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 29-01-20, 07:38 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 - February 1st, ’20

Since 2002































February 1st, 2020




Lady Gaga Criticizes Music Pirates with Pirated Photos. Shutterstock Responds
Michael Zhang

After Lady Gaga’s new song “Stupid Love” leaked onto the Internet and went viral last weekend, the singer called out fans who had listened to the unauthorized release. Problem was, Lady Gaga’s Tweet used “pirated” stock photos that had “Shutterstock” watermarks splashed across them, and this unauthorized usage didn’t escape the company’s notice.

On January 22nd, after “Stupid Love” leaked, went viral, and then started getting taken down on Twitter, Lady Gaga Tweeted the message “can y’all stop” with two stock photos of a girl wearing a ski mask while listening to music. The message was clear: fans listening to and spreading the leaked track were furthering music piracy.

Just hours later, Shutterstock replied to the Tweet and pointed out the hypocrisy of wanting to get paid for music while failing to pay the photographer whose work she broadcast to her 80+ million Twitter followers.

“We hear you!” Shutterstock writes. “We like artists to be paid for their work too. Here’s a link to the photographer’s work where you can license these quality images.”

The Tweet links to the two original stock photos on Shutterstock’s website, titled “Concept image of a young girl dancing to pirated or illegal music downloads on her mp3 player, isolated against a white background” and “Closeup view of a young girl wearing a ski mask, listening to illegal music, isolated against a white background.”

Lady Gaga’s fans have flooded Shutterstock’s Tweet with replies criticizing the stock photo company, accusing it of trying to take advantage of Lady Gaga and arguing that the watermark is clearly on the photo (which isn’t quite relevant to the photographer getting paid):

funny how you‘re only interested when it’s a viral tweet huh and the watermark is right there pic.twitter.com/L3NW3NpZm0

— ���������� (@bloodyfarah) January 23, 2020

watermark is right there. instead you should pay her for the free promo

— itscatalin (@itscatalin) January 23, 2020

It turns out the photographer behind the stock photos is children’s author Richard Nelson, and he doesn’t seem to mind not getting paid for the usage — in fact, he Tweeted out a non-watermarked version of Lady Gaga’s message for the singer to use:

@ladygaga As the photographer of this picture, I've got you. ������ pic.twitter.com/UtY1DudXkB

— Richard Nelson, Children's Author ✍️�� (@ImRichardNelson) January 24, 2020

“@ladygaga making one of my old stock photos viral,” Nelson Tweets, amused by the unexpected exposure. “Hahaha. I just had to share.”

But from the conversations this incident has sparked online, it seems clear that the vast majority of photographers agree with Shutterstock: copyright is important, but not just for musicians — it needs to be respected and defended for all artists, including photographers.
https://petapixel.com/2020/01/27/lad...tock-responds/





YouTube Reversed My Bogus Copyright Strike After I Threatened to Write This

YouTube allowed Warner Bros. to copyright strike my livestream before it even happened.
Matt Binder

Can you receive a copyright strike on YouTube for content that doesn't even exist?

You can and I would know because it happened to me.

You see, I host a political podcast, DOOMED with Matt Binder, which I also stream live on YouTube. The left-leaning show covers everything from the far right to tech policy, from internet conspiracy theories to the Democratic primary race. Which brings me to Tuesday, Jan. 14, the night of the CNN Democratic primary debate in Iowa.

Earlier in the evening, I'd scheduled a YouTube livestream, as I always do the night of a debate, in order to discuss the event with progressive activist Jordan Uhl after CNN's broadcast wrapped up. I'd even labeled it as a “post-Democratic debate” show featuring Uhl's name directly in the scheduled stream title. These post-debate shows consist entirely of webcam feeds of my guest and myself, split-screen style, breaking down the night's events.

Shortly after setting up the stream, which wasn't scheduled to start for hours, I received an email from YouTube:

“[Copyright takedown notice] Your video has been taken down from YouTube.”

The notice informed me that I had received a copyright strike for my scheduled stream. That one copyright strike was enough to disable livestreaming on my channel for the strike's three-month duration. If I were to accumulate three strikes, YouTube would just shut down my channel completely, removing all of my content.

This wasn’t an algorithm. An actual person submitted a legal claim saying they owned my nonexistent content.

According to the YouTube notice, a person by the name of Michael Bentkover issued the copyright strike on behalf of Warner Bros. Entertainment, which owns CNN, the hosts of the last Democratic debate. That’s right, this wasn’t an algorithm or automated system run amok. An actual person manually submitted a legal claim saying they owned my nonexistent content.

To reiterate here, the content did not yet exist. Everyone knows by now that if you post content you don't own on YouTube, there's a chance you'll receive a copyright strike for posting it. However, in my case, Mr. Bentkover, representing Warner Bros. Entertainment, was claiming ownership over content I never even had a chance to create.

Because of the copyright strike, I was unable to stream my post-debate show on YouTube that night.

“Your case is the most extreme I’ve heard about. Congratulations,” Electronic Frontier Foundation Manager of Policy and Activism, Katharine Trendacosta, said to me in a phone conversation on the issue. “This is the first time I've heard about this happening to something that didn't contain anything. And I have heard a lot of really intense stories about what's happening on YouTube.”

Trendacosta would know. As a lawyer with the EFF, she has worked on cases involving YouTube issues ranging from bad faith copyright claims on static noise to a creator’s own voice.

“The law requires them to have a good faith belief,” Trendacosta said, referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. “Legally, you have to sign something that says you looked at the content and that there was material found that is yours.”

“If there is no material, that's impossible.”

To contest a copyright strike, YouTube allows users to submit a counter-claim, giving the claimant 10 days to respond. My first claim was actually denied, effectively saying it was unclear whether I had a valid reason to file a counter notification. So, that’s when I reached out to YouTube to let the company know I was going to do a story on this.

Apparently, bad PR is all it takes to set the wheels of justice in motion.

According to YouTube, it appeared that Warner Bros.' representative searched for content involving the debates and manually issued the claim based on the title of the scheduled livestream. YouTube then subsequently removed the copyright claim, the strike, and restored livestreaming abilities to my YouTube channel.

While I’m happy that was the eventual result, it’s not enough for me. I now find myself asking even more questions. For example, why does YouTube even allow copyright claims for content that doesn’t exist? Trendacosta believes the company most likely doesn’t distinguish a scheduled stream from an uploaded video on its backend.

“Your case is a really extreme example of a fairly common situation in which these major companies send DMCA takedown on a very broad basis,” she explained. “YouTube is far more afraid of being sued by Warner Bros. than being sued by you, so you end up with them being much more cautious and doing things like just allowing DMCA strikes on anything.”

So, what can be done? Apparently, not much.

YouTube practically has a monopoly on user-generated online video, which is especially harrowing if you’re a creator looking to monetize your content. The outlook is even worse if you’re seeking accountability from the copyright claimant.

“This is CNN and Warner Bros. abusing a system that was designed to allow more things to go up, not less,” Trendacosta said. “The DMCA allows you to sue if you have been harmed by a fraudulent takedown.”

“... When you're talking about regular people versus Warner Bros, bringing a lawsuit is really difficult and expensive,” she explained. “It's easier for a lot of people to just take the dismissal of a copyright strike and move on, rather than to try to hold these companies to account for it.”

So, the situation ends up being like this: YouTube could do something, but it won’t. Creators should do something, but they can’t.

Effectively, the laws passed to help facilitate content creation are being used in bad faith by corporations to ensure the opposite.

Still, I’ll continue to host my livestreams on YouTube. That's where the audience is. But, now I know the all-important corporate copyright holder may be waiting; waiting for me to title my scheduled stream in a way that kind of, sort of sounds like it could possibly be their content when it eventually airs.

Then, I'll be at the mercy of their whim because there's always a chance they could lay claim to content I've yet to create. And YouTube, of course, will let them.
https://mashable.com/article/youtube...rner-bros-cnn/





METALLICA's Kirk Hammett Says Lawsuit Against Napster Didn't Make Any Difference In Piracy
Greg Kennelty

In 2000, Metallica started hearing their song "I Disappear" on the radio before it was released on the Mission: Impossible II soundtrack.

The band discovered the song was leaked onto Napster, which began the very well-publicized lawsuit against the peer-to-peer file sharing service. The lawsuit was eventually settled and that iteration of Napster shut down permanently in 2002. The rights to the name were eventually bought and Napster currently exists as a streaming service.

Looking back a full 20 years later, Metallica guitarist Kirk Hammett tells Dean Delray on his Let There Be Talk podcast that the lawsuit ultimately did nothing to stop piracy.

"The amazing thing now is back then, people were saying, '20 years from now, we're gonna look back and say, 'Goddamn it! We did the right thing. But when people were saying back then we were actually gonna make a difference? We didn't make a difference — we did not make a difference. It happened. And we couldn't stop it, because it was just bigger than any of us — this trend that happened that fucking sunk the fucking music industry. There was no way that we could stop it. It was a perfectly human thing that just happened. And what had happened was all of a sudden, it was just more convenient to get music and it was less convenient to pay for it. And there you have it.

"For me, it was kind of a leveling factor. All of a sudden, all of us were brought back to the minstrel age now where musicians' only source of income is actually playing. And it's like that nowadays — except that a lot of these bands [chuckles] aren't really playing; they're pressing 'play' or something. But there are a lot of bands who actually fucking play their instruments and have to play to still be a band and still fucking survive. And that's cool, because it really separates who wants to do this and who is just here for the fucking pose. … You'll see who's passionate about it and who's really into it for the art of it, and then you'll see who's not so passionate about it and into the commerce of it.

"Maybe things might change. Maybe all of a sudden people will just start to prefer CDs or whatever format as to what's available now. Who's to say? I mean, it changed all so quickly back then; it could fucking change just as quickly now."

Convenience seems to be the key word in a lot of this. Now it's convenient to stream music, and it's extremely well known at this point that streaming isn't paying artists as well either. Maybe a shift toward independent music is the key? Or a better split with streaming services and labels? Who knows, but it is extremely evident that the digital age hasn't been kind to musicians (in some regards).
https://metalinjection.net/its-just-...ence-in-piracy





Italy is Experiencing a Piracy Problem with Ebooks
Michael Kozlowski

Piracy in Italy is not as bad as some countries in the world, but it is a growing concern. The Association of Italian Publishers recently conducted a study and they found that pirated ebooks account for €528 million in loses, which is around 23% of all digital sales.

The report stated that “This data reveals the need for the imposition of strong law enforcement and the education of users who are not always fully aware of the effects of their behavior.”

Some 36% of users—more than one in three Italians older than 15, the researchers found—carried out at least one act of piracy with a work of published content in the last year. One in four users are estimated to have downloaded an illegal ebook or audiobook free of charge at least once. 17% of those surveyed said they’ve received at least one ebook from a friend or family member

Here are some of the key findings in the report.

• €216 million is the estimated level of annual loss to Italy in taxes on pirated content
• €324 million is being lost to various elements of the publishing industry, reflective of 29 million legitimate sales being squandered
• €105 million is the estimated level of economic loss yearly to university publishing, which is thought to be losing the sales of 4 million units annually
• €99 million is the estimated level of loss to professional publishing and data banks, a sector that’s thought to be losing 2.9 million unit sales yearly

This report was commissioned from IPSOS. The project was executed in November with a sample of 4,000 respondents selected for factors including gender, age, geographical location, educational and professional status, and other elements.
https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-...em-with-ebooks





AT&T Loses Another 1.2 Million TV Subscribers as DirecTV Keeps Tanking

AT&T began 2019 with 24.5 million premium-TV customers, ended with 20.4 million.
Jon Brodkin

AT&T lost another 1.16 million subscribers from DirecTV and its other TV services in the final three months of 2019.

AT&T today reported a 945,000-customer net loss in its "premium TV" category, which includes DirecTV satellite, U-verse wireline TV services, and the "AT&T TV" online service that launched in Q3 and is only available in about 15 cities.

AT&T also reported a net loss of 219,000 customers from AT&T TV Now, a separate streaming service formerly known as DirecTV Now.

For the entire 12 months of 2019, AT&T lost more than 4 million customers from its satellite, wireline, and linear streaming-TV services combined. The company began 2019 with 24.49 million TV customers and finished the year with 20.4 million.

AT&T ended 2019 with 19.47 million customers in the premium TV category, down from 20.42 million customers in that category just three months earlier. For the full year, AT&T lost 3.43 million premium TV customers, a staggering amount compared to other providers even in the declining pay-TV business.

The AT&T TV Now streaming service dropped from 1.15 million to 926,000 subscribers in the three-month period. The AT&T streaming service began 2019 with 1.59 million customers but lost 665,000 customers during the year.

AT&T TV Now had 1.86 million subscribers as recently as September 30, 2018. It took just 15 months for AT&T to lose more than half of them, as customers fled in the face of price increases and expiration of promotional prices. AT&T said it had 8,000 AT&T TV Now customers on "free or substantially free trial-period" plans at the end of Q4, down from 65,000 a year earlier.

Revenue for the AT&T Entertainment Group, which includes video and broadband services, fell 6.1 percent year-over-year to $11.23 billion in Q4 2019. AT&T lost 182,000 home Internet subscribers in the quarter, reducing its total to 14.12 million. The losses all came in AT&T's older copper-based Internet services, as it added 191,100 fiber customers to hit a total of 3.89 million in that sub-category.

Price hikes and “focus on profitability”

On the plus side for AT&T, its revenue per TV customer rose. Average monthly revenue per premium-TV customer was $131 at the end of 2019, up from $121.76 a year earlier. Price increases at the start of 2019 contributed to this, and AT&T raised prices again this month.

AT&T said its premium-TV customer losses were caused by a "focus on profitability" and "promotional price roll-offs." The streaming-TV loss was attributed to "fewer promotions."

AT&T bought DirecTV for $49 billion in July 2015 and had 25.4 million DirecTV and U-verse TV customers combined at the end of 2015.

AT&T has resisted calls from investors to consider selling DirecTV. The company said recently it is "optimistic" that its TV losses peaked in the third quarter, when it shed more than 1.3 million customers.

AT&T's future video plans include a heavy dose of HBO Max, which is scheduled to launch in May 2020 for $14.99 per month. Average revenue per customer for the Netflix-style service would obviously be much lower than average revenue in satellite and other linear TV services like AT&T TV Now, but AT&T says it's aiming for 50 million US subscribers within five years. The existing HBO Now service—acquired as part of AT&T's purchase of Time Warner in 2018— is not included in the TV-subscriber figures described earlier in this article.

AT&T cut employees as revenue fell

Company-wide, AT&T reported Q4 2019 revenue of $46.8 billion, down from $48 billion year-over-year.

"Growth in domestic wireless services and strategic and managed business services revenues partially offset declines in revenues from domestic video, legacy wireline services and WarnerMedia," AT&T said. Q4 operating income fell from $6.2 billion to $5.3 billion year over year. Q4 net income fell from $4.9 billion to $2.4 billion year over year.

AT&T also continued a trend of reducing its workforce—despite claiming that it would use a corporate tax cut to create jobs. AT&T had 247,800 employees at the end of 2019, down from 268,220 one year earlier.
https://arstechnica.com/information-...keeps-tanking/





SpaceX Scrubs Rocket Launch Due to Weather

Company hopes to send 60 Starlink satellites into space
Antonia Jaramillo

SpaceX is hoping to send another 60 Starlink satellites to space, just not on Monday.

The company scrubbed the launch of its fourth batch of Starlink communication satellites due to upper-level winds.

SpaceX will try again at 9:28 a.m. Tuesday.

Standing down today due to strong upper level winds. Next launch opportunity is tomorrow at 9:28 a.m. EST, or 14:28 UTC.
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) January 27, 2020

Here’s what to know about the launch, according to News 6 partner Florida Today.

• Densely packed together in the payload fairing are 60 Starlink communications satellites.

• Upon success of this mission, SpaceX will have launched a total of 240 Starlink satellites.

• Weather now 90% “go” for Tuesday’s launch.

• The Falcon 9 rocket's first-stage booster previously launched off Launch Complex 39A and from SpaceX's West Coast launch pad, according to the aerospace company.

• SpaceX’s goal is to have almost 12,000 satellites operating in low-Earth orbit, with plans to launch an additional 30,000 satellites in the future.

• Part of the goal of creating the Starlink broadband constellation is to help fund Musk’s dream of colonizing Mars.
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/lo...-need-to-know/





A New Bill could Punish Web Platforms for Using End-to-End Encryption

A Section 230 change could have an ulterior motive
Adi Robertson

A new bill would reduce legal protections for apps and websites, potentially jeopardizing online encryption. The draft bill would form a “National Commission on Online Child Exploitation Prevention” to establish rules for finding and removing child exploitation content. If companies don’t follow these rules, they could lose some protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which largely shields companies from liability over users’ posts.

Reports from Bloomberg and The Information say that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is behind the bill, currently dubbed the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (or EARN IT) Act. It would amend Section 230 to make companies liable for state prosecution and civil lawsuits over child abuse and exploitation-related material, unless they follow the committee’s best practices. They wouldn’t lose Section 230 protections for other content like defamation and threats.

The bill doesn’t lay out specific rules. But the committee — which would be chaired by the Attorney General — is likely to limit how companies encrypt users’ data. Large web companies have moved toward end-to-end encryption (which keeps data encrypted for anyone outside a conversation, including the companies themselves) in recent years. Facebook has added end-to-end encryption to apps like Messenger and Whatsapp, for example, and it’s reportedly pushing it for other services as well. US Attorney General William Barr has condemned the move, saying it would prevent law enforcement from finding criminals, but Facebook isn’t required to comply. Under the EARN IT Act, though, a committee could require Facebook and other companies to add a backdoor for law enforcement.

Riana Pfefferkorn, a member of the Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, wrote a detailed critique of the draft. She points out that the committee would have little oversight, and the Attorney General could also unilaterally modify the rules. The Justice Department has pushed encryption backdoors for years, citing threats like terrorism, but they haven’t gotten legal traction. Now, encryption opponents are riding the coattails of the backlash against big tech platforms and fears about child exploitation online.

Techdirt founder Mike Masnick also notes that Section 230 doesn’t cover federal crimes — so the Justice Department could already prosecute companies if they’re enabling abuse. This bill would just let it write a new set of rules by threatening much broader liability.

A spokesperson for Graham’s Senate Judiciary Committee emphasized to Bloomberg that the bill isn’t final. And the Justice Department is taking a closer look at Section 230 next month, holding a public workshop to discuss potential changes.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/31/2...ill-encryption





FCC Confirms 'One or More' Carriers Broke the Law Selling Location Data

One year later, FCC boss Ajit Pai suggests one or more major carriers could be fined.
Karl Bode and Joseph Cox

More than a year after a Motherboard investigation revealed that wireless carriers were collecting and selling user location data to often dubious data brokers who then sold it to bounty hunters, the head of the FCC is finally acknowledging that at least one and possibly several wireless carriers broke the law.

“I wish to inform you that the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has completed its extensive investigation and that it has concluded that one or more wireless carriers apparently violated federal law,” FCC boss Ajit Pai said in a letter sent to Representative Frank Pallone.

Lawmakers had written the FCC last November, expressing concern that the agency had done nothing to crack down on the wireless industry’s practice of collecting user location data, then selling access to that data to a variety of often shady middlemen and even stalkers.

A New York Times investigation revealed how this data was repeatedly abused by law enforcement. Additional investigations from Motherboard show the practice even extended to the collection and sale of more detailed 911 emergency location data, a practice forbidden by U.S. law.

In a letter sent by FCC boss Ajit Pai to Representative Frank Pallone, the agency boss confirmed fines will likely be coming for several unnamed wireless carriers.

Do you work at the FCC or know anything else about this investigation? We'd love to hear from you. Using a non-work phone or computer, you can contact Joseph Cox securely on Signal on +44 20 8133 5190, Wickr on josephcox, OTR chat on jfcox@jabber.ccc.de, or email joseph.cox@vice.com.

“In the coming days, I intend to circulate to my fellow Commissioners for their consideration one or more Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in connection with the apparent violations,” Pai said.

Pai’s fellow commissioners applauded the move, but complained that Pai’s apparent foot dragging and stonewalling throughout much of last year delayed meaningful accountability and posed significant potential harm to U.S. consumers.

“For more than a year, the FCC was silent after news reports altered us that for just a few hundred dollars, shady middlemen could sell your location within a few hundred meters based on your wireless phone data,” FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement. “It’s chilling to consider what a black market could do with this data. It puts the safety and privacy of every American with a wireless phone at risk,” she added.

“These pay-to-track schemes violated consumers’ privacy rights and endangered their safety,” added Commissioner Geoffrey Starks who had gone so far as to recently write an editorial in the New York Times criticizing Pai’s lack of follow through. “I’m glad we may finally act on these egregious allegations. My question is: what took so long?”

The question now shifts toward what those fines will look like, what happens to the data already collected, and how to prevent it from happening again. Historically the FCC hasn’t done a particularly good job holding big telecom accountable, with fines that often wind up being a tiny fraction of the money earned from repeated instances of industry wrongdoing.

Senator Ron Wyden, whose office has investigated the sale of phone location data, said in a statement "When I alerted the FCC in 2018 that wireless carriers were selling their customers’ location data to a shady prison phone company which was allowing prison guards to track Americans’ cell phones, I knew immediately that the practice was a security and privacy nightmare. Dogged reporting by Motherboard and the New York Times revealed that this was just the tip of the iceberg and that stalkers, rogue sheriff’s deputies, and shady data brokers had used this massive loophole to track Americans without their permission or knowledge."

"Thanks to an outcry from consumers, last year the big wireless companies finally stopped allowing shady data brokers to track their customers. I’m eager to see whether the FCC will truly hold wireless companies accountable, or let them off with a slap on the wrist," the statement added.

Sprint declined to comment. Verizon and AT&T directed requests for comment to the CTIA, a trade body for the wireless communications industry.

CTIA said in a statement "Wireless companies are committed to protecting the privacy of consumers and share location data only with customer consent. Upon hearing allegations of misuse of the data, carriers quickly investigated, suspended access to the data and subsequently terminated those programs."
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/m...-location-data





In 2019, More Americans Went to the Library than to the Movies. Yes, Really.
Dan Sheehan

The US film industry may have generated revenues somewhere in the region of $40 billion last year, but it seems Hollywood still has plenty of work to do if it wants to compete with that most hallowed of American institutions: the public library.

Yes, according to a recent Gallup poll (the first such survey since 2001), visiting the local library remains by far the most common cultural activity Americans engage in. As reported earlier today by Justin McCarthy:

“Visiting the library remains the most common cultural activity Americans engage in, by far. The average 10.5 trips to the library U.S. adults report taking in 2019 exceeds their participation in eight other common leisure activities. Americans attend live music or theatrical events and visit national or historic parks roughly four times a year on average and visit museums and gambling casinos 2.5 times annually. Trips to amusement or theme parks (1.5) and zoos (.9) are the least common activities among this list.”

The results of the Gallup poll have been broken down in a range of different ways, all of which you can peruse at your leisure, but two of the more interesting (though unsurprising) findings are that women report visiting the library nearly twice as frequently as men do, and that libraries are visited most by adults in low-income households and least by adults in high-income households.

Congratulations to all you librarians out there; keep fighting the good fight.

Pour one out for the zookeepers, though; it appears they may not be long for this world…
https://lithub.com/in-2019-more-amer...es-yes-really/

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

January 25th, January 18th, January 11th, January 4th

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


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."
- Hugo Black
__________________
Thanks For Sharing
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

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

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






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:13 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)