed to getting their music from BitTorrent; for this group, it's easier to simply grab it when the album shows up on the network than to visit another site, register, get an e-mail, and then download the songs.

The fact that the band let users set a price for the music also encourages the perception that the price of music should be up to the buyer. If both BitTorrent and Radiohead offer the album for the same price, fans might see little difference between the two sources. In fact, Radiohead's move might even make BitTorrent look increasingly legitimate as a forum for picking up new music. Thus, assessing this as a "piracy versus free" issue isn't exactly right; once some users got the message that it was "free," it didn't matter where they got the album.

Garland agrees that the move "amplifies a long-standing" disconnect between the industry and the people who buy its products, and he points out that this is hardly the first time the issue has arisen. Downloaders have long claimed that "radio is free" and "I can make mixtapes" to defend the free downloading of music from P2P services. Despite the music business' attempt to counter these arguments, radio, mixes, and P2P all "feel like free" to many end users. This hurts the perception that they shouldn't torrent their music, and Radiohead's set-your-own-price model may encourage that feeling (as have record label attempts at using P2P services to promote certain songs; how does a user know if the song they're grabbing is illegal or not if even the labels use BitTorrent to offer free music?).

To Radiohead, there certainly is a difference between sources. The band wants people to use their sites, it wants to collect their information, and it likely wants to send them information about concerts and merchandise at some point down the line. But the band has learned the hard way that money isn't the only thing that matters to Radiohead fans.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-to-break.html





Radiohead Sells 1.2 Million Albums, Spawns 1.2 Million Commentaries
Fred Mills

OPINION: Whew. That pounding in your temples? It’s not the tequila-and-schnapps chasers you were pounding back last night at the transvestite bar—that’s the sound of 1.2 million bloggers, media analysts, music industry talking heads and java hut armchair pundits yammering on and on and on about Radiohead. And it doesn’t look like the hangover’s going away anytime soon.

You know—Radiohead. That obscure indie band from Great Britain who shocked the world a couple of weeks ago when they announced that, newly free of indenture to a mega-corporation (that’s record label to you, pal), they would be releasing their new album In Rainbows digitally on Oct. 10, and that consumers could essentially pick the price they were willing to pay for the digital version. (You could additionally pre-order a hard-copy edition, due in November, that would contain vinyl and expanded CD versions of the album, with the price coming out to about $80 in American currency.)

For the record, I paid £ 2.00, which with the £ 0.45 credit card transaction fee, came to a total of £ 2.45—about $4.97. Full disclosure: to me that seems about five dollars too high for a musical artifact that comes with no packaging whatsoever and, with MP3s at a mere 160kbps, offers sound quality substantially inferior to anything in my vinyl, CD or 8-track tape collection. Factor in 10 cents for some card stock paper (to print out some bootleg artwork I found on the web for the album, natch) and another 30 cents or so for a CDR to burn In Rainbows to, and I’ve forked about close to five and a half bucks. I didn’t even get the proverbial “lousy tee-shirt” to show off my bragging rights.

Out there in the real world, a survey by England’s Telegraph.co.uk of 5,000 fans who downloaded the album revealed that “more than a quarter – 1,429 – paid either nothing or 1p for the recordings. More than half – 2,776 – gave up to £10, while 673 die-hard fans paid £40 for the deluxe box set.” And a few nuts paid £99.99, which was the maximum price you could pay. I’m not sure what category my £ 2.45 lands me in—borderline skinflint but still relatively sane, maybe?

Griping aside, though, the whole experience of obtaining the album was painless and seamless; I put in my quarter, pulled the lever, and ten digital gumballs spiraled down and popped out the chute onto my desktop in less than a minute. (Record labels who service journalists with digital promos and make us wade through all manner of cumbersome, time-consuming procedures just to obtain lousy-sounding approximations of their artists’ latest magnum opi should take heed.)

Plus, it’s a pretty damn good record, one that brings elements of classic-period Radiohead (e.g., OK Computer) to the table alongside touches of Thom Yorke’s solo album The Eraser and a raft of surprises as well. To paraphrase one reviewer, Radiohead’s become Britain’s premier art-rock band, and on this occasion the “art” contingent in the Radiohead camp definitely held sway over the band’s rockers. The album will undoubtedly figure prominently on a lot of year-end Top Ten lists. Watch for a full review of In Rainbows in the December issue of HARP.

So anyway… media types who track this sort of stuff are estimating that Radiohead moved about 1.2 million downloads across two days. An insider “close to the band” is being cited as the source for that figure, said insider also suggesting that the financial tally was £4.8 million in sales (not counting the pre-orders for the discbox set). Not a bad payday. Chris Hufford, one of the band's managers, told British reporters, "This has been an absolutely fantastic experiment for Radiohead. I can't say what fans have been paying for the new album but it's definitely the case that more people have paid for it than not."

It’s worth noting, however, that worldwide naval gazing and brow furrowing notwithstanding, Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood essentially stated the other day that is was never Radiohead’s intention to initiate some revolutionary new model of music distribution (labels have been selling downloads for some time, duh) or even to give away its music as part of some elaborate marketing scheme, but simply to prevent it from leaking out to the public prior to the official release of the physical discbox. Radiohead is also apparently hoping that fans who dig what they hear on the MP3 files will be convinced to purchase the real thing in all its elaborate packaging and up-to-snuff sonics. I think Greenwood’s comments are astute; Radiohead is the type of band who commands a fierce loyalty among fans, the type of fans who probably will want to own the physical product. Me, a Luddite who has zero-to-none interest in downloading and listening to crappy-sounding compressed music, will want to own at least the official standalone CD when it comes out in early 2008 on an as-yet-unspecified label that some industry watchers are predicting will be Side One Recordings/ATO.

There’s already been some backlash (not to mention a lot of meta-navel gazing in response to the backlash… double whew... sometimes a 160kbps MP3 is just a 160kbps MP3, Dr. Freud!) as people trot out, once again, the “what is music worth to consumers?” rhetoric. Over in the Portishead camp—the UK band reportedly has a new album just about completed—we heard complaints that while it’s fine and dandy for an established superstar like Radiohead or Prince to give its music away for free, what about lower-tiered acts who can’t necessarily make the same gamble that Greenwood suggests? But that argument is moot; if you believe the industry narrative of the past few years, peer-to-peer file sharing has already “devalued” music.

So Radiohead hasn’t created a radical new model. They’ve merely served up an additional option. If we’ve learned anything lately, it’s that there’s no one-size-fits-all “model” for bands. There are myriad avenues with which they can travel to reach their fanbase and earn a living, from the tried and true Get In The Van method, to working that MySpace presence like a motherfucker, to flogging music via ads and TV/film placement, to virtual performances in Second Life, and of course to the Radiohead Method.

You know, in the end, dwelling endlessly on all this—the “narrative” and all its tendrils—is a big distraction that takes away from that quaint little notion known as “quality listening time.” To quote the great philosophers at Stiff Records: fuck art, let’s dance.
http://harpmagazine.com/news/detail.cfm?article=11783





The Billboard Q&A: The Eagles' Glenn Frey
Ray Waddell

In this exclusive interview, Glenn Frey takes Billboard through the making of "Long Road Out of Eden," the Eagles' first studio album since 1979. "Eden" is due Oct. 30, exclusively via Wal-Mart stores.

Tell me about the songwriting and recording processes for "Long Road Out of Eden."

We've been working on this album kind of piecemeal up until the last 21 months, but prior to that what was happening on my end was, if I heard a song or I started writing a song that I thought was right for the Eagles, then I would hang onto it and kind of set it aside and say "I think this could go on our record". Through the course of the late 90s and the early part of [this] century, that was what we did.

There were times when we would work for a little while, but we could never really get everybody together to work for any long periods of time mainly because we all live in different places and we all have families. So, it became a little more difficult to parcel our time to work on the record, but in the last 21 months obviously we found a lot of time. Don [Henley] made a lot of sacrifices by coming to L.A. often to work on the record, coming from Dallas.

Don and I had a couple of very productive songwriting periods over the last couple of years. During those times we wrote "Busy Being Fabulous," "Fast Company," [and] we had started on "Long Road Out of Eden" way back in 2001. It was such a long song when we cut the track and tried to imagine verses and bridges and instrumental and all of that stuff, and I honestly didn't know that that song would ever get completed. Then Don just had a burst of inspiration and he told me one day "I think I've got the lyrics for 'Long Road'". And I said, "really?" It was a pretty long piece of material to begin with, but he did a great job finishing that song.

Other songs that we wrote together, [such as] "Frail Grasp on the Big Picture" and a couple of other tunes, in some cases we would have a chorus and some chords, and we would cut the track before we would finish the song if we thought we could come out with some good structure, and we just worked on it here and there when we could. As the record really started to take shape and when we finally got ourselves eight to 10 songs that were close to finished, then there was another big rush of material. That seems like it happens almost every time at the end of a record. You start to get your creative juices flowing and other songs show up, other ideas show up.

Don has a studio in Malibu and I have a studio in L.A. I would work on things on my own with other band members at my studio and Don would work on things on his own with other band members at his studio, and then we would MP3 our work back and forth to each other. When it came time to do background vocals we would do those and it turned out to be a very effective way for us to finish this project.

Obviously you guys still have the chemistry.

Yes, we do. I guess a lot of it was finding and making the time to really hunker down and get this done. Another reason why we ended up doing work in separate studios and e-mailing it back and forth to each other is because, unlike the old days, we have families and commitments with our careers and other interests. You can't have four guys in the Eagles show up for a trumpet overdub. It just doesn't make sense to make everybody come down for a day we are doing percussion on a song.

So we get everybody in the studio for tracking most of the time, although on some occasions I've just kind of tracked with [co-producer] Scott Crago on drums or Don would track with him and [guitiarist/co-producer] Steuart [Smith] and we would build up from there.

What were your goals starting out on this record?

I really had three main objectives for this record. The first objective, which sort of got us over the hump, was to understand we were making a record for our fans and our fans first and foremost love to hear us sing together. I believe with that as the important component, we were able to transcend worrying about whether we needed to make a modern record, a country record, a rock and roll record, a Henley solo album, a Frey solo album. All of that all fell under the umbrella of the Eagles singing and as long as we were singing and we liked the songs, then the material was right for us.

Number two, it was important that we got Henley/Frey material so that everybody, including us, knew that we didn't just work by ourselves, that there was enough collaboration to create at least half a dozen Henley/Frey songs, so we accomplished that.

The third objective was to make sure that we had Timothy Schmit and Joe Walsh represented. We worked hard to do that and I'm very happy that we got two songs for Timothy to sing and we got two songs for Joe to sing and were able to use Joe's guitar talents in the right places and showcase them. So those were the three objectives I had and I felt by the time we finished the record we had met all those.

Disc 1 kind of re-introduces the band and then Disc 2 has these massive powerhouse cuts that really take you on a journey. When you sit down and hear the whole thing at once, you really get that effect that it's a cohesive work.

Thank you for being an astute listener. I spent two days sequencing the record, and like you said I wanted to reintroduce everyone to the Eagles right away. Therefore, we put some of what I would call typical or classic Eagle's material right out of the box. And then slowly as the album plays along, we sort of get into some of the meatier lyrics. I felt that was the way we wanted to go. I didn't think you could come right out and have "Long Road Out of Eden" and "Frail Grasp" be the first songs on the record.

You guys have toured and played a lot in the last 12-13 years, did that make it easier when it came time to put this thing together?

We've been able to keep our band together and our name out there by touring and doing a few shows, sometimes more, sometimes less since the summer of 2001, but it's not like making a record. Once we rehearse and we know all the Eagles songs and everybody's parts are worked out, we are pretty much up and running. Although the physical aspect of touring can be a little taxing, it's not at all like making a record. Making a record is a much more involved, intimate, give-and-take proposition. We knew each other pretty well before 2001, so I can't say that one has much to do with the other.

Talk about the lead off single, "How Long."

The story with "How Long" is my kids were watching YouTube one night about seven months ago and they said, "Dad, come here. You've got to look at yourself." [YouTube] took it down shortly after I watched it, but they were streaming this show called "Pop Gala," a television special we did in 1974 in Holland. I guess we did about eight or nine songs on this show and one of them was "How Long." My kids were laughing at how long my hair was, and there we were playing this J.D. Souther song. And my wife said "you should do this song Glenn, this is classic Eagles" and I said, "You know, you're right." I think we learned it but we didn't record it back in '74 because J.D. Souther wanted to use it on his first solo album, if I'm not mistaken. So it just sort of sat there, but it was rediscovered and I thought "I really think we should cut this, this would fit in nicely with some of the other stuff we have on the album." So we did.

I've heard people say if the Eagles were to come out today they would be a country band, I don't know if I agree with that 100%, but certainly country radio has embraced this single.

I do not pretend to understand all that goes into that kind of thinking. Here is what I know: I never thought we were a country act. If you go back to the days of -- and these are mostly songs that I sang -- "Lyin' Eyes," "Peaceful, Easy Feeling," maybe even "New Kid in Town," I think in the 70s those would not have garnered any significant country airplay.

What I hear now on country radio, and I listen to it off and on, are what I would call pop songs with country lead singers. They become country songs because of the way they are sung. Again, I don't pretend to know what the format is and what the criteria is for country radio right now. I just know that we have a lot of fans and a lot of credibility in that genre. There is only steel guitar on one song on our [new] record, there is only fiddle on one song and it is kind of a Mexican-sounding song. We are just the Eagles and we make these records and we wrote these songs and we put them out and people are allowed to pick up on what they like or what appeals to them.

Would you care to comment on the Wal-Mart exclusive and the business side of things?

I am in the business of selling records and I want to be in a place where we have the opportunity to sell the most records. It's also nice that Wal-Mart pays us a very lucrative royalty; a royalty that no record company could come close to matching. But that's because we are not a loss leader at Wal-Mart. If the Eagles put out a record at Warner or any other major record label, part of the reason they can't pay up is we've got to pay for all of the bad acts they sign and release.

When you play "Long Road Out of Eden" how do you feel it stands up to your body of work with the Eagles?

I think it's going to stand up, I think it's going to be right up there, if you want to know the truth. If you look back on our previous albums of the '70s, those albums are four or five songs deep, and you can just about name them off of each album. You can name the three smash hit singles and then one or two album cuts that were essential to the record.

This record is like 15 songs deep and the other thing that I am really heartened by is that the quality of the recording is so much better now. I think the production level is far superior.

It seems you guys never took the easy way out; you could have phoned it in, to be quite honest, and this album never shows that.

We always felt that the amount of effort you put into anything would somehow show up in the work and I certainly hope it has.
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/searc..._id=1003658086


The Billboard Q&A: The Eagles' Don Henley

Henley Delves Into 'Long Road Out Of Eden,' The Eagles' First Studio Album In 28 Years, In This Billboard Exclusive
Ray Waddell

"I've been biding time with crows and sparrows while peacocks prance and strut upon the stage," Don Henley sings on "Waiting in the Weeds," one of several powerful set pieces from the Eagles' new "Long Road out of Eden," the band's first studio album since 1979.

The line is pretty descriptive of the Eagles, Henley believes. "We're a band that knows how to bide its time ... how to wait," he says. "We've just been sort of waiting for some of this bad music to die down, for certain trends to go away, so we can get out there on the dancefloor again."

In this exclusive interview, Henley takes Billboard through the making of "Eden," due Oct. 30 exclusively via Wal-Mart stores.

It's great to see all those Henley/Frey co-written songs on the new record. Can you talk about how the songwriting and recording processes have changed?

The songwriting process hasn't really changed that much. The thing that has changed somewhat is the recording process, and that's because of technology. We've recorded a few songs here and there since the turn of the century, but we haven't done a whole album, and the changes in the technology are amazing.

Clearly, there is still a way to capture the chemistry, even with technology.

We still play instruments and sing. There are still some of the processes that remain organic, and that's the way we want it. But things like editing are a whole lot easier, and you can arrange a song on ProTools if you want to, add an extra verse or change the structure of the song. But what the computer still won't do is write lyrics for you. That still has to come by the sweat of the brow.

There is a lot of social commentary on this record, but there is also a focus on personal relationships and the human condition, as well.

We've always had love songs and we've always had social commentary. I think we've gotten a little bit better at both ends of the spectrum. In fact, I think our love songs have matured a little bit and the social commentary has matured, as well, and gotten maybe a little bolder. But, it's an Eagles album, it's all over the map, both musically and subject-wise. I guess there are more love songs on it than anything else. The last two songs on the record in particular are both messages from Glenn and I to our children.

Those are more about "big picture love" than "I love you tonight."

It's not just a boy/girl thing. We both have young children. We are both trying really hard to be good parents. That's one reason it took so long to make an album, because we are so busy trying to be good parents.

There's a question in the song "Do Something" that kind of struck me as, in many ways, central to the theme of this album: "How did we get on this road we are traveling?"

"Do Something" is an interesting song because it starts out like a love song, a boy/girl song, but then it takes on larger implications. And that line that you pointed out could pertain to a relationship between a man and a woman or it could be a statement about the country as a whole.

Is this an optimistic album?

I think it’s basically an optimistic album, with the possible exception of "Long Road Out of Eden." Of course, that's about the war, and it's also about the human condition. The point of the song is [that] we may think we are civilized, but we have a ways to go yet.

But I think the point of the whole album is summed up on the last song that Glenn wrote with Jack Tempchin, "Your World Now." The crux of the whole thing for me is those two lines: "Be part of something good, leave something good behind." For me that sums up everything, to my children, to my fans, to everybody. If there was one message to this album that I want to impart, that would be it.

There's another line that hit home for me on "Business As Usual": "I thought that I would be above it all by now, in some country garden in the shade." And yet here you are with a new record.

That's right. Here I am, just turned 60. I'm not complaining. I'm thrilled and delighted. None of us ever thought it would go on this long. But we are a determined bunch of guys. We take our time, we are not afraid of the passage of time, necessarily, and we've been sitting one out for a long time. That is kind of what "Waiting in the Weeds" implies. Again, on the surface that’s a love song, but it's also about this band. We've just been sort of waiting for some of this bad music to die down, for certain trends to go away, so that we can get out there on the dance floor again. We are a band that knows how to bide it's time, and how to wait.

"Long Road Out of Eden" has an interesting lyric: "Weaving down the American highway, through the litter and the wreckage and the cultural junk." Is that what we are doing right now?

I think so. I was originally going to write "weaving down the information highway" because I get on my computer every day and there is so much crap on the Internet, it's such a big waste of time if you aren't careful. There are wonderful things on there, too, it's such a resource of knowledge and information. But, just like television, the Internet has a lot of useless crap going on. In the end I decided that it wouldn't make a lot of sense with the rest of the song just to suddenly go over and start talking about computers and the Internet. So I changed it back to American highway just to make it broader in scope. I think with the words "cultural junk" I got my point across. I think we've cornered the market on cultural junk, pretty much.

You revisit some of those themes on "Frail Grasp on the Big Picture," where I was sorry to hear that journalism is dead and gone.

It's not completely dead and gone, of course. Obviously, there are still people out there who are trying to do a good job and trying to keep some integrity in the work. But for every one of those people, there are 20 or 30 more that are just in it for... I don't know what. Again, that is part of the cultural junk. The interesting phenomenon in this age is you turn on the news on the television or on the computer and you see all these very serious stories, like the war in Iraq, people dying and people being killed, and children being abducted and murdered. And then here comes "Entertainment Tonight" and "Access Hollywood" and "Hollywood Insider" and all this crap. Same thing when you go [online], you see [these stories] side by side, and we seem to give equal weight to both. Sometimes the trivial crap seems to get more weight and more coverage than the important stuff.

The coverage of this war has been, for the most part, nonexistent, except what the military wants us to hear and what the White House wants us to hear and see. That's what's appalling to me. I don't really want to hear any more about Britney Spears, I don't really want to see the train wreck.

It's just a continuation of stuff that I've been harping on for a long time now, the dumbing down of our culture and the dumbing down of reporting, and the abbreviation of everything because people's attention spans are so short. Everything is edited and chopped and shortened, from music videos to news pieces. And there's no time or place for in-depth analysis of anything, or reasonable discussion, reasoned dialogue. It's just people yelling at one another. Everything is about confrontation and controversy and sensationalism. There are no quiet voices. The quiet voices of reason get drowned out and stomped on.

In "Long Road Out of Eden" we tried to touch on all that stuff. It's hard, even in 10 minutes, but I really like it. I think that song is a good piece of work. I like some of the instruments we came up with on there, I like the last verse, the one you quoted. This album’s not perfect. If I were king, I would have done a couple things differently. I might have left a couple of songs off and perhaps made it a single album. But we vote by committee.

There is a commentary on consumerism here, so it’s not a stretch to go from that to talk about the Eagles’ Wal-Mart exclusive. Is there any kind of problem in reconciling the art and the commerce of this?

I certainly had some trepidation about it, but the business has changed so drastically. Wal-Mart is not a perfect company, but as I have said many times in print, they can't possibly be any worse than a major record label. My daddy was a small businessman and he was not a fan of big box retailers or chains or franchises. But this is just the world we live in and there aren’t many places where 60-year-old men, no matter how good their record is, can get this kind of promotion and widespread retail coverage. We are artists, but we are also businessmen and we try to live in the real world.

Some of my environmentalist friends are a little upset because we made this deal with Wal-Mart, but on the other hand I now have the direct line to the CEO of Wal-Mart. I also have a direct line and exchange e-mails on a regular basis with the two whiz-kids they have hired to make the company greener. They have a pretty elaborate and impressive plan laid out.

You really can't change things from the outside. We are certainly making our feelings known about what we believe as far as ecological stewardship and some of the practices of big business that are undesirable and wasteful, and I think Wal-Mart is making an effort.

Let me hasten to add, I am not thrilled with everything Wal-Mart has done, both in terms of doing business with us and on the environmental front and on the matter of some of their employee practices. But you could pick out just about any big company and say the same thing. We wanted to try something new. Everyone has been screaming let's have a new paradigm in the record industry; let's figure out a way to do this ourselves. Let's figure out a way to leave the big dinosaur record companies behind that have been robbing from us -- and the consumer -- for the last 60-80 years. Ever since the record business became big business, the labels have been suspect. We just thought we would try something different. Some people have praised us for it and some people have damned us for it, but that's the way it goes.

When it comes to this new album, are you at the point where you can rise above being a critic and just enjoy it?

Not yet. We just finished it [about] three weeks ago, so I don't have enough distance from it yet. Frankly, I don't want to hear it right now, because I know every little glitch, every little thing I think is flawed about it, I’ll hear. We are going to start rehearsing some of these tunes in October, so I am just trying to basically stay away from it until rehearsal starts so I won't be burned out. We've been living with these songs for a long time.

You guys have been playing together since 1994, why a new album now?

We were never a band that was able to record and write and tour at the same. When you go on tour at this age there is a lot of recovery time involved. Plus, as I've said before, we all have young children, our priorities are different. Not that this album and our music isn't important, but my kids are more important to me than anything, and that's where I put most of my energy these days.

There are some people who seem to think that this is some sort of comeback or we've been away, but, if I might say so, we've been breaking box office records all over the world since '94 and we've been touring quite a bit. It just took us a while to get on a roll again, to get into writing mode and learning how to work with each other again in a studio.

This is still very much a band effort. There is co-writing and there is a lot of intermingling of vocals, a lot of harmonies. At the end of the day, we agonized for two or three years how we were going to make an album that was going to be modern and cool and cutting edge, and finally we said "To hell with it, we are just going to be the Eagles. We are just going to do what we do."

And that comes back around to what we said before about waiting for your time to come again. We wanted to wait until some of the latest trends and fads died down, and you have to sort of wait for people to miss you. It's kind of like that joke in that old country song, "How can I miss you when you won't go away." We've always been good at getting out of the public eye and being gone for a while. You sit around today and you watch these kids who are exposing themselves -- in every sense of the word -- to death, it's ridiculous. We all value our private lives and our families and our charity work, and all the other things that we do, because those things inform our music. You won't see us at most of the award shows.

You've got an awards show coming up, the CMA awards. I've heard people say that if the Eagles were to come out today they would be a country band, but I've always looked at you as a rock band.

I think we are both. A country band wouldn't do "Long Road Out of Eden" and a rock band wouldn't "How Long" or "Do Something," so I don't think we can be put in a box. I think we defy all those labels. We are an American band and what we do is informed and influenced by just about every form of American music you can think of. There is rhythm and blues in there, there is folk, there's rock, there's country. It's all in there, which is one of the reasons I think we have a lasting appeal.

We are pretty excited about doing the CMA's. I did them once before with my friend Trisha Yearwood, I sang with her a few years back. We don't normally do award shows, but we are making an exception because we are honored and so thrilled to have been accepted by country radio. That's kind of a hard club to get into.
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/searc..._id=1003658087





In a City Far, Far Away From Hollywood, the YouTube Tales of a Lesser Vader
David Callender

What does it take to parlay YouTube stardom into an entertainment career?

A year ago, when Matt Sloan was working in a bookstore and Aaron Yonda in a metal shop, they were shooting low-budget comedy films that they showed every week on the local cable-access channel here. When a friend suggested they parody the “Star Wars” films, the two were split over the idea of what Mr. Sloan described as “basically Darth Vader in a grocery store.”

But as he and Mr. Yonda began fleshing out the character of Darth Vader’s hapless younger brother, Chad, a shift manager in the Empire Market who can’t land a date despite his Jedi powers, Mr. Sloan said, “I knew we had something special.”

With a neighborhood grocery co-op as their backdrop, they shot the first episode of “Chad Vader: Day Shift Manager” with friends volunteering the talent and labor. They worried about the cost of the $600 Darth Vader costume that Mr. Yonda wore, but, he said, “We really wanted to get the look right.”

Then Chad Vader hit YouTube.

The eight-part saga is one of the site’s biggest hits, having been viewed more than 19 million times since its debut in July 2006. The series has put Mr. Sloan and Mr. Yonda among the site’s top celebrities, along with performers like Jessica Lee Rose, the actress from the LonelyGirl15 series, and Terra Naomi, the singer whose breakout song on YouTube is called “Say It’s Possible.”

While Mr. Yonda and Mr. Sloan may not have much name recognition, they do have big-name professional representation, a choice of projects, and enough money to pay people for their work on season two of Chad Vader, which they say is forthcoming.

This month the camera maker Canon brought them to New York to make a “Battle of the Internet Superstars” video along with Glenn Rubenstein, one of the writers for the Lonelygirl15 series, and Gary Brolsma, who gained YouTube stardom for his vigorous lip-synching of a Romanian pop song (he is better known as the “numa numa” guy).

Whether Mr. Yonda and Mr. Sloan will gain national recognition or remain a niche act is an open question. They still have to pitch their ideas to get work. The entertainment industry, it seems, is trying to make sense of where artists fit into the broader establishment after they make it in the quirky medium of YouTube.

Even so, the success is already far beyond what either Mr. Sloan or Mr. Yonda say they imagined when they began performing together in an improvisational comedy club five years ago.

“Chad Vader definitely gets us in pretty much any door in the entertainment industry,” Mr. Yonda said. “We had the interest of a lot of people before Chad Vader, but Chad has made us more of a hot commodity.”

Because they write, produce, direct and star in their own films, they are poised to become part of a new class of Web-based performers and producers who can shuttle between conventional media, like television and films, and online outlets like YouTube.

“They’re an original comedic voice coming off the Web, and everybody’s interested in that,” said their agent, Dan Shear of the William Morris talent agency, which has represented them for about two years.

Their manager, Kara Welker of the Generate agency in Los Angeles, said the pair’s YouTube success puts them at “the forefront of the whole self-distribution platform,” allowing them to choose where and how their work will appear instead of depending on film studios or television networks to distribute it.

“They’re creating stuff on their own for their own fan base,” she said. “It’s the power of the medium. They’re their own de facto studio.”

Now that they have built a loyal following, their fans will follow them to whichever medium they choose, Ms. Welker said. “Funny is funny, and once you hook into that audience, they’re there for good,” she said.

While they hope to branch out into movies and television, Mr. Sloan and Mr. Yonda said the Internet remains central to their plans. “I don’t really care what medium we work in as long as we have the creative freedom to do what we do and are able to work in an environment that supports our creativity,” Mr. Sloan said.

This year they were among the first performers recruited by YouTube’s new professional partnership program, paying content providers a portion of the site’s ad revenue. Neither Mr. Sloan nor Mr. Yonda would say what the deal is worth, but Aaron Ferstman, a YouTube spokesman, said that most performers in the program “don’t get into this to make money. They have something to share and they want to build an audience and get their material out.”

That seems to describe Mr. Sloan and Mr. Yonda. Although they have quit their old jobs to make films full time, they have no offices or production facilities of their own; they do their shooting on location, their writing in coffee shops and their film editing at home. They still perform once a week in an improvisational comedy troupe, because, as Mr. Sloan said, “improvisation is the backbone of most of our work.”

They say they have no plans to leave Madison and, thanks to the decentralized nature of the Web, Ms. Welker said there is no reason to relocate to continue their careers. “In this day and age, you don’t have to live in Hollywood any more. It’s not the 1920s,” she said.

Madison — the birthplace of the satirical newspaper The Onion — “has a kind of quirkiness about it that makes things interesting,” Mr. Yonda said, adding he and Mr. Sloan have received far more generous support than they might have in a bigger city.

For example, the Willy Street Co-Op, the setting for the Empire Market, where Chad works, rents for about $10 an hour and is open for filming whenever the crew needs the space, said Brendon Smith, the co-op’s spokesman.

Dave Cieslewicz, the mayor of Madison, opened his office to the Chad Vader crew and made a cameo appearance as Chad’s boss. Like The Onion, which has since moved to New York, the series “represents that eclectic, funky vibe we have here,” Mr. Cieslewicz said.

Mr. Sloan and Mr. Yonda said they want to continue making Chad Vader films for the foreseeable future, but as Mr. Sloan put it, “we don’t want to be known as just the Chad Vader guys.”

“My personal dream is to get to the point where we don’t have to do pitches,” Mr. Sloan said. “It’s fun to talk out your ideas sometimes, but I want to reach a level of success where people will say, ‘Listen, we know what you do and we like it, so just go ahead and do it and I’m sure it will be good.’”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/bu...ia/15chad.html





An Internet Jihad Aims at U.S. Viewers
Michael Moss and Souad Mekhennet

When Osama bin Laden issued his videotaped message to the American people last month, a young jihad enthusiast went online to help spread the word.

“America needs to listen to Shaykh Usaamah very carefully and take his message with great seriousness,” he wrote on his blog. “America is known to be a people of arrogance.”

Unlike Mr. bin Laden, the blogger was not operating from a remote location. It turns out he is a 21-year-old American named Samir Khan who produces his blog from his parents’ home in North Carolina, where he serves as a kind of Western relay station for the multimedia productions of violent Islamic groups.

In recent days, he has featured “glad tidings” from a North African militant leader whose group killed 31 Algerian troops. He posted a scholarly treatise arguing for violent jihad, translated into English. He listed hundreds of links to secret sites from which his readers could obtain the latest blood-drenched insurgent videos from Iraq.

His neatly organized site also includes a file called “United States of Losers,” which showcased a recent news broadcast about a firefight in Afghanistan with this added commentary from Mr. Khan: “You can even see an American soldier hiding during the ambush like a baby!! AllahuAkbar! AllahuAkbar!”

Mr. Khan, who was born in Saudi Arabia and grew up in Queens, is an unlikely foot soldier in what Al Qaeda calls the “Islamic jihadi media.” He has grown up in middle-class America and wrestles with his worried parents about his religious fervor. Yet he is stubborn. “I will do my best to speak the truth, and even if it annoys the disbelievers, the truth must be preached,” Mr. Khan said in an interview.

While there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Khan is operating in concert with militant leaders, or breaking any laws, he is part of a growing constellation of apparently independent media operators who are broadcasting the message of Al Qaeda and other groups, a message that is increasingly devised, translated and aimed for a Western audience.

Terrorism experts at West Point say there are as many as 100 English language sites offering militant Islamic views, with Mr. Khan’s — which claims 500 regular readers — among the more active. While their reach is difficult to assess, it is clear from a review of extremist material and interviews that militants are seeking to appeal to young American and European Muslims by playing on their anger over the war in Iraq and the image of Islam under attack.

Tedious Arabic screeds are reworked into flashy English productions. Recruitment tracts are issued in multiple languages, like a 39-page, electronic, English version of a booklet urging women to join the fight against the West.

There are even online novellas like “Rakan bin Williams,” about a band of Christian European converts who embraced Al Qaeda and “promised God that they will carry the flag of their distant brothers and seek vengeance on the evil doers.”

Militant Islamists are turning grainy car-bombing tapes into slick hip-hop videos and montage movies, all readily available on Western sites like YouTube, the online video smorgasbord.

“It is as if you would watch a Hollywood movie,” said Abu Saleh, a 21-year-old German devotee of Al Qaeda videos who visits Internet cafes in Berlin twice a week to get the latest releases. “The Internet has totally changed my view on things.”

An Internet Strategy

Al Qaeda and its followers have used the Internet to communicate and rally support for years, but in the past several months the Western tilt of the message and the sophistication of the media have accelerated. So has the output. Since the beginning of the year, Al Qaeda’s media operation, Al Sahab, has issued new videotapes as often as every three days. Even more come from Iraq, where insurgents are pumping them out daily.

That production line is the legacy of one man: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia who was killed in June 2006 by American bombs.

Mr. Zarqawi learned the power of the Internet in prison, according to a former associate who was imprisoned with him in Jordan a decade ago. Mr. Zarqawi’s jailhouse group of 32 Islamists sought to recruit other prisoners by handwriting a newsletter, Al Tawheed, when it discovered a larger audience.

“We sent them outside, to brothers in Europe and England,” who posted the newsletters on militant Web sites, the associate said, asking not be identified because he said he is involved with Islamist activities.

In Iraq, Mr. Zarqawi embraced the video camera as a weapon of war. “He made the decision that every group should have a video camera with them, and every operation should be taped,” said a Palestinian militant who went to Iraq in 2005 to teach foreign fighters from Morocco and parts of Europe how to build bombs and stage roadside attacks.

Two Lebanese intelligence officials confirmed that the Palestinian, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Omar, had worked with Mr. Zarqawi in Iraq, and he played a video of foreign fighters in Iraq for reporters of The New York Times.

Abu Omar, 37, a muscular man who carried a Glock 21 pistol tucked into the belt of his camouflage pants during an interview at his home in Lebanon, said Mr. Zarqawi also had him tape his bombmaking classes so his expertise would not be lost if he were killed.

“We had two cameramen, people who learned how to do this before they came to Iraq,” Abu Omar said. “And after filming, we had different houses in the area where we made the videos.”

Dahia al-Maqdassi, 26, a Palestinian who said he produced insurgent videos in Iraq two years ago, said, “In every city in Iraq they had a little office where someone did film operations.” He described his “media section” as a house near Falluja where 6 to 10 people worked. “We finished the film and then sent it to jihadi Web sites,” Mr. Maqdassi said.

Propaganda Rap Video

One of the most influential sites is Tajdeed, which is based in London and run by Dr. Muhammad Massari, a Saudi physicist and dissident. Over lunch at a McDonald’s near his home, Dr. Massari said Mr. Zarqawi’s insurgent videos from Iraq inspired local productions like “Dirty Kuffar,” the Arabic word for nonbeliever. The 2004 rap music video mixed images of Western leaders with others purporting to show American troops cheer as they shot injured Iraqi civilians.

Dr. Massari, who helped promote the video, said similar crossover productions soon followed and made their way to his Web site.

“I never touch the videos that are on my forums,” said Dr. Massari, who wears a long white Arabic robe. “Someone with Al Qaeda uploads them, probably at Internet cafes, to password-protected sites. Then they call a friend, say, in Australia or Brasília, and say, ‘Hi Johnny, your mom is traveling today.’ That is the code to download the video. It goes up and down like that a few times, with no trace, until someone posts a link on my site.”

Last spring, Al Qaeda made what analysts say was a bold attempt to tap potential supporters in the United States. In a videotaped interview, Ayman al-Zawahri, a bin Laden lieutenant, praised Malcolm X and urged American blacks and other minorities to see that “we are waging jihad to lift oppression from all of mankind.”

The tape quickly found an audience. Mr. Zawahri “cares about black people,” wrote a blogger with Vibe, the American hip-hop and urban culture magazine, which claims 1.6 million visits a month. “At least, I think that’s why he’s quoting Malcolm X in his latest mix tape, which dropped last weekend.”

Umar Lee, a 32-year-old Muslim convert from St. Louis, offered a stinging critique of Mr. Zawahri on his blog for Muslim Americans, criticizing “the second-class status many blacks live in right in the Arab World.” Soon, Mr. Lee’s blog churned with commentary on the parallels between Arab and black American radicals.

A four-minute version of the hourlong Qaeda video, entitled “To Black Americans,” has logged more than 1,800 views on YouTube in the four months since it was posted.

Among those who posted a link to the YouTube version was Mr. Khan, the North Carolina blogger who said he was struck by the simplicity in the messages of both Al Qaeda and Malcolm X. “They are geniuses for having the ability to mold their ideology into simple yet influential messages that can reach the grass-roots level,” he said.

Mr. Khan produces his blog anonymously, but was identified by The Times through the e-mail account he used in previous online discussions. (Pictures he had posted online helped The Times distinguish him from another, unrelated North Carolina resident, about 10 years older, who has the same name.)

In an interview at a local mosque, where he sat on a prayer rug wearing a traditional Arabic robe, Mr. Khan traced his increasing militancy.

His blog has attracted enough notoriety that vigilante groups opposed to jihadi sites have gotten him shut down a few times in recent months. He said he was somewhat surprised he had not been confronted by government authorities, although, he said, “I’ve never told anybody to build bombs.”

His early postings, beginning in 2003, promoted strengthening Islam in North America through nonviolent confrontations. But with the escalating war in Iraq, bloodshed became a recurrent theme.

He described his favorite video from Iraq: a fiery suicide-bomber attack on an American outpost.

“It was something that brought great happiness to me,” he said. “Because this is something America would never want to admit, that they are being crushed.”

Asked how he felt living among people who had sent soldiers to Iraq, Mr. Khan said: “Whatever happens to their sons and daughters is none of my concern. They are people of hellfire and I have no concern for them.”

A Teenage Transformation

Born in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, Mr. Khan was 7 when his family moved to New York City and settled into the Queens neighborhood of Maspeth.

He mirrored his teenage peers, from their slang to their baggy pants, until August 2001 when, at age 15, he said, he attended a weeklong summer camp at a mosque in Queens, which was sponsored by a fundamentalist but nonviolent group now known as the Islamic Organization of North America (IONA).

“They were teaching things about religion and brotherhood that captivated me,” Mr. Khan said. He said he went back to school knowing “what I wanted to do with my life: be a firm Muslim, a strong Muslim, a practicing Muslim.”

He prayed more regularly. He dressed more modestly. He stopped listening to music except for Soldiers of Allah, a Los Angeles hip-hop group, now defunct, whose tunes like “Bring Islam Back” continue to have worldwide appeal among militant youths.

He also befriended members of the Islamic Thinkers Society, a tiny group that promotes radical, nonviolent Islam by leafleting in Times Square and Jackson Heights, Queens.

After moving with his family to North Carolina in 2004, Mr. Khan said, he attended a community college for three years and earned money selling various products, including kitchen knives.

But he began spending chunks of his days on the blog he created in late 2005, “Inshallahshaheed,” which translates as “a martyr soon if God wills.” The Internet traffic counter Alexa.com, which rarely is able to measure the popularity of blogs because they do not have enough readers, ranked his among the top one percent of one hundred million Internet sites in the world.

If Mr. Khan’s extreme rhetoric has won him a wider audience, it has caused him problems at home. Last year, his father tried to pull him back to the family’s more moderate views by asking an imam to intervene.

“I tried to bring arguments from the Koran and scholars, and said, ‘Whatever you are thinking it is not true,’” said Mustapha Elturk, a family friend and the leader of IONA, the Islamic organization that first inspired Mr. Khan. But Mr. Khan did not budge, he said.

Mr. Khan said he separated from IONA over one matter: the organization would not support violent jihad without the endorsement of a Muslim nation’s leader, which Mr. Khan argues is unnecessary.

Mr. Elturk said, “His father and family are really scared that he might do something.”

Attempts to Shut Down Blog

From time to time, Mr. Khan said, his father also cut off his Internet access and, to placate him, Mr. Khan recently added a disclaimer to his blog disavowing responsibility for the views expressed on the site.

He has also been fending off citizen watchdogs who are working to knock sites likes his off the Internet. Twice in September his blog went dark when his service provider shut him down, citing complaints about the nature of his postings.

Mr. Khan has now moved his blog to a site called Muslimpad, whose American operators recently moved from Texas to Amman, Jordan. Their larger forum, Islamic Network, is the host of discussions among English-speaking Muslims. One of their former employees, Daniel Maldonado, was convicted this year in federal court of associating with terrorists at their training camps in Somalia.

Mr. Khan said that he had dreams about meeting Mr. bin Laden and that he would not rule out picking up a weapon himself one day. In a recent essay, he argued that jihad was mandatory for all Muslims, and he cited three ways to fulfill this obligation: join fighters in Iraq, Afghanistan or Algeria; send them money; or promote militant videos as part of the jihad media.

For now, he said, he is fulfilling his obligations by helping other Muslims understand their religion. Recently he posted a video of a news report from Somalia showing a grenade-wielding American who had joined the Islamists.

“He is an example of a Muslim who follows the Religion of Islaam,” Mr. Khan wrote.

Michael Moss reported from Jordan, Lebanon, Germany, London and North Carolina; and Souad Mekhennet from Jordan, Lebanon and Germany. Margot Williams and Hoda Osman contributed from New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/us/15net.html?hp





$2.2 Million Grant Calls for Designing Computer Software to Predict the Unpredictable

The computer’s ability to sift through mountains of data and its dispassionate analytical techniques are invaluable in managing volatile political situations.
Ed Stiles

University of Arizona Professor Jerzy Rozenblit has received a $2.2 million grant to design computer software that will analyze volatile political and military situations.

The software will predict the actions of paramilitary groups, ethnic factions, terrorists and criminal groups, while aiding commanders in devising strategies for stabilizing areas before, during and after conflicts.

It also will have many civilian applications in finance, law enforcement, epidemiology and the aftermath of natural disasters, such as hurricane Katrina.

The Asymmetric Threat Response and Analysis Project, known as ATRAP, is a massively complex set of computer algorithms (mathematical procedures) that sift through millions of pieces of data, considering many factors including social, political, cultural, military and media influences, said Rozenblit, who holds the Raymond J. Oglethorpe Endowed Chair in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the UA.

The software can handle data loads that would overwhelm human analysts, while dispassionately exploring actions and behaviors based solely on the data, sidestepping human cultural biases that might prematurely rule out unorthodox or seemingly bizarre courses of action.

Actions Sometimes Defy Logic
Since the end of the Cold War, our opponents have behaved in ways that defy what we would consider normal logic, pursuing actions that we find almost inconceivable, said Rozenblit, who heads the Electrical and Computer Engineering department at UA. Predicting these asymmetric behaviors is difficult and further complicated by the massive amounts of intelligence data available.

ATRAP will use sophisticated computational methods based on game theory, co-evolution and genetic development models to find solutions that make sense in illogical times.

Genetic algorithms analyze situations in an evolutionary context, where actions with the highest “fitness factor” (chance of achieving the greatest success) gravitate toward one another, produce offspring and eventually rise to the top.

Co-evolutionary algorithms analyze how the actions of one group affect the other groups and how those other groups adapt, or co-evolve, in response to the changing situation. For instance, if one group becomes more influential in an area where ethnic factions are vying for supremacy, the other groups will respond in ways that will try to make that first faction less influential, Rozenblit said.

The algorithms are designed to recognize links and patterns within the data and to find connections, much as an investigative reporter might do when examining financial records - but on a vastly more complex and detailed scale.

Predicting the Unpredictable
“The computer can look at very, very complex data sets that as an individual or even as a group of individuals, you could never analyze,” said Brian Ten Eyck, ATRAP project manager and associate director for research support in ECE. “The computer can bring the patterns and connections to the surface and can predict scenarios that might never occur to human analysts.”

Deep Blue, the first computer program to beat a world chess champion, is an example of how ATRAP can respond to changing factors, Ten Eyck explained. “Every time its opponent made a move, Deep Blue recalculated all the possibilities and likely courses of action, eventually settling on the fittest move that would achieve its goal of winning the game.”

However, chess is not an exact analogy because only two players are involved and the end goal is for one player to win.

In unstable areas, winning often means establishing an environment in which the factions co-exist in a win-win situation or at least in an equilibrium in which there are no rewards, and some penalties, for disturbing the status quo, Rozenblit said.

“Deep Blue is a good analogy because it illustrates the complexity of the problems, but in chess you have a finite court and a well-defined set of operations,” Rozenblit added. “Therefore, a move constitutes a valid move.

But what we’re dealing with now is a world with no rules, with infinite possibilities and moves that defy logic, such as total disregard for the basic instinct of self preservation.”

Quick Response is Vital
Ultimately, the software program will be designed to display data in graphical, 3-D and other forms that can be quickly grasped, allowing decision makers to rapidly respond to changing situations, Rozenblit said.

In managing conflicts such as those that occurred in Kosovo or Somalia in the 1990s, commanders will need to respond quickly. “In those situations, we don’t have two months to figure things out,” Rozenblit said. “So the second part of our project involves harnessing massively parallel computing architectures to do computations very rapidly.”

Parallel computing, which relies on several large computers working on portions of a problem simultaneously, will allow commanders to rapidly analyze millions of data points from intelligence reports.

Students and Local Contractors Benefit
While the software ultimately could save millions of lives, it’s immediately benefiting local companies and students in the short term.

Rozenblit plans to outsource some parts of the project to local contractors because the UA part of the research doesn’t involve working with classified data. “There’s nothing about our part of the project that’s classified,” Rozenblit said. “We’re an open, academic institution and it’s difficult for us to be involved in classified work. So we need contractors to handle the classified parts of the project.”

ATRAP research also is giving students valuable skills. “There is a dire need for engineers with expertise in this area and our graduate students and undergraduates are in great demand,” Rozenblit said. One student who recently graduated with a bachelor’s degree after doing research related to ATRAP was hired at an annual starting salary of $90,000.

The ATRAP software is being developed in collaboration with the Army Battle Command Battle Laboratory at Ft. Huachuca, Ariz.

While ATRAP can also address many complex, non-military situations that require analysis of complex data and balancing the desires of competing factions, its military application is equally concerned with conflict avoidance.

“The goal is to handle conflict areas in a manner that leads to stability and support so war is not necessary,” Rozenblit said. “That’s the philosophy behind much of the ATRAP effort.”
http://uanews.org/node/16426





Death Cab For Cutie Guitarist Baffled By Homeland Security's Seizure Of His Album

Government snatched up master hard drive containing song files for Chris Walla's solo LP, which, coincidentally, is politically charged.
James Montgomery

When Death Cab for Cutie guitarist/producer Chris Walla woke up on Monday, his "To Do" list probably read something like this:

1. Call MTV News to discuss upcoming, long-delayed solo record.
2. Call U.S. Department of Homeland Security to discuss seizure of hard drive containing said long-delayed solo record.
3. Head into town for weekly tuque fitting.

Yes, it seems that recently, Walla's solo record (which has been scheduled to come out at various points over the past, well, four years) took another step toward oblivion when the master hard drive — containing all song files — was confiscated by Homeland Security at the Canadian border, for reasons not abundantly clear, and sent to the department's computer-forensics division for further inspection.

If it sounds like a huge joke, Walla ensures you it isn't.

"It's a true story. Barsuk [Records, which is putting out the record] had hired a courier — who does international stuff all the time and who they had used before — to bring [the album] back from Canada, where I was working on it. And he got to the border and he had all his paperwork and it was all cool, only they turned him away, and they confiscated the drive and gave it to the computer-forensics division of our Homeland Security-type people," sighed Walla, who has produced nearly all Death Cab's output, as well as records by the Decemberists, Hot Hot Heat, Nada Surf, Tegan and Sara and others. "And now I couldn't even venture a guess as to where it is, or what it's doing there. I mean, I can't just call their customer-service center and ask about my drive. There's nothing I can do. I don't know if we can hire an attorney ... is there a black-hole attorney? You can't take a black hole to court."

And though his song files might have disappeared into a web of government bureaucracy, Walla does still have the tapes containing all his songs, which he's now trying to master and mix on his own in order to have the record out — Lord willin' — in January.

"Luckily, the tapes are Plan B, so while I'm bummed about the whole thing, it could be a whole lot worse," he laughed. "I still get to play music. I mean, I'm not at Guantánamo or anything like that. I mean, my drive might be. They could be water-boarding my drive for all I know."

And though Walla's laughing when he mentions Guantánamo, he's not joking when he adds that his record — which he's calling Field Manual — is "very political," packed with songs about issues both foreign ("The Score" tackles the war in Iraq) and domestic ("Everyone Needs a Home" deals with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; "Sing Again" is about so-called "morning after" pills and whether they're a form of contraception or abortion). Easy listening, this is not.

"I'm calling it Field Manual because myself and the guy who designed the packaging were looking through all these Army field guides from World War II. And there was one that he found that was really terrifying, actually," Walla explained. "It was basically a manual issued by the Army in the late '30s, early '40s, about how to build what we now call an [improvised explosive device] in Iraq or Afghanistan. Like how to hide a bomb in a bed or in a tube of toothpaste. Just terrible stuff, and I started having this feeling of, like, 'Well, we need a new field manual.'

"And while it really is a political record, it's also intensely personal, and it's not like, political in a way where I hope to change anyone's mind, because I've been doing my political-rock homework for a few years now, trying to decode what works and what doesn't," he continued. "Basically, it was my hope that I would be able to write a bunch of songs about the sh-- that I think about pretty much every day. But there aren't any character assassinations or indictments on the record. It's tricky to write a political record. It was tough to get to a place where I felt comfortable with the words coming out of my mouth."

And getting to that place has taken awhile. Walla said that though he's been writing songs for years, it took him a long time to figure out just what he was trying to say. As it turns out, he had plenty to say, and Field Manual is the sound of him coming to that realization (he credits the directness of Ted Leo, Against Me! and the Thermals' Hutch Harris as "touchstones" for that discovery). And while he hustles to finish the record — and continue work on Death Cab for Cutie's new record, which he said is "coming along super heavy ... we've got six songs done. They're really bloody" — he's finally prepared to stand on his own, come hell or high water. Or looming, shadow-like government organizations.

"This is a solo record, which is a little bit scary, because there's a feeling of 'Oh, you're officially making a statement,' and you're either the fist-waving left or the flag-waving right, and there's no in between," he laughed. "But I made this record because it felt irresponsible for me to have a platform for what I'm thinking and not use it. And not just to do political songs. If all I wanted to do was cover Air Supply songs, I could've done that too."
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/157...or_cutie.jhtml





Hitachi: Hard Drives Are Getting Better
May Wong

Multimedia stockpilers need not worry about laptops, digital video recorders or portable music players hitting a storage capacity ceiling any time soon.

Hitachi Ltd. says its researchers have successfully shrunken a key component in hard drives to a nanoscale that will pave the way for quadrupling today's storage limits to 4 terabytes for desktop computers and 1 terabyte on laptops in 2011.

A terabyte can hold the text of roughly 1 million books, 250 hours of high-definition video, or a quarter million songs.

"It means the industry is making good progress to advance the capacity of disk drives and move to smaller form factors," said John Rydning, an analyst at market research firm IDC.

The feat, which Hitachi plans to present Monday at the Perpendicular Magnetic Recording Conference in Tokyo, revisits a technology known as giant magnetoresistance, or GMR, that was the basis of the work of two European scientists who won the Nobel Prize in physics last week.

A hard drive has a metal disk inside that spins as an arm with an electromagnetic head at its tip hovers over it. The head reads bits of data by registering the magnetic bearing of the particles on the disk.

Capacities of hard drives have grown as researchers have crammed more bits of data closer together while also making the heads sensitive enough to read the data. The industry looks to new technologies every time physical limitations kick in, and GMR — which allows for extremely thin layers of alternating metals to detect weak changes in magnetism — was one of the breakthroughs that led to the fastest growth rate in the early 2000s, allowing hard drives to double in capacity every year.

But GMR-based heads maxed out, and the industry replaced the technology in recent years with an entirely different kind of head. Yet researchers are predicting that technology will soon run into capacity problems, and now GMR is making a comeback as the next-generation successor.

"We changed the direction of the current and adjusted the materials to get good properties," said John Best, chief technologist for Hitachi's data-storage unit.

By doing so, Hitachi said it has created the world's smallest disk drive heads in the 30-nanometer to 50-nanometer range, or about 2,000 times smaller than the width of an average human hair.

Other hard drive companies are working on similar technology as well, Rydning said. He predicted the entire disk drive industry will begin migrating to this new type of GMR-based technology in 2009.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...9pASAD8S9EERO2





Why Big Hard Drives Won't Just Be for Big Nerds: Buzzword

Sure, they’re taking place on a subatomic level that just won the Nobel Prize for physics. But overlooked innovations in hard-drive capacity, as PM’s senior tech editor sermonizes in his trend column, aren’t just letting you record TV shows and save massive amounts of music. They’re pushing us into a new era of computing.
Glenn Derene

Reports of the Nobel Prize in physics being awarded for Giant Magnetoresistance dumbed down the science to the foundations of the iPod. But the confusing mechanics of the hard drive belies its undeniable usefulness in the world of electronics.

For the record, Giant Magnetoresistance (GMR) is not a band of 15-ft.-tall mutants who have joined together to save the world from a diabolical villain with the power to influence metal. But you could be forgiven for thinking so, since the term is about as arcane as any that the dual disciplines of physics and computer science have produced. Despite its gargantuan-sounding proportions, the GMR principle is all about the infinitesimally small bits of information squeezed onto hard drives—and how to read them.

Most people in the geekosphere are familiar with Moore’s Law, which observes that the number of transistors on a CPU will double every two years, but not everyone has heard of the corresponding law in the field of data storage. Named Kryder’s Law, after Carnegie Mellon professor Mark Kryder, it predicts regular exponential growth in hard-drive capacity (click here for my Q&A with Kryder). Since the introduction of the hard drive in 1956, when the 1-ton IBM RAMAC (Random Access Method of Accounting and Control) included 5MB of storage, drives have experienced a 50-million-fold increase in capacity. In the early 90s, desktop drives started surging into the 1GB range, and now drives max out at around 1TB (terabyte). On Monday, Hitachi Global Storage Technologies (GST) announced that it expects to be shipping 4TB desktop and 1TB laptop drives by 2011. Meeting that news was a chorus of yawns all around from the techno-bloggers ("Hitachi announced 4TB HDDs by 2011. So?" read the headline on Ubergizmo), who instantly went back to obsessing about iPhone hacks and Japanese robots.

Unfair, I say! Hard drives are the most underappreciated technology in the world of computing. It takes some pretty sophisticated tricks at the microscopic—and even the subatomic—level to pack all those bits onto the spinning platters that hold everything from our music collections to pictures to PowerPoint presentations. Every time it seems that those disks are carrying as much information as is allowed by the laws of physics, engineers find a fascinating new method to squeeze out more capacity. In 2005, when the horizontally aligned bits on high-capacity drives were becoming crowded, Toshiba (followed by pretty much every drive manufacturer) upended the bits to a perpendicular orientation to the surface of the platter, aligning them like standing dominoes to squeeze in more per square inch.

Hitachi’s announcement about drive heads was a good deal more esoteric than that: Hard-drive engineers have essentially found a way to redesign and shrink the read/write head (the official name for the technology is "Current-Perpendicular-to-the-Plane Giant Magnetoresistive," or CPP-GMR, drive heads) to allow for smaller perpendicular bits. And the GMR effect is not new. In fact, this year’s Nobel Prize for physics went to France’s Albert Fert and Germany’s Peter Grunberg, whose research into GMR in the late 1980s brought about the first real-world application of nanotechnology.

In short, GMR is a quantum-level effect that allows hard-drive manufacturers to use magnetic fields to exploit the subatomic spin of particles. The discovery of GMR launched an entirely new field of applied physics known as spin-based electronics, or "spintronics."

In January, Hitachi announced it would build the first consumer terabyte hard drive, and now the company is ready to quadruple that storage capacity by 2011.

Given the complexity and difficulty of the subject, I imagine the reason Hitachi GST is making announcements about technologies two to four years down the pipeline is to piggyback on the Nobel and take advantage of the only public attention that GMR is ever likely to get.

But the confusing mechanics of the hard drive belies its undeniable usefulness in the world of electronics. Over the past few years, CPUs from Intel and AMD have rolled into the world of gigahertz calculations and split into multiple cores. Consequently, computer users are now buying PCs with awesome processing power that doesn’t always translate into improved real-world performance in tasks such as surfing the Internet, looking at pictures and playing music and movies. But the advent of 100-plus-gigabyte computers has had a huge effect on the way we use our machines, moving them into the realm of entertainment devices, swallowing huge quantities of music, movies and family videos and photos.

Whenever people come to me looking for guidance on purchasing a new computer, my advice is this: Buy as much processor as you think you need, but be sure to buy more hard drive than you’d ever imagine. That’s because once you get into consuming and producing music and video, you’ll start to see those gigabytes fill up awfully quick. Plus, it doesn’t cost much to overestimate—going from a 320GB drive to a 500GB drive on a standard Dell desktop computer only adds about $80. And modern operating systems and software are veritable hard-drive hogs—a Microsoft Windows Vista install requires 15GB of free disk space.

Still, despite their massive capacities and apparently unlimited room for improvement, there is reason to question the future relevance of our spinning platter workhorses in home PCs. On the bottom end, flash-based solid-state disks (SSDs) are chasing HDDs up the capacity ladder—current SSDs have capacities of up to 128GB. On the top end, online storage providers will start to seem like reasonable alternatives as offerings approach infinite capacity and super-high-bandwidth fiberoptic connections to the home become the norm. Meanwhile, if our Breakthrough Award-winning $99 Zonbu laptop is any indication, we may be on the verge of a new era of slim-client computing.

Nevertheless, hard-disk drives have maintained their primacy in the PC thus far because they have routinely kept pace with computer users’ needs and they are relatively cheap solutions for storing tons of data. Current 1TB drives sell for less than $350 and can hold up to 200 DVD-quality movies (far more if you compress them). And as we step gingerly into the world of downloading hi-def, that sort of localized capacity will become even more important.

So even though the rest of the world may not get too excited about the soldierly progress of the hard-disk drive, I’m willing to give it a column’s-worth of respect. Current-Perpendicular-to-the-Plane Giant Magnetoresistance may seem like a hopelessly impenetrable piece of computer science (except to the people who hand out Nobel Prizes), but it’s advances like this that are enabling our DVRs to record Heroes for us while we’re out with friends, and that allow a computer to act as the repository for a collection of music and movies. Because there’s no such thing as too much room for your stuff.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...html?series=21





6 Big Questions for the King of Data Storage

Mark Kryder, a professor at Carnegie Mellon’s college of Electrical and Computer Engineering, is a legend in the world of computer capacity (click here for more on that underappreciated universe). He's most famous for his prediction about the exponential growth of hard drives, which is an analog to Intel co-founder Gordon Moore’s famous law about computer processors. We contacted Kryder at the Perpendicular Magnetic Recording Conference in Tokyo to ask him a few questions about the future of the hard drive. —Glenn Derene

About how much does hard-drive capacity increase year to year?
The areal density on hard drives and therefore the capacity is currently increasing at about 40 percent per year, and I believe this will continue for the foreseeable future.

What do we need these big hard drives for now?
There is demand for higher capacity in almost all segments of the disk-drive business. Personal video recorders and drives for servers require the highest capacities. As we are just beginning the transition to HDTV, these demands are about to increase dramatically. Recent market studies by IDC have indicated that the supply of disk-drive capacity is lagging demand.

What do you see as the next great hard-drive hog?
HDTV.

In the laptop market, there seems to be an encroachment of flash memory SSDs into the hard-disk drive space. Will flash capacities eventually catch or eclipse HDDs?
It is a misstatement to say flash is encroaching upon hard drives. Until the iPod put hard drives in digital audio players, that market was totally dominated by flash.

However, it also wasn’t a very exciting business. When Apple put hard drives into the iPod, they suddenly provided enough capacity to make digital audio players an exciting market. Now, as Flash has increased its capacity and lowered its cost, it has begun to reclaim some of the territory it lost, but not at the expense of hard drives.

On the contrary, all the flash applications require backup and servers to send audio songs, pictures or whatever over the Internet. And all those applications are fulfilled by hard drives, because they offer much higher capacities and much lower cost per gigabyte. The fact that hard drives are cheap to make means that there always has been a capacity point below which various solid-state memories could offer a lower-cost device. Since storage density for both hard drives and solid state memory devices always increases, that capacity point also moves upward. It should also be pointed out that flash and HDDs are actually complementary. Seagate, for instance, has recently announced its hybrid hard-drive product in which a flash cache provides faster read-access time and lower power operation.

What about online storage? As ISPs start to offer fiber to the home with immense bandwidth, do you anticipate that people will simply migrate to remote storage systems such as Xdrive or box.net?
There is no question that networking is going to improve, and in the future, we will all have servers in our home for our personal digital information. But I believe we will always want our own copy of our personal information. If it only costs you $100 to store all your own personal information so you can always have it accessible and take it with you on a vacation, wouldn’t you do it?

Is Hitachi’s CPP-GMR going to be the only technology pushing capacities to the 4TB mark? What else is under development?
We have all been predicting that perpendicular recording would reach roughly 1 terabit per square inch (which is the areal density that will provide 4 terabytes in a single drive) around 2011. The challenge is to get beyond 1 Tbit per square inch.

The CPP-GMR head has been in research and development in most companies for well over a decade, and it has been recognized for many years that CPP-GMR will be necessary to go beyond a certain areal density around 1 Tbit per square inch. In my view, this announcement is thus much more important for going to 10 Tbits per square inch than to 1 Tbit per square inch, because CPP-GMR heads scale much better than tunneling magnetoresistive heads, which are in current products.

However, to get to 10 Tbits per square inch will require a drastic change in recording technology. Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording and Bit-Patterned Media are technologies that are under development to make that happen. I am the technical director of the Extremely High Density Recording program of the Information Storage Industry Consortium, which Hitachi, Seagate, Western Digital and Samsung all currently support, and we are currently working on this 10-terabits-per-square-inch goal, which would enable a 40-terabyte hard drive.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4226863.html





U.S. Companies Fighting Fewer Legal Battles: Survey
Martha Graybow

U.S. companies are getting hit with fewer new lawsuits and initiating less litigation, according to a survey released on Monday.

The poll of in-house law departments suggests corporate litigation may have slowed, although big companies still find themselves juggling plenty of court cases, particularly patent and product liability disputes.

The fourth annual survey of in-house counsel at 250 major U.S. companies, was commissioned by law firm Fulbright & Jaworski LLP.

The survey found 17 percent of respondents said their companies have not had to defend against any new lawsuits this year -- such as those filed by employees, consumers, shareholders, competitors or enforcement agencies -- up from 11 percent a year earlier that did not face a single new suit.

Sixty-five percent of respondents said their company had initiated at least one lawsuit in the past year, down from more than 70 percent a year ago and 88 percent in 2004.

Twenty-two percent said they expect to see the number of legal disputes their companies face increase over the next 12 months, compared with 33 percent last year, the survey found.

The data "point to a pronounced drop in new case filings -- both against, and by American companies, a reversal of the upward trajectory in the number of new lawsuits from our previous three surveys," said Stephen Dillard, chair of Fulbright's global litigation practice.

Sixty-four percent of the companies in the survey were publicly held.

Internal investigations into matters such as stock options award practices are still preoccupying many companies -- though not as much as last year, the poll found.

Fifty-four percent of respondents said their companies have launched an internal probe during the year requiring help from outside lawyers, down from a year earlier, when 63 percent of in-house counsel reported opening such an investigation.

Dillard said stable economic conditions in the first half of 2007 likely reduced the number of disputes involving public companies, including securities class actions and other types of investor lawsuits.

Other recent studies also suggest the number of new securities class-action filings is on the decline. Academic experts say there is no clear reason for the trend.

Not all litigation is declining. Patent cases and product liability lawsuits, for example, are a growing issue, particularly at large companies, the survey found.

For U.S. companies with $1 billion or more in annual revenue, patent and intellectual property disputes were cited as the top near-term litigation concern.

The survey also found that a third of corporate law departments count more than 25 lawsuits facing their companies at any one time, with 18 percent dealing with at least 100 simultaneous legal actions in U.S. courts.

(Reporting by Martha Graybow)
http://www.reuters.com/article/busin...20630120071015





How to Get Junior to Eat His Veggies Turns Out to Be (Too) Common Knowledge
Motoko Rich

Jessica Seinfeld, the comedian Jerry Seinfeld’s wife, has a hot best seller with “Deceptively Delicious,” a cookbook for parents of picky eaters. Ms. Seinfeld’s celebrity and an appearance on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” have helped propel the book to the No. 1 spot on the hardcover Advice, How-To and Miscellaneous list in The New York Times, where it will make its debut a week from Sunday.

But a number of readers posting on Amazon.com and Oprah.com and other Web sites have pointed out some similarities between Ms. Seinfeld’s book, which was published this month by Collins, an imprint of HarperCollins, and another cookbook published by Running Press, an imprint of the Perseus Books Group, in April.

That book, “The Sneaky Chef” by Missy Chase Lapine, who is not a celebrity, also suggests that parents purée healthy foods like spinach and sweet potatoes and hide them in childhood favorites like macaroni and cheese or brownies. A week from Sunday it will be No. 9 on the paperback Advice, How-To and Miscellaneous list.

It turns out that Ms. Lapine, a former publisher of Eating Well magazine, had submitted her 139-page proposal for “The Sneaky Chef,” complete with 42 recipes, to HarperCollins twice — once in February 2006 without an agent and again in May last year, the second time represented by an agent. Both times she was rejected. She landed a deal with Running Press in June 2006, the same month that Collins won an auction to publish Ms. Seinfeld’s book.

“Honestly I can’t speculate, and I’m not going to accuse anyone of anything,” Ms. Lapine said. “I suppose it’s possible it’s a coincidence.”

In a telephone interview, Ms. Seinfeld said she had come up with the idea more than two years ago in her kitchen while puréeing butternut squash for her youngest son and cooking macaroni and cheese for her husband and two oldest children. “I’ve been obsessed with this for the past two years,” said Ms. Seinfeld, who worked with a chef and a nutritionist on the book. “I don’t need to copy someone’s idea. I’ve got enough going on in my life.”

Mr. Seinfeld, who joined his wife on the phone, said, “Let’s be realistic — my wife isn’t in this for the money or the publicity.” He added, “I really don’t think we have another Watergate here.”

The basic concepts for several of Ms. Lapine’s recipes — spinach in brownies, avocado in chocolate pudding and sweet potato in grilled cheese sandwiches — also appear in recipes offered by Ms. Seinfeld.

Ms. Lapine, a mother of two daughters who lives in Irvington, N.Y., said that when she compared her book with Ms. Seinfeld’s, she was “uncomfortable” seeing that “those unusual combinations that I thought would brand me as a lunatic showed up here, too.”

Ms. Seinfeld said she had not looked at “The Sneaky Chef,” but noted that any similarities were likely to have stemmed from the use of commonly accepted children’s favorites.

Of course, parents have been swapping tips for how to hide zucchini in muffins for generations, and other books, like “The Art of Hiding Vegetables,” have touched on the subject.

Steve Ross, president and publisher of Collins, said the company had rejected Ms. Lapine’s book because it was too similar to another title on its list. He said the publisher agreed to meet with Ms. Seinfeld when she submitted a similar proposal two weeks later because of her name and her agent: Jennifer Rudolph Walsh of William Morris.

Ms. Walsh described Ms. Seinfeld as “smart, stunning, and infinitely promotable” in a cover letter. Ms. Seinfeld visited the HarperCollins offices and cooked three dishes, impressing editors.

Ms. Lapine’s publisher contacted HarperCollins this summer after an early brochure for “Deceptively Delicious” showed an illustration of a woman holding carrots behind her back, similar to a drawing on the cover of “The Sneaky Chef.” Collins changed its plans for the cover, although, Mr. Ross said, that could have been because “it just looked too awkward to have her holding a plate of brownies with one hand and carrots” in the other.

David Steinberger, chief executive of Perseus, said no legal action was being considered at this time.

“I can’t explain a coincidence like this,” Ms. Seinfeld said, “but I applaud it and I wish there were 10 more books like mine because I’m not in this for a competition, I’m in this to help families.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/ny...9seinfeld.html





J.K. Rowling Outs Hogwarts Character
AP

Harry Potter fans, the rumors are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall.

After reading briefly from the final book, ''Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,'' she took questions from audience members.

She was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds ''true love.''

''Dumbledore is gay,'' the author responded to gasps and applause.

She then explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, whom he defeated long ago in a battle between good and bad wizards. ''Falling in love can blind us to an extent,'' Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings, adding that Dumbledore was ''horribly, terribly let down.''

Dumbledore's love, she observed, was his ''great tragedy.''

''Oh, my god,'' Rowling concluded with a laugh, ''the fan fiction.''

Potter readers on fan sites and elsewhere on the Internet have speculated on the sexuality of Dumbledore, noting that he has no close relationship with women and a mysterious, troubled past. And explicit scenes with Dumbledore already have appeared in fan fiction.

Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, ''Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,'' she spotted a reference in the script to a girl who once was of interest to Dumbledore. A note was duly passed to director David Yates, revealing the truth about her character.

Rowling, finishing a brief ''Open Book Tour'' of the United States, her first tour here since 2000, also said that she regarded her Potter books as a ''prolonged argument for tolerance'' and urged her fans to ''question authority.''

Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...OvV-AD8SCM5HO2





Celebrities Off Guard? ‘TMZ’ Is a Hit
Brian Stelter

The early success of “TMZ,” a new syndicated television show based on the popular Web site of the same name, illustrates just how valuable the celebrity news niche has become.

The show, a half-hour of celebrity scandal, had its premiere on Sept. 10. By the end of the month, it was the top-rated new show in syndication by a wide margin, delivering a 1.7 household rating, or about two million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research. Among other syndicated series with premieres this fall, “The Steve Wilkos Show” averaging half as many households, is its nearest rival.

“Entertainment Tonight,” the longtime leader among entertainment shows with a 4.8 household rating the same week, has little to worry about, at least for the time being. But “TMZ” is one of the first sites to successfully turn its Internet brand into a television series, and it has performed especially well among younger viewers.

According to Nielsen demographic data, 61 percent of “Entertainment Tonight” viewers are above age 50. In a nod to its Internet roots, “TMZ” courts a younger audience — people age 50 or older account for just 39 percent of its viewers, which also include a higher percentage of men than other entertainment shows.

“Young people love entertainment. It’s a huge area, and the traditional TV programs didn’t service them,” said Ken Werner, the president of Warner Brothers Domestic Television Distribution.

On television, “TMZ” strives to convey the same bold, irreverent tone it asserts online, relying heavily on paparazzi video of unvarnished celebrity moments. It is available in almost every television market.

The TMZ Web site served as a template and a marketing force for the television series. The site is a joint venture of AOL and the Telepictures Productions division of Warner Brothers, both of which are subsidiaries of Time Warner. Hilary Estey McLoughlin, the president of Telepictures Productions, called the site an “extremely successful and profitable partnership” and said the television show was also expected to become profitable.

According to comScore Media Metrix data, TMZ.com recorded 103 million page views and 10.5 million unique visitors in September, making it the most popular entertainment news Web site. Yahoo’s gossip site, called OMG!, ranked No. 2 in its fourth month of existence. People.com came in third among entertainment sites.

“TMZ, because of its existence on the Internet, is essentially a brand that has acquired a secondary meaning,” Mr. Werner said.

Companies trying to translate Internet successes onto television have faced formidable hurdles in the past. In 2001, Sony Pictures Television developed a pilot for “eBay TV,” based on the auction Web site, but never scheduled it for broadcast. Last December, NBC Universal Television Stations introduced the syndicated show “iVillage Live,” modeled on the Web site aimed at women, but it was placed on hiatus six months later amid sagging ratings. A new version of the show had its debut last month.

Television’s established entertainment destinations are fortifying their Web sites, trying to achieve what TMZ did in reverse: “Entertainment Tonight” introduced a new Web site last month. NBC Universal’s daily celebrity magazine, “Access Hollywood,” is supplying OMG! with content and is expected to introduce a new site in November.

CBS, which syndicates “Entertainment Tonight” and produces a celebrity site called TheShowBuzz, may also bolster its celebrity news offerings with its acquisition of the gossip news aggregator Dotspotter. The 10-month-old site, which trawls the Web for celebrity content and lets users add comments and criticism, was bought last week for $10 million. Quincy Smith, president of CBS Interactive, said the technical expertise of Dotspotter’s Web developer team would be applied across the CBS sites.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/bu...dia/15tmz.html





Networks Start to Offer TV on the Web
David Pogue

Music and TV were lazily paddling their canoes down Prosperity Creek when Music suddenly heard a deafening roar ahead. “Help! What’s happening?” cried Music — but it was too late. The canoe tumbled over the Internet Falls, knocking Music upside-down into the churning vortex.

TV, following at a short distance, was determined to avoid Music’s fate. “I shall go with the current and not fight it,” vowed TV. And with only seconds to spare, TV threw every shred of brainpower and muscle into avoiding its doom.

End of Chapter 1.

Now, nobody knows how that story will turn out. But everybody knows that fewer people are watching network TV with every passing year. This year, the networks have mounted their first counterattack. In addition to short mini-videos for the short-attention-span generation, they’re putting full-length free on-demand episodes online. ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CW are all in the game, with surprisingly pleasant results.

In general, you can catch the four or five most recent episodes of a show online, starting the morning after broadcast.

Techies, of course, have something much better. Using free BitTorrent technology, they can find and illegally download almost any episode of any recent TV show to their computers. (Just don’t get caught. Some Internet providers are starting to shut off the service of BitTorrent fans.)

You can also buy TV shows at Apple’s iTunes store, for $2 an episode without ads. But this approach, too, sticks in the craw of some networks; NBC, for example, has chafed at Apple’s terms, and its shows may disappear from iTunes in December. So what’s it like to watch TV on the networks’ Web sites?

If you have the required fast Internet connection, the picture and sound quality are excellent. It’s all on-demand, too; you can start playing the shows whenever you feel like it. (According to ABC’s research, 77 percent of online viewers are catching an episode that they missed on TV.)

There are some ads, and you can’t skip over them. Fortunately, compared with regular TV, the online ads are scarce indeed. At each break, you generally have to watch only one 30-second commercial — and there’s nothing to stop you from checking your e-mail messages or Dilbert.com while it plays.

And then there’s Joost.

Joost (“juiced,” get it?) is the latest brainchild of the two Scandinavian entrepreneurs who first rocked the record industry with Kazaa (free music for all!) and then the phone industry with Skype (free phone calls for all!). Joost gives your Mac or PC on-demand access to more than 150,000 episodes of TV shows and Web videos (free TV for all!). And last week, Joost threw open its doors; you no longer need a private invitation to download its player software from www.joost.com.

Here it is, then: your Fall 2007 Guide to Online TV, starring Joost, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox.

JOOST 1.0 BETA Joost is a great concept. The social-networking aspects are especially promising: you can type-chat with other viewers, send links to good shows, and so on.

In some shows, ads play before or during an episode (maximum length: 60 seconds); in others, small ads pop up in the corner of the screen something like those transparent network logos.

Joost’s video quality ranges from O.K. to blotchy. The software is beautiful, but its unlabeled controls are confusing. And Joost’s central organizing concept, “channels,” is also bewildering; although the shows play on demand, they’re also part of a lineup, and you’re often told that certain shows are “Coming Up”—although you can make your own channels, too.

Finally, there’s an awful lot of junk on Joost. Some of the shows are recognizable series from CBS, MTV, VH1, Paramount Pictures, CNN and Comedy Central, like “CSI” variations, “Kid Nation” and a lot of cartoons. But there’s also a lot of Web-video filler. The channels include Audi TV, Australian Food TV and the Circus Channel.

And then there are ones you’ve never heard of.

ABC ABC offers 17 of its most popular series online: “Dancing With the Stars,” “Desperate Housewives,” “Lost,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Ugly Betty” and so on. If you have a high-powered computer, you can even watch six of them in high definition, which looks sensational.

Each show has about four ad breaks, indicated by a tick mark on the show’s scroll bar. You must watch one ad before viewing any other segment of the show. Once you’ve paid those dues, you can freely jump around in the new segment, rewind and so on. Each show is sponsored by a single national advertiser, and the ads are often interactive. (ABC shows are also available at video.aol.com.) Over all, ABC really has its online act together.

CBS This network’s offerings include a generous 22 series, including “Survivor,” “Big Brother,” some episodes of “CSI,” “How I Met Your Mother” and a couple of soaps. There’s no whole-show scroll bar, so you can’t skip to the last section without slogging through the first, second and third.

CBS is also the most liberal distributor of shows on the Internet. You can find much the same stuff on iTunes, Joost, AOL and so on.

NBC An ad or two appears at the beginning of each episode, at the end and at the regular commercial breaks in the middle.

Unfortunately, the selection isn’t great. Only 13 series await, including “The Office,” “30 Rock” and “Heroes,” although NBC says that more are coming. And you can’t shrink the NBC player’s window down and park it in a corner of your screen so you can watch while you crunch numbers, as you can with its rivals.

FOX Fox’s effort is labeled “beta,” and it shows; I ran into glitches on both Mac and Windows computers. Still, everything plays fine: the most recent three episodes each of “The Simpsons,” “24” and 13 other shows are here. Fox uses the same tick-mark scroll bar as ABC. But an ad also appears before the show, and ads appear in the browser window beside the “TV screen.”

Speaking of NBC and Fox: stay tuned for Hulu.com. When it opens later this month, it will offer full episodes from these networks and others.

Over all, it’s great to see the arrival of online TV episodes that are crisp, clear, current, legal and free. But there are three reasons this development may not make much difference in the big picture.

First, the selection is puny. Each network offers only a fraction of its list, and for a window of only a few weeks. As long as the networks refuse to offer a better-stocked catalog — and a more permanent one — the world will flock to any service that does, like BitTorrent.

Second, you can’t download shows; you can only watch them streamed in real time. You can’t save them, put them on your iPod or burn them to DVD. (There’s hope on this point, however: this month, NBC will begin testing free episodes that you can download to your laptop to watch within a week.)

Finally — and this is the big one — almost nobody wants to watch TV on a computer screen.

Oh, sure, there are various wired and wireless ways to get the computer’s image onto your TV in the living room. But they’re clumsy, expensive and, for most people, not worth the bother. After all these years of pundits assuring us that the TV and the Internet would one day merge, it still hasn’t happened.

In other words, free online episodes are a reasonable attempt by the TV networks to avoid being swamped by the Internet. But will it be enough to keep TV’s head above water? That chapter has yet to be written.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/te...ogue.html?8dpc





What to Do About Pixels of Hate
Michael Moss

ONE by one, starting a few weeks ago, 40 militant Islamist Web sites got knocked off the Internet. Gone were some of the world’s most active jihadi sites, with forums full of extremist chatter.

This disappearance mystified American counterterrorism officials. They hadn’t shut them down, they knew, so who had?

Happily claiming credit for the jihadi blackout is a Christian-Lebanese engineer named Joseph G. Shahda, who is waging a private, and passionate, war on terrorism from his home near Boston.

“These sites are very, very dangerous,” Mr. Shahda said. “And I think we should keep going after them. They are used as recruiting tools for terrorists, arousing emotions, teaching how to hate.”

Except it’s not quite that simple, when you talk to some terrorism experts. Mr. Shahda’s one-man operation highlights the tension over what to do about online jihadi militancy — a tension that has grown along with the material. Perhaps it’s better to shut it down, and try to prosecute those involved. Or maybe the material should be left up, as a way to learn something valuable in the larger battle against terrorists.

“There’s a lot to be gained by watching these sites,” said Brian Fishman, a senior associate at the Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

One thing not in dispute is the sheer volume of the material. Al Qaeda has begun issuing videotapes as often as twice a week, while insurgents in Iraq pump them out daily, and the blood-drenched images appear on several thousand militant Web sites that now include upward of 100 in English.

Public concern rose a notch last week when The New York Times reported that one of the most popular English-language sites was run by a 21-year-old Qaeda enthusiast named Samir Khan from his parents’ home in North Carolina. Mr. Khan has done so since late 2005, unchallenged by law enforcement authorities.

“Isn’t there anything this fellow can be charged with, or is he completely free to aid the global jihad from North Carolina and give interviews to The New York Times?” Robert Spencer wrote on his site, Jihad Watch.

But those who are reading Mr. Khan’s blog include officials at the Combating Terrorism Center who, since last year, have been training F.B.I. agents and analysts with the government’s joint terrorism task forces.

Center officials say Mr. Khan’s blog yielded confirmation of an important discovery: that a host of militant sheiks and scholars, dead and alive, are today far more influential than Osama bin Laden.

These men include Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, a mentor of Mr. bin Laden’s who promoted global jihad with his writings until his death in 1989, and the center’s findings helped the authorities conclude that Al Qaeda is but part of a larger, and diffuse, ideological movement.

Similar efforts to monitor online jihadists are under way in cities like Berlin, where intelligence and law enforcement officials have created a new multi-agency Internet center, and New York, where the police department this summer published a report on Islamic extremism that drew from the department’s online sleuthing.

Quite apart from the intelligence value of leaving the sites up, it’s not clear what can be gained by shutting them down. Operators of the sites have proved difficult to put behind bars, although legal experts offered mixed views on Mr. Khan’s blog.

“If I were a prosecutor I would look at treason,” said Andrew C. McCarthy, a former chief assistant United States attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. While treason has a large burden of proof and such a charge has been brought only once since World War II, Mr. McCarthy said the 1996 antiterrorism law should “make it much easier for prosecutors to win cases, especially in national security.”

“I’d also want to look at criminal solicitation,” Mr. McCarthy said. “I would probably scrub the information this guy is putting out, and see if it contains what you would need to convince a jury, specific commands to commit acts of violence.”

Mr. Khan insists that he has no links to Al Qaeda or other militant groups, and is merely conveying the religious grounds for attacks against American troops, that is, defending Islam from the West.

Some European countries are pressing further with their anti-terrorism laws. The British government this summer won convictions against several Islamic men who merely possessed militant material on their computers.

But in United States, the only online terrorism case that legal experts said had gone to trial was a loss for the government. An Idaho jury in 2004 acquitted a student accused of operating a Web site to help finance and recruit members for organizations like the Palestinian group Hamas.

Peter S. Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University who has written about terrorism cases, said if he were a prosecutor he would forget about Mr. Khan, based on what he read in the Times article. “Even under the material-support laws, which have been used in a number of cases since 9/11, you are going to have to show more than what is apparent in the story,” Mr. Margulies said.

“You need either a specific plan for attack, like the guys accused of plotting to attack J.F.K. airport, or show this guy is under the direction or control of a group like Al Qaeda, as a paid propagandist or shill.”

Mr. Shahda said he shared concerns about the intelligence value of jihadi sites. But the threat from the online jihadists now includes not only recruitment, he said, but also battlefield know-how. “They tell people how to build car bombs, use suicide belts, be snipers, do guerrilla warfare,” he said.

Mr. Shahda, who goes after the sites by identifying their Internet-service providers and sending those companies e-mail urging them take action, acknowledges that it’s a tough fight. He also said he worried that vigilante efforts were driving some jihadists deeper into cyberspace.

Most of the 40 sites he brought down eventually came back online by switching to new Internet providers.

While Mr. Shahda has prodded companies located as far away as Malaysia to cut their service to militant sites, his current target is closer to home. He said two influential militant sites have moved to an Internet provider based in Tampa, Fla.

“They did not respond yet,” he said, “after several e-mails.”

Margot Williams contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/we...ew/21moss.html





Pirates Take Over Anti-Piracy Website

The Pirate Bay scores another victory over the music biz
Rob Mead

Software pirates have launched an astonishing smash 'n' grab raid on the music biz, stealing the domain name of one of its foremost anti-piracy bodies.

The Pirate Bay has now taken up residence at IFPI.com, a domain once owned by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). The Pirate Bay now says the site will promote the International Federation of Pirates Interests.

The Pirate Bay is, of course, infamous for being the world's largest BitTorrent tracker with over 630,000 torrents that comprise illegal rips of audio CDs, TV shows and movies, as well as software and video games.

IFPI vs the pirates

The domain name steal is the latest in a long line of skirmishes between The Pirate Bay and IFPI. IFPI had most recently tried - and failed - to secure confidential files from the Swedish police.

When asked to confirm how they got the domain name, Pirate Bay administrator Brokeup told TorrentFreak:

"It's not a hack. Someone just gave us the domain name. We have no idea how they got it, but it's ours and we're keeping it."
http://www.tech.co.uk/computing/inte...leid=605538661
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-07, 10:20 AM   #2
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

How-to

BitTorrent: Bypass any Firewall or Throttling ISP with SSH
Ernesto

On some networks it’s impossible to use BitTorrent. For example, if you’re at work, school, or connected to Comcast or a public hotspot. But there’s an easy solution to overcome this problem. By using a secure connection (SSH), you can bypass almost every firewall or traffic shaping application.

Here’s a relatively simple 3-step guide that will show you how to set it up.
1. Get an SSH account.

You need an SSH account in order to get this working. You can try one of these free shell providers from this list. I currently use silenceisdefeat which requires a small $1 donation. However, the account is immediately activated and works fine for me.
2. Download, Install and Configure Putty

Download Putty, store it somewhere on your computer and run it. In the session screen enter the host name (I use ssh.silenceisdefeat.org), the port number (22), and tick the connection type box (SSH).

Next, go to SSH –> Tunnels, enter a source port and tick the dynamic box. I’m using port 23456, but you are free to choose any post you like as long as it’s available.

When you’re done, it might be a good idea to save the session so you don’t have to enter the info next time you run Putty. If you’re ready, hit the “open” button in the session screen. A command-line interface will pop-up so enter your username and password that you received from your shell-provider, and you’re done.
3. Configure your BitTorrent client.

The last step is to configure your BitTorrent client. I will show you how it’s done in uTorrent and Azureus but other BitTorrent clients use a similar setup.

uTorrent: go to Options > Preferences > Connection. Enter your port number (I use 23456), socks 4 or 5 as type, and localhost in the proxy field.

Azureus: go to Tools > Options > Connection > Proxy Options. Tick the “Enable proxying of tracker communications” and “I have a SOCKS proxy” box. Next, enter your port number in the port field (I use 23456) and localhost in the host field.

When you’re done, restart your BitTorrent client and you’re ready to go. BitTorrent over SSH tends to be a bit slower than your normal connection, but it’s a great solution when BitTorrent connections are blocked or throttled.

For those on a Mac OSX, please check out this great tutorial (which in part inspired this article) for more details. It includes instructions on how to do this on a Mac, using Azureus.
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-over-ssh-071014/





BitTorrent to be Pimped by Nobel Prize Winning Theory
Ernesto

P2P researchers are working with the Harvard mechanism design group on implementing the “Nobel prize winning” mechanism design theory into their BitTorrent client. The ultimate goal is to keep people sharing as much as possible without imposing share ratio sanctions.

Last week the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Hurwicz, Maskin and Myerson for laying the foundations of the mechanism design theory. Interestingly, a practical implementation of this theory being worked on by P2P researchers. They believe that the principles from the mechanism design theory can be used to motivate people to share.

TorrentFreak spoke to Dr. Ir. Johan Pouwelse, researcher on P2P technology at Delft University of Technology, who is currently working with the Harvard mechanism design group. He told us: “We use the Nobel prize winning theory as a recipe for improving BitTorrent.”

A lot of people probably wonder how an economical theory can improve the performance of a BitTorrent client, Pouwelse explains: “A structured scientific advancement of P2P file sharing was really lacking. With Mechanism Design we can go beyond the current trial-and-error methodology. We are working on a mechanism design based solution for all 9 elementary actions in P2P by using a distributed reputation system and mechanism that does not degrade to a single shot prisoners dilemma, such as BitTorrent tit-fot-tat”

What Pouwelse is basically saying is that the mechanism design theory will be used to improve download speed and to make sure that content will be available for the long run, even when it’s not really popular. This is especially useful in BitTorrent streaming solutions where the incentive to keep sharing is relatively low.

The Nobel-powered BitTorrent/P2P client supports both regular .torrent downloads, but can also be used to stream videos from YouTube and Liveleak. As we reported earlier, the client also enhances the standard tit-for-tat BitTorrent algorithms with a so called give-to-get algorithm where bandwidth is used as a currency.

It is good to see that - unlike what others claim - p2p innovation is still alive and kicking, even in the land of the free and the home of the RIAA/MPAA.
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-t...-prize-071019/





DRM is Killing the PC Gaming Market
Mark C. Barlet

Digital Rights management, also known as DRM, is single handedly destroying PC Gaming as we know it. In the industry there is an ongoing battle between the gaming makers and the pirates, and the casualty in this battle is the end user. Take the latest in the gigantic Sims 2 expansion, Bon Voyage, the disk that contains your game also contains Sony's SecuROM, reportedly this has been crippling computers all over the place. SecuROM has been reported to disabled your CD/DVD Burner software, your optical drive itself, printers, cameras, and even crashes the PC outright. The theory is that ANYTHING that can get media off your PC is the enemy of this DRM. Now here is the kicker, and here is why we, the consumer lose. In less than 24 hours after the game was released, pirates had cracked the SecuROM and offered it online for all to download.

AbleGamers is in no way condoning the theft of software, we want you to go out and buy it so that the makers of great PC games keep making great PC games.
Let that sink in for a second, thousands of users all over the world are having DRM software destroy their computers, they are being punished by the game publisher for honestly paying for the software, and those that waited less than a day could go and download it for free with no issues what so ever. Can someone tell me how this is a win for the gaming industry, can someone tell me how this encourages the end user to go to the store and buy the game vs just stealing it?
How is the an issue of the disabled gamers?

There are many great peripherals on the market for the disabled gamers. Many of them use on board memory used to store things like what key strokes you assign to what button. Some DRM software see these peripherals as an enemy, and can disabled them.

EA, the makers of the current title in question released a statement, and according to the responses EA may not be forthcoming with the truth of the matter. EA states that they have only received 41 calls on issues from the DRM software, out of 100,000 copies of the game. A few responses to the post by EA shows that they may be selectively picking the source of their numbers, omitting the 4,146 posts from 883 people on the Sims Forum.

This is not a story about The Sims, or EA, it is an example of how DRM is a failure, it does nothing to stop those that want to pirate the game (less than 24 hours), and only harms those that legally bought the game.
http://ablegamers.com/content/view/119/





Revealed: the Man Behind Court Attack on Gore Film

Fuel and mining magnate backed UK challenge to An Inconvenient Truth
Jamie Doward

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.

Stewart Dimmock's high-profile fight to ban the film being shown in schools was depicted as a David and Goliath battle, with the Kent school governor taking on the state by arguing that the government was 'brainwashing' pupils.

A High Court ruling last week that the Oscar-winning documentary would have to be screened with guidance notes to balance its claims was welcomed by climate-change sceptics.

The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.

Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire.

The company's owner and chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, is a long-time critic of environmentalists. With Mark Adams, a former private secretary to Tony Blair, he set up the Scientific Alliance, a not-for-profit body comprising scientists and non-scientists, which aims to challenge many of the claims about global warming.

The alliance issued a press release welcoming last week's court ruling and helped publicise Dimmock's case on its website. It also advised Channel 4 on the Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary screened earlier this year that attempted to challenge claims made about climate change.

In 2004 the alliance co-authored a report with the George C Marshall Institute, a US body funded by Exxon Mobil, that attacked climate change claims. 'Climate change science has fallen victim to heated political and media rhetoric ... the result is extensive misunderstanding,' the report's authors said.

Martin Livermore, director of the alliance, confirmed Durward continued to support its work. 'He provides funds with other members,' Livermore said.

In the Nineties, Durward established the British Aggregates Association to campaign against a tax on sand, gravel and rock extracted from quarries. Durward does not talk to the media and calls to the association requesting an interview were not returned last week. However, he has written letters to newspapers setting out his personal philosophy. One letter claimed: 'It is time for Tony Blair to try the "fourth way", declare martial law and let the army sort out our schools, hospitals and roads.'

He later clarified his comments saying he was merely pointing out that the army had done a 'fantastic job' in dealing with the foot and mouth crisis. He has also asked whether there has been a 'witch-hunt against drunk drivers'.

Dimmock also received support from a new organisation, Straightteaching.com, which calls for politics to be left out of the classroom. The organisation, which established an online payment system for people to make contributions to Dimmock's campaign, was set up by Tipp and several others. Its website was registered last month to an anonymous Arizona-based internet company.

Tipp, who is described on the website as having been a science teacher in the Seventies and Eighties, declines to talk about who else is backing it. 'There are other people involved but I don't think they want to be revealed,' he said.

He said he thought his organisation could bring more cases against the government. 'There are a lot of people who feel the climate change debate is being hyped up,' Tipp said. 'To try to scare people into believing the end is nigh is not helpful. We've been contacted by other teachers who raised concerns. There's a lot of interest, especially from people in the US.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...190770,00.html





Calling All Bloggers: Are You ‘Covered’ Under House ‘Reporter’s Shield Law’?
Margie Burns

Yesterday the House passed by a substantial margin its version of the “reporter’s shield law,” titled the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. The House version differs from the Senate bill of the same title in its definition of “covered person,” basically the definition of who is a journalist.

The House version reads,
“(2) COVERED PERSON- The term `covered person' means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.”

The Senate version reads,

“(2) COVERED PERSON- The term `covered person' means a person who is engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such person.”

For many reasons, the Senate version looks better.

First, a disclaimer: so far as I know, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t foresee having this kind of problem. Anyone who tried to force me to say something I didn’t want to say, a remote possibility, would be crossing a line; and anyway I tend to favor disclosure in the public interest. Administration ‘sources’ do not call me up to toss Lawrence Lindsey overboard, or Tom DeLay, or Alberto Gonzales, or any other public official, career or appointee. Nobody tells me anything. Or to put it more precisely, people tell me things, but I usually cite by name unless there’s a general-information kind of paraphrase involved, or just gossip, or some other good reason not to. And while I have been quasi-mugged on the street – by some guy who knocked me down & hit me, etc w/out taking my bags -- and have gotten a certain amount of nasty mail – though the letters of praise by far outnumber the other kind – I have never had anyone lean on me to pry confidential information out of me. It is unlikely to happen, since I’m not what they used to call “easy.” Insiders who call up some ‘journalist’ to plant a smear under cover of ‘confidentiality’ are contemptible (that's the real story), and journalists should not be serving as our contemporary substitute for the Lion’s Mouth in Renaissance Venice in a behind-the-scenes system of anonymous denunciation.

But a rational observer, evaluating this ‘reporter’s shield,’ would have to look at who IS ‘covered’ under the House definition, and who is NOT. A key passage, as readers may already know, is that bit about “a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain.” Admittedly, this passage takes a certain amount of guesswork, since the terms “substantial portion” and “substantial financial gain” do not come with dollar amounts. Still --

Here, in all likelihood, are some of the people NOT COVERED under this definition:

• Most bloggers, except for reportedly Matt Drudge
• Many web site editors and producers, especially of left-leaning, ‘liberal,’ green or progressive web sites
• Almost all web site editors and producers of small web sites across the Net
• Many or most columnists for small community newspapers such as the Prince George’s Journal, where I published articles from 1996 to 2004, and the Prince George’s Sentinel, where I published articles 2004-2006
• Many reporters for small community newspapers
• Many editors for small community newspapers
• Many publishers of small community newspapers: producing them may involve expense but not necessarily profit, income
• Any journalist contributing to a periodical on a volunteer basis
• Many or most freelancers, depending on the time frame for defining finances
• Retired journalists who weigh in with an occasional column or article at, e.g., the WashPost’s op-ed page
• Interns who perform journalistic duties at recognized media outlets but without much pay or a job guarantee

Here, on the other hand, are some of the people COVERED under this definition:

• Almost everyone who works for Fox News
• Matt Drudge
• Almost everyone who works for any of the major media outlets – CNN, the three original networks, their subsidiaries; the large daily newspapers; etc – as long as that person has a good regular salary; see interns and retirees, above
• Salaried writers and editors working for any of the trade periodicals – insurance, trucking, pharmaceuticals, etc
• Talk radio hosts, their writers and producers, if their income comes mostly from the gig

In other words, a 'covered person' is basically anyone Bob Novak could tolerate, and not covered is everyone who might hypothetically or even accidentally be perceived as a threat to the Novaks of this world. What could be sweeter? -- for Robert Novak. Is it any wonder that this bill was introduced by the GOP and that it has passed by a whopping margin, in a House full of terrified incumbents? Or that it is supported by the same mediocre media outlets that facilitated GWBush in the White House, the non-investigation of 9/11, and the Iraq war?

John Conyers (D-Mich.) is one of my personal heroes, one of the best people in Congress, ever, not just for our time but a man for all seasons. I am absolutely confident that he supported this measure for the best of reasons. But the more I look at this language, the more it looks as though opinion makers hired by Richard Mellon Scaife and rewarded by the Bradley Foundation would be covered, and the homeless who write for Street Sense -- D.C.'s homeless newspaper -- would not be covered. It also looks as though the overpaid would, to a man, be covered, while any underpaid blogger, freelancer or reporter-editor who has to combine income sources would not be -- a cohort disproportionately comprising women, the underemployed, members of poor fundamentalist or other 'fringe' groups from right to left, and simply people of modest means.

Too bad about the way it breaks down into people on one side, money on the other. It will be interesting to see what happens in conference, if the Senate passes its version. I’m not too optimistic; good thing I never looked to Congress for protection anyway. More the other way around, as I see it.
http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_arc...7/3296526.html





How Politicians Weakened a Legal Shield for Bloggers
Declan McCullagh

The House of Representatives' vote on Tuesday for a journalist shield bill is a timely example of how legislation can be watered down surprisingly quickly.

Originally the proposed shield law gave a broad immunization to journalists, including bloggers who acted as journalists. But eventually it morphed into a far less protective form.

Here's the progression:

#1 Original version:

The term "covered person" means a person engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

#2 Second version approved by a House committee:

The term "covered person" means a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

#3 Third version as approved by the full House:

The term "covered person" means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

The original version was reasonably protective, and the term "engaged in journalism" was reasonably well-defined. But by the time our esteemed elected representatives got finished with it, a serious blogger who breaks news (but doesn't have Google Ads on his site) would not benefit from the shield. It requires "substantial" income, even though not all good journalism is done for significant financial gain.

By the way, all versions of the shield legislation are pretty milquetoast when it comes to actually protecting journalists. They say that journalists can be ordered to the witness stand as long as a judge thinks their testimony may be "essential to the investigation or prosecution or to the defense against the prosecution," which is not that significant a hurdle in practice.

I know this firsthand. The U.S. Department of Justice served me with a subpoena to testify in a criminal case in Tacoma, Wash., and then demanded that the judge declare me a hostile witness when I refused to answer certain questions. Even the weakened, final version of the House bill is better than nothing, but I fear it'll prove to be a very thin and easily circumvented shield in practice.
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9799178-38.html





Blog Action Day - Individual Action is Not Enough October 15, 2007
Andy Roberts

Today is Blog Action Day which means that lots of bloggers will be writing on one general topic for one day in an attempt to see what might be achieved through coordinated posting, and I am one of them so my humble contribution amongst the hundreds of thousands is entitled “individual action is not enough”.

The topic for this year’s blog action day is “the environment”.

The idea of bloggers mass action as a concept is not yet proven by any means, but it’s certainly worth participating if only for the “blog carnival” effect but it’s also quite possible that a critical mass of blog posts on one single day will have some sort of lasting effect which cannot be exactly anticipated in nature, but will almost certainly be different to the normal flow of conversations in the blogosphere.

The aim is to push an issue onto the table for discussion, the issue being “the environment”.

If I have time, I shall attempt to synthesise between the idea of thousands of bloggers uniting to take visible action for one day, and the type of uncoordinated individual action which is most usually promoted as the best means to deal with environmental issues. I’m not sure I’ll be able to pull that off though, and I may just end up quoting from a book review which I read recently which puts it very well:

He criticises Tim Flannery for his emphasis on individual action to stop global warming.

Pearse writes: “The reality is that even if every Australian totally eliminated their residential emissions it would not result in significant absolute cuts in Australia’s emissions; by 2050 emissions might rise by 60% instead of by 70%…the changes we make at the personal level would account for at best 20% of the change required.”

High and Dry is the best book yet written on the climate change debate in Australia – especially because of its emphasis on the dominant role of industry in doing the polluting. Strongly recommended

So apart from the odd personal post about the song thrush in my own garden, how does ‘distributed research’ relate to the environment? Well I can think of many ways, not least of which is the subject of home working which I have been writing about for some time. Home working or telecommuting is hugely beneficial to the environment in terms of energy, materials, carbon emissions and congestion but of course it will take a major transformation in the economy before homeworking can become an option for more than a small minority of people who happen to work in the “information” industries. The technology already exists for a low impact economy to be viable without loss of quality of life, indeed it will be greatly improved, but first there is a mountain of vested interest in the status quo which needs to be shifted and for that, individual action is not enough. There needs to be a fundamental policy change, which in turn requires a thorough regime change on all political and economic levels. Taking steps towards bringing about these political changes are the only actions which will actually make any progress towards the eventual rescue of the planet. Changing the bathroom light bulb, all by yourself, and then feeling better about it may on the other hand, be a step towards allowing the present system to continue on its path of anarchic destruction of everything.

Blog action day is a form of collaborative mass action, even if it only consists of writing. The important thing is that the mass action can become self-conscious. The online equivalent to being able to feel the strength of a quarter of a million people in Trafalgar Square will be the results of tracking thousands of posts tagged with the words “blog action day”, the recognition and mutual commenting which will go on between bloggers, and the continuation of the developing conversation for days and weeks after Bog Action Day is over.
http://distributedresearch.net/blog/...-is-not-enough





Group Plans to Provide Investigative Journalism
Richard Pérez-Peña

As struggling newspapers across the country cut back on investigative reporting, a new kind of journalism venture is hoping to fill the gap.

Paul E. Steiger, who was the top editor of The Wall Street Journal for 16 years, and a pair of wealthy Californians are assembling a group of investigative journalists who will give away their work to media outlets.

The nonprofit group, called Pro Publica, will pitch each project to a newspaper or magazine (and occasionally to other media) where the group hopes the work will make the strongest impression. The plan is to do long-term projects, uncovering misdeeds in government, business and organizations.

Nothing quite like it has been attempted, and despite having a lot going for it, Pro Publica will be something of an experiment, inventing its practices by trial and error. It remains to be seen how well it can attract talent and win the cooperation of the mainstream media.

“It is the deep-dive stuff and the aggressive follow-up that is most challenged in the budget process,” said Mr. Steiger, who will be Pro Publica’s president and editor in chief. He gave up the title of managing editor of The Journal in May, but is staying on through the end of the year as editor at large; during his tenure, the newsroom won 16 Pulitzer Prizes.

Pro Publica is the creation of Herbert M. and Marion O. Sandler, the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, based in California, which was one of the nation’s largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans. They have committed $10 million a year to the project, while various foundations have provided smaller amounts. Mr. Sandler will serve as chairman of the group, which will begin operations early next year.

The Sandlers are also major Democratic political donors and critics of President Bush. Last year, they sold Golden West to the Wachovia Corporation for about $26 billion, a deal which valued their personal shares at about $2.4 billion.

Pro Publica plans to establish a newsroom in New York City and have 24 journalists, one of the biggest investigative staffs in any medium, along with about a dozen other employees. Mr. Steiger said he envisions a mix of accomplished reporters and editors, including some hired from major publications, and talented people with only a few years’ experience, so that the group will become a training ground for investigative reporters. He would not say specifically where he is shopping for talent, but did not rule out The Journal.

Richard J. Tofel, a former assistant publisher and assistant managing editor of The Journal, has been hired as general manager. Board members will include Henry Louis Gates Jr., the Harvard scholar of African and African-American studies; Alberto Ibarguen, a former publisher of The Miami Herald, who is currently president and chief executive of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation; James A. Leach, a former congressman from Iowa who directs Harvard’s Institute of Politics; and Rebecca Rimel, president and chief executive of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

The nearest parallels to Pro Publica may be the Center for Investigative Reporting in San Francisco, and the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting in Washington, groups that support in-depth work and have had considerable success getting it published or broadcast in mainstream media. But their budgets are a fraction of Pro Publica’s, and they do not actually employ most of the journalists whose work they help finance.

Pro Publica will provide salaries and benefits comparable to the biggest newspapers, Mr. Steiger said. “I won’t be offering somebody 50 grand or 100 grand more than they’re making to jump ship, nor will I ask them to take a pay cut,” he said.

Newspapers routinely publish articles from wire services, and many of them also subscribe to the major papers’ news services and reprint their articles. But except for fairly routine news wire service articles, the largest newspapers have generally been reluctant to use reporting from other organizations.

But experts say that resistance is breaking down as the business is squeezed financially, and newspapers make greater use of freelance journalists.

“They’re looking for alternative means of paying for ambitious journalism,” said Stephen B. Shepard, dean of the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism and a former editor of BusinessWeek. “Steiger has the credibility and judgment to bring this off, and if they do good work, it will get picked up.”

Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, said The Times would be open to using work from an outside source, “assuming we were confident of its quality,” but that “we’ll always have a preference for work we can vouch for ourselves.”

Mr. Steiger said that relationships with publications could be tricky, requiring the flexibility to make each comfortable.

In most cases, he said, Pro Publica will appeal to a newspaper or magazine while a project is under way, to gauge interest and how much oversight the publication wants. In others, he said, his group might present more or less finished products to other outlets.

If Pro Publica and a publication cannot agree on how to approach a topic, or what can be written about it, he said, his group will look for another outlet, or publish its reporting on its own Web site.

Mr. Sandler said his interest in investigative journalism has been abetted by friendships with reporters in the field.

“Both my father and my older brother always focused on the underdog, justice, ethics, what’s right,” Mr. Sandler said. “All of my life I’ve been driven crazy whenever I encounter corruption, malfeasance, mendacity, but particularly where those in power take advantage of those who have few resources.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/bu...15publica.html





Sheriff’s Fight With Paper Flares Up Again
Richard Pérez-Peña

A long-running dispute between a weekly newspaper in Phoenix and law enforcement officials took a series of sharp turns over the last two days, including the arrest of the newspaper owners, followed by the dismissal of charges against them and an investigation into their paper.

For years, prosecutors in Maricopa County weighed whether to take the rare step of charging the leaders of the paper, The Phoenix New Times, with a crime for publishing an article with the home address of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. This week, that conflict abruptly escalated.

On Thursday, the newspaper accused the authorities of abuses of power in their investigation into The New Times, reporting that a prosecutor had obtained a subpoena for the Internet browsing records on thousands of its readers.

On Thursday night, the two principal owners, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, were arrested and charged with illegally disclosing the inner workings of a grand jury, a misdemeanor.

But by late afternoon yesterday, it was all over. The owners were free, the charges against them were dropped, and the underlying investigation ended.

“It has become clear to me the investigation has gone in a direction I would not have authorized,” County Attorney Andrew P. Thomas said.

Mr. Thomas dismissed the new charges, the original investigation and the special prosecutor who was working on the case.

Mr. Lacey said he was stunned by the turnabout.

“I thought when I first heard this from one of our reporters that he was pulling my leg,” he said.

Mr. Larkin and Mr. Lacey have run The Phoenix New Times since the 1970s, and they control its parent company, now called Village Voice Media, which also owns The Village Voice in New York and other papers. Mr. Lacey is the executive editor and Mr. Larkin is the publisher.

In 2004, The New Times reported on the real-estate holdings of Sheriff Arpaio. The paper said he had concealed his ownership of some properties and questioned how he could have afforded them on his salary. One article included, in print and online, Sheriff Arpaio’s home address.

A state law makes it a felony to disclose the home address of a law enforcement figure on the Internet — though not in print. Allies of the sheriff said the publication had endangered him because he has been the subject of death threats.

The New Times said the address was available through multiple public sources, including government Web sites.

Mr. Thomas is a political ally of Sheriff Arpaio who has also clashed with The New Times. He recused himself from the question of whether the newspaper had committed a crime.

Last summer, Dennis I. Wilenchik, a lawyer who had done extensive work for Sheriff Arpaio and Mr. Thomas, was named a special prosecutor to handle the investigation, working under Mr. Thomas.

On Thursday, the paper published an article by Mr. Lacey and Mr. Larkin reporting the existence of Mr. Wilenchik’s grand jury investigation and of the subpoena he had obtained for the paper’s records.

The subpoena, reproduced on The New Times Web site, sought the names and Internet addresses of all people who have viewed the site since Jan. 1, 2004, whether or not they had read about the sheriff’s real-estate holdings.

The subpoena also demanded information on readers’ “cookies,” which would show what other Web sites they had visited.

“That subpoena is grossly, shockingly, breathtakingly overbroad,” said James Weinstein, a professor of constitutional law at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. “This is a case of harassment of the press.”

Professor Weinstein also questioned whether any charges brought in the original case, for publishing the sheriff’s address, would stand up to a legal challenge.

Clint Bolick, litigation director at the Goldwater Institute, a conservative policy study group, said The New Times was correct that the subpoena was an abuse of power and right to risk prosecution by exposing it.

“This is the most sweeping deprivation of privacy and First Amendment rights I’ve ever seen in a subpoena, on the basis of what appears to be a relatively slight legal infraction, the publication of the sheriff’s address,” Mr. Bolick said.

The New Times article also described an effort by Mr. Wilenchik to set up a private conversation with the judge overseeing the case that the judge disclosed and criticized as improper in a closed hearing.

The Arizona State Bar said yesterday that it had begun an investigation into Mr. Wilenchik’s conduct.

The bar is already investigating him and Mr. Thomas for publicly criticizing Maricopa County judges this month. That incident drew a rebuke of the prosecutors from the editorial page of The Arizona Republic, the largest newspaper in the region.

Calls to Mr. Wilenchik’s office yesterday were not returned. A spokesman for Sheriff Arpaio said he would not comment.

Mr. Thomas said yesterday that he had not been aware of the extent of the subpoena and other elements of the case until the last two days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/bu...20arizona.html





Big Holder Sells Stake in Times Co.
Andrew Ross Sorkin and Geraldine Fabrikant

Morgan Stanley has sold its 7.2 percent stake in The New York Times Company, people close to the matter said yesterday, bringing an end to a bitter fight between one of the bank’s asset managers and the company.

Over the last two years, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, led by the fund’s manager, Hassan Elmasry, had been conducting a campaign to press the company to change its dual-class share structure, which allows the members of the Ochs-Sulzberger family to control the company through a special class of stock.

Mr. Elmasry, through a series of letters and conversations with directors, management and Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher and chairman, criticized the company’s capital structure, compensation and strategy as well as its decision to build its new headquarters.

While Mr. Elmasry’s exit may represent a victory for the Sulzberger family, it did nothing to turn around the stock’s fortunes. The shares stock closed at $18.48, down 2.27 percent for the day, and down from a peak of $53 in 2002. The last time the stock closed this low was in January 1997.

Morgan Stanley began buying Times stock in 1996, before Mr. Elmasry was running the fund. A spokeswoman for Morgan Stanley said the company lost money on its Times holdings, but she could not quantify the losses.

A spokesman for Mr. Elmasry said he was traveling overseas and could not be reached for comment. In a statement, Morgan Stanley said: “As a matter of policy, Morgan Stanley Investment Management does not publicly comment on changes in its portfolio.”

The New York Times Company, through a spokeswoman, also declined to comment.

Now that Mr. Elmasry is out of the picture, it is unclear how much pressure other large shareholders might exert on the company. Executives at T. Rowe Price and Private Capital Management, two other major investors, declined to comment.

But whatever their sentiments may be, investors have little leverage to bring about change as long as the Sulzberger family continues to support the status quo. Class B shareholders at the Times Company have the power to elect 70 percent of the company’s directors and the Sulzberger family controls 89 percent of Class B shares. Class A investors can elect only 30 percent of the board.

Such structures have been hotly debated in the last few years, as the entire newspaper industry has been hit by a series of seismic shocks. Last year, Knight Ridder was bought by the McClatchy Company and broken up. Earlier this year, the Tribune Company was taken private in a complicated deal engineered by the real estate developer Samuel Zell. In August, Dow Jones & Company, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, accepted a bid from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.

More recently, both the Belo Corporation and E.W. Scripps & Company announced they were splitting off their newspapers from their more profitable television assets.

In July, the Times Company announced it would seek to cut operating costs by $230 million over the next two years. But the company has steadfastly rejected making any drastic changes to its corporate structure.

Peter Appert, a media analyst at Goldman Sachs, said that “you can’t do battle with a company that has dual classes of stock and family ownership structure.”

“The dual class ownership structure of The New York Times Company gives the family solid control of the company. And while Mr. Elmasry raised some very good points in terms of what he would like to see changed, the reality was that he has no leverage.”

Alex S. Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard, said the Morgan Stanley sale was a victory for the company’s efforts to stay independent and under family control. He said Mr. Elmasry “has given up on trying to change the fundamental governance of The New York Times Company, which preserves The Times’s traditional focus on journalism ahead of profit.”

Morgan Stanley Investment Management had been a shareholder since 1996 through its Global Franchise fund. The fund, based in London, takes large positions in a small number of companies that it believes are undervalued and have singular global brands.

The first time that Morgan Stanley owned more than 5 percent of Times Company stock, requiring a public filing, was in April 2006, when filings showed that it owned 6.9 million shares, or 5.5 percent of the company. Three months later, its stake had risen to 8.9 million shares; by October 2006, Morgan owned 7.62 percent of the company, or 10.9 million shares. From April and July, the stock traded in the range of $22.77 a share to $25.42.

At the annual meeting n April, in a protest led by Mr. Elmasry, shareholders representing 42 percent of the Class A shares withheld votes for directors. The votes withheld represented more than half the investors who are not part of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, and were a significant increase from the 30 percent withheld at the annual meeting last year.

In an unrelated development that underscored the difficulties facing the newspaper industry, Morgan Stanley confirmed that it had dismissed Lisa Monaco, a newspaper analyst, as part of yesterday’s layoff of 300 employees worldwide. Several people familiar with the company’s thinking said that Morgan Stanley did not plan to continue its coverage of the newspaper industry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/bu...a/18paper.html





Plan Would Ease F.C.C. Restriction on Media Owners
Stephen LaBaton

The head of the Federal Communications Commission has circulated an ambitious plan to relax the decades-old media ownership rules, including repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city.

Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the commission, wants to repeal the rule in the next two months — a plan that, if successful, would be a big victory for some executives of media conglomerates.

Among them are Samuel Zell, the Chicago investor who is seeking to complete a buyout of the Tribune Company, and Rupert Murdoch, who has lobbied against the rule for years so that he can continue controlling both The New York Post and a Fox television station in New York.

The proposal appears to have the support of a majority of the five commission members, agency officials said, although it is not clear that Mr. Martin would proceed with a sweeping deregulatory approach on a vote of 3 to 2 — something his predecessor tried without success. In interviews on Wednesday, the agency’s two Democratic members raised questions about Mr. Martin’s approach.

Mr. Martin said he was striving to reach a consensus with his fellow commissioners, both on the schedule and on the underlying rule changes, although he would not say whether he would move the measures forward if he were able to muster only three votes.

“We’ve had six hearings around the country already; we’ve done numerous studies; we’ve been collecting data for the last 18 months; and the issues have been pending for years,” Mr. Martin said in an interview. “I think it is an appropriate time to begin a discussion to complete this rule-making and complete these media ownership issues.”

Officials said the commission would consider loosening the restrictions on the number of radio and television stations a company could own in the same city.

Currently, a company can own two television stations in the larger markets only if at least one is not among the four largest stations and if there are at least eight local stations. The rules also limit the number of radio stations that a company can own to no more than eight in each of the largest markets.

The deregulatory proposal is likely to put the agency once again at the center of a debate between the media companies, which view the restrictions as anachronistic, and civil rights, labor, religious and other groups that maintain the government has let media conglomerates grow too large.

As advertising increasingly migrates from newspapers to the Internet, the newspaper industry has undergone a wave of upheaval and consolidation. That has put new pressure on regulators to loosen ownership rules. But deregulation in the media is difficult politically, because many Republican and Democratic lawmakers are concerned about news outlets in their districts being too tightly controlled by too few companies.

In recent months, industry executives had all but abandoned the hope that regulators would try to modify the ownership rules in the waning days of the Bush administration.

“This is a big deal because we have way too much concentration of media ownership in the United States,” Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, said at a hearing on Wednesday called to examine the digital transition of the television industry.

“If the chairman intends to do something by the end of the year,” Mr. Dorgan added, his voice rising, “then there will be a firestorm of protest and I’m going to be carrying the wood.”

Supporters of the changes say that the rules are outdated and that there is ample empirical evidence to support their repeal. A small number of media companies, including The New York Times Company, are able to own both a newspaper and a radio station in the same city because the cross-ownership restrictions, which went into effect in 1974, were not applied retroactively.

Mr. Martin faces obstacles within the agency to overhauling the rules. One Democrat on the commission, Michael J. Copps, is adamantly opposed to loosening the rules. The other, Jonathan S. Adelstein, has said that the agency first needs to address other media issues, including encouraging improved coverage of local events and greater ownership of stations by companies controlled by women and minorities.

Advisers to Mr. Martin said he hoped to gain the support of at least one of the Democrats, probably Mr. Adelstein, but Mr. Adelstein said in an interview on Wednesday that Mr. Martin’s proposed timetable was “awfully aggressive.”

Three years ago, the commission lost a major court challenge to its last effort, led by Michael K. Powell, its chairman at the time, to relax the media ownership rules. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, concluded that the commission had failed to adequately justify the new rules. Mr. Martin’s proposal would presumably include new evidence aimed at fending off similar legal challenges.

Mr. Powell’s effort, which had been supported by lobbyists for broadcasters, newspapers and major media conglomerates, provoked a wave of criticism from a broad coalition of opponents. Among them were the National Organization for Women, the National Rifle Association, the Parents Television Council and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The agency was flooded with nearly three million comments against changing the rules, the most it has ever received in a rule-making process.

Since the appeals court struck down the deregulatory changes, the commission has continued to study the issues at a leisurely pace, and it held a series of hearings around the nation. It had not made any new proposals, and industry executives had not expected the agency to move again so soon.

But in recent days, Mr. Martin has proposed to expedite the rule-making and hold a final vote in December. In part, he has told commission officials, he was reacting to criticism by Mr. Copps about temporary waivers that have allowed companies to own newspapers and stations in the same market.

Mr. Zell has said he wants to complete his $8.2 billion buyout of Tribune Company by the end of the year. Tribune had been granted what were supposed to be temporary waivers to the rule to allow it to control newspapers and television stations in five cities: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Hartford and the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area.

Mr. Copps, who for years has waged a campaign against media consolidation, said that it would be hard for the commission to proceed during an election year because media consolidation has provoked deep public skepticism in the past.

He said Mr. Martin’s proposal to complete a relaxation of the rules in December would require procedural shortcuts, giving the public too little time to comment on the proposals and industry experts too little time to weigh their impact on news operations.

“We shouldn’t be doing anything without having a credible process and nothing should be done to get in the way of Congressional oversight and more importantly, public oversight,” Mr. Copps said in a telephone interview from London. “We’ve got to have that public scrutiny. That was one of the big mistakes that Mr. Powell made, and he was taken to the woodshed by the Third Circuit. I fear it is déjà vu all over again.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/bu...adcast.html?hp





3rd Circuit Upholds FCC's Deregulation of High-Speed Internet Access
Shannon P. Duffy

In a victory for big telephone companies, a federal appeals court has upheld a ruling by the Federal Communications Commission that effectively deregulated high-speed Internet access service provided over traditional telephone lines.

In its September 2005 ruling, the FCC relieved telephone companies of decades-old regulations that required them to grant competing Internet service providers "nondiscriminatory" access to their wirelines in order to reach consumers.

Challenging the ruling in the three consolidated appeals, captioned Time Warner Telecom Inc. v. FCC, were independent Internet service providers, competing telecommunications service providers, cable modem providers and several public interest organizations.

The FCC's order now allows telephone companies to enter into individually negotiated arrangements with companies that seek access to their broadband wireline facilities.

In the appeals, the independent providers argued that the FCC's order effectively allows telephone companies to deny competitors access to their wirelines, thereby resulting in decreased competition and consumer choice in the market for broadband Internet service.

Time Warner's lawyer, David P. Murray of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher in Washington, D.C., argued that if the dominant telephone companies were not forced to make their transmission lines available to competitive providers of Internet access, they would be free to target their investments in network upgrades so that they would be available only to their own Internet access services.

The result, Murray argued, would be a disparity in service between the broadband Internet access service offered by telephone companies and their competitors, giving the telephone companies "the ability to raise prices unilaterally on their higher-quality services without fear of losing market share."

But lawyers for the FCC argued that the agency properly decided to abandon the regulations because they "imposed significant costs" on telephone companies, "thereby impeding innovation and investment in new broadband technologies and services."

Now a unanimous three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the FCC's decision simply extended the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services.
In Brand X, the justices upheld a previous FCC ruling that said cable companies provide an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications service" and therefore should not be forced to share their infrastructure with Internet service providers.

Soon after, the FCC handed down its "Wireline Broadband Order" to extend the same rules to telephone companies.

In the order, the FCC said it had determined that "like cable modem service (which is usually provided over the provider's own facilities), wireline broadband Internet access service combines computer processing, information provision, and data transport, enabling end users to run a variety of applications" such as e-mail and surfing the Internet.

The FCC concluded that, due to the similarity between how end users perceive Internet access -- whether provided by wireline or cable modem providers -- its decision to classify wireline broadband Internet access service as an "information service" logically flowed from the Supreme Court's Brand X decision.

The 3rd Circuit agreed, finding that the FCC's decision was entitled to deference.

"In our view, the record adequately supports the FCC's conclusion that, from the perspective of the end-user, wireline broadband service and cable modem service are functionally similar and, therefore, that they should be subject to the same regulatory classification under the Communications Act," U.S. Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes wrote.

Fuentes, in an opinion joined by 3rd Circuit Senior Judge Morton I. Greenberg and visiting Judge Alan D. Lourie of the Federal Circuit, also rejected the argument that the FCC's ruling was improper because it conflicted with past agency decisions.

"The FCC candidly admitted in the Wireline Broadband Order that past agency statements concerning the regulatory treatment of wireline broadband Internet access service had not been 'entirely consistent,' but nevertheless found that there was ample basis in its prior rulings to support its classification of wireline broadband Internet access service as a functionally integrated information service," Fuentes wrote.

Merely showing that an agency's ruling is in conflict with its prior decisions is not enough to invalidate it, Fuentes found.

"To the extent that the FCC's current classification of wireline broadband Internet access service conflicts with past agency rulings," Fuentes said, "Brand X makes clear that an 'an initial agency interpretation is not instantly carved in stone. On the contrary, the agency ... must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis.'"

Fuentes also rejected the argument that the FCC's decision-making process was flawed because it failed to conduct a "full market analysis."

Attorney James M. Carr of the FCC's office of general counsel argued that the agency properly opted not to do a market analysis because it wanted to "avoid making highly dubious and premature conclusions about a nascent and dynamic market that is rapidly changing."

In its order, Carr said, the FCC explained that only 20 percent of consumers who have access to advanced telecommunications capability currently subscribe to services providing such capability, and that about 50 percent of U.S. households subscribe to either broadband or narrowband Internet access service.

Alternative broadband platforms are developing and emerging, Carr said, such as satellite, wireless and powerline, in both the residential and business markets.

By comparison, Carr said, the FCC found that the market for telephone services has had a market penetration rate of roughly 90 percent for more than 20 years.

As a result, Carr argued, in the FCC's view, "snapshot data" of the broadband service market "may quickly and predictably be rendered obsolete as the market continues to evolve."

Fuentes agreed, saying the FCC had properly considered "how the market for broadband services is likely to develop" and had predicted that "market penetration of cable modem and wireline broadband service will grow dramatically in the future and that the two services will compete head-to-head."

The FCC also predicted that both cable and wireline services will continue to invest in and expand the reach of their services, Fuentes noted, and that emerging broadband platforms will exert competitive pressure and gain market share.

As a result, Fuentes said, "We agree with the FCC that these reasons justified its decision to refrain from a traditional market analysis and to rely instead on larger trends and predictions concerning the future of the broadband services market."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1192525413109





Sending Up Satellites and Closing the Digital Divide
William J. Holstein

SATELLITES have not proved as important to high-speed communications as telephone and cable lines have. But they do have an important role in helping close the digital divide between people who have access to broadband communications and those who do not, says Pradman P. Kaul, chief executive of Hughes Communications, based in Germantown, Md. Mr. Kaul’s company recently launched a $310 million satellite to improve its service in the American market. He has been involved in satellite communications for nearly four decades, since earning a master’s degree from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1968.

Here are excerpts from a conversation:

Q. It seems that Americans communicate more via high-speed cable and digital subscriber telephone lines than via satellites, suggesting that satellites have not lived up to their promise. Do you agree?

A. No, each technology has its place, and its advantages in terms of applications and when it’s used. Clearly, significantly more bits of data are transmitted on cable and DSL than satellite, but what satellites do well is broadcast and multicast applications, as in the case of DirecTV and EchoStar broadcasting television. They have close to 30 million subscribers. In almost every country in the world, direct-to-home television is going great guns.

A second thing satellites are very good at is, once you put a bit up on a satellite it reaches anywhere in the region that the satellite is serving. There is no place in North America that you can’t reach. The ubiquitous coverage that satellites offer is a major advantage. For broadband Internet access capabilities, there are probably 15 million households in the United States who don’t get it and will not get it for a long time. So satellites play a great role in bridging the digital divide.

Q. Why aren’t cable and telephone companies making a stronger effort to reach all Americans?

A. It’s an economic issue. The cost of running a piece of wire or a piece of optic fiber is high, and it requires a density of subscribers to give them an economic return on the investment. In rural areas, the economics just don’t pay out. With satellites, it doesn’t cost any more to reach the one guy sitting on top of the mountain in the state of Washington than it does the guy in downtown Manhattan.

Q. Can you offer as fast and as robust communications as the cable and telephone companies?

A. The service is robust and in some cases offers a higher level of reliability than you get from cable and DSL. In terms of speed, that’s an economic issue. We just launched a new satellite called Spaceway 3 that will be in service in the United States by January of next year. The speeds that satellite offers can match any speed that is available terrestrially. The question is what you charge for it?

Q. Did the failure of Motorola’s Iridium project, which was supposed to provide worldwide voice and data service for anyone with a handset, cast a pall over the broader field of satellite communications?

A. It obviously did not do what it was supposed to do. There were a whole bunch of issues that caused it not to reach its original objectives. That was a different application from ours. It was for mobile phones. What they did was build a constellation of satellites in low-Earth orbit, so they were constantly moving to be able to handle the mobility. It was a much more complex, difficult market. What we’re trying to do is different. We’re using fixed satellites. We don’t rely on 60 satellites working together in unison.

Q. Why have satellites been more useful for entertainment than for sending data like e-mail messages?

A. If you are broadcasting a football game, you’re sending the same football game to every home. With a satellite, you only send it up once and 200 million homes in the United States can receive it. The economics of that are incredible as opposed to sending the football game individually to each home via wires. You’d be sending it 200 million times.

Q. What is the divide between those who have access to high-speed communications versus those who don’t? Is it an urban-rural split?

A. It’s actually rural and suburban where people don’t have it. It amazes me sometimes when I look at it. Even in major Washington, D.C., suburbs, which is our neighborhood, there are big pockets where you can’t get DSL or cable.

Q. How will satellite compete against cable and telephone companies as those companies seek to offer all three forms of communication, meaning voice, data and entertainment?

A. You’re talking about the triple play concept. The cable guys are now beginning to offer people not only television entertainment, but also broadband data and telephone service. The phone companies are beginning to put fiber to the homes so in addition to the voice and data, they can offer the entertainment channels. So yes, I think you’re going to see the triple plays, but there’s still a big market for people to offer single services but offer them well and offer them economically.

Q. How fast can your company grow?

A. In the United States, we have more than 350,000 residential subscribers. In the next two or three years, we hope to get to one million residential subscriptions. In addition, we have a strong enterprise business. We have hundreds of Fortune 2000 customers and their whole data networks.

Q. Why did you have a French company, Ariane, launch your satellite from the South Pacific?

A. Launching is a very small industry. There are only three or four companies that launch satellites of the size that we built.

Q. Did you go to watch it being launched into space?

A. Yes, it was exciting, especially when it’s your own satellite. It’s a unique thrill. It was a great day for all of us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/te...interview.html





U.N. Agency Gives Boost to WiMax
Victoria Shannon

The United Nations telecommunications agency in Geneva gave the upstart technology called WiMax a vote of approval, providing a sizable victory for Intel and something of a defeat for competing technologies from Qualcomm and Ericsson.

The International Telecommunication Union’s radio assembly agreed late Thursday to include WiMax, a wireless technology that allows Internet and other data connections across much broader areas than Wi-Fi, as part of what is called the third-generation family of mobile standards.

That endorsement opens the way for many of the union’s member countries to devote a part of the public radio spectrum to WiMax, and receivers for it could be built into laptop computers, phones, music players and other portable devices.

Unlike Wi-Fi, this mobile Internet technology can hand off a signal from antenna to antenna, thus allowing a device to hold a connection while in motion. WiMax potentially can move data at 70 megabits a second across 65 kilometers, or 40 miles. Current fixed-line broadband connections have speeds of about 2 megabits a second.

The approval, which came in the form of a consensus of the radio assembly ahead of the World Radiocommunication Conference next week in Geneva, gives WiMax a leg up on Ultra Mobile Broadband, an alternative technology from Qualcomm, and Long-Term Evolution, an equivalent from Ericsson.

Intel has been promoting and investing in WiMax for the last three years and led “a pretty substantial amount of lobbying” to prove its case and get the union’s stamp on the technology, said Sriram Viswanathan, vice president of Intel Capital, the company’s strategic investment program, and general manager of its WiMax business.

The radio technology is the first to be added to the specifications for third-generation radio standards since the union approved them a decade ago.

Even before the union’s endorsement, WiMax had been gathering momentum with Intel’s weight behind it. Lenovo, Acer and a few other makers of personal computers recently committed to using Intel’s WiMax chips, which are expected to reach the market in May. Nokia said last month that it would make its N-series of tablet devices with WiMax when they go on sale next year.

Japan, Britain and Switzerland have scheduled auctions in the coming months to allocate licenses in the radio frequency in which WiMax operates, 2.5 to 2.69 gigahertz.

But WiMax is not universally cheered. Gary D. Forsee resigned as chief executive of Sprint Nextel last week amid doubts about his strategy, which includes $5 billion to roll out a commercially unproven WiMax network. Sprint Nextel’s WiMax partner, Clearwire, introduced an access card this week for laptops for its high-speed network.

Qualcomm said Friday that it "remains dedicated" to providing the technologies, including WiMax, that its operators choose.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/te...y/20wimax.html





In Search of Wireless Wiggle Room
Judith Chevalier

I RECENTLY watched a YouTube clip of a young man removing the memory chip from his iPhone with his teeth, in an attempt to “unlock” the device for use on a network other than the AT&T system for which the phone was exclusively sold. His gyrations were a particularly vivid reminder of the limits imposed on cellphones by the companies that run national wireless networks in the United States.

But there are signs that the existing order in the wireless world may finally be changing.

This month, despite the opposition of companies like Verizon, the Federal Communications Commission reiterated that its coming auction of wireless spectrum would include rules intended to give consumers more choices in the phones they can use. These “open access” auction rules have already received considerable attention, but the commission also faces other decisions that will significantly affect the availability and the price of wireless service.

For decades, the F.C.C. has allocated almost all the prime frequencies available for communication for the exclusive use of licensees and since the 1990s, it has emphasized auctions for allocating that spectrum. Economists mostly applauded the move to the auction system, because it subjected prospective licenses to a market test: the F.C.C. no longer had to try to divine who would make the most productive use of the spectrum; the companies that were willing to pay the most at auction would win.

Not all of the spectrum is auctioned, however. Some of it is left “unlicensed” — meaning that no one has exclusive rights to it. Baby monitors, garage door openers and Wi-Fi all work on unlicensed parts of the spectrum, in a kind of free-for-all. As technology improves to prevent these devices from stumbling over one another’s signals, the argument for leaving part of the spectrum unlicensed grows stronger as well.

In the past, when the F.C.C. auctioned spectrum for cellular service, it allowed the winners to determine the equipment and applications that would run on their networks. That created the current status quo, in which a vast majority of American consumers buy a handset from a wireless service provider.

The open-access rules, which will apply to about one-third of the spectrum being sold at the auction, represent a significant departure from past practice. They require the winners to let consumers use any tested, safe and compatible device or application on its network. Entrepreneurs could sell handsets with capabilities that are unavailable — or unavailable at affordable prices — from current carriers. As long as a manufacturer offered a product compatible with a network, the consumer could use that product — without needing to take measures like unlocking it with his teeth.

The spectrum in the coming auction is low frequency, which means that a signal using it could travel long distances and penetrate walls, making it very appealing for a national wireless network. Because the signal travels well, for example, fewer towers would be needed. Thus, it is possible that a new network could emerge from the auction to compete with the four existing national carriers.

Although the open-access rules could lead to innovation in devices and applications, they might not do much to increase competition among carriers. Preventing an influx of additional competition would be valuable for the big existing carriers, so they may bid aggressively enough that no new carriers will win significant licenses at the auction.

Both Google and Frontline Wireless — a start-up whose vice chairman is Reed E. Hundt, a former F.C.C. chairman — lobbied the commission to effectively force new entry into the market by imposing added restrictions on auction winners. They argued that winners should be forced to resell use of the spectrum at wholesale rates, a provision the F.C.C. did not adopt. The idea was that this spectrum could support multiple services, creating competition and driving down prices.

Having missed the opportunity to include these provisions in the coming auction, the F.C.C. will have another chance this year to create cheaper wireless broadband services. Google and other technology companies, including Dell, Philips and Microsoft, are part of a group called the White Space Coalition that is asking the F.C.C. to open up the empty space between assigned TV channels to unlicensed users and devices.

The idea would work like this: In many areas, not all broadcast channels are in use. The unused channels are “white spaces” of high-quality spectrum that could be made available to local Internet service providers. Unlike the much higher frequency of Wi-Fi, television broadcast frequencies can travel for miles and penetrate walls, providing a much broader range for Internet service. Because the unused channels vary across the country, the group proposes that consumers be able to buy generic devices, like PC cards for Wi-Fi, that would search for open frequencies and connect to a service.

Big cities tend to have many TV stations. That means there would be more white-space opportunity in rural areas, which also tend to be underserved by wired broadband services. If the plan worked, rural America could be dotted with high-speed wireless Internet service providers — like having a Starbucks on every corner, minus the coffee.

The catch? Television broadcasters argue that these services would interfere with digital television reception. The National Association of Broadcasters has run TV spots depicting doomsday — an increasingly irritated woman banging on her TV because, “if Microsoft and other high-tech companies have their way, your TV could freeze up and become unwatchable.”

Interference with broadcast television wouldn’t affect the more than 80 percent of television-viewing households who don’t watch over-the-air TV anyway. And it wouldn’t be a problem if the white-space gadgets work as intended, avoiding frequencies where there is any conflict. Unfortunately, that is not a given: a Microsoft device failed F.C.C. engineering tests earlier this year.

The F.C.C. has shown some bravery in maintaining the open-access auction rules, despite efforts to dismantle them. Now the commission needs to deal with the arguments of the broadcasters.

While there is certainly a risk that white-space Internet devices could interfere with some television signals, the potential for cheap, accessible wireless broadband is too great to pass up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/bu...ia/21view.html





Politeness and Authority at a Hilltop College in Minnesota
Verlyn Klinkenborg

Last week I spent a couple of days in western Minnesota, giving a talk and visiting some classes at Gustavus Adolphus College. The campus covers a hill above the small town of St. Peter, and the wind cuts across it like old news from the west. Gustavus Adolphus is a Lutheran college. I asked a couple of students how it differs from St. Olaf College — another Lutheran institution in a small Minnesota town, where I once taught — and they said, “They’re Norwegian. We’re Swedish.”

Once, a town like St. Peter would have seemed like destination enough. After all, small farm towns with good colleges are not that common. But now, more and more of the faculty live in the Twin Cities, an hour and a half away, and, as one professor told me, the college describes itself to new recruits in terms of its distance from a city, not its presence in a town.

I sat in on four classes, which were marred only by politeness — the deep-keeled Minnesotan politeness that states, as a life proposition, that you should not put yourself forward, not even to the raising of a hand in class.

Things always warmed up, but those first lingering notes of hesitation were something to behold. I tried to think of it as modesty, consideration for others and reluctance in the presence of a guest — from New York nonetheless. And yet I kept wondering just how such bright, personable students had become acculturated to their own silence. I had grown up in a similar place and knew a little how they felt, but that was a long time ago.

Midway through lunch one day a young woman asked me if I noticed a difference between the writing of men and the writing of women. The answer is no, but it’s a good question. A writer’s fundamental problem, once her prose is under control, is shaping and understanding her own authority. I’ve often noticed a habit of polite self-negation among my female students, a self-deprecatory way of talking that is meant, I suppose, to help create a sense of shared space, a shared social connection. It sounds like the language of constant apology, and the form I often hear is the sentence that begins, “My problem is ...”

Even though this way of talking is conventional, and perhaps socially placating, it has a way of defining a young writer — a young woman — in negative terms, as if she were basically incapable and always giving offense. You simply cannot pretend that the words you use about yourself have no meaning. Why not, I asked, be as smart and perceptive as you really are? Why not accept what you’re capable of? Why not believe that what you notice matters?

Another young woman at the table asked — this is a bald translation — won’t that make us seem too tough, too masculine? I could see the subtext in her face: who will love us if we’re like that? I’ve heard other young women, with more experience, ask this question in a way that means, Won’t the world punish us for being too sure of ourselves? This is the kind of thing that happens when you talk about writing. You always end up talking about life.

These are poignant questions, and they always give me pause, because they allow me to see, as nothing else does, the cultural frame these young women have grown up in. I can hear them questioning the very nature of their perceptions, doubting the evidence of their senses, distrusting the clarity of their thoughts.

And yet that is the writer’s work — to notice and question the act of noticing, to clarify again and again, to sift one’s perceptions. I’m always struck by how well fitted these young women are to be writers, if only there weren’t also something within them saying, Who cares what you notice? Who authorized you? Don’t you owe someone an apology?

Every young writer, male or female, Minnesotan or otherwise, faces questions like these at first. It’s a delicate thing, coming to the moment when you realize that your perceptions do count and that your writing can encompass them. You begin to understand how quiet, how subtle the writer’s authority really is, how little it has to do with “authority” as we usually use the word.

Young men have a way of coasting right past that point of realization without even noticing it, which is one of the reasons the world is full of male writers. But for young women, it often means a real transposition of self, a new knowledge of who they are and, in some cases, a forbidding understanding of whom they’ve been taught to be.

Perhaps the world will punish them for this confidence. Perhaps their self-possession will chase away everyone who can’t accept it for what it is, which may not be a terrible thing. But whenever I see this transformation — a young woman suddenly understanding the power of her perceptions, ready to look at the world unapologetically — I realize how much has been lost because of the culture of polite, self-negating silence in which they were raised.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15mon4.html





Xerox Document Security Blocks Access to Sensitive Data
Layer 8

Xerox today touted software it says can scan documents, understand their meaning and block access to those sensitive or secure areas so that prying eyes cannot read, copy or forward the information.

Xerox and researchers from its Palo Alto Research Center debuted "Intelligent Redaction," new software that automates the process of removing confidential information from any document. The software includes a detection tool that uses content analysis and an intelligent user interface to protect sensitive information. It can encrypt only the sensitive sections or paragraphs of a document, a capability previously not available, Xerox said. The software also creates an audit trail for tracking access.

After information has been classified, that same information will be automatically redacted if it appears in other documents. the "intelligence" ensures a consistent level of security, saves time and increases redaction accuracy, Xerox said. Redaction is the ability to control what someone sees. For example, redaction traditionally has been used in legal documents to limit access to information protected by client-attorney privilege. The result is a document that has been censored; certain information within the document is blocked out, Xerox said in a statement.

Traditional redaction has two big drawbacks. It requires a labor-intensive manual process to identify sections to censor, and management of different versions of the same document is cumbersome and difficult, Xeros said. Current software encrypts whole documents, while Intelligent redaction understands document context so it can perform partial encryption. Only sensitive sections or paragraphs are encrypted, while the rest of the document is not.

Researcher see a ton of applications for the software. For example, in a hospital where security of medical record transfer needs to be ensured. Financial services and government dat transfers also depend heavily on secure documents.

Researchers said the software was still in development and did not release the cost of the package.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/20602





What’s Really Broken with Windows Update – Trust
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

On Friday I posted briefly about yet another potential problem with Windows Update. Initial investigations of PCs at the PC Doc HQ have turned up no leads but I have discovered something else that broken about Microsoft Windows Update mechanism - trust.

See, here’s the problem. To feel comfortable with having an open channel that allows your OS to be updated at the whim of a third party (even/especially* Microsoft … * delete as applicable) requires that the user trusts the third party not to screw around with the system in question. This means no fiddling on the sly, being clear about what the updates do and trying not to release updates that hose systems. While any and all updates have the potential to hose a system, there’s no excuse for hiding the true nature of updates and absolutely no excuse for pushing sneaky updates down the tubes. Over the months vigilant Windows users have caught Microsoft betraying user trust on several separate occasions and this behavior is eroding customer confidence in the entire update mechanism.

I have no doubt that an automatic update mechanism is an important feature of any modern operating system. Windows isn’t alone in having this kind of mechanism - both Mac OS X and Linux distros ship with similar features. Having the ability to automatically push critical security updates to vulnerable PCs keeps us all that little bit safer. Problem is, each time an incident that erodes confidence in the mechanism is reported, more people decide to pull the plug on updates and decide that it’s better to take their chances against the hackers and cyber criminals. This is a bad thing all round.

What bothers me more than the specific issues themselves is the attitude that Microsoft seems to take to reported issues. The overall impression that I get as someone who deals directly with the company is that Microsoft believes that it is right and anyone making a fuss is ultimately wrong. This doesn’t give me any confidence that the message that change is needed has been received and understood. I’ve had reassurances that there will be greater transparency in future, but I’ve yet to see any progress made here. Let’s have a little less conversation and a little more action people.

Some people feel that stealth updates and pushing WGA to users under the guise of a security update is paving the way for all sorts of nasty and restrictive DRM mechanisms to be pushed down the system. While I personally don’t take this view, it’s easy to see where these extreme ideas come from.

Personally, given the critical role that Windows Update plays in keeping the Windows ecosystem safer, I think it’s time for someone to come forward and claim responsibility for the mechanism, what’s pushed through it and how this is done. Something needs to be done to rebuild user confidence in the system.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=855





Looking for Napster 2.0

Nearly a decade after the now-bankrupt file-sharing company shook up the music business, entertainment companies are still eyeing peer-to-peer businesses warily.
Jon Healey

Eight years after the debut of Napster, the pioneering song-swapping service, file-sharing programs remain hugely popular among consumers -- and equally unpopular among the major record companies and movie studios. This disparity raises the question: If peer-to-peer networks are so good at distributing valuable content to audiences of millions, why hasn't anyone figured out a way to make money off of them?

It's not for lack of trying. Executives at the original Napster planned to convert the network into a subscription service, but the company went bankrupt before it could obtain licenses from all the major labels. One of Napster's contemporaries in the illegal file-sharing world, iMesh, got the licenses that Napster could not, but it hasn't shown the ability to convert masses of free downloaders into paying subscribers (the privately held company hasn't disclosed any data yet on its subscriptions). The former head of Grokster, Wayne Rosso, won the labels' support long ago for a p2p network called Mashboxx that blocked illegal downloads, but he's still in development and looking for cash.

The latest approaches pay less heed to selling downloads, focusing instead on hooking users with free content that can be monetized through advertising. These include Qtrax and the latest iteration of Mashboxx. Meanwhile, other p2p ventures, including Grooveshark, are supplementing downloads with on-demand streams. Whether any of them will succeed -- or, in several cases, whether they even get off the ground -- remains to be seen. But their business models reflect a shift in thinking about content online and how to make money off it.

The most conventional of the new breed of monetized p2p is Grooveshark, which is a throwback in a couple of ways. First, it features many of the annoyances of an unfiltered file-sharing network, most notably files with inconsistent or incomplete labels. That can turn searching for specific tracks into a chore. More significantly, Grooveshark has been talking to the labels and music publishers, but it launched without a full set of licenses. Therefore, much of what's happening on the network is, technically, copyright infringement. That doesn't bode well.

What's different about Grooveshark is its blend of Kazaa's try-before-you-buy capabilities with the iTunes Store's pricing. People can play songs from other users' collections for free -- that's the try-before-you-buy aspect -- but it costs 99 cents a track to download a permanent copy that can be burned onto CD or loaded onto an MP3 player. It also has a number of social-media features. Users can share playlists and browse through one another's collections, and they collect a commission on every track sold from their computer. That social layer, along with the software's ability to recommend artists similar to the ones being searched for, make for a richer experience than most p2p networks.

The company faces some non-trivial hurdles, starting with its reliance on unlocked MP3 files. That might be a market imperative from the consumer's point of view, but it has been a nonstarter for two of the four major record companies -- Warner Music Group and Sony BMG. And from a business model point of view, Grooveshark faces thin margins on the 99-cent downloads, and yet it has to pay royalties to the labels and music publishers every time a song is downloaded or streamed. (Company executives say they plan to pay the standard royalty rate for the downloads, plus a negotiated royalty on the streams.) If users do a lot of trying but not a lot of buying, the company will soon be bleeding cash.

Unlike Grooveshark, the as-yet unlaunched Qtrax won't try to build a file-sharing community from scratch. Instead, it wants to build its service on top of Gnutella and other existing p2p networks, giving its users access to the millions of files already shared there. And it isn't terribly interested in selling music; instead, it wants to sell ads and build ad campaigns around its users' downloading habits.

Qtrax uses audio fingerprints to identify the songs available through p2p networks, making them much easier to use and more reliable. Just as important, the fingerprint technology enables Qtrax to enforce the terms set by copyright owners. Examples include allowing songs to be downloaded freely, attaching electronic locks to disable them after a limited number of plays, or blocking them outright. The middle option is the one chosen by the major record companies, which have agreed to permit Qtrax users a handful of free plays before instructing them to buy a permanent copy.

The locks could prevent the service from working with Apple's iPod, by far the world's most popular MP3 player, because Apple hasn't agreed to let any other companies use its proprietary anti-piracy technology. But according to Qtrax CEO Allan Klepfisz, that sort of control is essential to unlocking the pent-up demand from advertisers to get into the p2p scene. Major advertisers stayed away from networks such as Kazaa because of the rampant piracy there. "Advertisers, because of fear, were sort of the last bastion of respect for copyrights," Klepfisz said in a recent interview. "Now that they can go into a legal arena, they're suggesting all sorts of creative campaigns," which should generate more revenue than the typical online ad.

Similarly, Rosso said Mashboxx isn't as concerned about selling music as it is "monetizing the activity around it." Borrowing a page from Google, Mashboxx wants to sell ads tied to the searches people conduct for music on p2p networks. In addition to making p2p networks easier to navigate, its software has two basic purposes: impose the restrictions on shared files that copyright holders demand and match advertisers to the users to whom they want to market. The hope is that the improved reliability and the added features, combined with the labels' blessing, will draw users in spite of the trade-offs. Like Qtrax, Mashboxx won't give users a free way to fill their iPods, but it will provide a legal way to play songs on demand for free at least a few times.

Qtrax hasn't launched yet, despite more than three years of work on the technology and the licenses. Until it does, it's hard to predict just how much advertising the company will be able to attract or how much it will need to satisfy the labels' royalty demands. Klepfisz said the U.S. debut will come before Christmas, with the service opening to the rest of the world shortly thereafter.

Rosso said Mashboxx is still looking for backers and needs cash to finish work on its software. Its business model faces the same challenges as Qtrax's, but in an era of rampant free downloading, Rosso would rather be selling ads aimed at music fans than the music itself. "Record companies can't make money selling it, why do they think anybody else can?" Rosso asked, adding that "the way to compete with free is to make [music] free. It has to be sponsored. It has to be subsidized."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...opinion-center





Shawn Fanning’s Snocap Prepares for Fire Sale
Saul Hansell

Shawn Fanning has been close to the ideas that have changed the music business, but he never got them exactly right. In large part because he was too early.

The latest frustration is that Snocap, a company that Mr. Fanning started, laid off 31 of its 57 employees yesterday. The reason, said Ali Aydar is that the company has received several acquisition offers.

“We are doing what we can to package the company and put it up for sale,” he said. As a result, it will serve its existing clients but stop developing new products.

(Word of the layoffs and possible sale was first reported on Vallywag.)

Mr. Fanning, of course, was hacking around in his dorm room and created Napster, which went on to raise venture capital, attract tens of millions of users and ultimately die at the hands of the courts. Snocap was an attempt to build the business side of file-sharing networks. It was designed to monitor what songs were downloaded, blocking some and collecting payments for others. (I wrote a profile of Mr. Fanning and Snocap two years ago.)

The company could never get this to work in the music world. The concept required file-sharing networks to cooperate and users, in turn, to decide that they indeed will have to pay for music. In fact, faced with lawsuits, file-sharing services essentially were driven underground, where they thrive more than ever.

Mr. Fanning withdrew several years ago, and started a social network for gamers (Rupture.com). Snocap changed plans and set up a system to help indie bands sell their own music on MySpace and other sites. It also supported Imeem, an advertiser supported streaming music service.

Mr. Aydar said that Snocap’s system may still play an important role in the music business. But with the users split between paying for music from Apple or downloading it free from file sharing services, there wasn’t much revenue available for Snocap. He said the company needs the support of a larger company that can invest in technology and marketing.

Meanwhile, the idea of a registry of copyrighted content, combined with technology to identify it, thrives in the video world. Indeed, Google is preparing a system that will identify copyrighted clips on its YouTube site. And other video-sharing sites do much the same.

Right now, these systems are meant to block copyrighted material. But over time they may also identify copyrighted material and facilitate clearing payments, for advertisements, licensing or purchases.

Shawn Fanning and Snocap, however, won’t be a part of this.

A Snocap spokeswoman sent this statement:

SNOCAP’s end-to-end digital media licensing and distribution infrastructure (Digital Registry) has scaled to contain close to six million sound recordings (including content from all major record labels). SNOCAP MyStores are growing at an impressive pace, attracting over 175,000 registered consumers, and over 80,000 artists who have live SNOCAP MyStores. In September, SNOCAP MyStores received nearly 20 million unique visitors and 140 million+ monthly impressions. The company is focusing its resources to maximize performance in these areas and on its key partnerships with MySpace, imeem, and the artists, labels, and other media properties that use SNOCAP’s Digital Registry. During the last few months the company has also received increased strategic interest from several corporations. As such, the company will continue to pursue all strategic alternatives to maximize the value of its core assets.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/1...for-fire-sale/





New Law Bars Forced Implants of ID Chips
John Woolfolk

Bosses will probably find other ways to get under your skin, but thanks to California lawmakers they won't be allowed to stick little electronic ID badges into your flesh.

A bill by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Friday, bars California employers and others from forcing people to have radio frequency identification (RFID) devices implanted under their skin. The bill goes into effect Jan. 1.

"It's the ultimate invasion of privacy," Simitian said. "They should find other ways to keep track of employees."

Wisconsin and North Dakota have enacted similar laws. While Simitian was unaware of any California companies requiring workers to get implanted with RFID chips, it has happened elsewhere.

In 2006, a Cincinnati video surveillance company called Citywatcher.com raised eyebrows when it required employees who work in its secure data center to be implanted with a chip. Simitian figured it wouldn't be long before others followed suit.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2004 approved an RFID tag for humans called VeriChip, which allows health care workers to access a person's medical history in the event the person couldn't communicate. Those tags reportedly have been implanted in 2,000 people.

VeriChip also has clients around the world that want to use human implantation as a form of identification, Simitian said. The attorney general of Mexico and 18 of his staff members were implanted with chips to allow them to get into high-security areas, he said.

The technology industry refused to support the bill, SB 362, contending it was unnecessary.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7168354





The Sinister Truth About What They Do with Our Children's Fingerprints
Sue Reid

Fionna Elliot does not look like a firebrand. A hard-working mother, she has never had the time or the interest to dabble in politics.

Yet when the local primary school wrote to her saying they were about to fingerprint her son Alexander, eight, and daughter Jessica, only six, she was furious.

The 29-year-old housewife from Balby in Doncaster, South Yorkshire, saw it as a dangerous step towards a Big Brother society.

She didn't want her children fingerprinted and she marched off to Waverley School, five minutes from the family's home, to protest to the headmistress.

"The school said they were taking the thumb print of every child," Fiona explained at her neat, semi-detached home this week.

"The new electronic mapping system would allow children to borrow books from the library.

"The headmistress said it would be exciting for the pupils and help them develop a love of books and reading."

Each child's fingerprint would replace their library card.

Placing their fingerprint on a scanner would open their computer file with records of the books they had borrowed.

The argument is that this would dramatically simplify record-keeping.

But Fiona Elliott is not prepared to accept it.

"I told the headmistress that the biometric data could easily be stolen by identity thieves or used by the State for some dubious purpose," she says.

"My children are not terrorists or criminals and their fingerprints should not be collected at such a young age."

If some choose to write this off as alarmist, she doesn't care.

For she is one of many parents appalled by what they see as another deeply worrying inroad by the State into our personal liberty.

Britain is already the most snooped-on society in the world.

It has more than a fifth of the world's CCTV cameras.

One day all our NHS records may be on a national computer accessible by thousands of health workers.

Ministers have suggested that every British subject should have their DNA placed on a national database.

And already, the State has the DNA records of nearly a million children, some as young as five.

Now the Government is actively encouraging cash-strapped schools - short of teachers, sports facilities and even books - to spend £20,000 or more on fingerprinting systems.

In the short time since the practice began unannounced in 2001, nearly 6,000 pupils have had their 'dabs' taken throughout the country.

Every week another 20 schools join the list.

So concerned are parents that, backed by academics and experts on privacy, they have launched a campaign against the fingerprinting of children in schools.

The parents say the fingerprinting is 'softening up' children to prepare them for the national introduction of ID cards and to encourage them to hand over precious biometric details without a second thought.

They point out that no other country in Europe routinely fingerprints children and that even communist China has abandoned plans for fingerprinting school pupils because it breaches human rights.

They quote the Minister for Schools and Learning, Jim Knight, who this summer admitted that the police can simply help themselves to the children's fingerprints if they are trying to solve a crime.

How many others, the parents ask, will have access to the fingerprint databases?

But those schools that have introduced the practice say there is nothing to worry about.

The data, unique to every pupil, will never be stolen or spied on, they argue.

This is simply a safe, easy and fun way for the children to take home library books or buy lunch at the school canteen. It does away with pieces of paper and dinner vouchers.

It saves time.

Parents are unconvinced. Some, among them a Suffolk filmmaker called Jonathan Adams, are considering legal action to stop schools in their tracks.

"Litigation may be the only way forward," he says.

"We fear they are in breach of the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act and the European Commission laws that safeguard the child.

"We have sought initial advice from lawyers.

"If we won, the individual schools would have to pay a hefty price for ignoring parents' wishes.

"Many have introduced the fingerprinting of pupils without even asking permission from families."

He adds: "The law says the collection of personal biometric data must be proportionate to the issue for which it is being used.

"How can it be proportionate to fingerprint a child so he can borrow a library book or order a hot lunch?

"The other question is what is happening to the fingerprints after the child leaves the school.

"The schools insist the data is wiped from the system.

"But you can't just press the delete button.

"It has to be professionally cleansed and none of the teachers seem to know that."

Mr Adams's concern is similar to many others heard by the Mail during an investigation into the growth of fingerprinting in schools, which was sparked when a reader wrote in with an alarming tale.

She said 11-year- old children were being told to place their thumbs in a biometric mapping machine at a school in Carmarthenshire, Wales.

When parents objected and began to ask questions of the teachers, they were told that children could not use the library if they did not use the mapping system and the permission of parents was not needed anyway.

Furthermore, the teachers insisted that the fingerprint data would be absolutely safe in the school system.

But just how secure is the data from abuse? The schools claim that encrypting technology makes it completely inaccessible to outsiders.

When a child places his thumb or finger on the electronic mapping pad which scans his print, it is transformed into what is called an unintelligible algorithm.

This is a string of numbers, stored on a biometric template, which is held as a code for the child's actual fingerprint.

Crucially, the schools, the education authorities and the Government say it is very difficult to convert this code back to the original thumb or fingerprint.

But not impossible.

So if the right computer geek gets hold of the code for a child's fingerprint, he should be able to create the original fingerprint from it.

So what are the dangers if a child's finger or thumb print is recreated by a hacker?

The simple answer is identity theft. Biometric information such as fingerprints cannot be changed like a PIN number, which is why, in the future, they will be used to authenticate passports or bank accounts.

The print of a seven-year-old boy, for instance, could be pinched from a school computer and then sold to someone who wanted to have the fake identity of a British citizen.

The boy grows up and, at 19, tries to open a bank account.

But he is told he already has one and he is in the red so the answer is no.

At 22, he applies for a mortgage only to be refused because he already has a 20-year loan.

At the register office he asks for a marriage licence, but then finds he already has a wife.

The identity thief has been there first.

Even more perturbing, perhaps, is the potential for mix-ups between innocent people and criminals - for the police, the security services and governments all over the world use such coded algorithms to keep the fingerprints of criminals.

As one IT security consultant in Britain, Brian Drury, said recently: "If a child has never touched a fingerprint scanner, there is zero probability of being incorrectly investigated for a crime.

"Once a child has touched a scanner they will be at the mercy of the algorithm [stored in the school computer] for the rest of their lives."

It is these issues that worry the parents. Jonathan Adams explains how his son started secondary school in Hadley, Suffolk, a year ago.

Within a week he had been fingerprinted.

"It turned out that the school had been using biometric fingerprinting for five years," says Mr Adams.

"They have never considered asking the parents for permission.

"When I objected to what had happened to my son, they sent out a consent form saying it was all fine and dandy and if you want to be awkward you can say no.

"In theory my son's fingerprints have now been removed from the system. But these are ordinary computers.

"They are networked with other schools, they are linked with the local authority, and in turn they are connected with the wider internet.

"I know about IT. Any geek in a backroom with cutting-edge software or hardware can get in to copy the biometric data of any child or all of them."

One of the fiercest campaigners against child fingerprinting is David Clouter.

He has set up a website called Leave Them Kids Alone which is pressing schools to ask permission-from parents before they take the biometric details of pupils.

The businessman acted after his 11-year-old daughter announced one evening that her school, St Matthews in Cambridge, was planning to use fingerprint scans instead of library cards.

David and his wife Katarzyna didn't believe it.

They found the letter confirming the new library system in their daughter Marysia's bag - and discovered they had no say in the matter of whether or not the system was introduced.

"Schools send out consent slips for just about anything, from allowing popcorn during cinema trips to whether we can take pictures of the school play at the end of term," Mr Clouter says, "but they didn't plan to ask the parents about taking their children's fingerprints."

Up to now, the Government has refused to say if the fingerprinting of children is legal and this is what parents may now test in the courts.

Roberta Smart is a housewife and mother of two girls, Kelsey, aged nine, and Harley, six.

They go to a primary school in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, which has introduced a thumb scanner so children can use the library.

She and her partner, Alistair, have written to the school forbidding their daughters' participation.

"I believe that this is part of a Government plan to soften up children for ID cards,' says Roberta, who is reading for a university degree.

"It is grooming the pupils at a very young age to accept that taking their personal biometric details and storing them on computers is normal.

"The school says it is doing nothing wrong and there is nothing to hide. But we are moving closer and closer to a Big Brother State.

"What could a child's fingerprints be used for in ten years' time?"

Her views are shared by Dr Sandra Leaton Gray, director of studies in sociology of education at Homerton College, Cambridge University.

She believes the fingerprinting is dangerous.

"Children are being encouraged to become compliant and passive about giving out their biometric details," she says.

"Essentially, they are being softened up for later life.

"People mix up everyday ID, such as drivers' licences, with this kind of information. It is very different.

"Some of the companies supplying the finger mapping systems in our schools have connections with the American intelligence services and military operating at Guantanamo Bay and should not be allowed access to our pupils."

Professor Ross Anderson, a Cambridge University professor and expert on privacy, agrees.

He told the Mail this week: "Britain is out of line with the rest of Europe, where the fingerprinting of schoolchildren does not happen.

"It is a slippery slope. Certainly, the pupils are being softened up and led to believe that giving their personal biometric data to the authorities is normal behaviour."

Few are more sure of that than Fiona Elliott, the mother of Alexander and Jessica in Doncaster.

She is just relieved that her children have escaped being fingerprinted by a whisker.

"Our primary school's motto is "Living, Learning and Laughing Together",' she said ruefully this week.

"Yet this is the same place that they tried to fingerprint my son and daughter. How can that be right?"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...news/news.html





Mukasey Vows Independence and Denounces Use of Torture
David Stout

President Bush’s nominee for attorney general signaled today that he would try for a collegial relationship with Congress as he pledged to run the Justice Department in an independent, nonpartisan way, and said the president did not have the authority to override laws banning the torture of terrorism suspects.

“We are parties to a treaty that outlaws torture,” the nominee, Michael B. Mukasey, told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Torture is unlawful under the laws of this country. The president has said that in an executive order.”

“But beyond all of those legal restrictions, we don’t torture — not simply because it’s against this or that law or against this or that treaty,” Mr. Mukasey added. “It is not what this country is about. It is not what this country stands for. It’s antithetical to everything this country stands for.”

While Mr. Mukasey’s testimony was consistent with the stated views of President Bush and other administration officials, his denunciation of torture and his commitment to review legal opinions authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques seemed to contrast with the position of Alberto R. Gonzales, who recently stepped down as attorney general.

The nominee also said he hoped for a new, more cooperative approach with Congress. “I think it’s been obvious from events of the last several years that everybody is better off — the president is better off, the Congress is better off, the country is better off — when everybody’s rolling in the same direction,” he said. “When the president acts pursuant to his authority with help from the Congress, with the tools that the Congress provides, then we don’t have to get into butting heads over who can and who can’t.”

As for any notion that politics should intrude into the administration of justice — a situation that many administration critics say existed under Mr. Gonzales — Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, said that “partisan politics plays no part in either the bringing of charges or the timing of charges.”

Responding to questions from the panel’s chairman, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, Mr. Mukasey noted that a 2002 memorandum by Jay S. Bybee, an assistant attorney general at the time, stating that the president had the power to circumvent the Geneva Conventions as well as laws banning torture, was later disavowed and superseded.

“Would it be a safe characterization of what you’ve just said that you repudiate this memo as not only being contrary to law, but also contrary to the values America stands for?” Mr. Leahy asked.

“I do,” the nominee replied.

“Thank you,” Mr. Leahy said. “Is there such a thing as a commander-in-chief override that would allow the immunization of acts of torture that violate the law?”

“Not that I’m aware of,” Mr. Mukasey said.

The nomination of Mr. Mukasey has been welcomed by senators from both parties, partly because they believe he is likely to be more independent of the White House than Mr. Gonzales was.

From the outset today, the exchanges between the senators and Mr. Mukasey bolstered the impression that his confirmation is all but certain. The committee members said the Justice Department desperately needs an attorney general who will tell the president things he may not want to hear, instead of functioning as an in-house counsel.

Mr. Mukasey said that, if he found himself at odds with the president on a fundamental legal or ethical issue, “I would try to talk him out of it, or leave.”

The panel’s ranking Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said he hoped the next attorney general would restore integrity to the Justice Department. And while confirmation seems assured, Mr. Specter said the hearing was “likely to be longer than most” because of the broad range of issues to be addressed.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who was a persistent critic of Mr. Gonzales, said the nominee had “earned a reputation for efficiency, fairness and integrity” in 18 years as a federal judge in New York City.

And Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said he was pleased to report that Mr. Mukasey was the same hard-working, thoughtful and intelligent person he knew as a classmate at Yale Law School four decades ago. Moreover, the senator said, “this is a man of the law, not a man of politics.”

Mr. Mukasey has signaled to senators that he is likely to impose new rules to protect the Justice Department from future complaints of political meddling. Mr. Gonzales left office last month after resigning in the wake of criticism that he fired several United States attorneys last year for political reasons.

Asked by Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin, to comment on how he would keep political considerations out of deliberations on which cases to pursue, Mr. Mukasey said, “Any attempt to interfere with a case is not to be countenanced.”

“Any call to a line assistant or to a United States attorney from a political person relating to a case is to be cut and curtailed,” he said. “And that person, that caller, is to be referred to the few, the very few people at the Justice Department who can take calls from elected officials.”

Moreover, the nominee said, “Hiring is going to be based solely on competence and ability and dedication and not based on whether somebody’s got an ‘R’ or a ‘D’ next to their name.”

After meeting with Mr. Mukasey on Tuesday, Senator Leahy said he expected Mr. Mukasey to be confirmed. “I want him to succeed,” Mr. Leahy said.

Mr. Schumer also predicted easy confirmation for Mr. Mukasey. “I don’t know of a single Democrat inclined not to support him,” Mr. Schumer said.

Democrats made clear in advance that they would question Mr. Mukasey about whether he supported the administration’s antiterrorism policies, especially its use of harsh interrogation techniques for terrorist suspects and its domestic eavesdropping program.

In his court rulings and other writings, Mr. Mukasey has suggested that he endorses the administration’s views on its wide-ranging authority in battling terrorist threats.

The nominee pledged to recuse himself in any matters involving Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor and Republican candidate for president, who has been a close friend. Federal prosecutors have been weighing corruption charges against Bernard B. Kerik, who was Mr. Giuliani’s police commissioner.

In a letter to Mr. Mukasey on Oct. 2, Senator Leahy said Mr. Mukasey would be asked about a variety of legal issues that some senators have said the White House has refused to address in detail.

“Regrettably the White House has chosen not to clear the decisions of past concerns and not to produce the information and material it should have and could have about the ongoing scandals that have shaken the Department of Justice and led to the exodus of its former leadership,” Mr. Leahy wrote. “Those matters now encumber your nomination and, if confirmed, your tenure.”

Philip Shenon and David Johnston contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/wa...torney.html?hp





China's Net Controls Tightened Ahead of Sensitive Political Congress
AP

At first, Liu Xiaoyuan just fumed when his online journal postings disappeared with no explanation. Then he decided to do something few if any of China's censored bloggers had tried. He sued his service provider.

"Each time I would see one of my entries blocked, I'd feel so furious and indignant," said Liu, a 43-year-old Beijing lawyer. "It was just so disrespectful."

Liu's frustration is hardly unique. For China's 162 million Web users, surfing the Internet can be like running an obstacle course with blocked Web sites, partial search results, and posts disappearing at every turn.

Blog entries like Liu's, which mused on sensitive topics such as the death penalty, corruption and legal reform, are often automatically rejected if they trigger a keyword filter. Sometimes, they're deleted by human censors employed by Internet companies.
In the lead-up to the sensitive Communist Party Congress, which convenes Monday to approve top leaders who will serve under President Hu Jintao through 2012, authorities have been casting an even wider net than usual in their search for Web content they deem to be politically threatening or potentially destabilizing.

"What you see now is unprecedented," said Xiao Qiang, director of the China Internet Project at the University of California, Berkeley. "They are forcing most of the interactive sites to simply close down and have unplugged Internet data centers. These are things they haven't done before."

Thousands of sites suddenly went offline in August and September when Internet data centers, which host Web servers, were shut down. In three cities, some services were temporarily cut off, while some interactive Web sites remain unplugged - until after the congress.

It's not uncommon for authorities to crack down on public opinion before party congresses, which are held every five years.

In an increasingly wired China, political rumors and speculation that used to end up in Hong Kong's more liberal media are now often found circulating first in Chinese cyberspace.

At the party congress, there's plenty of opportunity for commentary, speculation and gossip. "Who's going to be up and who's going to be down? Who's going to retire and who's going to be in the Politburo? The losers in the Internet age aren't necessarily going to go down quietly," said Xiao.

The government has built a patchwork system of controls that include software to root out offensive keywords and block blacklisted web sites. Government censors, known as Net nannies, surf the web looking for pornography, subversive political content or other illegal material. Major Internet portals like Sohu.com Inc. and Sina Corp. employ their own censors to make sure nothing runs afoul of government restrictions.

China is among a handful of countries that have extensive filters for political sites. Iran, Myanmar, Syria, Tunisia and Vietnam also strictly block political content, according to the OpenNet Initiative, a collaboration between researchers at Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Harvard University and the University of Toronto.

In a report this week, Reporters Without Borders said China's Internet censorship system "is unparalleled anywhere in the world and is an insult to the spirit of online freedom."

Commercial sites that don't comply with censorship orders are criticized, fined, forced to fire the employee responsible for the error, or closed down, the Paris-based group said. A point system is also used to keep track of compliance, with sites that rack up a certain number of demerits at risk of losing their business licenses, it said.

To underscore its determination, the government also imprisons people who mail, post online, or access politically sensitive content within China. Reporters Without Borders says 50 Chinese "cyber dissidents" are currently in prison.

All the controls reinforce a climate of fear and obedience that keep most Internet users in line, experts said.

But if self-censorship fails, "Sohu will protect you from yourself," said Rebecca MacKinnon, a new media expert at Hong Kong University.

Liu, the Beijing lawyer, did not want to be protected. He has tried to sue Sohu for breach of contract for blocking nine of his blog entries.

Yang Bei, a Sohu spokeswoman in Beijing, said the company had no comment on the case.

Liu insists the postings conformed with Sohu's user guidelines as well as Chinese law. He said that identical material posted to his Sina blog was not blocked. He is not asking for compensation, only to have his entries restored.

A Beijing district court dismissed his suit in August, saying that it did not meet unspecified criteria. His appeal is pending with the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court.

Despite the controls, Chinese cyberspace is also a surprisingly dynamic environment with online auctions, film and music downloads, social networks, huge virtual gaming populations and even spirited debate on social and political issues - though often conducted in protective double speak.

"You don't say 'tanks in Tiananmen,"' explains Xiao, referring to the 1989 military crackdown on democracy protesters. "You say 'the tractors that came into the city.' You don't say 'press freedom,' you say 'press professionalism."'

Anxiety over such veiled conversations likely prompted the closure of several data centers last month, a move that affected thousands of small personal and commercial sites and warned millions of others. The centers were told the shutdown was part of a larger campaign to clean up the Web ahead of the congress.

MacKinnon said the government appears afraid that something from one of those smaller sites will "jump out and bite the regime."

An employee with the Zitian Internet Data Center in the central city of Luoyang who would only give his surname, Feng, said its servers were unplugged on Aug. 23 and resumed on Sept. 5. But interactive sites, such as bulletin boards and blogs, were closed until after the congress, which is expected to last about 10 days, on orders from state-run China Telecom, he said.

Shanghai's Waigaoqiao Internet Data Center was shut down Sept. 3-14 on orders from a China Telecom subsidiary, said an employee named Tang. Again, customers were told their interactive sites could reopen after the congress. Another in the southeastern city of Shantou was also shuttered around the same time.

A Chinese blogger writing in English under the name Moonlight, catalogued the shutdowns in a post titled "Chinese Internet censorship goes crazy."

Xiao from Berkeley said the measures were intentionally heavy-handed.

"It's overkill to scare other people. Now the other IDCs are shaking," he said.

China's Ministry of Information Industry, which is the main government body in charge of the Internet, and China Telecom did not respond to a request for comment about the Internet data center shut downs.

Meanwhile, Chinese bloggers who have been censored say they've been "harmonized," a nod to President Hu's goal of creating a "harmonious society."

One sarcastic Chinese blogger called Xiucai - or the Scholar - mockingly posted a banner to his or her site on Sept. 4 saying: "Joyfully welcome the 17th Party Congress, building a harmonious society together. The Scholar is a good comrade. This site has temporarily shut down comments and forum features."

Within two weeks, Xiucai took the banner down too.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7160176





Dartmouth Researchers Confirm the Power of Altruism in Wikipedia
Press Release

The beauty of open-source applications is that they are continually improved and updated by those who use them and care about them. Dartmouth researchers looked at the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to determine if the anonymous, infrequent contributors, the Good Samaritans, are as reliable as the people who update constantly and have a reputation to maintain.

The answer is, surprisingly, yes. The researchers discovered that Good Samaritans contribute high-quality content, as do the active, registered users. They examined Wikipedia authors and the quality of Wikipedia content as measured by how long and how much of it persisted before being changed or corrected.

"This finding was both novel and unexpected," says Denise Anthony, associate professor of sociology. "In traditional laboratory studies of collective goods, we don't include Good Samaritans, those people who just happen to pass by and contribute, because those carefully designed studies don't allow for outside actors. It took a real-life situation for us to recognize and appreciate the contributions of Good Samaritans to web content."

Anthony worked with co-authors Sean Smith, associate professor of computer science, and Tim Williamson, a member of the Dartmouth Class of 2005 who worked on the project as an undergraduate. They set out to examine the reputation and reliability of contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has an archive of the history of changes and edits to its entries, which allowed the researchers access to analyze the perceived quality of content.

By subdividing their analysis by registered versus anonymous contributors, the researchers found that among those who contribute often, registered users are more reliable. And they discovered that among those who contribute only a little, the anonymous users are more reliable. The researchers were most surprised to find that the reliability of Good Samaritans' contributions were at least as high as that of the more reputable registered users' contributions.

"Wikipedia is a great example of how open-source contributions work for the greater good," says co-author Smith. "And because it welcomes input from anyone, not just programmers and geeks, it is a great research tool. We can mine information from Wikipedia that helps us understand human behavior."

According to Anthony, Wikipedia now requires that anonymous contributors who make numerous edits must register.

"This will probably limit the number of low-quality contributions we find among high-use anonymous contributors, because in exposing their identity, they will have their reputation to consider," says Anthony. "I don't foresee this new policy affecting the quality of those Good Samaritans, though. Their presence should continue to be valuable."

Their study has been presented at academic conferences, and it is available online.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2007/10/17.html





Google, Random House Move Closer on Book Search

Random House, the world's biggest book publisher, is considering joining a book-search project run by Google, once considered an archenemy by the paper publishing industry.

The two parties are talking to one another about the less controversial part of Google's book-scanning project--its partner program--sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters at this week's Frankfurt Book Fair.

Google has agreements with more than 10,000 publishers, large and small, who give their books to Google to be scanned in full. Google then makes them partially available--according to agreements with each publisher--for online readers.

It also works with 27 academic and reference library partners to gain access to out-of-print works.

But part of the library project has proved controversial and thrown Google into legal dispute with U.S. publishers as Google also scans works from its U.S. library partners that are still in copyright without asking the publishers first.

Random House, a unit of German media group Bertelsmann, has until now held out and not joined the publisher partner program, which can help boost book sales, especially of publishers' so-called backlists of older titles.

When asked this week whether the parties were close to an agreement, a Random House spokesman said: "Random House continues to have periodic constructive conversations with Google on issues of mutual relevance."

Google declined to comment.

Random House, as a member of the American Association of Publishers, says it continues to support a U.S. copyright case filed against Google in 2005 and funded by the association.

The lawsuit--brought by Penguin, Pearson, McGraw-Hill, Wiley and Simon & Schuster--aims to stop Google from scanning in-copyright works it gets from its library partners without explicit permission from publishers.

The Bookseller trade magazine reported on Thursday that Random House was "close to healing its rift with Google."

Culture Monopoly

Google has so far digitized the full texts of more than one million books. The total number of books in the world is unknown but global library collective WorldCat has more than 91 million bibliographic records in its database, the largest of its kind.

Google has come some way toward pacifying its critics since causing a furor after it launched the project in 2004 amid fears, most vociferous in Europe, that Google would gain something close to a monopoly of world culture.

Google now works with 27 libraries worldwide, up from seven a year ago, and its book search is available in 11 languages.

The company, which does not charge or pay its publisher partners, gains depth and authority for its Internet search engine by making both Web pages and books searchable.

It has already integrated book results into its U.S. search engine and is beginning to do so in Europe.

Google does include advertising on its partner program book-search pages, with its publisher partners getting most of the advertising revenue.

It has no current plans to do so on its library search pages while it is still improving them, for example by including links to Google Maps to show where the action in a book is taking place or adding braille layers for the visually impaired.
http://www.news.com/Google%2C-Random...3-6213282.html





Shadowy Russian Firm Seen as Conduit for Cybercrime
Brian Krebs

An Internet business based in St. Petersburg has become a world hub for Web sites devoted to child pornography, spamming and identity theft, according to computer security experts. They say Russian authorities have provided little help in efforts to shut down the company.

The Russian Business Network sells Web site hosting to people engaged in criminal activity, the security experts say.

Groups operating through the company's computers are thought to be responsible for about half of last year's incidents of "phishing" -- ID-theft scams in which cybercrooks use e-mail to lure people into entering personal and financial data at fake commerce and banking sites.

One group of phishers, known as the Rock Group, used the company's network to steal about $150 million from bank accounts last year, according to a report by VeriSign of Mountain View, Calif., one of the world's largest Internet security firms.

In another recent report, the Cupertino, Calif.-based security firm Symantec said that the Russian Business Network is responsible for hosting Web sites that carry out a major portion of the world's cybercrime and profiteering.

The company "is literally a shelter for all illegal activities, be it child pornography, online scams, piracy or other illicit operations," Symantec analysts wrote in a report. "It is alleged that this organized cyber crime syndicate has strong links with the Russian criminal underground as well as the government, probably accomplished by bribing officials."

The Russian Business Network did not respond to requests for comment e-mailed to an address listed on its Internet address records. Other efforts to communicate with its organizers through third parties were not successful.

Law enforcement agencies say these kinds of Internet companies are able to thrive in countries where the rule of law is poorly established. "It is clear that organized cybercrime has taken root in countries that don't have response mechanisms, laws, infrastructure and investigative support set up to respond to the threat quickly," said Ronald K. Noble, secretary general of Interpol, an organization that facilitates transnational law enforcement cooperation. He declined to discuss the Russian Business Network specifically.

The company isn't a mainstream Internet service provider, as Comcast and Verizon are. Rather, it specializes in offering Web sites that will remain reachable on the Internet regardless of efforts to shut them down by law enforcement officials -- so-called bulletproof hosting.

Though there are thousands of Web sites that bear the Russian Business Network name on registration records, the company is unchartered and has no legal identity, computer security firms say.

The network has no official Web site of its own; those who want to buy its services must contact its operators via instant-messaging services or obscure, Russian-language online forums, said Don Jackson, a researcher at Atlanta-based SecureWorks.

Potential customers also must prove that they are not law enforcement investigators pretending to be criminals, Jackson said. Most often, he said, this "proof" takes the form of demonstrating active involvement in the theft of consumers' financial and personal data.

According to VeriSign, a cyber-criminal who clears these hurdles can rent a dedicated Web site from the Russian Business Network for about $600 a month, or roughly 10 times the monthly fee for a regular dedicated Web site at most legitimate Internet companies.

According to several private-sector security experts, U.S. federal law enforcement agencies have tried unsuccessfully to gain the cooperation of Russian officials in arresting the individuals behind the company and shutting it down.

Officials at Russia's Interior Ministry said last week that they could not discuss the network.

But Alexander Gostev, an analyst with Kaspersky Lab, a Russian antivirus and computer security firm, said the Russian Business Network has structured itself in ways that make prosecution difficult.

"They make money on the services they provide," he said -- the illegal activities are all carried out by groups that buy hosting services. "That's the main problem, because RBN, in fact, does not violate the law. From a legal point of view, they are clean."

In addition, Gostev said, criminals using the Russian Business Network tend to target non-Russian companies and consumers rather than Russians, who might contact local authorities. "In order to start an investigation, there should be a complaint from a victim. If your computer was infected, you should go to the police and write a complaint and then they can launch an investigation," Gostev said. Now, he added, his company and the police both have information, but no victim has filed a complaint.

Thomas V. Fuentes, the FBI's assistant director of international operations, declined to answer questions about the Russian Business Network but said the United States has had great success with other countries in investigating cybercrime.

Fuentes added that his agency's requests for law enforcement assistance from foreign governments sometimes conflict with domestic intelligence investigations that may be underway.

"There are times when it appears that action is not happening when in fact the other country is conducting a very sensitive investigation, and we have to take it on the chin," he said. "But that works both ways. That happens with us for requests we sometimes receive where we'd rather not go public with certain information at the time of the request."

Without a diplomatic or legal solution to the Russian Business Network, some Internet service providers have begun walling off their customers from the company.

One security administrator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that within a few months of blocking the Russian company, his employer found it was saving significant amounts of money by spending less time helping customers clean viruses originating from the Russian Business Network off computers or taking down online scam sites or spam-spewing PCs. "Our instances of spam and infected machines dropped exponentially," he said.

Danny McPherson, chief research officer at Arbor Networks, a Lexington, Mass.-based company that provides network security services to some of the world's largest Internet providers, said most providers shy away from blocking whole networks. Instead, they choose to temporarily block specific problem sites.

"Who decides what the acceptable threshold is for stopping connectivity to an entire network? Also, if you're an AT&T or Verizon and you block access to a sizable portion of the Internet, it's very likely that some consumer rights advocacy group is going to come after you."

The unusually clear-cut case of Russian Business Network, McPherson said, has generated debate between the service providers and the security research community. Many researchers see blocking purely illegal networks as a no-brainer. But blocking problematic networks typically means they merely go to a new place on the Internet, McPherson said.

"At the end of the day," he said, "it only moves the problem somewhere else, when what we really need is for political and regulatory law enforcement to step in."

Growing numbers of security specialists for several U.S. Internet providers and telecommunications companies say they are done waiting for the cavalry to arrive. "There is never going to be an easy and painless way to combat this problem, mainly because it's been ignored for far too long and been allowed to fester," said the security administrator who did not want to be identified.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...61.html?sub=AR





Man Accused of Hacking Into 911

Washington man accused of faking emergency call that sent armed response to unsuspecting Lake Forest family's home.
Salvador Hernandez

SWAT officers expected to find a victim shot to death, drugs and a belligerent armed suspect when they surrounded the home of an unsuspecting couple, but found they were only a part of a false emergency call caused by a teenager who hacked into the county’s emergency response system, authorities said.

As officers swarmed the home with assault rifles, dogs and a helicopter, a Lake Forest couple and their two toddlers inside their home slept unsuspectingly.

On March 29 at 11:30 p.m., authorities allege, Randall Ellis, a 19-year-old from Mukilteo, Wash., hacked into the county’s 911 system from his home and placed a false emergency call, prompting a fully armed response to the home of an unsuspecting couple that could have ended tragically.

Thinking that a prowler was roaming his back yard, a resident of the home, identified only as Doug B. in the district attorney’s complaint filed in court, walked outside with a kitchen knife as SWAT officers from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department waited with assault rifles.

“It was just a horrifying experience,” said Doug B., who requested not to be identified further. “You think you feel safe in your own home. We had no idea what was going on.”

Doug B. and his wife did not feel safe in their home for weeks after the incident and wondered why their home was the one selected.

Doug B. was not able to go back to sleep for hours that night, and he rigged the doors and windows before he was able to go to bed.

“I thought someone was in my back yard, and they were going to get my family,” he said. “It was terrifying for months afterward.”

Officers apprehended and cuffed the resident and his wife, identified as Stacy B. It was moments later they learned the call was false, said Lt. Mike McHenry of the South County Investigations Bureau.

“The danger is significant,” said Lt. Don Barnes, chief of police services for Lake Forest. “That (situation) played out OK, although it scared the victims significantly.”

Ellis is expected to appear in an Orange County courtroom Monday to face charges of computer access and fraud, false imprisonment by violence, falsely reporting a crime and assault with an assault weapon by proxy.

“It’s not a prank,” Emami said. “People’s lives were in danger.”

Farrah Emami, spokeswoman for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, said Ellis selected the couple’s name and address at random and electronically transferred false information into the 911 system.

Authorities believe this is not the only time that Ellis has done this. As part of their investigation, authorities believe Ellis created similar false SWAT responses in Bullhead, Ariz.; Millcreek Township, Pa.; and in his hometown of Mukilteo, Wash.

False 911 calls are placed all the time, McHenry said, but he said this is the first time someone has hacked into Orange County’s system and created a false call in this way.

“We’ve seen nothing like this,” McHenry said. “This was unique. This was pretty serious.”

Other law enforcement agencies have seen similar breaches into their 911 systems as part of a trend picked up by computer hackers in the nation called “SWATting”, Barnes said.

The purpose is to create a false 911 call that appears to be coming from the residence in question and prompt a SWAT response from local law enforcement agencies, Barnes said.

Authorities would not divulge details on how Ellis hacked into the system, stating that doing so would jeopardize the investigation and possibly create copycats. But the call that prompted a full response to the Lake Forest home started as a call to the Orange County Fire Authority as a drug overdose and progressed into a possible murder, McHenry said.

A supposed teenager stated someone had overdosed on cocaine. The teenager then stated he had been shot in the shoulder and that attackers were going to go shoot and kill his sister, he said.

Canines, a helicopter and SWAT officers responded to the false call.

“It was a pretty large response,” McHenry said.

Through electronic forensics, investigators were able to link Ellis to the false call, Emami said.

Ellis does not appear to have a criminal record, Emami said, but it looks like he’s done this before. He was taken into custody by authorities in Mukilteo on Friday. He waived extradition Monday in court and is expected to appear in Orange County Superior Court on Oct. 22 for an arraignment hearing.

Now Doug B. said he is hoping that the upcoming court proceedings can shed some light into why this happened and why his family was targeted.

“My family is my life and to feel like its being threatened is horrifying,” he said.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/home-...1-ellis-system





Scam Czars

What’s Russian for ‘Hacker’?
Clifford J. Levy

PERHAPS the most famous con artist of the Soviet era was a fast-talking, eye-winking, nimble-fingered, double-dealing journeyman named Ostap Bender. He was fictional, the antihero of a satirical novel about a quest for lost jewels called “The 12 Chairs,” but his casual disdain for the law reflected a widely held cynicism here.

“This misdeed, though it does come under the penal code, is as innocent as a children’s game,” Bender says of a scheme to use a purloined document to steal another man’s identity.

Were Bender to ply his trade these days, he would undoubtedly be sitting in front of a computer, spewing out e-mails that slyly ask for credit card information or hawk sexual aids and other flimflam. Russia has become a leading source of Internet ills, home to legions of high-tech rogues who operate with seeming impunity from the anonymous living rooms of Novosibirsk or the shadowy cybercafes of St. Petersburg.

The hackers go by names like ZOMBiE and the Hell Knights Crew, and they inhabit such a robust netherworld that Internet-security firms in places like Silicon Valley have had to acquire an expertise in Russian hacking culture half a world away. The security firms have not received much assistance from the Russian government, which seems to show little interest in a crackdown, as if officials privately take some pleasure in knowing that their compatriots are tormenting millions of people in the West.

In fact, Russian hackers became something akin to national heroes last spring when a wave of Internet attacks was launched from Russia against Web sites in Estonia, the former Soviet republic. The incidents began after the Estonians angered the Kremlin by moving a Soviet-era war monument.

The motive for most wrongdoing, though, tends to be greed. In 2005, Russians broke into the State of Rhode Island Web site and then brazenly proclaimed that they had swiped credit card information from 53,000 transactions. Officials acknowledged the theft, though they said the scope was smaller.

The perpetrators in these affairs are rarely if ever caught, but it is not hard to deduce their backgrounds. Russia has long had a strong system of math and science education, and until the relatively recent upturn in the economy, the multitudes of whiz kids who graduated from its schools often had poor job prospects.

At the same time, they were entering a society that for decades had built up a deep skepticism about the virtues of following the rules. Under Communism, the thicket of strictures that governed almost every aspect of life was considered so inane that only fools were thought to abide by them.

“The law in Soviet times had a different function,” said Georgy Satarov, president of the Indem Foundation, an independent watchdog group in Moscow. “The law was not oriented toward protecting the interests of citizens. It’s the party that protects the citizens, and that’s all.”

One result was that corruption was rampant in Soviet times, and has endured, if not gotten worse. Russia ranked 143 out of 180 countries and territories — on a level with Gambia, Togo and Indonesia — in a recent survey of government corruption conducted by Transparency International, a nonprofit group. (The higher the number, the more corrupt.)

The ethos has often been that if provincial governors and traffic cops and everyone else have their hands out, why should I play it straight?

This penchant has not stayed rooted to Russian soil. In the United States, a center for health care fraud is Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, which has one of the nation’s largest concentrations of Russian immigrants. In other words, the neighborhood has a number of people who grew up in a society where everyone finagled to get by, and few saw anything wrong with putting one over on a callous government.

“This is a country where everybody used to moonlight,” said Gary Shteyngart, the Russian-American author. “It’s a country where there was never enough money, the money that the government paid was kind of a token, and you had to make your way by hook or by crook. There was always a great entrepreneurial spirit in Russia, but it has always been directed at things that not only help people, but also hurt people.”

Of course, Russia is not the only generator of Internet havoc. For similar historical and social reasons, such problems have cropped up across the sphere of Soviet influence, from the Czech Republic to Ukraine to Kazakhstan.

Internet security experts say that only the United States and China rival Russia in hacker activity. But Russia has only 28 million Internet users, according to rough estimates, compared with 210 million in the United States and 150 million in China, meaning that Russia has a higher percentage of scammers.

VeriSign, the Internet services company, considers Russian hackers to be the worst, in part because they tend to have ties to organized crime outfits that embezzle money with stolen bank and credit card information.

While the West has complained about Russian laws and enforcement, some Russian officials take issue with the criticism. Aleksei Likhachev, a member of Parliament, acknowledged that there had been fewer criminal cases in Russia than elsewhere, but said officials were still learning how to conduct such inquiries. “It is just that this work is much younger and much less developed in Russia,” he said.

Still, executives at technology companies in Russia said the Kremlin under President Vladimir V. Putin has demonstrated that when it wants action, it gets it. “The problem is that you have got a very educated mass of a population, but you have got completely ignorant, stupid lawmakers,” said Anton Nossik, a senior executive in Moscow at the company that oversees Livejournal.ru, the Russian version of the blogging and discussion portal.

“Law enforcement has no incentive and no motivation to prosecute,” he said. “They say, ‘We are not receiving complaints,’ or ‘The complaints that we are seeing are not well formed.’ They find pretexts not to prosecute.” Russian Livejournal blogs are regularly hijacked, typically by people who have stolen passwords.

Even so, there remains a sense here that Russian hackers afflict the West far more than Russia, so why bother with them.

On a Livejournal Russian forum last week, The New York Times asked participants why Russians have a reputation for Internet crime.

“I don’t see in this a big tragedy,” said a respondent who used the name Lightwatch. “Western countries played not the smallest role in the fall of the Soviet Union. But the Russians have a very amusing feature — they are able to get up from their knees, under any conditions or under any circumstances.”

As for the West? “You are getting what you deserve.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/we...ew/21levy.html





Just trying to make a buck

Woman 'Found Killer on Internet'
Justin McCurry

Police in Japan have arrested a man on suspicion of carrying out a woman's request to kill her after she contacted him via the internet.

Kazunari Saito was allegedly paid to feed sleeping pills to Sayaka Nishizawa before suffocating her at her apartment in April, local media said. Ms Nishizawa, 21, had contacted her alleged killer days earlier via his mobile phone website, which he had set up to sell sleeping pills to people contemplating suicide.

Ms Nishizawa reportedly paid Mr Saito 200,000 yen (£835) to kill her, imploring him to stay with her until he was certain she was dead. Police initially attributed her death to suicide, but launched a criminal investigation after noticing that her keys and mobile phone were missing. They tracked down Mr Saito after examining Ms Nishizawa's email correspondence.

Reports said she had sent a message to Mr Saito's website saying: "I want to die. How can I die?" He replied: "I will give you lots of sleeping pills. I will help you."

The electrician, 33, allegedly visited her apartment in Kawasaki, near Tokyo, and fed her 20-30 sleeping pills before suffocating her with a plastic bag. Her father found her body four days later.

Mr Saito confessed to the killing while being questioned about supplying sleeping pills to visitors to his website, on which he offered to "do anything" for money, including murder.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/stor...189375,00.html





SOL, as they say

Senator On-Line is Australia's only Internet Based Democratic Political Party
WebBlurb

Senator On-Line is not aligned to any other political party… it is neither Liberal nor Labor.

Senator On-Line (‘SOL’) is a truly democratic party which will allow everyone on the Australian Electoral roll who has access to the internet to vote on every Bill put to Parliament and have its Senators vote in accordance with a clear majority view.

We will be running candidates for the upcoming federal Upper House (Senate) elections.

When a SOL senator is elected a web site will be developed which will provide:

• Accurate information and balanced argument on each Bill and important issues
• The vast majority of those registered on the Australian Electoral roll the chance to have their say by voting on bills and issues facing our country
• A tally of all votes which will then count in Parliament

Each person on the Australian Electoral roll will be entitled to one vote and only be allowed to vote once on each bill or issue.

SOL senators will have committed in writing to voting in line with the clear majority view of the SOL on-line voters.

Senator On-Line will enable broader community involvement in the political process and the shaping of our country.

If you like the concept, please register your details and tell others about SOL.
http://senatoronline.com.au/





Ignoring Diversity, Runways Fade to White
Guy Trebay

IN the days of blithe racial assumptions, flesh crayons were the color of white people. “Invisible” makeup and nude pantyhose were colored in the hues of Caucasian skin. The decision by manufacturers to ignore whole segments of humanity went unchallenged for decades before the civil rights movement came along and nonwhite consumers started demanding their place on the color wheel.

Nowadays the cultural landscape is well populated with actors, musicians, media moguls and candidates for the American presidency drawn from the 30 percent of the American population that is not white. Yet, if there is one area where the lessons of chromatic and racial diversity have gone largely unheeded, it is fashion. This reality was never plainer than during the recent showings of the women’s spring 2008 collections in New York and Europe.

Although black women in the United States spend more than $20 billion on apparel each year, according to estimates by TargetMarketNews.com, it was hard to discern an awareness of this fact on the part of designers showing in New York, where black faces were more absent from runways than they have been in years.

Of the 101 shows and presentations posted on Style.com during the New York runway season, which ended a month ago, more than a third employed no black models, according to Women’s Wear Daily. Most of the others used just one or two. When the fashion caravan moved to London, Paris and Milan, the most influential shows — from Prada to Jil Sander to Balenciaga to Chloé and Chanel — made it appear as if someone had hung out a sign reading: No Blacks Need Apply.



“It’s the worst it’s ever been,” said Bethann Hardison, a former model who went on to start a successful model agency in the 1980s that promoted racial diversity.

AMONG the people she represented were Naomi Campbell and Tyson Beckford, the chiseled hunk who broke barriers in the 1990s by becoming the unexpected symbol of the country-club fantasia that is a Ralph Lauren Polo campaign.

“It’s heartbreaking for me now because the agents send the girls out there to castings and nobody wants to see them,” said Ms. Hardison, referring to black models. “And if they do, they’ll call afterward and say, ‘Well, you know, black girls do much better in Europe, or else black girls do much better in New York, or we already have our black girl.’”

Last month in New York, Ms. Hardison convened a panel of fashion experts at the Bryant Park Hotel to discuss “The Lack of the Black Image in Fashion Today,” an event she will reprise Monday at the New York Public Library on 42nd Street. “Modeling is probably the one industry where you have the freedom to refer to people by their color and reject them in their work,” she said.

The exclusion is rarely subtle. An agent for the modeling firm Marilyn once told Time magazine of receiving requests from fashion clients that baldly specified “Caucasians only.”

The message is not always so blatant these days, but it is no less clear. Take for example the case of two young models, one white, one black, both captivating beauties at the start of their careers. Irina Kulikova, a feline 17-year-old Russian, appeared on no fewer than 24 runways in New York last month, a success she went on to repeat in Milan with 14 shows, and in Paris with 24 more. Honorine Uwera, a young Canadian of Rwandan heritage, was hired during the New York season for just five runway shows.

While Ms. Uwera’s showing was respectable, it was not enough to justify the cost to her agency of sending her to Europe, where most modeling careers are solidified.

“We represent a lot of ethnic girls,” said Ivan Bart, the senior vice president of IMG Models, which represents a roster of the commercially successful models of the moment, among them black superstars like Alek Wek, Ms. Campbell and Liya Kebede.

“We have new girls, too,” Mr. Bart added, young comers like Ms. Uwera, Quiana Grant and Mimi Roche. “We include them in our show package, give them the same promotion as any other girl, and get the same responses: ‘She’s lovely, but she’s not right for the show.’”

Although, in fact, Ms. Roche and Ms. Grant, both black, were seen on runways in the last five weeks, the reality was that only one black model worked at anything like the frequency of her white counterparts: Chanel Iman Robinson, 17, who is African-American and Korean. Particularly in Milan and Paris, Ms. Robinson’s was often the only nonwhite face amid a blizzard of Eastern European blondes.

It is not just a handful of genetically gifted young women who are hurt by this exclusion. Vast numbers of consumers draw their information about fashion and identity from runways, along with cues about what, at any given moment, the culture decrees are the new contours of beauty and style.

“Years ago, runways were almost dominated by black girls,” said J. Alexander, a judge on “America’s Next Top Model,” referring to the gorgeous mosaic runway shows staged by Hubert de Givenchy or Yves Saint Laurent in the 1970s. “Now some people are not interested in the vision of the black girl unless they’re doing a jungle theme and they can put her in a grass skirt and diamonds and hand her a spear.”

And some people, said Diane Von Furstenberg, the designer and president of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, “just don’t think about it at all.” Ms. Von Furstenberg herself has always employed models of all ethnicities on her runways. (This September, she hired seven black women, more perhaps than any single label except Baby Phat and Heatherette.) Yet she is increasingly the exception to an unspoken industry rule.

“I always want to do that,” she said, referring to the casting of women of color. “I can make a difference. We all can. But so much is about education and to talk about this is an important beginning.”

But isn’t it strange, she was asked, that she would have to invoke the rhetoric of racial inclusiveness at a time when Oprah Winfrey is the most powerful woman in media, and Barack Obama is running for president?

“Why did we go backward?” Ms. Von Furstenberg asked.

Agents blame designers for the current state of affairs. Designers insist agents send them nothing but skinny blondes. Magazine editors bemoan the lack of black women with the ineffable attributes necessary to put across the looks of a given season.

The current taste in models is for blank-featured “androids,” whose looks don’t offer much competition to the clothes, pointed out James Scully, a seasoned agent who made his mark casting the richly diverse Gucci shows in the heyday of Tom Ford. In today’s climate, it is far more difficult to promote a black woman than her white counterpart.

“You want to sell the model on the basis of her beauty, not her race,” said Kyle Hagler, an agent at IMG. Yet when he sends models out on casting calls based on what he terms a “beauty perspective,” omitting any mention to potential clients of race, “You always get a call back saying, ‘You didn’t tell me she was black.’”

THE reasons for this may seem obvious, and yet the unconscious bigotry is tricky to pin down.

“I’m not pointing a finger and saying people are racist,” said Ms. Hardison, who nevertheless recounted a recent exchange with the creative director of a major fashion label: “She said to me, ‘I have to be honest with you, when a girl walks in, I just don’t see color.’ Meanwhile, they have one girl, or more likely, none in their show.”

Ms. Hardison explained: “‘I don’t see color?’ Does that mean, you don’t want to see?”

There is something illustrative of the entire issue, and the state of the industry, to be found in this September’s Italian Vogue.

Just one image of a black model appears in the issue, midway through a 17-page article photographed by Miles Aldridge and titled the “Vagaries of Fashion.” In it, the glacial blond Anja Rubik portrays an indolent, overdressed Park Avenue princess with a gilded apartment, a couture wardrobe, two towhead children and a collection of heavy rocks. The sole black model in the pictorial is more modestly attired, in an aproned pinafore.

She plays the maid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/fa...ws/14race.html





School Apologizes for Rap Song
AP

Officials at Milford's Jonathan Law High school have apologized for the use of a rap song with racial lyrics over the loudspeakers before a football game.

The lyrics blaring out over the loudspeakers before Friday's game made reference to the Ku Klux Klan and had racial slurs.

The lyrics were from Public Enemy's "Shut'em Down."

Athletic Director Frank Luysterborghs says a member of the coaching staff played the song from an iPod and the lyrics were contained on a "hidden track" at the end of the rap album, recorded in 1991, and no one knew it was there.

Luysterborghs says all coaches are being instructed to be especially careful when playing music before games, especially rap music.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/ci_7192172





Still Punk, Still Proud, Still Breaking the Rules
Melena Ryzik

About 20 years ago Debbie Harry was a regular on the Chelsea docks. Along with Chris Stein, Ms. Harry — the peroxide-blond frontwoman of Blondie, the pioneering punk-new wave group that she and Mr. Stein founded — would prowl the decrepit waterfront late at night.

“There were just a few old fishermen out there, and signs forbidding you to go out,” she recalled. “We used to always climb out on the piers. Enter at your own risk in New York style, you know. It was romantic.”

Now, of course, that area is home to the sports complexes of Chelsea Piers, jogger paths and gaping tourists. But Ms. Harry still comes by. “It’s great to meditate on the Hudson,” she said recently, looking at it from a bench behind Chelsea Piers just before sunset. “Sometimes at night if you come here and it’s really quiet, it’s just magnificent.”

Does that mean she’s still breaking the rules, sneaking in where’s she’s not supposed to be?

“I guess I am,” she said. “I didn’t notice anymore.”

Well, why would she? For more than 30 years Ms. Harry, 62, has carved a path of rebellious downtown cool, providing a template for countless female rockers who followed. Along with Patti Smith and David Byrne she is one of the few survivors of the 1970s New York punk scene, often eulogized after the closing of its locus, CBGB, last October, and the death of that club’s owner, Hilly Kristal, in August.

And at a time when some of her other remaining contemporaries are retro acts, she is still moving forward. Last week she released “Necessary Evil” (Eleven Seven Music), her first solo album in 14 years. A nationwide tour begins on Nov. 8 at the Fillmore New York at Irving Plaza.

“I never wanted to be in an oldies band; I just didn’t,” she said. “I was just ready to do something new, and I needed to be creative.”

Mr. Stein said Ms. Harry’s longevity was due in part to her downtown sensibility. “I think she wanted to do an independent, under-the-radar thing,” he said of the new album.

The 17 songs on “Necessary Evil” are mostly ’80s-tinged electro-pop, with a few full-voiced ballads; the title track is a homage to Jimi Hendrix, sung-spoken with a bit of a growl. Ms. Harry wrote the album over a year and a half, on breaks from Blondie’s world tours. She paid to record it herself, in a small studio in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, a neighborhood she rarely visits otherwise. (Sorry, hipsters.) Though she collaborated with, among others, the production team Super Buddha — Barbara Morrison and Charles Nieland, known for their work with the Scissor Sisters and Rufus Wainwright — a lot of the sound came from her.

“Much more than ever before I really would come in with a melody line or a hook line or a complete song sung out,” Ms. Harry said. That was a change from the Blondie songwriting format, in which she mostly contributed lyrics to Mr. Stein’s music.

So did she enjoy being the boss?

“Yes and no,” she said. “You know, I’ve been in a band for over 30 years. I’m good at bending.”

Though her romantic partnership with Mr. Stein ended long ago, they continue to work together. He produced several tracks on her album, and Ms. Harry said everyone in the band was interested in doing another Blondie record. (The group disbanded in 1982, but reunited in 1997 and has released two albums of new material since.) She is single now, but the “Necessary Evil” album doesn’t reflect that.

“Like most pop songs it’s about relationships, it’s about sex,” she said. “I’m in love with love — sometimes.”

For now she’s devoted to her little dog, Ki-Suki, a Japanese Chin in a leopard-print harness who panted under the bench. In slim black pants and a sleeveless Dresden Dolls T-shirt (she performed with that punk cabaret duo on Cyndi Lauper’s True Colors Tour this summer), accessorized with red bra straps, a gold skull pendant, black wraparound sunglasses and her much-blonded hair, Ms. Harry still looks sexy-punk. Last year she was named a spokesmodel for MAC Cosmetics’ Viva Glam line of lipstick, proceeds from which go to charity.

And legions of downtown girls imitate her Blondie-era style, from the shaggy dyed hair and red lips to the vampy shredded dresses. “Those bitches!” she joked. But she follows her progeny, counting M.I.A., Lily Allen and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs among her current favorites.

“She just never stopped being cool,” said another descendant, Johanna Fateman of the post-riot-grrrl band Le Tigre.

Ms. Harry demurred. “It’s hard for me to think that Blondie was so completely original,” she said. “I don’t really think that I’m an icon. I think an icon is a statue, something that’s frozen, you know. I don’t feel like that.” And she added, “I don’t really love walking down memory lane.”

Though Ms. Harry is no longer climbing around the crumbling piers, she is still finding inspiration in the city, combing the galleries near her Chelsea home (she paints portraits) and going to rock shows (the Gossip, Justin Timberlake). And then there’s the river.

“Did you ever go on the Screamer?” she asked, referring to the thrill-ride harbor boat tour. “The Screamer’s fun. You just have to tell the guy who’s telling the story of New York that you know the story, that you don’t want to hear it. You just want to go fast.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/ar...ic/16harr.html





Google Takes Step on Video Copyrights
Miguel Helft

Google is seeking to put an end to the copyright wars over online video.

On Monday, the company unveiled a long-anticipated system that, if effective, would allow media companies to prevent their clips from being uploaded to YouTube without permission.

Whether the system will work well enough to satisfy media companies who have been irked by the proliferation of unauthorized copyrighted clips on YouTube is not yet clear. But if successful, the system, which Google is offering to all media companies, could usher in a détente between them and Google.

“We are delighted that Google appears to be stepping up to its responsibility and ending the practice of profiting from infringement,” said Michael Fricklas, general counsel of Viacom, which filed a $1 billion copyright infringement suit against YouTube and Google in March. “We’ll be watching to ensure that the system is reasonably effective and sufficiently robust to address the issue.”

Google said it had been testing the system with nine media companies, including Time Warner, CBS and Disney. Others involved include NBC Universal and Viacom, according to people with knowledge of the tests.

Google called the tests “promising” but would not say how effective the system was. Just last week, its chief executive, Eric E. Schmidt, said that developing a system that could identify video clips with 100 percent accuracy was virtually impossible.

“The question is, Can we get to 80 or 90 percent?” Mr. Schmidt said in an interview with a group of reporters.

It is not known if the system has reached that level of accuracy. At least one of Google’s testing partners said that it was a work in progress.

“They still have a ways to go with the system before we could call it totally sufficient,” said Edward Adler, executive vice president for communications at Time Warner.

Google said that its video identification service, which was developed by its own engineers, required media companies to submit their digital video files to Google, which would then create what technologists call a digital “fingerprint” for each file. That fingerprint would then be uploaded to a large database. Once a user uploaded a new clip, the same technology would determine whether that clip’s fingerprint matched a fingerprint in the database.

Content owners could instruct Google to block clips whose fingerprints matched their copyrighted clips. Alternatively, they could ask Google to promote the clip and even place advertising around it, to share revenue from the ads.

“We really need the content community to work with us,” said David King, a YouTube product manager. “What really drives this whole thing is having access to the reference material.”

Clips that content owners want blocked may be posted on YouTube for a few minutes before they are taken down, but over time, the company hopes to speed up the identification mechanism so that unauthorized uploads can be prevented altogether.

YouTube representatives said the system was able to identify clips that were identical to those in its database, as well as those that had been slightly modified by users to escape detection. To demonstrate, they showed a positive identification of a clip that had been captured by a camera filming a television set as the clip was being shown.

Google has been using fingerprints to recognize audio files for some time. Others, like MySpace and Microsoft, also use audio fingerprints to identify, and sometimes block, uploads of certain videos.

Google introduced the video identification system as a group of media and technology companies, including Microsoft, Viacom, Disney and others, are set to unveil a framework for how the two sides should cooperate to stamp out copyright infringement online, said a senior executive at a media company.

The executive said the group would make public that framework later this week and that, along with Google’s announcement Monday, it represented a “potential recipe for working relationships between content companies and digital distributors of all kinds.”
But not all media companies agree that Google’s identification system is enough.

“I think this is a completely inadequate solution,” said Louis Solomon, a partner in Proskauer Rose, which represents the Football Association Premier League of England, a lead plaintiff in a class-action copyright suit against Google. “It is too late in coming; it offers too little protection; it gives YouTube and Google content that they don’t need and shouldn’t have.”

Some consumer groups, meanwhile, worry that Google’s new system could prevent uploads of video clips that were authorized under “fair use” provisions of copyright law.

For its part, Viacom said it was too early to say what impact Google’s new system would have on its suit.

“We obviously have suffered significant past damages, but beyond that it is premature to tell what the effect would be on the litigation,” Mr. Fricklas said.

Google has long insisted that YouTube has always operated in compliance with copyright law, in part because it takes down unauthorized copyrighted clips when asked to by content owners. The new system would help content owners by automating that process, the company said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/business/16video.html





New DVDs
Dave Kehr

THE JAZZ SINGER

“The Jazz Singer,” which Warner Home Video is releasing today in a glittering new restoration, has long been fixed in the American imagination as the movie that touched off the sound revolution. When Al Jolson, as the cantor’s son who has abandoned tradition for a career as a Broadway belter, turns to his audience between numbers to promise, “You ain’t heard nothin’ yet,” the silent cinema immediately keeled over and died. Or so the story goes, greatly aided by that spoken line, so seemingly full of portent.

But the truth is more complicated and a bit less poetic. When “The Jazz Singer” opened in a single theater on Broadway on Oct. 6, 1927 — the day before Yom Kippur, the High Holy Day that figures prominently in the plot — filmgoers had been hearing synchronized music, sound effects and even dialogue in commercial theaters for more than a year.

“Don Juan,” the first film to be presented in the Vitaphone process, as Warner Brothers called the sound-on-disc technology it had licensed from Western Electric, made its premiere in New York on Aug. 6, 1926. A lively costume romance starring John Barrymore and directed by Alan Crosland (who would direct “The Jazz Singer” too), “Don Juan” didn’t have synchronized dialogue, but it had a full orchestral score augmented by sound effects. More important, the first half of the program consisted of a selection of musical shorts, introduced in a three-and-a-half-minute speech by Will H. Hays, the former postmaster general selected to be president of the industry’s lobbying group, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America.

If anything, it was Hays’s flat Midwestern voice that touched off the initial sensation, not Jolson’s wildly emotive blackface balladeering. Warner Brothers made three more Vitaphone features before “The Jazz Singer”; one, “The Better ’Ole” (showing on Turner Classic Movies tonight at 12:45 a.m.), was preceded by a Vitaphone short called “Al Jolson in ‘A Plantation Act,’ ” in which he performed three blackface numbers standing in front of a painted backdrop of a cotton field. He speaks almost as much in that 10-minute short as he does in the whole of “The Jazz Singer” and uses the “You ain’t heard nothin’ yet” line twice. It was not the improvised exclamation that studio publicists later made it out to be, but his standard tag line.

Box office figures for early films are hard to come by and notoriously unreliable. But the film historian Donald Crafton, in his splendid history of the period, “The Talkies: American Cinema’s Transition to Sound, 1926-1931” (University of California Press), devised a formula based on the earning power per seat of Broadway movie theaters. It suggests that while “The Jazz Singer” was a substantial hit, it was outgrossed in New York by the real sensation of the season, William A. Wellman’s “Wings” (a synchronized sound film from Paramount that went on to win the first Academy Award for best picture), as well as by Edmund Goulding’s “Love,” with Greta Garbo and John Gilbert; a “sonorized” reissue of Raoul Walsh’s “What Price Glory”; and Frank Borzage’s romantic drama “Seventh Heaven.” (The season’s big flop was a film now widely regarded as one of silent film’s greatest achievements, F. W. Murnau’s “Sunrise,” which itself had a synchronized music and effects track courtesy of Fox’s rival sound system, Movietone.)

If “The Jazz Singer” heralded a revolution, few if any contemporary observers noticed it. The critic for The New York Times, Mordaunt Hall, predicted that “the future of this new contrivance is boundless” in his “Don Juan” review. But he seemed less impressed by the talking sequences in “The Jazz Singer”: “The dialogue is not so effective, for it does not always catch the nuances of speech or the inflections of the voice so that one is not aware of the mechanical features.”

But “The Jazz Singer” will always have its place in history, if only because, as Mr. Crafton suggests, it is easier to put a name and a face to an innovation than to trace a slow and complicated transformation, which wasn’t really complete in America until 1930. (Silent film hung on in other countries, notably Japan, until the mid -’30s.) The picture remains one of the crown jewels of Warner Brothers, and the new version does it royal honors. The images shine, and the sound — which for decades has been heard only through a poorly re-recorded optical soundtrack — has been taken from the original Vitaphone discs. Though presumably some electronic twiddling has been done, the audio is now deep and clear, presenting Jolson’s performances of both “Mammy” and the Kol Nidre prayer with a new immediacy.

And Warner Home Video hasn’t skimped on the extras. The three-disc set includes a new documentary, “The Dawn of Sound: How the Movies Learned to Talk,” produced by Turner Classic Movies, as well as a number of promotional shorts from the period; examples of two-color Technicolor (a process that flourished along with the early talkies); a brilliant Tex Avery cartoon parody, “I Love to Singa,” starring a feathered crooner named Owl Jolson; and a surprising rarity: a 1938 short, “Hollywood Handicap,” that features a brief appearance by Jolson but is more notable as the next to last directing credit of one of the medium’s fallen giants, Buster Keaton.

The third disc is devoted to Vitaphone shorts, many recovered with the help of the nonprofit Vitaphone Project. (A detailed account of the group’s activity can be found at vitaphoneproject.com.) The two dozen titles included here — from the nearly 2,000 shorts produced by Warners between 1926 and 1930 — are the results of patient detective work, involving tracking down long-separated silent prints and sound discs and putting them back together.

These fascinating documents may belong more to the history of American theater than of American film: perfect records of some of the most celebrated vaudeville performers, nightclub singers and opera stars of the day, performing exactly as they would before a live audience. To watch George Burns and Gracie Allen soft-shoe their way through “Lambchops,” the turn that had sustained them as vaudeville headliners for years, is to be transported back to an orchestra seat at the Palace. The fixed camera and proscenium framing are throwbacks to the earliest years of the movies, but here the outdated technique enhances the illusion: an evening’s entertainment on the Great White Way in the days when the bulbs burned most brightly.

Also Out Today

TRANSFORMERS Michael Bay’s summer blockbuster about unassuming automobiles that turn into scary robots and save the world is available as a single disc ($29.99), a double-disc special edition ($36.99) and in HD-DVD ($39.99). (DreamWorks, PG-13)

PLANET TERROR Zombies attack a small town in Robert Rodriguez’s contribution to the “Grindhouse” double feature, here released as a stand-alone film with some added unrated footage and a bonus disc of documentaries. (The Weinstein Company, $29.95, unrated)

MY BEST FRIEND An overworked executive (Daniel Auteuil) hires a taxi driver (Dany Boon) to pose as the buddy he doesn’t have in Patrice Leconte’s French comedy. (IFC, $24.95, PG-13)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/mo...deo/16dvd.html





Amazon One-Click Patent Rejected by the US Patent Office as a Result of My Request
Igdmlgd

In a recent office action, the USPTO has rejected the claims of the Amazon.com one-click patent following the re-examination request that I filed on 16 February 2006.

My review resulted in the broadest claims of the patent being ruled invalid.

In its Office Action released 9 October 2007, the Patent Office found that the prior art I found and submitted completely anticipated the broadest claims of the patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411.

I had only requested the USPTO look at claims 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 and 22 but the Office Action rejects claims 11-26 and claims 1-5 as well!

Amazon has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejection, but third party requests for reexamination, like the one I filed, result in having the subject patent either modified or completely revoked about 2/3 of the time.

To read the original document, go to USPTO PAIR access site, choose the "Control Number" radio button, enter 90/007,946 and press the "Submit" button.

Huge thanks to everyone who helped out with the re-examination fee. You know who you are.

BTW we won the movie-making competition below too :-)
http://igdmlgd.blogspot.com/2007/10/...ted-by-us.html





Critic of Software Patents Wins Nobel Prize in Economics
doom

You've probably already heard that the Nobel Prize for Economics was given to three gents who were working on advances in mechanism design theory. What you may not have heard is what one of those recipients was using that theory to study: "One recent subject of Professor Maskin's wide-ranging research has been on the value of software patents. He determined that software was a market where innovations tended to be sequential, in that they were built closely on the work of predecessors, and innovators could take many different paths to the same goal. In such markets, he said, patents might serve as a wall that inhibited innovation rather than stimulating progress." Here's one of Maskin's papers on the subject: Sequential Innovation, Patents, limitation (pdf).
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/16/1230201





IBM Seeking 'Patent-Protection-Racket' Patent
theodp

Wikipedia defines a protection racket as an extortion scheme whereby a powerful non-governmental organization coerces businesses to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase the organization's "protection" services against various external threats. Compare this to IBM's just-published patent application for "Extracting Value from a Portfolio of Assets", which describes a process by which "very large corporations" impress upon smaller businesses that paying for "the protection of a large defensive patent portfolio" would be "a prudent business decision" for them to make, "just like purchasing a fire insurance policy. " Sounds like Fat Tony's been to Law School, eh? Time for IBM to put-their-money-where-their-patent-reform-mouth-is and deep-six this business method patent claim!
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/20/1031236





Backlog, Quotas Overwhelm Patent Examiners
Stephen Barr

Here's how bad it is at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

If the agency could shut its doors to catch up on its work, its 5,500 patent examiners would take at least two years to clear the backlog of pending applications. When the agency reopened, there would be more than 1 million new applications piled up on the doorstep.

In the global economy, innovation, technological progress and the protection of intellectual property rights are keys to U.S. competitiveness. Keeping up with the demand for patents is critical to the nation's health.

But the patent office is suffering from troublesome turnover. One patent examiner leaves for nearly every two the agency hires, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress.

About two-thirds of patent examiners surveyed by the GAO said the patent office's production quotas are one of the biggest reasons for quitting. To meet their quotas, 70 percent of examiners surveyed by the GAO said they had to work substantial unpaid overtime in the previous 12 months. Others said they caught up with their work while on vacation.

The production quotas are based on the number of applications that examiners must review and complete biweekly and have not been adjusted since 1976. Since then, patent applications have become more complex, which means it takes longer to review them.

The GAO concluded that "the root of this high level of attrition appears to be the stress resulting from the agency's outdated production goals."

Shortly after the GAO released the report last week, the Patent and Trademark Office issued a statement saying "it will review the assumptions the agency uses to establish production goals for patent examiners."

In an interview, Jon W. Dudas, the agency's director, said reducing the backlog of applications for patents involves more than hiring and keeping examiners. "A good part of this solution is saying that, 'Applicants, if you give us better information, we can do a better job,' " he said.

A quarter of applications arrive with no supporting materials and another quarter carry more than 25 references to supporting data, he said. Although an extreme example, Dudas said the agency once received an application that came in 28 boxes, with 2,600 pages per box.

"We need the best material. Not the kitchen sink. And not nothing," Dudas said.

To make the job of an examiner easier, the patent office will require inventors and others to file applications with fewer legal descriptions, known as claims, starting Nov. 1. If applications arrive with more than 25 claims, the agency will expect better supporting data, which should help relieve stress and time pressures on examiners as they research cases, Dudas said.

But whittling down the backlog of 760,000 pending applications is difficult when there is a high level of attrition in the patent office workforce (many examiners are engineers and science and technical professionals).

In the 2002-2006 period studied by the GAO, about 70 percent of the 1,643 examiners who left had been with the agency for less than five years, and nearly 33 percent had been there for less than one year.

Because it takes from four to six years of experience for patent examiners to become fully proficient, the staff churning results in "years upon years of wasted training," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who requested the GAO study.

"PTO has been unable to effectively combat its brain drain," Davis said.

The GAO review found that agency management and examiners have different opinions of what is causing the turnover.

In the GAO survey of patent examiners, 67 percent said production quotas were among the top reasons they would consider leaving.

The GAO estimated that 62 percent of examiners are dissatisfied with the time allowed by the agency to meet production goals, and 50 percent are dissatisfied with the methods used to calculate the goals. (Representatives of the Patent Office Professional Association, the union that represents examiners, did not return telephone calls seeking comment.)

The agency's managers, in contrast, said examiners leave the agency because of the nature of the work, the high cost of living in the Washington area and because of the stiff competition to get into the area's graduate and postgraduate programs. Many examiners come to the agency out of college and are looking to polish their resumes before moving on to other jobs, the managers said.

To retain employees, the agency offers "special pay rates" above regular federal scales, pays recruitment and retention bonuses, offers flexible work schedules, a telecommuting program and reimbursement for law school. At its Alexandria building, the agency provides examiners with a fitness center and a child-care center.

Patent officials are looking at hiring back retirees to work on the patent backlog and at revising "duty station" requirements so the agency can expand into a nationwide workforce.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701199_pf.html





Rights and Wrongs in the Antipiracy Struggle
Cary Sherman

Why Jammie Thomas?

That question was posed in a CNET News.com story last week, as well as in other commentaries regarding a copyright lawsuit won by the RIAA. It's worth revisiting why we, the Recording Industry Association of America, do what we do and how we got to this place.

From the moment we announced in June 2003 that we would be gathering evidence for the purpose of bringing lawsuits against end users, the program has generated attention and debate. We welcome that national conversation.

This was never a step we wanted to take, and we recognized that it would generate criticism in some quarters. It's tough love--for the first time, despite years of educational efforts and the availability of plentiful legal alternatives, we are holding people personally and financially accountable for the theft of creative works.

But the backdrop was a community hemorrhaging jobs, careers and investment in new music, amid a pervasive culture of looting in which there was little understanding of the law or the negative consequences of breaking it.
What have our antipiracy efforts yielded? A legal marketplace that is far better because of what we've done.

The process of bringing lawsuits has changed slightly since the program's inception, but one constant has been the process of identifying people who are stealing music online.

When we target an infringer, we do not know who that person is or any demographic information about the computer user. We know the songs that are being illegally "shared" (with millions of anonymous people) and the time and date of that copyright violation, nothing more. We do not have the ability to screen defendants based on their perceived sympathy or anything else.

No doubt, if we selectively enforced our rights against those deemed less sympathetic, the fringe copyright critics would call us arbitrary and capricious. We target theft. Period.

What have our antipiracy efforts yielded? A legal marketplace that is far better because of what we've done: Digital revenues doubled as a percentage of the market in 2006, from 8 percent in 2005 to more than 16 percent. An illegal marketplace which, prior to the initiation of our deterrence program, experienced exponential illicit P2P use has now mostly stabilized--the average number of households downloading music illegally on a monthly basis was roughly 7 million in 2003 and is now 7.8 million. Compare that with the growth in broadband access to the Internet, which grew from 38 million home users in 2003 to at least 80 million today.

Can there be any doubt that a whole lot more of those broadband subscribers would be illegally downloading but for the lawsuits? Surveys confirm that fact: People who have stopped illegal downloading cite the fear of being sued as the first or second reason for changing their behavior. And, lastly, there is a fundamentally different understanding of what you can and can't do on the Internet--37 percent of those surveyed in 2003 thought it was illegal to distribute music for free over the Internet; now that number has grown to 73 percent.

Think about it. What would the online music world look like had we done nothing? It's not a pretty picture: skyrocketing illegal peer-to-peer downloading without even a second thought about its legality or morality, and a small handful of legitimate businesses struggling to gain traction in a marketplace overwhelmingly dominated by piracy.

Four years into this program, the first trial of our end-user lawsuits finally happened. The fact that it took so long speaks to the clarity of the law and the clarity of the courts' various rulings on our legal program. Even the Supreme Court called illegal downloading "garden-variety theft."

Some defense lawyers, with an ax to grind and an agenda to advance, have posited a variety of bizarre legal theories about our cases. Yes, there have been a handful of procedural motions where the courts have asked us to proceed in a different manner.

But the underlying facts and the overwhelming court affirmations are irrefutable. The legal process we follow has been consistently upheld. And creative counterclaims on such theories as invasion of privacy, trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress have been regularly dismissed by courts as improper.

Which brings us to the case of Ms. Thomas. Let's be clear. We did not choose Ms. Thomas to be the defendant in the first end-user lawsuit to go to trial. We repeatedly extended a generous settlement offer, a tiny fraction of which a jury later imposed upon her, but for whatever reason, Ms. Thomas turned us down. She and her lawyer chose this fight, not us.

That said, we will not--and cannot--hesitate to defend our rights. What's the alternative? Are we supposed to say "never mind" and concede the rights of artists, songwriters, producers, publishers and labels every time a defendant who may be sympathetic to some refuses to accept responsibility? What kind of deterrence message would that send?

A jury of Ms. Thomas' peers--12 ordinary Americans from the defendant's home state--found her liable for copyright theft. In fact, some wanted to assign even a harsher penalty, according to news reports. We purposefully did not ask for any specific amount in damages. We asked the jury to decide what was appropriate--and after carefully reviewing all the evidence, they determined that $222,000 was the appropriate amount.

None of this, though, is about being in court or winning monetary judgments. We would rather be in the record studios helping artists make great music that we can distribute in lots of exciting new ways that music fans want. Because that's what this program is ultimately about--creating a marketplace that rewards investment in creativity and compensates those who make the best music in the world.
http://www.news.com/Rights-and-wrong...3-6213649.html





All Criticism of This Website Is Hereby Forbidden
Greg Beck

Inventor-link is a company that promises to help inventors get their inventions to the marketplace. A link at the bottom of the company's home page leads to the site's "Privacy and User Agreement," which includes the the following terms:

By using this site you agree and understand that the HTML code, look, feel, content, company name, logo, text, and any likeness or derivative of such content is the sole property of Inventor-Link LLC and may not be used in any manner without the expressed written permission of Inventor-Link LLC. Furthermore, we strictly prohibit any links and or other unauthorized references to our web site without our permission.

With these terms, Inventor-link purports to prohibit visitors to the site from using the company's name, linking to the site, or even "refer[ring]" to it without permission. Although the enforceability of these terms is extremely dubious, the company is nevertheless invoking them in an attempt to stop criticism of the company that appears on InventorEd.org, a website that provides information about invention promotion businesses and scams.

Inventor-link is represented by Dozier Internet Law -- the same law firm that threatened to sue for copyright infringement if one of its demand letters were posted on the Internet. Once again, Dozier sent a strongly worded demand letter identifying a bunch of statements that it alleged to be defamatory, most of which appear to be statements of opinion. The letter goes on to invoke the website's user agreement:

You have not received permission to use text from our client’s website, and yet you have republished the following text:

“Official Site of Inventor-Link LLC - Your Link to Success for Your... We know how to get your idea from a rough sketch to a finished product in the marketplace. If your idea has what it takes, we can help you get the results you want. ...www.inventor-link.com”

You have associated your disparaging remarks with bona fide text from our client’s website with the purpose of harming our client’s business and diverting actual and potential customers. By using legitimate text that rightfully belongs to our client you are in violation of its website User Agreement.

Presumably, the author realizes that copying such a small amount of text for purposes of criticism is a pretty obvious case of fair use and could not support a claim for copyright infringement. But, by framing the issue as one of contract law, Direct-link's lawyer is able to assert that all use of its website, fair or otherwise, is prohibited.

Dozier apparently believes in the enforceability of this kind of agreement, because the firm's own website includes similar terms. The firm's "User Agreement" prohibits linking to its website, using the firm's name "in any manner" without permission (the license specifically provides that even clients cannot say they are represented by the firm without asking), or making "any copies of any part of this website in any way since we do not want anyone copying us." These terms would appear to prevent even criticizing the terms themselves, as this post does, by linking to and quoting from them. And, very strangely, the terms prohibit even looking at the website's HTML code:

We also own all of the code, including the HTML code, and all content. As you may know, you can view the HTML code with a standard browser. We do not permit you to view such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws. You are therefore not authorized to do so.

Inventor-link's and Dozier's "User Agreements" are known as "browse-wrap" agreements, a derivation of the "shrinkwrap" licensing terms that appear inside packaged software. Browse-wrap agreements are the legalese contained in a website's terms of use, usually buried behind a link on a company's home page. The theory behind these agreements is that, just by reading a website, a consumer becomes bound by the company's contractual terms. These contracts often include forum-selection or arbitration clauses that visitors to the site have never read.

Depending on the circumstances of the case, browse-wrap agreements may or may not be enforceable. Where a company has included a provision prohibiting fair use for purposes of criticism, however, it is hard to see how any court would enforce the agreement. Readers of a site have little opportunity to review and agree to such terms, and a reasonable consumer who had reviewed the terms would be unlikely to agree to them.

Nevertheless, terms of use like these are commonly used by companies. AT&T was recently subjected to a round of harsh commentary on the Internet when it amended its terms of service to provide that it could terminate customers' accounts for conduct that "tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries." After a widespread backlash in the blogosphere, the company claimed that it would not use the clause to against critics, and eventually removed the offending terms altogether. And in 2002, the New York Attorney General filed suit against McAfee, the maker of anti-virus software, for including terms in its software license agreements that prohibited "product reviews" or "benchmark tests." The lawsuit claimed that the terms constituted a deceptive act or practice under New York law, and a court eventually enjoined further use of the provisions.

No matter how unlikely these kinds of terms are to be enforced, however, they are often successful in accomplishing their intended result. Consumers who receive threats of litigation over purportedly binding contractual terms are often more likely to shut up than to bear the expense of retaining an attorney and defending their rights.
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/20...reby-agre.html





'Die Hard' with a Bonus

DVD will include computer file
Thomas K. Arnold

In an industry first, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment is expected to announce Tuesday that the special-edition DVD of "Live Free or Die Hard" will come with an electronic copy of the movie that can be played on a computer and select portable video players.

"This may be the killer app, where you have physical media that allows you to have a big-screen experience and at the same time move the file around to other devices and have a great experience there as well," said Mike Dunn, the division's worldwide president.

The summer theatrical hit, the fourth in the "Die Hard" franchise and first since 1995, comes to DVD on Nov. 20 after a boxoffice run that yielded $134.4 million in domestic ticket receipts. The release precedes by nearly a month Warner Home Video's "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," which also will let DVD buyers download a copy of the movie to a PC or portable video device.

The Digital Copy feature also will be included on select other Fox DVDs down the road, though no titles have been announced. The DRM-free feature allows consumers to quickly and easily transfer the movie file to Windows-based computers or portable video players equipped with Microsoft Windows' PlaysForSure feature, available from such manufacturers as Archos, Toshiba, Samsung, RCA, Dell and Creative Labs.

"The industry has sold nearly 12 billion DVDs to date, and the release of 'Live Free or Die Hard' is the first one that allows consumers to move their content to other devices," Dunn said. "With the myriad of viewing options available to consumers in our rapidly evolving digital world, a DVD with Digital Copy offers a simple way for consumers to satisfy their growing desire to watch what they want, when they want and, most importantly, how and where they want."

To utilize the Digital Copy feature, consumers can insert Disc 2 of the "Live Free" DVD into their computer. A menu will pop up, giving users the choice of either executing the Digital Copy application or launching the DVD special features. If the Digital Copy application is selected, the computer will verify the proper requirements and ask the user to enter a 16-digit serial code, found inside the DVD case. After selecting a destination -- either the computer's hard drive or a connected PlaysForSure video player -- the transfer will begin, and the program will be ready for playback after about five minutes.

"We're looking at this as giving the consumer a whole other experience, with an emphasis on choice and ease of use," Dunn said. "There's downloading, which takes 45 minutes to an hour, and managed copy, which I never liked because it involves moving the movie off the disc and onto something else, which also takes forever. With Digital Copy, the file is formatted to go across and onto your computer and mobile device, so it's already a small file -- a rocket file that plays beautifully."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...fbebd74af313d9





What Do You Do After Nothing?
Dave Itzkoff

IN the dressing room of an Atlantic City nightclub, furnished by the request of its current occupant with cheese steaks from the White House Sub Shop and a full array of Tastykake snacks, Jerry Seinfeld was explaining the stand-up comedy ritual of “getting in the bubble”: a state of mind that a performer seeks before show time, a few final moments of calm before the tumult of an unpredictable live audience.

And make no mistake. When Mr. Seinfeld faces his crowd, he is usually thinking of the exchange in raw, physical terms: a competition to be won or lost. “I want to get ’em bad,” he said.

Minutes later he emerged from the bubble and onto a stage at Resorts Atlantic City, to riff about the banalities of bachelorhood and marriage, Cinnabons and iPhones, burials and cremations, and relentlessly to mock an indiscreet heckler who had made the mistake of announcing that his nickname was Potato Head.

The hourlong routine was a crucial opportunity for Mr. Seinfeld to practice his act at a time when he feels, as he often does, that he’s not performing enough. “No matter how many times you’ve done it in the past, it’s got to be polished or it goes away,” he had said backstage. “The act just packs up and starts walking away.”

More important, the show was a warm-up for Mr. Seinfeld’s biggest leap yet out of his bubble, onto a national platform he has not occupied in nearly a decade, and into a medium he has never attempted before.

On Nov. 2 Paramount will release “Bee Movie,” a DreamWorks Animation comedy that is by far the most substantial project that this 53-year-old comedian has taken on since pulling the plug on his “Seinfeld” television sitcom in 1998.

In the ensuing years Mr. Seinfeld has starred in an HBO comedy special, “I’m Telling You for the Last Time,” and a low-budget documentary, “Comedian,” and written a children’s book, “Halloween.” He was also married and fathered three children, and, in whatever spare time remains, continues to perform his stand-up act with a triathlete’s zeal.

Yet none of these endeavors — the professional ones at least — has demanded as much of Mr. Seinfeld as “Bee Movie,” a studio feature with a budget of about $150 million for which he not only supplied the voice of the lead character, a wisecracking honeybee named Barry B. Benson, but also helped write the script and spent nearly four years overseeing every element of the production.

He is also a central component of the film’s marketing campaign, showing up in television commercials and at live appearances (occasionally dressed in an oversized bee costume), suggesting that this cartoon movie about talking insects is just another part of his indomitable comedic continuum.

But to many fans, and to many people who worked on “Bee Movie,” the film represents the first real return of Mr. Seinfeld since the end of his television show, a welcoming back after what appeared to be a self-imposed absence. “When you watch this movie, it feels like you’ve found your best friend who you haven’t seen in ages,” said Jeffrey Katzenberg, the chief executive of DreamWorks Animation. “It’s like, where have you been the last 10 years?”

Just don’t mention this to the man whose name appears atop the movie poster.

TWO days after his Atlantic City appearance Mr. Seinfeld was walking through Central Park, on his way to lunch at the Central Park Boathouse. He was dressed in blue jeans and wore a pair of John Lennonesque spectacles, offering pointed analysis about anyone who entered his field of vision, whether it was a pedestrian wearing too much makeup (“I think that was a mime”), or Dean Poll, the well-tanned owner of the restaurant, who paid a visit to Mr. Seinfeld’s table. (“I think he just wants to show people his nice skin,” Mr. Seinfeld said.)

Much of Mr. Seinfeld’s success is predicated on the nonchalant persona he cultivated in his comedy act and on his television show, and the apparent accessibility that comes from his insightful observations of the quotidian and the ordinary.

The rewards that he has reaped have been substantial: Forbes recently estimated that he makes $60 million a year, primarily from his share of the syndication revenue “Seinfeld” still generates. (A representative for Mr. Seinfeld declined to confirm this figure.) His live touring and royalties from “Seinfeld” DVD sales also contribute to this sum.

Though Mr. Seinfeld may wear Nikes, he also lives in an exclusive residence on Central Park West, maintains a fabled collection of Porsches and travels to and from his stand-up dates by helicopter. In person he can be affable, but he doesn’t hide a certain earned arrogance. When one stunned onlooker at the Boathouse asked for his autograph, Mr. Seinfeld said, “Sure,” then kept walking straight to his table.

While attending the United States Open tennis tournament, Mr. Seinfeld recalled, he was approached by a well-attired fan who handed him a business card and invited Mr. Seinfeld to visit his brokerage house. Both men became noticeably perplexed when the offer was declined.

“I said: ‘We don’t know each other. You’re a total stranger,’” Mr. Seinfeld recounted. “He says, ‘But we really like you.’ I said, ‘Thank you so much, but this is as far as we go.’”

Mr. Seinfeld added: “This is a sophisticated guy that doesn’t understand the TV only works one way.”

On this afternoon Mr. Seinfeld was playful but also perturbed about a short article he had read over the weekend in this newspaper, 69 words about “Bee Movie” that described the film as his effort at “gingerly” re-entering mainstream entertainment.

“Gingerly,” he said with emphasis. “If they only knew. There was nothing gingerly about this.”

Mr. Seinfeld likes to tell a story of the film’s spontaneous origins, about four years ago, at a dinner on Long Island with Steven Spielberg, at which Mr. Seinfeld joked that “Bee Movie” would be a fitting title for a movie about bees, and Mr. Spielberg concluded this would actually be a good idea for a film. “I wasn’t pitching him,” Mr. Seinfeld recalled, “but then he started pitching me: ‘You gotta make this.’”

“Bee Movie” represents the culmination of a campaign more than 13 years long, waged by Mr. Katzenberg to recruit Mr. Seinfeld into animated movies. Dating to his tenure at the Walt Disney Company, Mr. Katzenberg had frequently tried to persuade Mr. Seinfeld to lend his voice to a cartoon project to no avail. “He was always amazingly open and accessible,” Mr. Katzenberg said, “and incredibly polite and definitely not interested.”

At first the reason for Mr. Seinfeld’s refusals were fairly straightforward: He was still fully invested in his sitcom, whose Studio City offices he all but lived in during the show’s nine-season run.

But after ending the show his rationale became more complicated. The unprecedented success that “Seinfeld” enjoyed had left him without a clear road map of what to do next, as some of Mr. Seinfeld’s comedic confidants acknowledge.

“Hey, if I had that money?” said Chris Rock, a longtime friend. “Please. Puh-leeze. It’d be nothing but charity work, babe.”

What persuaded Mr. Seinfeld to take on “Bee Movie” were the assurances by Mr. Spielberg and his DreamWorks partner Mr. Katzenberg that he would have free rein to make the film his way (as well as access to a videoconferencing system so he could work from New York when necessary), and his naïve assumption that it would take three to four months to write a script, record his tracks and finish the job.

“I could not have been more wrong,” he said.

Mr. Seinfeld estimates that it took him and three hand-picked writers nearly two and a half years just to complete the script for “Bee Movie,” the story of a talking bee who falls in love with a human florist and discovers, to his horror, that mankind has been stealing his community’s honey.

As Mr. Seinfeld became further entrenched in the film’s preproduction process, he was in for a rude awakening about how he was really perceived in the entertainment industry.

Working with a casting director to recruit voice talent for the film, Mr. Seinfeld was given two lists that supposedly represented all the A-list male and female stars in Hollywood. When he looked at the lineup of male performers, he was surprised to find his own name missing from the roster.

“I said, ‘How come?’” Mr. Seinfeld recalled. “She said, ‘Because everybody knows you only do your own thing.’”

To the extent that Mr. Seinfeld engages with Hollywood anymore, these interactions are often fraught with ambivalence. “I never get offered things that I think I could really bring something special to,” he said, though it is hard to imagine what kind of project he would deem a good fit. Over the years he has turned down his share of offers — most recently, a comedic caper written by David Mamet — often because he cannot find the time, and sometimes because he doesn’t have an interest. “I could just take parts to act in movies,” he said, “but they don’t need me.”

Nor can Mr. Seinfeld understand why the industry seems to believe he has spent his post-sitcom career in a cushy exile of his own design, when he continues to appear at clubs and theaters as much as possible. “That’s what I do,” he said. “That’s all I can do. That’s what a comedian is. Our thing is not disappearing into other characters. It’s being this character that you are.”

Friends who have known Mr. Seinfeld for years say that he has always been sharply attuned to the fitness of his stand-up act, and eager to perform it no matter what else was occupying him in his personal or professional life.

“When he wasn’t out there for a period of time, he would start to get antsy and feel like he was losing his edge,” said Larry David, the co-creator of “Seinfeld” and star of “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” “The phrase he would use was ‘out of shape.’ I never looked at it like that.”

That Mr. Seinfeld has, since 1999, been married to the former Jessica Sklar, the founder of the charitable organization Baby Buggy, and has a 6-year-old daughter, Sascha, and two sons, Julian, 4, and Shepherd, 2, does not seem to have diminished his fervor for hitting the road.

After finishing his Atlantic City show, he said, he took a helicopter home to New York, returning around 3 a.m. to his apartment, where he was so wired that he spent another hour watching a surfing documentary on the Discovery Channel. By the time he got to bed, Mr. Seinfeld said, “My wife goes, ‘What are you doing?’” His answer: “Acting wild.”

Still, the rarity with which Mr. Seinfeld applies his full creative energies to a project like “Bee Movie” would seem to add pressure on the film’s critical and box-office results, if only to prove that its star remains a powerful draw.

But Mr. Rock, who plays a mosquito named Mooseblood in “Bee Movie,” argued that the film should not be judged against Mr. Seinfeld’s larger body of work. “If he was doing a movie that wasn’t animated, where he was dating Scarlett Johansson, his version of ‘Manhattan,’ then maybe yes,” he said. “But this is a movie about cartoon bees.”

Mr. Seinfeld’s colleagues agreed with his assessment that it was unfair to categorize “Bee Movie” as a comeback project. “It’s not like he’s been hurt or injured or anything,” Mr. David said. “It’s not like he tried something and failed, and now has to come back from it. He’s just been doing what he wants to do.”

Some “Bee Movie” collaborators are already wondering if Mr. Seinfeld’s experience on the film could be parlayed into a larger producing career. “Don’t think I haven’t thought about it,” Mr. Katzenberg said. “I think about it every day.”

But Mr. Seinfeld quickly snuffs such pipe dreams. “So I would have an office, I guess,” he said, “and people would come in and pitch me something, and I’d go, ‘Yeah, that sounds good.’

“Oh my God, I’d kill myself. Give me a gun.”

When his promotional duties for “Bee Movie” are over, Mr. Seinfeld said, he has no concrete plans, except perhaps allowing his daughter to see his stand-up act for the first time and proving to his two sons that their father is more than just a guy who makes films about bees for a living.

He said he took a certain pride in measuring his life against those of other stars — he declined to name names — who have achieved comparable success, but who haven’t found the time or the will to settle down and raise a family. “There’s certain celebrities,” he said, “where I see where they’re at, and I know how old they are, and I know what they’re doing, and I’m like, ‘Yeah, what are you going to do now, Potato Head?’”

Mr. Seinfeld understands that these same people might derive a similar schadenfreude from seeing him — formerly the quintessential single guy — made over as a happily married man, or in secretly wishing that his remarkable streak of good fortune comes to an end. “I can’t imagine that they wouldn’t,” he said. “I sure would. ‘Enough of this guy, it’s about time he fell on his face.’”

Then the man who has almost everything considered what he might need most of all. “I think it might be time for that big, juicy flop,” he said — as long as it isn’t “Bee Movie.” “Not something that takes this long. I don’t want to spend that much time on a flop.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/movies/21itzk.html





Movie Gallery Files for Chapter 11
AP

Video-rental chain Movie Gallery Inc. filed for bankruptcy Tuesday, succumbing to a mountain of debt incurred when it bought rival Hollywood Entertainment for $1 billion in 2005.

Movie Gallery, under severe competition from online rental services, said it filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

"Movie Gallery needs to realign its cost structure due to the ongoing changes in our industry," Joe Malugen, chairman and chief executive of Movie Gallery, said in a statement.

The company also said private investment fund Sopris Capital Advisors LLC agreed to finance a reorganization of the company's debt under the bankruptcy supervision. The plan, which requires court approval, would refinance Movie Gallery's debt. It also would cancel outstanding shares in the company, but give existing equity holders the chance to receive about 2% of the company's new equity.

Movie Gallery is also seeking permission to receive $150 million from Goldman Sachs to finance operations during the bankruptcy proceedings.

The company, under heavy competition from online rental companies, said in August it could not make timely interest payments and would likely receive default notices from lenders. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services cut the company's corporate credit rating to junk-bond status in September.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...c1eec94a1f9d65





Analyst Sees Sparkle in Media Stocks
Georg Szalai

Are Lionsgate, Marvel Entertainment and Crown Media Holdings among the more attractive but overlooked media and entertainment stocks?

Investment bank Natixis Bleichroeder thinks so, and it put the spotlight on these and other small- and mid-cap stocks this week at its annual "Hidden Gems" conference in New York.

Natixis analyst Alan Gould last month raised his rating on stand-alone studio Lionsgate from "hold" to "buy" while maintaining his $12.50 price target, which provides more upside from current trading levels.

"It's one of my favorites in the smaller cap universe," he said.

In his recent upgrade report, the analyst argued: "Lionsgate's theatrical cold streak has begun to turn" thanks to "3:10 to Yuma" and other recent releases, with "Saw IV" also expected to do well when it launches Oct. 26. He added that the firm continues to grow its TV business, something that often gets overlooked, and "faces little risk from a potential economic downturn" thanks to its pure content focus.

The Natixis analyst also likes superhero powerhouse Marvel, citing the company's first two self-financed films next year as "the next major catalysts" for the stock, on which he has a $30 price target -- again providing more upside but only a "hold" as it has moved "already too close" to his target, Gould said.

But boxoffice success for "Iron Man," "The Incredible Hulk" and other self-financed movies "could result in higher earnings, sequel value and a film library for a recurring revenue stream and bolster toy and licensing sales in 2008 and 2009," Gould argued in the report.

Beyond film players Lionsgate and Marvel, Gould and his Natixis colleagues also put the spotlight on sports entertainment firm WWE, TV network firm Crown Media Holdings, TiVo, Liberty Global and Liberty Interactive as well as News Corp.-controlled set-top box technology firm NDS Group and video rental and VOD service firm Rentrak Corp. Gould owns shares in the latter two stocks.

Crown Media is "one of the last indie cable networks with Oxygen sold this week" to NBC Universal, Gould said in explaining why that stock could have upside. "But it doesn't make sense to run an independent network, so we expect a sale" to a big media company down the line.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...c96383438d952f





Vista “Out of Memory” Errors
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

You just can’t seem to throw enough memory at Vista.

There have been a number of issues that Vista users have reported relating to copying and moving data, especially large numbers of files. Often there can be multiple errors at play making it difficult for Vista users to track down the problem, in fact very often there is little indication that file copy operations haven’t completed correctly. It’s only when the user checks the number of files in source and destination that they realize they have a problem.

The “Out of Memory” error (which is affectionately known at the PC Doc HQ as the “Out of Cheese” error … don’t ask why …) is one of the biggest and most baffling of Vista’s file handling problems has been occurs when a Vista user (running Kaspersky Anti Virus 6 or 7) tries to copy a large number of files (~16,400). I know, copying that many files is crazy and not something that people do every day, I’d expect a modern OS to be able to cope with this (am I asking too much???).

These don’t have to be large files and the problem can also occur when copying smaller groups of files that in total exceed 16,400 files between reboots. Following the “Out of Memory” message a range of other errors can occur such as menus and tabs disappearing within the Windows environment and even reboots and BSODs are reported.

Although the problem occurs where users are running Kaspersky security products, it’s a kernel leak that lies at the root of problem (the problem’s not confined to systems running Kaspersky software, that just that this application seems to exacerbate the issue). This issue which has been known about for some months by both Kaspersky and Microsoft was reportedly due to be fixed in SP1, however the current beta of Vista SP1 does not contain a patch. Microsoft have now released a hotfix for the issue (you have to ask for it) which we tried out and can report that it works well to cure the out of memory problem on Vista installations, at least the ones that we could replicate (although the fix cannot be installed on the Vista SP1 Beta).

While there are still other file handling problems in Vista, such as selecting large numbers of files (~1,500) cause serious spiking in memory usage (that is not released until reboot), hopefully one by one these issues will be addressed (SP1 maybe … the current beta doesn’t fix these issues). Maybe then Vista users can feel as confident handling their data as when they were XP users.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=829





Spam Reaches All-Time High of 95% of All Email

Commtouch released its Email Threats Trend Report for the third quarter of 2007, based on the automated analysis of billions of email messages weekly.

The report examines the appearance of new kinds of attachment spam such as PDF spam and Excel spam together with the decline of image spam, as well as the growing threat of innocent appearing spam containing links to malicious web sites.

According to the report:

• Global spam levels reached an all-time high of 95% of all emails at its peak during the quarter.
• Blended threat messages -- or spam messages with links to malicious URLs -- accounted for up to 8% of all global email traffic during the peaks of various attacks during the quarter.
• One massive outbreak mid-quarter utilized over 11,000 dynamic zombie IP addresses to host malicious web sites. Leading zombie locations included the United States (36%) and Russia (8%).
• Image spam declined to a level of less than 5% of all spam, down from 30% in the first quarter of 2007; also, image pump-and-dump spam has all but disappeared, with pornographic images taking its place.
• PDF Spam represented 10-15% of all spam in early July and then dropped significantly, however a steady stream of PDF spam is still being maintained at 3-5% of all spam messages.
• Pharmaceuticals and sexual enhancers were the most popular spam topics, at 30% and 23%, respectively.

Blended Threats

Spam with malware hyperlinks inside one technique which reached a new high during the quarter was innocent-appearing spam messages that contained hyperlinks to malware-sites. This type of spam utilizes vast zombie botnets to launch 'drive-by downloads' and evade detection by most anti-virus engines. Several blended spam attacks of this type focused on leisure-time activities, such as sports and video games. Messages invited consumers to download "fun" software such as NFL game-tracking and video games from what appeared to be legitimate websites. Instead, consumers voluntarily downloaded malware onto their computers.

New Spam Tricks

Spammers experimented with several new techniques to slip past anti-spam engines and into inboxes throughout the quarter. For example, they disguised messages in PDF, Excel, and other popular file formats. This simple trick fools many anti-spam technologies and end users alike, whose guards may be down when they see the popular file attachment ending.

More details, including samples of PDF spam and spam messages containing malware, are presented in the report available here.





Spammers Leave Users 'All Shook Up'

Fake Elvis downloads tout bogus stock tips
Ian Williams

Spammers have launched a pump-and-dump campaign that attempts to manipulate share prices by delivering a message in an MP3 music file.

IT security firm Sophos said that emails are arriving with an attached MP3 file purporting to be a song from well-known artists such as Elvis Presley, Fergie and Carrie Underwood.

The files actually contain a monotone voice encouraging people to buy shares in an obscure Canadian company.

The subject line and body of the emails are usually blank, and typically contain an attachment called 'hurricanechris.mp3', 'allforone.mp3', 'carrieunderwood.mp3', 'elvis.mp3', 'baby.mp3', 'fergie.mp3' or 'bbrown.mp3'.

The voice on the MP3 file, which is randomly altered in an attempt to avoid detection by anti-spam filters, says the following:

'Hello, this is an investor alert. Exit Only Incorporated has announced it is ready to launch its new [obscured].com website, already a huge success in Canada, we are expecting amazing results in the USA. Go read the news and [obscured] on EXTO. That symbol again is EXTO. Thank you.'

Exit Only is a Canadian company that runs a website marketplace for new and used motor vehicles.

Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos, said: "Users may click on the MP3 file expecting to hear Elvis, but they'll be all shook up when they discover it's actually a voice resembling Marvin the Paranoid Android droning on about a stock that is set to be the next big thing.

"The spammers are already likely to have purchased stock on the cheap, and are now trying to artificially inflate its price by encouraging others to purchase more.

"Once the stock rises, they'll quickly sell up, leaving the duped investors crying in the chapel. Thankfully though, it's hard to believe that many internet users will fall for such an amateurish presentation of an 'investor alert'."

Cluley advised companies to consider banning these sorts of file by default, as they can create legal as well as security headaches.

"Although the spammers seem to have a fair bit to learn about machine-generated sales patter, some companies might consider blocking all MP3s in email as a matter of course," he said.

"So many music files infringe copyright, and it can be hard for a company to establish which ones are legal and which are not after they have arrived.

"Blocking MP3s, or at least quarantining until requested by the user, can be a good way for a company to take a proactive stance against the use of email for illegal file sharing. It also has the benefit of neutralising this sort of spam at the same time."

Pump-and-dump stock campaigns account for approximately 25 per cent of all spam, according to Sophos, an increase of just 0.8 per cent since January 2005.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/22...ers-tell-users





Research Shows Image-Based Threat on the Rise

New Purdue University research shows steganography, long considered a minor threat, may be on the rise
Kelly Jackson Higgins

Until recently, steganography, the stealth technique of hiding text or images within image files, has mostly been considered too complex -- and conspicuous -- to be much of a threat. But some forensics experts now worry that the bad guys are starting to use the tactic more frequently, especially in child pornography and identity theft trafficking.

There are an estimated 800 or so steganography tools available online, many of them free and with user-friendly graphical user interfaces and point-and-click features. This broad availability making steganography more accessible and easier to use for hiding and moving stolen or illicit payloads, experts say.

Security experts to date have mostly dismissed steganography as a mainstream threat, relegating it to the domain of spooks and the feds. Their skepticism has been well-founded: The few studies that have searched for images hiding steganographic messages have come up empty-handed.

But now, preliminary data from a new steganography study underway at Purdue University indicates that some criminals indeed may be using steganography tools, mainly in child pornography and financial fraud cases.

Although the Purdue survey is in its early phases, researchers have found proof of steganography tools installed on convicted criminals' computers.

"Our results are very preliminary, but exciting -- with the little data we have so far, we are finding that there's a strong correlation between criminal activity and at least the installation of steganography programs on those [confiscated] computers" from closed cases provided by law enforcement officials, says James Goldman, professor and associate department head of Purdue's Department of Computer and Information Technology.

Even if a criminal removes the program to cover his tracks, steganography tools leave behind "footprints," so researchers can find evidence that the tools were once on the system.

This is Purdue's second pass at investigating whether steganography is really being used by bad guys. In its first study, which concluded last year, Purdue crawled through over one million URLs on the Web, looking for files hidden within other files or images, but found none.

Goldman says the university researchers in that study did a recursive Web crawl and downloaded each image or file that could potentially be an image, and ran a steganography signature-detection tool against it. "We did not detect anything. But it's not all that surprising, because we only had 20 to 25 known signatures for detection, and there are [around] 600 to 800 programs that do steganography," he says.

Goldman says he later realized that they had been going at the research all wrong. "The probability of finding anything wasn't that high, and I started to feel like we were looking in the wrong place, and jumping too far into it. Trying to find these steganographic files in the wild seemed impossible."

Instead, the Purdue researchers decided to first try to prove whether criminals were using steganography tools at all. "Never mind finding the evidence of what they are sharing or the secret message, but just proving they use it," he says. "This is the first time this has been done, I think."

And so far, Goldman says it seems that there's more than meets the eye. "It [steganography] hasn't been something on the radar screen. Mostly, it's been anecdotal evidence, although I suspect the classified intelligence community knows a lot more," he says. Purdue is using Backbone Security's steganalysis tools, which were provided to the university by the National White Collar Crime Center.

James Wingate, director of the steganography analysis & research center at Backbone Security, and a vice president there, says the use of steganography is on the rise, and it could be used for things like transporting malware.

"Some would call me 'Chicken Little,' but I fervently and passionately believe criminal activity is being conducted with steganography... We do know it's being used to conceal child pornography," Wingate says.

He says steganography could also be a handy tool for corporate theft, where an insider could sneak sensitive data or intellectual property in and out in hidden image or other files. "Over time and as [law enforcement] countermeasures get better... [Criminals] will naturally be forced to migrate to more technically sophisticated information-hiding techniques," he says. "If it's there, they will use it."

But Bruce Schneier, CTO of BT Counterpane, disagrees. He says steganography doesn't make sense as an insider threat. It's much easier to just suck the data off onto a USB thumb drive and walk out of the building.

"It doesn't make sense that someone selling out the company can't just leave with a USB," Schneier says. "The one scenario would be an insider who is strip-searched every single time he leaves his office... These are the [far-fetched] types of scenarios you have to invent to make it work."

Schneier says steganographic images are just too obvious, anyway, which renders the technique useless. "If I'm in Burma and trying to send out human rights documentation and hide it in a picture of a giraffe," it's going to look suspicious, he says. "For it to work, you need to have a plausible cover story."

It may, however, be applicable for hiding pornographic images, he notes.

Meanwhile, Purdue's Goldman says he's hoping the university's study will gather information on which steganography tools are the "most popular." That way, the researchers can then do more granular research on specific steganography programs, with more specific information -- such as which are more popular among child pornographers, or identity thieves, he says. He hopes to have all of the scanning completed by the end of this year, and next summer, to conduct another, more focused study on steganographic images.

He says he's also noticed in his research that steganography tools tend to come and go, he says. "It occurred to me that it may be by design... that it goes away when authorities start detecting it. Then a new tool comes out, just like new viruses" emerge, he says.

But critics aren't convinced that IT security needs to start deciphering its image traffic. "Steganography is cool," Schneier says, "but I don't see it [being used]."
http://www.darkreading.com/document....WT.svl=news1_1





Canadian Post Office Upset by Sex Party

A small political party in Canada is suing the government because the state-owned postal monopoly refused to distribute information on the party. Called the Sex Party the party advocates relaxation of laws on sexuality.

The government said that the brochure of the party included the word “penis” which is offensive, had a photo of penis sculpture and and a painting which SUGGESTED that the people might be having sex. Suggested?

The flyer was an attempt to recruit members and the party did run three candidates. But the post office would not deliver the pamphlet. They say they are obligated to protect people from anything they might find offensive. But they did deliver an anti-gay brochure by a Christian group that was very aggressive in its tone and dislike of gay people.

The head of the post office said they delivered the anti-gay brochure, which she said was vile, because they aren’t in the business of censoring the mail. But when it came to the Sex Party they were in the business of censoring the mail. And since the post office is a legal monopoly the ability to send one’s message another way is very limited indeed.

So individuals offended by sex are protect. Individuals offended by anti-gay hate mail are not protected.

This very idea that one should be protect from offense is absurd. Applied consistently it would ban all speech and activity as one is likely to be able to find some moron offended by something no matter what it is.

An inconsistent application of this principle would give some groups superior rights to others. In this case sexaphobic people have superior rights to everyone else. Individuals who might be interested in this party are not allowed to receive the brochure because other people are offended by it. There can be no such right as the right to be unoffended. If you are living then you will be offended at some point in time. If you are a particularly fragile person psychologically you may be offended most of the time. Sorry, but get used to it.

Photos: The illustrations in question posted here are the brochure that the Canadian post office worried some people would find offensive. If you are one of those people --- tough. If you want to enlarge it (oh, boy do the puns flow here) please just click on the image. If you are from the Canadian post office, bend over, locate anal cavity, insert head. Oh, never mind, that would be redundant.
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/200...sex-party.html





Spice Girls Team Up with Victoria's Secret
UPI

U.S. lingerie giant Victoria's Secret will be the exclusive retailer of a Spice Girls greatest hits CD this holiday season, the Wall Street Journal said.

The British girl group's U.S. label, Capitol Records, has arranged for Victoria's Secret to accept 500,000 to 600,000 copies of the CD that it has ordered on a "one-way" basis, which means unsold merchandise won't get returned, greatly reducing the label's financial risk, the newspaper said.

The disc is expected to be priced at $10 to $12 when it goes on sale next month.

The album also will be available for download from Apple Inc.'s iTunes Store and other online music outlets.

Selling the album at Victoria's Secret stores means consumers "don't have to go proactively to a record store," Jason Flom, chairman of EMI Group Limited's Capitol Records, told the Journal. "It's an impulse buy."

Phil Sandhaus, the music-marketing consultant who brokered the deal between Capitol and Victoria's Secret, said selling music in places other than record stores is critical these days. "

"I don't care if it's superstar artists or developing baby bands," Sandhaus said. "It should always be part of the mix."
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Enterta...s_secret/2808/





Macedonian Pop Singer Dies in Car Crash
UPI

Macedonian pop singer Tose Proeski died Tuesday in a car crash on a central Croatian highway when his sports utility vehicle collided with a truck, police said.

Proeski, 26, was one of the most popular singers in the Balkan states of the former Yugoslavia. He sang for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia at the Eurovision song contest in 2004.

The collision occurred at Nova Gradiska, 80 miles southeast of Zagreb, on the main highway leading to Belgrade, in Serbia, Croatian police said.

Proeski was declared dead at the scene and his driver and a manager were slightly injured in the crash, Croatia’s NOVA TV station reported.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Enterta...ar_crash/3021/





Music Industry Needs Innovation not Intervention
Michael Geist

In the weeks leading up to tomorrow's Speech from the Throne, several music industry lobby groups have urged the government to prioritize intellectual property protection.

Led by the Canadian Recording Industry Association, these groups blame government inaction for recent sales declines, arguing that legal reforms are needed to support Canadian music industry innovation.

While the data suggest that peer-to-peer file sharing is at best only a minor reason for the decline (more significant is competition from DVD and video game sales and the emergence of big box retailers such as Wal-Mart who have pushed down retail prices and decimated sales of older titles), the past month has provided the clearest indication yet that musicians and music sellers are charting a new course that is leaving the major record labels behind.

In the mid-1990s, the industry focused on retaining its core business model by emphasizing two strategies:

First, it relied on copy-control technologies, supported by additional legal measures, to curtail unauthorized copying.

Second, it lobbied for the establishment of a private copying levy on blank media to compensate for the copying that technology could not control.

Ten years later, that strategy is in tatters. The use of copy-controls has proven to be an abject failure. Moreover, despite generating more than $200 million in revenue for the industry and artists, CRIA has abandoned support for the private copying levy.

Last month, it asked the Federal Court of Appeal to allow it to intervene in the current fight over the application of the levy to Apple iPods. Rather than supporting the extension of the levy, it surprisingly wants the court to strike it down, thereby reducing revenues to artists.

Why the change of heart? CRIA now admits in court documents that the extension "broadens the scope of the private copying exception to avoid making illegal file sharers liable for infringement." In other words, the levy creates a compensation system that legalizes peer-to-peer music downloads.

As the industry dithers with its failed strategy, musicians have begun to take matters into their own hands. Last year, the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, which includes some of Canada's most acclaimed musicians, spoke out openly against suing fans and the use of copy-controls.

A growing number of international stars are following suit. Last week, Radiohead released its latest CD without copy-controls on its website under a pay-as-you-like system.

The Radiohead announcement has unleashed a stunning series of follow-up moves – reports indicate that Nine Inch Nails, Oasis, Jamiroquai, the Charlatans, and Madonna have either left or are ready to leave their record labels in search of greater commercial success through live performances, merchandise sales and other online innovation that might even include free distribution of their music.

Other artists are exploring new distribution partnerships – the Eagles are selling their latest CD directly to Wal-Mart, Prince distributed millions of copies of his latest CD for free in Britain in a newspaper promotion, and Nettwerk Records, one of Canada's leading independent labels, combined with a newspaper to offer free downloads of some of its most popular artists.

The rapid pace of innovation highlights the fact that artists and consumers are responding to the new digital reality. As Canada's digital music market continues to grow (last year it outpaced both the U.S. and Europe), Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Canadian Heritage Minister Josée Verner ought to remind lobby groups that it is the lack of innovation – not government intervention – that lies at the heart of their tales of woe.
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/266737





Internet Music's 3rd Revolution
Michael J. Miller

Just as music formats evolved from 45s to LPs to CDs to MP3s, music on the Internet has evolved as well. The first great popular success of Internet music was characterized by the original Napster peer-to-peer service. Much of the music available on Napster was illegal, and the record companies soon sued Napster out of existence, though its legacy survives in services like BitTorrent. The second big phase was characterized by iTunes and the iPod, as Apple created a service focused on buying individual songs in a proprietary format designed for Apple's iPod players. The latest iPods look great, and the iPod/iTunes combination continues to be a quite elegant solution, but it looks to be like the time is finally right for another revolution in Internet Music.
It seems to be there are two basic directions in which this could go: DRM-free downloads that can work on any player, without the restrictions that today's sites offer; or the "Jukebox in the Sky," a subscription service that gives you all the music you want, wherever you are. Recent events have pushed both concepts, but I'm convinced that the winner will not only change how we consumer music, but will impact the music itself.

Let's look at what's happening with per-song music services. For a long time, many people have wanted music downloads without the digital rights management (DRM) restriction typically required by most songs on iTunes or the Windows Media services. Even Apple's Steve Jobs has been pushing for a change, noting that the music companies have offered unprotected music on CDs for years but have insisted on protecting music on download sites.

While some people have turned to illegal downloading services, there are now many more legal sources of DRM-free downloads. eMusic, in particular, has made a nice little business selling subscriptions to a certain number of downloads a month, and does a very nice job of helping its subscribers find music on independent labels. And many indie bands actually host a limited number of DRM-free downloads on their sites, just to get some promotion. But of course, most of us, also want music from the major labels.

Universal music took the lead in this, first letting iTunes offer DRM-free versions of its music, albeit for more money and still in a format that isn't widely supported outside of Apple's players.

But for me, the biggest change has been Amazon's new MP3 service, which has a good-sized library of songs from Universal, EMI, and the independent labels, and offers the top 100 songs for 89 cents each. PC Magazine's review is here, but all I can say it that it works well, and that the music of course works on any player, which to me is a big plus. Of course, to be really successful, it will need to add the music from Warner Music and Sony BMG. People typically don't care about the record label - they care about artists.

The other big option is the "Jukebox In The Sky" subscription concept that Rhapsody and the reconstituted Napster have been pushing for years. Basically the way this works is that for a set monthly fee, you get all the music you can listen to, but it is yours only as long as you continue to subscribe. Personally, I like to listen to new music, so every Tuesday I download a couple of new albums - many of which I never would have tried without a service like Rhapsody.

But these services have never attracted large numbers of subscribers, and the services seem to be consolidating. MTV folded its Urge service and invested in Rhapsody instead. Virgin closed its Virgin Digital service and redirected subscribers to Napster.
Subscription music has had its issues ranging from getting competitive libraries to making the services work right (I used to call it "PlaysForPrettySure"), but these issues are mostly solved now. Rhapsody just did a deal with Tivo that lets you get subscription music through your Tivo box and your TV; it's not how I listed to music (I'd rather listen on a portable device, not my TV), but adds one more layer of promotion to the concept.

Microsoft has entered with its Zune service, but it seems as proprietary a solution as Apple's. At least the new Zunes expected new month look better. And the idea of syncing via Wi-Fi is a good one.

Still, subscription music faces a big issue in gaining a large audience. First, most people don't even know about it, and those who do aren't sure about the concept to begin with. That's going to take some convincing.

Second, the pricing needs to be very clear, and most of the sites just don't make it clear: Rhapsody recently raised its "unlimited" price to $12.99 a month, but to me, the real offering is the $14.99 "to-go" price, which lets you take your music on a portable player (though not the iPod now, because of Apple's restrictions). Napster is less expensive at $9.99 for the computer-only solution, but again $14.99 for the Napster-To-Go offer. Microsoft just offers the To-Go service at $14.99. Yahoo! Music has the best deal at $71.88 per year, but doesn't seem to offer the portable device service.

Indeed, Yahoo! Music seems to hanging on, but barely. The company recently dropped its Musicmatch service, and comments on the blog of Yahoo Music head Ian Rogers express the frustration many in the business have said privately.

I'm here to tell you today that I for one am no longer going to fall into this trap. If the licensing labels offer their content to Yahoo! put more barriers in front of the users, I'm not interested. Do what you feel you need to do for your business, I'll be polite, say thank you, and decline to sign. I won't let Yahoo! invest any more money in consumer inconvenience. The Week in Review is edited and published by Jack Spratts. I will tell Yahoo! to give the money they were going to give me to build awesome media applications to Yahoo! Mail or Answers or some other deserving endeavor. I personally don't have any more time to give and can't bear to see any more money spent on pathetic attempts for control instead of building consumer value. Life's too short. I want to delight consumers, not bum them out.

Sounds about right.

Meanwhile, BusinessWeek is reporting that Universal Music, Song BMG, and possible Warner are pushing a plan called "Total Music" in which a subscription service (which they are said to be valuing at $5 a month or $90 a player) would be bundled into the cost of portable players.

The Total Music concept is an interesting one: would I pay $90 more for an MP3 player that had all the music I want on it? I'm a fan of subscription music, so my answer would be yes. Would the rest of you? Let me know.

With all these developments, both DRM-free individual song purchases and subscription music services look like they are on there way to becoming more popular. (Of course, iTunes looks like it's here to stay, as are peer-to-peer services, like it or not. Meanwhile, CD sales look like they are in a one-way decline.)

But the choice between them may impact music a lot as well. If individual song purchases become even more popular, the music business is likely to focus more and more on singles. But if subscription music takes hold, there's more of an incentive to focus back on longer collections - the equivalents of CDs or Albums. Indeed, one reason many people give for the decline in CD sales is how few CDs are really good all the way through.
http://blogs.pcmag.com/miller/2007/1...revolution.php





BBC Widens Access to iPlayer
Jonathan Webdale

The BBC is increasing the availability of its iPlayer broadband console so that it is compatible with Apple Macs and accessible for free via Wi-Fi hotspots in public places across the UK.

The Corporation has partnered with software firm Adobe, enabling it to offer the iPlayer as a streamed catch-up programming platform for Apple computers as well as for PCs using the Linux and Microsoft Windows operating systems.

The BBC was criticised earlier this year because the initial version of the iPlayer was accessible only to owners of Windows XP-powered PCs.

The deal with Adobe sees the BBC using the firm's Flash Player to offer the iPlayer as a streaming service, rather than using the original peer-to-peer download model with which it debuted.

A separate deal with Wi-Fi hotspot operator The Cloud means the BBC becomes the first UK broadcaster to make all its online content available for free via the technology.

The arrangement makes all bbc.co.uk material accessible for free at 7,500 hotspots spanning locations including branches of McDonald's and Coffee Republic, and Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports.

The iPlayer is in soft-launch phase at the moment but will get a major marketing push at Christmas. It currently enables viewers to download and view around 400 hours of programmes from the past seven days and store them for up to 30 days.

"It is important to ensure that BBC iPlayer is available on as many platforms as possible," said Erik Huggers, controller of the BBC Future Media and Technology group, adding that the Adobe deal would "revolutionise" how the pubcaster created and delivered content to audiences in the digital age.

The BBC's director of Future Media and Technology Ashley Highfield said he hoped the deal with The Cloud would be the first of many such partnerships and would allow UK citizens to "catch up on Strictly Come Dancing while having a café latte in Coffee Republic."
http://www.c21media.net/resources/de...&article=38094





Universal Eyeing iTunes Alternative
FMQB

Universal Music Group (UMG) chief Doug Morris is aiming to take on the power of iTunes by joining forces with other record companies to launch a new, industry-owned music subscription service. Morris has already enlisted Sony BMG Music Entertainment as a potential partner and is also talking to Warner Music Group about the venture, which would be called Total Music, according to Business Week. While the details are still being ironed out, sources say that Morris' new business model is intriguing. The idea is to get the makers of MP3 players and cell phones to absorb the cost of a roughly $5-per-month subscription fee so consumers get a device with all-you-can-eat music from participating record labels that's essentially free. Music companies would collect the subscription fee, while hardware makers theoretically would sell more players.

With the Total Music service, Morris and his allies are basically telling consumers that music comes free with the device. The subscriber would pay only for the player, and would never have to shell out a penny for the music. "You know that it's there, and it costs something," one tech company executive who has seen Morris' presentation told Business Week. "But you never write a check for it."

It remains to be seen whether the makers of music players and phones can charge enough to cover the cost of absorbing the subscription price. Under one scenario, insiders figure the cost per player would amount to about $90, assuming people hang on to a music player or phone for 18 months before upgrading (18 times a $5 subscription fee equals $90).

Morris has long felt that music companies give too much control to Apple and iTunes when it comes to music pricing and profits. His boss at UMG parent company Vivendi, Jean-Bernard Levy, told reporters last month that, "The split between Apple and [music] producers is indecent. Our contracts give too good a share to Apple." He also repeated the call for new music to be priced higher than older catalog songs, rather than Apple's 99 cents per song model. "We should have a differentiated price system," Levy said.
http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=494276





Canada to Tax Legal Digital Music Downloads

Canadians may soon pay a small tax on every legal music store download, says a new measure (PDF) sanctioned by the Copyright Board of Canada. Requested by the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), the tax would apply at least 2.1 cents to every individual song download and 1.5 cents per track for complete albums. Subscription download and streaming services would themselves be charged between 5.7 and 6.8 percent of a user's monthly fees. Minimum fees would also apply for every larger download or subscription.

The surcharge would help compensate artists for piracy, according to SOCAN's reasoning. The publishing group draws similarities between this and a 21-cent fee already applied to blank CDs in the country; the right to copy a song from an online store demands the same sort of levy applied to copying a retail CD, SOCAN argues.

The tax may have a significant impact for online stores such as iTunes and Canada-based Puretracks, which will have to factor the amount both into future and past sales. The new tax would be retroactive to January 1st, 1996 and would effectively cover all sales and subscriptions from such services since their beginnings, which typically followed shortly after those in the US. Free services are not currently subject to the added cost.

While no public responses have been made, the Copyright Board report notes that both Apple and the RIAA-equivalent Canadian Recording Industry Association were heavily involved in resisting proposed rates. Higher rates that had been initially suggested, as well as minimum fees, would "handicap" a digital music business that already has to compete with pirated tracks that users can find for free, both Apple and the CRIA said.

The decision has not set a fixed date for when stores would begin paying the fee, but said it would roll out any tariffs "gradually" to soften the immediate blow.

This decision follows a related move in July, in which the Copyright Board had tentatively approved a media player and memory levy that would add to the price of iPods and removable flash storage under the assumption that the devices were being used to carry copyrighted material.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/10/...g.music.sales/





Storm Worm Botnet Up for Sale
Matt Greenop

Security specialists believe the far-reaching Storm Worm botnet is for sale to spammers. Photo / Darryl May

The Storm worm botnet - responsible for plenty of global IT misery - seems to be getting chopped up for sale to cyber-dodgies.

Joe Stewart, a blogger at security specialist SecureWorks and expert on Storm, says the new variants are using a 40-byte key to encrypt their Overnet peer-to-peer traffic.

Each node can only communicate with nodes using the same key.

This, he wrote in a blog today, allows the Storm author to divide the botnet into smaller networks.

Stewart believes that this could be move towards selling Storm to other spammers as an 'end-to-end spam botnet system, complete with fast-flux DNS and hosting capabilities'.

"If that's the case, we might see a lot more of storm in the future," he wrote.

The new approach does make distinguishing Storm nodes on networks that allow P2P traffic an easier task for network admins.

The Storm Worm, according to best guesstimates based on results from Microsoft's malicious software removal tool's latest deployment, indicate there could be between one and 10 million infected PCs worldwide.

The recent MSRT, which is updated on a monthly basis, removed Storm-related malware from nearly 275,000 computers out of 2.6 million scanned.

Security specialists have been surprised at the relentless progress of Storm, which preys on P2P users and others, tricking them into clicking infected .exe files.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectid=10470172





N.Y. Reaches Safeguard Agreement with Facebook
Karen Matthews

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday announced an agreement with Facebook to enforce safeguards against sexual predators and obscene content.

The agreement calls for Facebook to respond and begin addressing complaints of nudity or pornography or unwelcome contact within 24 hours of receiving them, and reporting to the complainant what steps it has taken within 72 hours.

It also calls for the popular social networking Web site to allow an independent party - approved by Cuomo's office - to report on its compliance to the new safeguards for two years.

"These social networking sites are attractive. We want to make sure they're safe," Cuomo said at a news conference.

"Facebook will have the safest interactions of its kind on the Internet," the attorney general added.

Under the agreement, the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company, which has about 47 million users, will have to post the safety procedures on its Web site.

"We care deeply about our Facebook users and today we pledge a solution," said Chris Kelly, the chief privacy officer for Facebook, who joined Cuomo. "We believe that safety is an ongoing process."

In response to a question, Kelly said Facebook receives tens of thousands of complaints a day, not all of them about inappropriate content. With the agreement, he said, complaints about unwelcome content will be pushed to the top of the queue.

Cuomo said he hoped that other social networking sites would follow Facebook's lead. He added that his office was in discussions with other sites but he declined to name them.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/ci_7193318





MySpace Platform Opening Up. Finally
Rafe Needleman

Chris DeWolfe, CEO of MySpace, on stage with his boss of two years, News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, finally announced to the world at the Web 2.0 Summit tonight that MySpace will have an open platform "within a couple of months."

After the platform opens to developers, it will open to a subset of users, about two million, to see if the "sandbox" that keeps that platform safe is reliable.

Before we all get MySpace apps, we'll get a catalog of widgets that we can add to your pages. Widgets aren't apps, though.

Of course, there are platforms and there are platforms. It wasn't clear at all how much of the MySpace social database will be exposed to developers, nor what data MySpace will let developers export to non-MySpace pages.

DeWolfe did say, however, that developers will be able to monetize their apps, and that MySpace perhaps will help them sell advertising
http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9799561-2.html





Skype Purchase Cost eBay
Rachel Konrad

EBay Inc. reported Wednesday a third-quarter net loss of more than $936 million — a rare plunge into the red for the e-commerce juggernaut caused by previously announced charges to its Skype telecommunications division.

But San Jose-based eBay still easily exceeded Wall Street's expectations for the quarter ended Sept. 30, thanks to record revenue of $1.89 billion, up 30 percent from the year-ago quarter.

Executives credited record revenue at the PayPal electronic payment division, and brisk sales outside of the United States and at ticket broker StubHub.com.

Early this month, eBay announced it would take a $900 million write-down in the value of Skype. That charge, for what accountants call impairment, essentially acknowledged that eBay executives drastically overvalued the $2.6 billion Skype acquisition, completed in October 2005.

EBay also said on Oct. 1 that it paid certain Skype shareholders $530 million to settle future obligations — a one-time payment known as an "earn-out."

Including the Skype charges, eBay lost $936.6 million, or 69 cents per share in the third quarter. In the year-ago quarter, the online auction company earned $280.9 million, or 20 cents per share.

It was the first time the company reported a loss since the second quarter of 1999, eBay President and CEO Meg Whitman said.

Not counting Skype charges, stock-based compensation expenses and other one-time costs, eBay earned $563.8 million, or 41 cents per share, up 53 percent from $367.4 million, or 26 cents per share, in the year-ago quarter.

On that basis, which does not comply with generally accepted accounting principles, analysts polled by Thomson Financial expected eBay to earn $456.26 million, or 33 cents per share, on revenue of $1.83 billion.

EBay bought back 14.8 million shares of its stock for $500 million last quarter, part of a $2 billion repurchase program continuing through January 2009.

The company expects fourth-quarter revenue of between $2.1 billion and $2.15 billion. After one-time charges, it expects earnings between 39 cents and 41 cents per share.

The company expects 2007 revenue of $7.6 billion to $7.65 billion and non-GAAP earnings between $1.47 to $1.49 per share, though that could vary greatly depending on the dollar-euro exchange rate.

EBay's stock closed Wednesday at $40.60, up $2, or 5 percent. The stock has surged 43 percent in the past year. In after-hours trading after the quarterly results were announced, it gained another $2.12.

Whitman characterized the quarter as "strong" but was quick to acknowledge problems with Skype.

Skype co-founder and chief executive, Niklas Zennstrom, stepped down Oct. 1, when eBay announced the impairment charges. EBay chief strategy officer Michael van Swaaij, formerly vice president for European operations, is acting Skype CEO.

"We are disappointed — obviously — by the write-down, and we're behind in terms of some financial metrics we had originally anticipated," Whitman told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "But the steps we took ... and moving to new management was completely the right thing to do. I actually feel confident in the business longer term."

Whitman said, however, there was little she or other executives could have done differently in 2005 to offer an acquisition price that more accurately reflected the company's value.

This was the company's first write-down.

"We put together a set of projections based on what we believed at the time," she said. "It's always hard to forecast growth of a 2-year-old. It's now a 4-year-old and it's almost the fastest startup in the Internet. It didn't hit the internal milestones we had hoped for, but I do hope the ability to get the earn-out out of the way and reorient the strategy may be back on track."

Whitman said the company is working to integrate Skype into eBay's core products more tightly, and it will expand Skype's reach with partnerships.

Skype announced a deal Tuesday with News Corp.'s MySpace, which will offer free Internet phone calls to members of the social network starting next month.

EBay said Wednesday that revenue from the electronic payment service PayPal was a record $470 million in the third quarter, up 35 percent from a year ago.

The Skype division reported record revenue of $98 million, up 96 percent from a year ago. Of that, 82 percent came from outside of the United States, and eBay is increasingly focused on promoting Skype domestically.

It's the third consecutive quarter of profitability for Skype, which had 246 million registered user accounts at the end of the third quarter — up 81 percent from a year ago.

Ebay, which ended last quarter with $4.4 billion cash, took in $1.32 billion in sales from ebay.com, shopping.com, StubHub.com and other e-commerce sites — up 26 percent from a year ago. Of that, 51 percent came from outside the United States.

Despite healthy growth in each of the three divisions, the company hasn't been able to maintain the number of listings on its e-commerce sites. Instead, it's wringing more money out of a shrinking number of listings.

The number of individual listings dropped 3 percent from a year ago, and eBay store listings plunged 14 percent from a year ago. Individuals and "power sellers" who operate eBay stores listed 556 million items last quarter, down 5 percent from a year ago.
But those goods sold for a total value of $14.4 billion, up 14 percent from a year ago.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...IwpSQD8SB7EBG4





Will Apple Open the iPhone?

An official software-development kit may finally be announced at January's Macworld. Why the wait? It may have something to do with Leopard
Arik Hesseldahl and Olga Kharif

William Hurley loves his iPhone. But he'd love it even more if he could write software for it.

He's not alone. Hundreds of programmers showed up at an iPhone event organized by Hurley, an executive at software maker BMC, even though Apple hasn't released the source code they need to exploit the device. That was in July, and the criticism of Apple's refusal to open the iPhone hasn't died down.

Now it appears Apple will soon answer those pleas. Sources familiar with the company's plans tell BusinessWeek.com that Apple will release a software-development kit for the iPhone in early 2008, enabling programmers to create games, business-productivity tools, and countless other applications for the device. Few details are known, but sources say an announcement will come in January, which suggests it may be slated for Jan. 15, when Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs takes the stage at the Macworld Expo in San Francisco.

Why the wait? Some analysts suggest the delay has little to do with frustrating developers or Apple's official position about bugs from third-party software posing a threat to cellular networks. Instead, the timing may have more to do with Apple wanting to wait at least until the launch of the new operating system for its Macintosh computers. Known as Leopard, it was originally planned for June, 2007, but is now set for release on Oct. 26. Since the iPhone was built with the current Mac OS, the thinking is that Leopard's new capabilities will enable more robust features on the iPhone as well.

Cat-and-Mouse Game

Meanwhile, writing and installing individual programs that run on the phone remain officially forbidden, extremely difficult, and somewhat pointless given Apple's heavy-handed response to such efforts thus far. The only way to do it is to break the iPhone's software locks, as some hackers have managed to do, only to see Apple cripple such devices with a software upgrade. Not surprisingly, some iPhone owners have responded with lawsuits seeking as much as $2.6 billion in damages.

Naturally, hackers quickly broke through the new set of software locks, suggesting that a cat-and-mouse battle may be under way. But the persistence also demonstrates just how eager programmers—both hobbyists and companies—are to build software for a device that Apple promises will be in the hands of 8 million people by the end of next year. "It's clear what the user community wants," Hurley says. "They're not hacking around with it for fun as much as they are because they want other features on the iPhone."

Such features might range far and wide, from video and Internet calling to voice recording and instant messaging. But until Apple changes its policy, most developers will have to settle for the next best thing, as they did at Hurley's event in San Francisco, where they created Web-based applications that can be accessed through the iPhone's browser, Safari. Despite widespread frustration over the limitations, such events are planned for London and Germany in the coming months.

Those familiar with the process of hacking an iPhone and installing unauthorized applications say doing so requires obtaining "root" access to the device's underlying software code. In the world of computers that run on Unix-based operating systems—which includes Apple's Macintosh computers and the iPhone—users with root access have no limitations as to which files and features they can tinker with.

It Pays to Be Picky

In theory this means that root access on an iPhone could be exploited for malicious purposes, such as hijacking a user's contact list, eavesdropping on calls, or worse. "You can do anything you want, including many things that Apple and AT&T don't want you to do," says Rik Farrow, an independent security consultant who has worked on Unix-based cell-phone projects for other companies, but not Apple.

Concerns like that will probably lead Apple to be careful in selecting which programmers are given the tools to build iPhone software. It isn't clear yet how Apple plans to go about vetting programmers or to what extent it will open the platform to them. Despite the purported risks, Apple's wireless partner, AT&T, isn't likely to stand in the way. "It's up to Apple to decide whether third-party applications will go on the iPhone," says AT&T spokesman Michael Coe. "We have embraced third-party applications on other devices."

Analysts expect that instead of equipping anyone who wants to build iPhone software, Apple will handpick the companies and individual programmers to be given the software-development kit, much as it already does with development of third-party applications for the iPod. Similarly, iPhone programming tools might be distributed via the iTunes store, which Apple already uses to distribute simple games that run on the iPod. "The real pragmatic way to look at it is, no operator would want to ship a handset that's completely open," says Benoit Schillings, chief technology officer at Trolltech, a wireless-software company. "They would want to pick and choose applications to run on it."

Early VIP Access?

It's rumored that some major players already have been given the iPhone development kit. The list is said to include gaming software maker Electronic Arts and Google, which has already built versions of Google Maps and its YouTube video site for the iPhone. Electronic Arts declined to comment, while a source at Google indicated that the search company hasn't been give early access to the iPhone kit.

Meanwhile, companies that specialize in software for wireless phones are jockeying for Apple's attention. "We've been working with the Web interface for some time but would love to embed our technology on the iPhone itself," says Brian Bogosian, CEO of Visto, a privately held software outfit that specializes in e-mail software for mobile phones. Similarly, a startup named iSkoot, which offers an application for making Skype phone calls on mobile devices, says it's eager to adapt its software for the iPhone platform.

Interestingly, despite all the consternation about hackers, Apple may eventually decide to embrace some of the unauthorized applications now circulating if they prove especially popular. "We think Apple is welcoming these mild hacker attacks [on the iPhone] to discover weaknesses and to see if they should be hiring some people," says Richard Doherty, head of Envisioneering Group, a technology consulting firm. "There's a reason why there's an empty row" on the iPhone's screen, he says. "It's for additional applications."
http://www.digg.com/apple/OMG_Apple_to_Open_the_iPhone





Orange to Sell Unlocked iPhones in France
Thomas Ricker

Well, well... looks like Apple has been backed into a corner by French law and will be releasing an unlocked iPhone in France after all. While no one will say precisely how much the unlocked iPhone will cost (the locked Orange-network iPhone will cost €399) those details are expected to be announced sometime before the November 29 launch. Of course, laws forbidding the exclusive bundling of cellphones to carriers are not unique to France. As such, we can expect a glut of unlocked iPhones in the coming months as deals are struck throughout Europe and Asia. Hear that AT&T, O2 and T-Mobile haters? Your nefarious unlocking efforts are about to get a whole lot easier (and more expensive).
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/17/o...one-in-france/





Apple Will Offer Outside Developers Access to iPhone
John Boudreau

Apple announced Wednesday it will provide a development kit to let independent programmers create new applications for the iPhone, a move that could eventually open the music player-phone to new games and link it to corporate e-mail systems.

But code writers will have to wait until February to get the software tools, Chief Executive Steve Jobs said in a statement posted on Apple's Web site.

"We are excited about creating a vibrant third-party developer community around the iPhone and enabling hundreds of new applications for our users," Jobs said. "We believe we have created the best mobile platform ever for developers."

The company, though, has delayed offering the tools to developers for fear it would expose iPhone users to piracy and viruses, he said. In September, an iPhone software update shut down, or at least created problems, for iPhones rejiggered to work with a cellular carrier other than AT&T or loaded with other non-Apple applications.

The move angered some users and triggered two class-action lawsuits filed earlier this month in federal and state courts in San Jose. Apple and its telecom partner AT&T were charged with illegal monopolistic actions.

"Having a smartphone that you can't develop applications for is kind of like having a pickup truck you can't put stuff in the bed of," said Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group. Apple's iPhone development kit "helps finish the solution," he added. "It makes it into a true smartphone."

The delay in opening up the iPhone was as much a business decision as it was a technical one, Enderle said. "In the mad rush to get to the market, there were a lot of things that weren't done," he said. "This was one of them. Now they are comfortable that this is stable. They got through the initial set of patches."

Eventually, the move could make the iPhone even more popular, particularly among corporate customers, Enderle added. Independent software writers are sure to write applications allowing the iPhone to sync with corporate e-mail systems.

Jim Grossman, an equity analyst at Thrivent Asset Management in Minneapolis, said opening up the iPhone platform will only enhance what he calls "one of the coolest hardware devices to come out."

He expects game writers and other software developers to zero in on the iPhone. "If I'm a software guy, I want to design applications for this product," said Grossman, whose firm owns Apple stock.

Jobs said it will take Apple a few months "to do two diametrically opposed things at once - provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task. Some claim that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones - this is simply not true. There have been serious viruses on other mobile phones already, including some that silently spread from phone to phone over the cell network."
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_7211089





Click click bang

Man Texting While Driving Hits Train
AP

When Robert Gillespie looked up from his text message, he saw a freight train. EOM. (''End of message,'' that is, for non-texters.) Eugene police say Gillespie's car crashed into the side of the Union Pacific freight train about 2 a.m. Tuesday.

When officers arrived, they found him alert and talking, but trapped in the car. They learned about the cell phone and text message as they worked to rescue him.

Gillespie, who had turned 38 the day before, was charged with drunken driving and careless driving, police spokeswoman Kerry Delf said. His injuries were described as not life threatening, and no members of the train crew were hurt.

Delf said officers believe he was driving faster than the 35 mph speed limit as well as using his cell phone to send a text message. She said he tried to brake for the train, but it was too close.

''There are all kinds of ways to get distracted these days,'' said police spokeswoman Kerry Delf. ''We don't recommend any of them while you're driving.''
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...ml?source=mypi





Library of Congress Advances 2 Digital Projects Abroad
Doreen Carvajal

The Library of Congress announced an ambitious plan on Wednesday to digitize a collection of the world’s rare cultural materials — artifacts ranging from a photo collection of a 19th-century Brazilian empress to a crackly recording of the 101-year-old grandson of a slave.

The library also signed an agreement with Unesco in Paris to move ahead with the World Digital Library project, which is in the testing phase and will not be available for public use until next year.

Other national libraries appear poised to cooperate in the venture, which is modeled after the Library of Congress’s vast American Memory project that has posted millions of original items on the Web, including Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

“The vision is simply that this is a means for promoting far better intercultural understanding in the world,” said James Billington, the librarian of Congress for more than 20 years and the driving force behind the project, which aims to overcome the digital divide in developing countries by offering the collection free online.

The World Digital Library is proceeding as European libraries develop their own digital collections. The European Digital Library will release its prototype next year, and is a response to Google’s efforts to digitize libraries in the United States and Britain.

The French National Library has already developed a test project, Europeana, for the European library and is in the process of digitizing 300,000 books. Bruno Racine, the president of the French library, said there was no competition between that project and the World Digital Library.

“The multilingual dimension seems to be a very ambitious challenge, and if we can contribute usefully, we will be happy to do so,” Mr. Racine said of the World Digital Library.

The world library started two years ago with a $3 million grant from Google and technical assistance by Apple. Initially, five other libraries contributed material for the prototype, including the national libraries of Egypt, Brazil and Russia.

The digital library is searchable in seven languages, with video commentaries from curators alongside material including original maps, manuscripts, photographs and recordings.

The aim is that the material will ultimately be available on personal computers, hand-held devices and some of the basic, inexpensive laptops that are being developed for use in emerging economies.

When library officials displayed their new handiwork, though, the high technology was overshadowed by the ancient treasures it could show off: an elaborate 17th century map of the world with California depicted as a sliced-off island; a 1903 Thomas Edison film of immigrants arriving at Ellis Island; and a 17th century Arabic manuscript on the fundamentals of geometry.

“My name is Fountain Hughes,” declared a firm Southern voice in one of the recordings posted on the site dating to the 1940s. “My grandfather belonged to Thomas Jefferson. My grandfather was 115 years old when he died. And now I am 101 years old.”

The project’s organizers, according to Laura Campbell, an associate librarian at the Library of Congress, are working to raise money, discussing alliances with Nokia and the Vodafone Group and gathering commitments from countries to participate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/te...y/18world.html





A Times Square Pedestrian Is Giving No Ground
Nicholas Confessore

Millions of people have paused to stand amid the hustle, bustle and neon of Times Square.

And sure, those who pause — to gawk, talk or eat a gyro — can slow the progress of pedestrians around them.

But when Matthew Jones of Brooklyn lingered on the corner of 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue in the early morning of June 12, 2004, gabbing with friends as other pedestrians tried to get by, something unusual happened: He was arrested for it.

A police officer said Mr. Jones was impeding other pedestrians and charged him with disorderly conduct.

Mr. Jones is not taking the charges lying down (so to speak). After trying twice to get the charges dismissed, he has taken his case to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, which heard arguments here on Wednesday.

In the prosecution’s view, it appears, the innocent do not dawdle. According to the original complaint against Mr. Jones, the officer “observed defendant along with a number of other individuals standing around” on a public sidewalk in June 2004. Mr. Jones was “not moving, and that as a result of defendants’ behavior, numerous pedestrians in the area had to walk around defendants.”

Mr. Jones refused to move when asked, said the officer, Momen Attia, and then tried to run away. When Officer Attia tried to handcuff him, he “flailed his arms,” earning a second charge for resisting arrest.

After spending the night in jail, Mr. Jones contested the main charge and asked that it be dismissed. When the judge demurred, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation the next day and received no further sentence. But he soon filed an appeal, arguing that there had been no basis for the arrest in the first place.

Nancy E. Little, Mr. Jones’s lawyer, said that neither the police nor the prosecutors claimed that he was doing anything other than standing on the sidewalk with friends — an activity, she said, that is not entirely without precedent in Manhattan.

“You need something more,” she said, citing past Court of Appeals decisions. “You need to be being verbally abusive, or really blocking lots of people, or lying down on the sidewalk.”

The complaint, she added, did not allege that any other pedestrians had been seriously inconvenienced or that Mr. Jones had shouted at or shoved anyone or even that the alleged obstruction was more than temporary. Prosecutors did not say how big Mr. Jones’s group of friends was, or how many people were forced to walk around them.

“Let’s face it — no allegations were presented that anything was about to happen,” said Ms. Little. (Mr. Jones himself could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.)

Paula-Rose Stark, a Manhattan assistant district attorney, argued that the facts in the complaint were sufficient for the charge of disorderly conduct. Mr. Jones’s reckless intent, Ms. Stark said, was evident from the fact that his behavior was noticeable in the first place “amid the inevitable hustle and bustle of Times Square, the construction, the vehicular traffic.”

As for other details, she said — well, perhaps Mr. Jones should not have pleaded guilty, depriving himself of a jury trial.

“Those are all matters left to be pursued at trial,” Ms. Stark said.

A lower court came to a similar conclusion last year, and by a vote of 2 to 1 upheld the arrest. But, in a glimmer of hope for Mr. Jones, the dissenting judge wrote that standing and talking with friends on the sidewalk, “even if it requires other pedestrians to walk around him, is commonplace in New York and not disorderly conduct.”

And on Wednesday, Mr. Jones’s circumstances appeared to reach a friendly audience before the Court of Appeals.

“Isn’t that lawful conduct?” wondered Judge Robert S. Smith. Later he added, “Your conduct can’t be illegal just because an officer noticed it.”

His colleague Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr. questioned what other violations might attract law enforcement attention.

“All I could think of was a bunch of lawyers from the New York City Bar Association standing around trying to figure out where to have lunch,” Judge Pigott said. (The association has offices a block and a half from Times Square.)

Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye seemed likewise nonplused. “This is at 2 a.m.?” she asked, wondering how many pedestrians it would have been possible to inconvenience at that hour. “I guess I’m not in Times Square at 2 a.m. very often.”

The court is likely to rule on the case next month. Should it rule against Mr. Jones, the available evidence on the scene on Wednesday suggested that the police would soon have their hands full.

Just before 5 p.m., near the corner where Mr. Jones was arrested, stood the following assemblage: a man eating clams out of a Styrofoam container; two men smoking cigarettes together; a man waiting for a woman to finish a phone call; a guy looking at a map; a young woman sending a text message; two men handing out tour brochures; and a family of five, including an infant in a stroller, who stopped to look at the brochures.

Across the street stood Chaya Coppersmith, 18. “That’s just completely ridiculous,” Ms. Coppersmith said when told of Mr. Jones’s case. “Nobody can walk in Times Square. Everyone’s standing around in Times Square. That’s what it’s for.”

Colin Moynihan contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/ny...movealong.html





The Truth About Telecom Amnesty

An interview with the lead counsel in the AT&T case reveals how much misinformation is being disseminated about telecom amnesty.
Glenn Greenwald

Today I interviewed Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the lead counsel in the pending litigation against AT&T, alleging that AT&T violated multiple federal laws by providing (without warrants) unfettered access for the Bush administration to all telephone and Internet data concerning its customers. The Bush administration intervened in that lawsuit to argue that the "state secrets" doctrine compelled dismissal of the lawsuit, but the presiding judge, Bush 41-appointee Vaughn Walker, last year rejected that argument and ordered the case to proceed (Oral Argument on the administration's appeal of that ruling was heard by the 9th Circuit earlier this year).

The EFF/AT&T lawsuit -- based in part on the testimony and documentation of Mark Klein, a former AT&T employee -- will entail an investigation into the extent to which AT&T and other telecoms enabled the Bush administration to spy illegally on their customers. As of now, these telecom lawsuits are the best (arguably, the only real) hope for obtaining a judicial ruling as to whether these surveillance programs were illegal. Precisely for these reasons, the Bush administration is demanding "telecom amnesty" -- to bring a halt to EFF's lawsuit and thus ensure that no investigation of its spying activities on Americans ever occurs, and that no ruling is ever obtained as to whether it broke the law.

I found this interview extremely illuminating, and it reveals just how much misinformation is being disseminated by amnesty advocates. I will post the entire podcast and transcript when it is available, but wanted to post some key excerpts now:

* * * * *

GG: The lawsuit you originally brought was against only AT&T and not against the Bush administration or any government officials. Is that correct?

CC: Yes. We brought the case only against AT&T because AT&T has an independent duty to you, its customers, to protect your privacy. This is a very old duty, and if you know the history of the FISA law, you'll know that it was adopted as a result of some very deep work done by the Church Committee in Congress, that revealed that Western Union and the telegraph companies were making a copy of all telegraphs going into and outside the U.S. and delivering them to the Government.

So this was one of the big outrages uncovered by the Church Committee -- in addition to the rampant surveillance of people like Martin Luther King.

As a result of this, Congress very wisely decided that it wasn't sufficient to simply prevent the Government from listening in on your calls - they had to create an independent duty for the telecom carries not to participate in illegal surveillance.

So they are strictly forbidden from handing over your communications and communications records to the Government without proper legal process.

* * * * * *

Regarding the 9th Circuit appeal and what is at stake in these cases:

GG: If you were a Bush administration lawyer coming out of that Oral Argument, you would be far from confident that the 9th Circuit is going to dismiss the case?

CC: I think that's a fair characterization.

GG: And so, as we sit here now, with the Bush administration demanding amnesty for telecoms -- including AT&T and the other telecom defendants in these various lawsuits - there is a very real prospect, as of this moment, that the case you brought against these telecoms will go forward, and will entail an investigation into what these telecoms have been doing vis-a-vis surveillance of Americans -- is that true?

CC: I think that's true. . . . The courts will be able to look pretty deeply into what the phone companies have been doing. It may not be the case that the rest of us will know all of it. But what we will know at the end -- and what I think is critically important -- is whether it was legal or not.

GG: There will be a judicial ruling, assuming your case goes forward, as to whether or not the activities the telecoms engaged in, in concert with the Bush administration, actually broke the law?

CC: Yes - and that I think is tremendously important even if we don't end up knowing every nook and cranny of what the Government has been doing.

The FISA law really makes it illegal for the phone companies to give this information to the Government, and what the Government does with it afterwards isn't really relevant to our claim.

We have evidence of an NSA-controlled room in the Folsom Street AT&T facilities in San Francisco. We have evidence that AT&T diverted copies of everyone's Internet traffic into that room. And we know that there's very sophisticated equipment in that room that is capable of doing real-time analysis of the Internet traffic that is getting routed into there.

For most of our legal claims, that's enough to win, and we're done.

GG: Let's talk about those allegations. Your lawsuit, if it proceeded, would necesarily require an investigaiton into those allegations -- namely, into whether there was a secret room built, whether AT&T was providing unfettered access to the NSA, whether they were turning over this data. You would have to prove those allegations in order to prevail, right?

CC: Yes. . . . in that regard we already have AT&T internal documents that lay out the schematics of how this is happening and AT&T has authenticated these documents. They filed a motion with Judge Walker saying that those documents are their trade secrets and to say that, they had to say they were true. . . . The evidence we already presented and the fact that AT&T authenticated them takes us, if not all the way there, pretty darn close.

* * * * *

The impact of amnesty on these investigations:

GG: So, if Congress were to enact a law providing amnesty to telecoms -- something like the Bush administration is demanding, whereby the telecoms would receive retroactive amnesty -- that would essentially put a halt to your lawsuit?

CC: We would certainly argue that it didn't, but it's fair to say that it would put a pretty large hurdle in front of us for going forward. . . .

GG: But you would expect AT&T's lawyers and the telecom industry to argue that the amnesty they got from Congress does in fact bar those claims as well?

CC: Yes. Their goal is plainly to get rid of these litigations full stop. They don't want the courts to ever rule on whether this is legal or not. That's their goal. . . .

It's certainly the goal of the administration and the phone companies to ensure that there's never a decision about what's been going on is legal or not. The telecom cases are the last, best hope.

GG: In all of these cases that might result in an adjudication as to whether the surveillance programs were illegal, the Bush administration has been actively invovled in trying to block these cases from proceeding at all?

CC: That's right - they made the same "states secrets" argument as they made in our case in all these other cases as well.

GG: And having lost the "state secrets" argument in your case, and also in the ACLU case originally, they're now attempting to put a stop to these cases through the amnesty law that they're seeking?

CC: I think that's right. They're afraid. I think it's fair to say that they're worried they're not going to win with the rules of the game as they were set up at the time they started spying on everyone. They're running to Congress to try to change the rules of the game going forward, and trying to cover up what's happened in the past. And the question is - - is Congress going to go for this?

* * * * *

The passivity of Congress:

GG: The claims by Mark Klein about what AT&T was doing - do you know, has he ever testified before any Congressional hearings or spoken with any Congressional Committee as part of any investigations that they've done into these claims?

CC: I know he hasn't ever been asked to testify in front of Congress. I know he would be willing to testify, I know he'd be very eager to tell his story to Congress.

GG: Well that's why I'm asking. These are pretty extraordinary claims that he's making, and yet -- not only during the time that the Republicans were in control of the Congress, but even for the 9 months that Democrats were in control -- there have been no formal Congressional hearings, Committee investigations, in which they asked him to come and testify about what he knows. Is that right?

CC: I think that's right. And I think that as we've been talking to members of Congress about the immunity provision, as the amnesty provision has been moving to Congress, it's shocking to me that they don't know what Mr. Klein has told a federal judge.

It's been on Frontline, and it was on a whole bunch of things -- you've been talking about it -- but there's a sense that members of Congress don't understand the kind of wholesale dragnet surveillance that Mr. Klein's evidence demonstrates . . . It's undisputed, this evidence. They have never said that Mr. Klein is lying or that the documents are phony.

To the contrary, AT&T itself said they were all true and were trying to argue that they were their trade secrets and we should have to give them all back. It's undisputed evidence and it is surprising that Congressional members still don't know about it and haven't asked Mr. Klein to come tell them himself.

* * * * * * *

Claims of telecoms' "good faith":

GG: One of the arguments that the telecom industry is making, and that advocates of telecom immunity or amnesty are making, is that these telecoms acted in good faith when they did what they did, and so it's unfair to punish these companies -- even if they technically broke the law -- because they were acting in good faith, acting as what the Washington Post Editorial Page described as good "patriotic corporate citizens" trying to protect the country. I have two questions about that:

(1) is it true that under the law, if they can prove they acted in good faith, then at least for the statutory claims, there won't be any liability?; and,

(2) aren't those claims, those arguments, that they're making now [about their supposed "good faith"] ones that they made before Judge Walker, that he rejected, when he refused to dismiss the case against them?

CC: Yes and yes. To answer your first question: the FISA law already has very broad immunities for the telecoms, and if it was the case that they were acting in good faith with an honest belief that what they were being asked to do was legal, then they would already have immunity, and they don't need an additional immunity from Congress for that.

And it's also the case that they made all these arguments to Judge Walker and Judge Walker's decision on this addresses those arguments very directly -- he said no reasonable phone company in the position of AT&T could have thought that what they were being asked to do was legal. It is not the case that this phone company could have believed that the wholesale surveillance of millions of its customers for five years, six years and counting, could be legal under the law.

Remember, these phone companies are very sophisticated about these FISA laws and the other laws that explain how and when they can cooperate with law enforcement. These aren't some rouges. This isn't Joe's Phone Company. They are very sophisticated and know the law better than almost everyone.

But even if they didn't, I don't think it takes a lot of thought to wonder: "huh, the FISA law says that the exclusive means by which the Government can get information is either by a warrant or a short-term certification from the Attorney General in an emergency situation. Huh - do either of these two things justify ongoing wholesale surveillance of all of our customers for five years and counting?"

The answer to that has to be "no." I don't think you even need a law degree to figure that one out.

* * * * * * *

The motives for the telecom lawsuits:

GG: John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, was on Fox News on Sunday arguing for telecom immunity, and this is one of the things he said in explaining why he believed in amnesty: "I believe that they deserve immunity from lawsuits out there from typical trial lawyers trying to find a way to get into the pockets of the American companies."

Is that an accurate description of your lawsuit and your organization?

CC: No, we are not plaintiff's attorneys. . . . He's welcome to come and visit our offices and if he still thinks that we're rich plaintiffs' attorneys after he's visited our little tiny Mission Street offices, then I have a bridge to sell him. We're a small, struggling non-profit with a very tiny budget - and we're doing this because we're committed to protecting people's privacy in the digital age.

GG: I don't know the salaries of EFF lawyers and I'm not asking that, but I assume it's true that there are all kinds of private sector opportunities and large corporate law firms in San Francisco where lawyers working in those places are making a lot more money, and if EFF lawyers were motivated by the desire for profit -- as Mr. Bohener dishonestly suggested -- there are a lot of other jobs that you could get that would pay a lot more money.

CC: Oh yeah, absolutely. And in fact, our lawyers are just the opposite. Most of the EFF lawyers worked in those big fancy firms for big fancy salaries, and took big paycuts to join us, because they wanted to do personally fulfilling work and feel like they were making the world a better place.

What I tell young lawyers who come to me and say: "I really want to work for EFF - you have such great lawyers," I say: "take your current paycheck, rip it in three pieces, take any third, and that's about what you'll get working for EFF." The lawyers who work for EFF are making some of the biggest contributions to this organization, because they are making far less than they could on the open market in exchange for being able to work on things they believe in every day.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...sty/index.html





Sex, Nazi, Burrito And Viagra: Who Googles What?

Internet users in Egypt, India and Turkey are the world's most frequent searchers for Web sites using the keyword "sex" on Google search engines, according to statistics provided by Google Inc.

Germany, Mexico and Austria were world's top three searchers of the word "Hitler" while "Nazi" scored the most hits in Chile, Australia and the United Kingdom, data from 2004 to the present retrievable on the "Google Trends" Web site showed.

Chile also came in first place searching for the word "gay," followed by Mexico and Colombia.

The top searchers for other keywords were as follows (in order from first to third place):

"Jihad" - Morocco, Indonesia, Pakistan

"Terrorism" - Pakistan, Philippines, Australia

"Hangover" - Ireland, United Kingdom, United States

"Burrito" - United States, Argentina, Canada

"Iraq" - United States, Australia, Canada

"Taliban" - Pakistan, Australia, Canada

"Tom Cruise" - Canada, United States, Australia

"Britney Spears" - Mexico, Venezuela, Canada

"Homosexual" - Philippines, Chile, Venezuela

"Love" - Philippines, Australia, United States

"Botox" - Australia, United States, United Kingdom

"Viagra" - Italy, United Kingdom, Germany

"David Beckham" - Venezuela, United Kingdom, Mexico

"Kate Moss" - Ireland, United Kingdom, Sweden

"Dolly Buster" - Czech Republic, Austria, Slovakia

"Car bomb" - Australia, United States, Canada

"Marijuana" - Canada, United States, Australia

"IAEA" - Austria, Pakistan, Iran
http://www.reuters.com/article/techn...75016820071017





Made in China: Dodging the Internet Censor
Lisa Vaas

Independent-minded Internet users are trying to foil China's censors, who themselves seem to be increasing in sophistication.

According to a report by an anonymous technician working for an Internet company in China, the world's most populous country employs tens of thousands of cyber-censors and cyber-police whose mission is to purge the Internet of anything that might embarrass the government. This network of apparatchiks has been responsible for the arrests of hundreds of Internet users and cyber-dissidents over the past 10 years.

The technician, writing under the pen name of "Mr. Tao," published the investigative report—entitled "Journey to the Heart of Internet Censorship"— under the aegis of the nonprofit organizations Reporters Without Borders and Chinese Human Rights Defenders.

The report describes pervasive, and sometimes self-generated, censorship, abetted by ample manpower and funding that Mr. Tao estimates has grown to some $27 billion in U.S. dollars.

The report also notes that there are ways to resist censorship and plenty of Chinese freethinkers are eager to make use of those techniques.

Mr. Tao notes the use of proxy servers—be they HTTP, POP3, FTP or SOCKS—to hide a user's IP address. In theory, proxy servers could also be used to reach blocked foreign sites, he says. But in practice, China's censorship "is so well developed in this respect that it prevents this."

"You have to access sites such as dongtaiwang.com, wujie.net and huayuannetworks.com, which have been dubbed 'The Three Musketeers,'" he writes. "They provide many technical tools and services of excellent quality."

Other services to get around censorship that Mr. Tao recommends are ziyoumen, huofenghuang, shijietong, hanfeng, wujie liulan, SafeWeb and Tor, a tool set that provides anonymous browsing, publishing, instant messaging, IRC, SSH, and other applications that use the TCP protocol.

Mr. Tao also recommends exploiting varying levels of censorship between provinces or between levels in the administration. For example, an author might get away with posting a critical article in the online media in certain provinces, with Beijing being the most restrictive province. Also, smaller news sites often escape sharp scrutiny, he said in the report.

Other than that, Chinese Web surfers should adopt a wide array of Internet technologies, he says, such as blogs, discussion forums, Internet telephony, discussion groups, grouped calls, instant messaging, webmail, P2P (peer to peer) and VPN.

Web-based feed aggregators such as NewsGator Online reportedly help regain access to RSS feeds. Other tricks to scaling the great firewall of China include an SSH connection to somewhere outside of China or the use of Firefox's gladder extension, a proxy tool whose motto is, "Get over Great Firewall with Great Ladder!"

But such advice is getting staler by the minute, as China's censors are getting more technically savvy. For example, at one point, RSS feeds were a simple way for China's Internet users to get their hands on forbidden information. China's censorship machinery seems to have finally caught on to RSS, however, with reports coming in as early as August of Chinese telecoms blocking FeedBurner RSS feeds.

More recently, the Chinese government apparently has extended the block to all URLs that begin with the words "feeds," "rss" and "blog."

Censorship and cyber-policing flows down directly from top government levels: specifically, it starts at the seat of government in Zhongnanhai, a complex of buildings in Beijing adjacent to Tiananmen Square which serve as the central headquarters for the Communist Party of China and the government of the People's Republic of China.

Orders are issued from Zhongnanhai on down to a host of state-run agencies.

Employees in China's censorship apparatus work in special sections that have been set up in every one of the government's Public Security Bureaus—agencies that handle policing, security and social order.

Internet company employees also practice self-censorship and keyword filtering. However, sometimes forbidden material slips in advertently. In such cases, the government may react by criticizing the site, imposing a fine, ordering that the site fire whatever employee is responsible, or forcing a site's section or an entire site to shut down.

Ideological control is enforced through certificate-awarding classes on how to fine-tune the skill of the censor as well as through field trips for online companies that include Yahoo and a slew of Chinese companies including search engine makers Baidu and Sohu and the portal companies Sina.com, NetEase, TOM, and Xilu, among others. After their return, the companies' executives and editors are expected to write patriotic articles about the field trips, which happen yearly and target locations such as "the place where communism was born."

The censors use a host of established communication technologies to constantly give orders about what such companies can publish or what events or issues are off limits, including phone, e-mail, SMS text messages, MSN, Tencent QQ and RTX (Real Time eXchange) instant messaging, Web platforms and a weekly meeting. They expect their orders to be carried out fast, with three levels of urgency that require action within either five, 10 or 30 minutes.

China's censors prefer to communicate via SMS text messages and MSN instant messaging. Mr. Tao gave the example of two journalists who wrote a series of articles criticizing how an iPod subcontractor—Foxconn of Taiwan—was treating plant workers. Censors sent SMS messages to private sites with instructions that they avoid disseminating reports about the case "so that it is not exploited by those who want independence to advance their cause."

The administration prefers that censors eschew MSN, however, given that it's run by a foreign country and its orders could come to light. Instead, RTX, which is run by a Chinese company called Tengxun, is the preferred platform for instant messaging.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2198093,00.asp





A Host of Confusion
Tobin Harshaw

If we’re lucky, someday a media scholar or, better yet, a cultural anthropologist might devote a dissertation to the great Randi Rhodes kerfuffle of Oct. 16, 2007.

Since it was never front page news, here is this morning’s initial report, from Barooosk at the Talking Radio blog:

“According to Air America Radio late night host Jon Elliott, Rhodes was beaten up pretty badly, losing several teeth and will probably be off the air for at least the rest of the week … Pointing out that Rhodes was wearing a jogging suit and displayed no purse or jewelry, Elliott speculated that ‘this does not appear to me to be a standard grab the money and run mugging.’

“ ‘Is this an attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own,” he asked. “Are we threatening them. Are they afraid that we’re winning. Are they trying to silence intimidate us.’ ”

Now, according to The Daily News, such fears were apparently misplaced:

“Air America radio host Randi Rhodes is temporarily off the air, but claims she was brutally attacked near her Manhattan apartment are bogus, her lawyer and a police source said today … Rhodes’ lawyer told the Daily News she was injured in a fall while walking her dog. He said she’s not sure what happened, and only knows that she fell down and is in a lot of pain. The lawyer said Rhodes expects to be back on the air Thursday. He stressed there is no indication she was targeted or that she was the victim of a ‘hate crime.’ “

Obviously, the snark from the right is now pretty much deafening, and there are more than a few liberal bloggers who might be tempted to delete their morning posts. Some on the left, however, aren’t going to let any news get in the way of the argument: “It sounds like Air America’s Jon Elliott sure stirred things up needlessly,” writes Kevin Hayden at American street.

“However, since [Air America personality] Thom Hartmann’s car was hit with bullets in the past week, I can understand why talk hosts get nervous. And since Rhodes doesn’t know what made her fall, I understand how easy one can jump to paranoid conclusions.”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-of-confusion/





Woof

Artist Defiantly Draws Prophet Mohammed


Lars Vilks

Paula Newton

Swedish artist Lars Vilks says all he's doing is taking a stand in the name of artistic expression. But because of that stand, on this afternoon he's lying low -- on the ground, in fact -- looking for bombs under his car.

Al Qaeda has put a $100,000 price on his head and offered an extra $50,000 for anyone who murders him by slitting his throat after the eccentric artist and sculptor drew a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a dog.

"I don't think it should not be a problem to insult a religion, because it should be possible to insult all religions in a democratic way, " says Vilks from his home in rural Sweden.

"If you insult one, then you should insult the other ones."

His crude, sketched caricature shows the head of Prophet Mohammed on the body of a dog. Dogs are considered unclean by conservative Muslims, and any depiction of the prophet is strictly forbidden.

Vilks, who has been a controversial artist for more than three decades in Sweden, says his drawing was a calculated move, and he wanted it to elicit a reaction. Watch "I should slaughter you" »

"That's a way of expressing things. If you don't like it, don't look at it. And if you look at it, don't take it too seriously. No harm done, really," he says.

When it's suggested that might prove an arrogant -- if not insulting -- way to engage Muslims, he is unrelenting, even defiant.

"No one actually loves the truth, but someone has to say it," he says.

Vilks, a self-described atheist, points out he's an equal opportunity offender who in the past sketched a depiction of Jesus as a pedophile.

Still one could argue Vilks should have known better because of what happened in Denmark in 2005, when a cartoonist's depictions of the prophet sparked violent protests in the Muslim world and prompted death threats against that cartoonist's life.

Vilks' cartoon, which was published in August by the Swedish newspaper Nerikes Allehanda, hasn't reached that level of global protests, although it has stoked plenty of outrage.

Muslims in Sweden demanded an apology from the newspaper, which has stood by Vilks on his freedom of expression stand. Pakistan and Iran also lodged formal protests with Sweden.

One Swedish Muslim woman who lives just an hour-and-a-half drive from Vilks said she hopes to make good on the al Qaeda threat and slaughter Vilks like a lamb.

"I can do this in the name of Allah, and I will not fail. I could slaughter him in the name of Allah," says the woman who identified herself only as Amatullah.

She adds, "If I get the opportunity."

Dressed in a black burqa from head to toe and uttering death threat after death threat, the woman -- a wife and mother -- says she is defending her religion and her prophet if she manages to kill Vilks.

Amatullah has already been fined for issuing death threats. Still, she claims she will never stop taunting him.

Swedish police, who declined CNN's request for an interview, have advised Vilks to abandon his home.

But the artist still works there by day and travels to a safe house by night. Vilks knows his defiance could get him killed, but he says his art is worth dying for.

As he sits at his computer, his phone buzzes with a text message. Another death threat has just come in, this one from Pakistan.

"I will kill you, you son a bitch," he reads.

There are hundreds of threats just like this one on his mobile phone, on his answering machine and in his e-mail inbox.

"You get used to it," he says. "It's a bit of hide and seek. It's like living in a film."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...rsy/index.html


















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

October 13th, October 6th, September 29th, September 22nd

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles and press releases in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. Questions or comments? Call (617) 939-2340, country code U.S.. 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
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 - September 22nd, '07 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 3 22-09-07 06:41 PM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - May 19th, '07 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 1 16-05-07 09:58 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 9th, '06 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 5 09-12-06 03:01 PM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - September 16th, '06 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 2 14-09-06 09:25 PM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 22nd, '06 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 1 20-07-06 03:03 PM






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:47 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)