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 03-06-20, 06:38 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 - June 6th, ’20

Since 2002































June 6th, 2020




Federal Court Cracks Down On Internet Piracy Web Sites
Computer Daily News

SYDNEY: A Federal Court has ordered Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to 86 Web sites alleged to be pirating programs from the likes of Village Roadshow, Disney, Netflix and Warner Bros.

The court has also sanctioned the implementation of a new process that may result in those sites being re-blocked sooner if they change their name or Web address.

The process allows production companies to reach out to the ISPs directly in the event that a blocked piracy site re-emerges under a new name or address – and request the new URL also be blocked.

Unless the ISPs object, they will be obliged to block the additional URLs.

It’s the latest legal win for the group of film and television production companies, which have previously taken successful legal action against Australian piracy sites.

The court ordered ISPs to take reasonable steps within 15 days to block access to the new sites, which include torrent directories, unofficial streaming sites and proxy un-blockers.
https://www.channelnews.com.au/feder...acy-web-sites/





Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive for Systematic Mass Scanning and Distribution of Literary Works
Ask Court to Enjoin and Deter Willful Infringement

Today, member companies of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Internet Archive (“IA”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit asks the Court to enjoin IA’s mass scanning, public display, and distribution of entire literary works, which it offers to the public at large through global-facing businesses coined “Open Library” and “National Emergency Library,” accessible at both openlibrary.org and archive.org. IA has brazenly reproduced some 1.3 million bootleg scans of print books, including recent works, commercial fiction and non-fiction, thrillers, and children’s books.

The plaintiffs—Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons and Penguin Random House—publish many of the world’s preeminent authors, including winners of the Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award, Newbery Medal, Man Booker Prize, Caldecott Medal and Nobel Prize.

Despite the self-serving library branding of its operations, IA’s conduct bears little resemblance to the trusted role that thousands of American libraries play within their communities and as participants in the lawful copyright marketplace. IA scans books from cover to cover, posts complete digital files to its website, and solicits users to access them for free by signing up for Internet Archive Accounts. The sheer scale of IA’s infringement described in the complaint—and its stated objective to enlarge its illegal trove with abandon—appear to make it one of the largest known book pirate sites in the world. IA publicly reports millions of dollars in revenue each year, including financial schemes that support its infringement design.

In willfully ignoring the Copyright Act, IA conflates the separate markets and business models made possible by the statute’s incentives and protections, robbing authors and publishers of their ability to control the manner and timing of communicating their works to the public. IA not only conflates print books and eBooks, it ignores the well-established channels in which publishers do business with bookstores, e-commerce platforms, and libraries, including for print and eBook lending. As detailed in the complaint, IA makes no investment in creating the literary works it distributes and appears to give no thought to the impact of its efforts on the quality and vitality of the authorship that fuels the marketplace of ideas.

This lawsuit is not about the occasional transmission of a rare or aging title under appropriately limited circumstances, nor about anything permissioned or in the public domain. Rather, this lawsuit condemns the fact that IA solicits and collects truckloads of in-copyright books in order to copy and make them available without permission, purposely denigrating their commercial value. As the complaint alleges, there are no provisions under copyright law—not library or educational exceptions, not fair use, not the first sale doctrine, nor anything in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—that support IA’s theft or the manner in which it steals.

Following is the statement of Maria A. Pallante, President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers:

“Today’s complaint illustrates that Internet Archive is conducting and promoting copyright infringement on a massive scale. In scanning and distributing literary works to which it has no legal or contractual rights, IA deliberately misappropriates the intellectual and financial investments of authors and publishers and brazenly ignores the copyright law that Congress enacted.

“IA operates with profound disrespect for the value chain of copyright, in which authors, publishers, bookstores, platforms, educational institutions and libraries work together for the benefit of society, whether during prosperity or a pandemic. One need only look to the generous responses of these partners to the ongoing COVID-19 health and economic crises to appreciate their creative collaborations and shared commitment to connecting readers of all ages to a wonderful diversity of literature, scholarship, and learning solutions.

“Regrettably, it seems clear that Internet Archive intends to bludgeon the legal framework that governs copyright investments and transactions in the modern world. As the complaint outlines, by illegally copying and distributing online a stunning number of literary works each day, IA displays an abandon shared only by the world’s most egregious pirate sites.”

The lawsuit reflects widespread anger among publishers, authors, and the entire creative community regarding IA’s actions and its response to objections. In an open letter to IA and its Board of Directors, the Authors Guild observed, “You cloak your illegal scanning and distribution of books behind the pretense of magnanimously giving people access to them. But giving away what is not yours is simply stealing, and there is nothing magnanimous about that. Authors and publishers—the rights owners who legally can give their books away—are already working to provide electronic access to books to libraries and the people who need them. We do not need Internet Archive to give our works away for us.”

Plaintiffs are jointly represented by Elizabeth McNamara and Linda Steinman of Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, and Matt Oppenheim and Scott Zebrak of Oppenheim + Zebrak, LLP.
https://publishers.org/news/publishe...iterary-works/





Eagles’ Don Henley Asks Congress to Change Copyright Law
AP

Eagles songwriter Don Henley urged Congress on Tuesday to “Take It to the Limit” to protect artists against online pirating, wading into a copyright fight pitting Hollywood and the recording industry against big tech platforms like Google’s YouTube.

The blockbuster hitmaker of the 1970s testified online from his home before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee weighing possible changes to a 1998 copyright law. The law allows holders of copyrighted material to formally ask parties they believe have taken their content without permission to remove it. The parties can dispute the claim. If they comply promptly with the request, there are no legal consequences. Otherwise, they may be subject to criminal penalties.

Henley said the law is weak and needs to be changed to make it more effective in stopping online piracy.

The so-called “notice and takedown” system under the copyright law is used by the movie and recording industries, entertainment software makers and book authors to pursue tech platforms, universities and other facilitators of file-sharing.

Henley called the copyright law “a relic of a MySpace era in a TikTok world.” With hundreds of millions of takedown notices sent, for every link taken down, “a dozen more pop up in its place,” he said. The system “still allows Big Tech to rake in revenue” after repeated copyright infringements, Henley said.

The copyright battle is being spotlighted in Congress at a time when U.S. tech giants are in an escalating feud with President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers, who accuse platforms such as Twitter, Google and Facebook of suppressing conservative viewpoints. The dispute boiled over last week when Twitter attached warnings to some of Trump’s tweets, on mail-in voting and the use of force against people protesting the police killing of George Floyd. Trump, who is Twitter’s most prominent user, responded by issuing an executive order intended to chip away at the tech platforms’ legal shield for speech content they carry.

In the debate over online pirating, the subcommittee chairman, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., made his leanings clear. He said creative industries have been “absolutely decimated” by the economic fallout of the pandemic as well as online pirating of copyrighted material that hasn’t slowed down.

“Piracy has become easier and faster and much, much more common,” Tillis said. “The current system is failing and it’s failing badly.”

He confided that the first live music performance he saw, when he lived in Nashville, was the Eagles. The rock group, with Henley as singer, drummer and songwriter, produced some of the best-selling albums of all time in the 1970s.

The other senators who attended the hearing, Democrats Chris Coons of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, expressed support for changes to update the copyright law.

Copyright holders maintain that some network operators have manipulated internet-provider addresses in a way to make other networks appear responsible for the file-sharing. Entertainment industries have been pushing tech platforms to do more themselves to police content that violates copyright.

On the other side, users of the content have accused copyright holders of alleging infringement where it doesn’t exist. Internet companies say they have worked actively with the creative industries to block access to illegal content and protect the copyrights.

Jonathan Berroya, interim president and CEO of the major trade group Internet Association, testified that the “overwhelming majority” of copyright infringement takes place on foreign tech platforms outside the reach of U.S. law and is not conducted by U.S. companies.

Tech companies themselves are in a golden age of creating content and investing in others’ projects, Berroya said.

They do not want to profit from illegally taken content, he said. Given the huge scale of piracy, tech platforms and the entertainment industries need to pool their resources and use new technology to identify violations.
https://www.masslive.com/music/2020/...right-law.html





Tech Giants Named in Trump’s Executive Order Lobbied Against Similar Laws for Years
Ian Karbal

On Thursday President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed to strip long-standing legal protections for internet platforms, including social media sites, that protect tech companies from litigation over content posted by users on their sites.

The move is a response to Twitter’s Tuesday decision to fact-check two of the president’s tweets about voter fraud. The move angered many of the president’s supporters, but others have called for Twitter to remove the Tweets altogether for apparently violating the site’s terms of service. The feud escalated Friday when Twitter placed a warning over one of Trump’s tweets about the riots in Minneapolis, which started after the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, at the hands of police.

The order also follows years of accusations from Republicans of anti-conservative bias on the sites, which Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was brought to testify about in front of congress in 2018. The claims eventually culminated in a 2019 bill introduced by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) which Trump’s executive order closely resembles.

The bill and the executive order strike at the law that is among the most consequential in the history of tech regulation. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects tech companies from being sued for the content that people post on their sites.

In response to Hawley’s bill, Twitter took to Capitol Hill. Four lobbying disclosures reveal Twitter’s lobbyists discussed the bill with lawmakers between April 2019 and March 2020, costing the company around $240,000. Twitter is also a member of Netchoice, a group that represents, among others, Facebook, Google and TikTok. Those companies also lobbied against Hawley’s bill.

Lobbying disclosures show that three companies, two conservative think tanks and an industry group representing 35 online companies lobbied for or against Hawley’s “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act.

The fight over the 2019 bill was merely the latest in a long history that’s seen tens of millions spent by companies fighting for or against laws that threatened the broad protections offered by Section 230.

Created in the early days of the internet, Section 230 was written in part to encourage growth in the sector and assuage start-ups’ fears of litigation. Since then, it has become a point of contention for lawmakers and competing industries as social media sites grapple with their place among the world’s largest disseminators of information — and disinformation. Over the past decade, tens of millions of dollars have been spent lobbying for and against the law as its Silicon Valley proponents became some of the biggest spenders in Washington.

Since 2017, 37 companies and industry groups lobbied on Section 230, and spent a total of $242.5 million lobbying on all issues. Facebook was one of the two companies which filed the most disclosures referencing Section 230, along with Oath Inc., the parent company of Yahoo! and AOL.

While the social media giants that have found themselves in Trump’s crosshairs have long been proponents of keeping Section 230 in place, other industries have lobbied to weaken its protections.

In a letter to the Department of Commerce, the Motion Picture Association of America urged lawmakers to consider narrowing the scope of Section 230, which they accused of helping to foster content pirating. The MPAA represents Disney and Fox, both of which have spent money lobbying to remove or narrow the protections of Section 230. A 2019 New York Times report found that Marriott opposed the law because of protections it offered to home-sharing platforms such as Airbnb.

While the current dust-up is centered around conservative anger at what they perceive as censorship, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have raised issues with Section 230. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said “it is not out of the question that it could be removed,” in a 2019 interview, amid rising Democratic concern over foreign election influence and misinformation proliferating on social media platforms. Although the greater threat appears to come from conservatives. While Trump’s executive order is likely to be challenged in court, he appears to be rallying conservatives to his side.

“If we just wait around, big tech will steal this election from Donald Trump and the American people,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Fox News. Fox, along with another Rupert Murdoch company, News Corp, have both disclosed lobbying on Section 230-related issues. How they lobbied is impossible to tell from disclosures alone, but one of Fox News’ biggest personalities, Tucker Carlson, advocated for changing Section 230 on his primetime show the night Trump signed the executive order.

The threat from conservative lawmakers comes as contributions from employees at Facebook, Twitter and Google have swung strongly to the left. At Facebook, 46 percent of employee contributions to political campaigns and PACs went to Republicans in 2014. That number has shrunk each cycle since, down to just under 11 percent this year. At Google, that number shrank from 40 percent to 12 percent over the same time period. At Twitter, which has always bent more Democratic in contributions, the number went from 22 percent to less than 1 percent.

Among the three companies named in Trump’s executive order, Facebook has been the biggest spender on lobbying, spending over $16 million in 2019 alone. This year, Facebook spent $5.26 million on lobbying in the first quarter, the most the company has spent in a single quarter in its history. This put Facebook in the top 10 spenders of 2020 so far.

In 2019, Twitter spent nearly $1.5 million on lobbying, putting it in the top 10 percent of all spenders on lobbying that year. Like Facebook, Twitter has increased its lobbying spending almost every year.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/202...t-similar-law/





Lawsuit Says Trump’s Social Media Crackdown Violates Free Speech
Kate Conger

President Trump’s crackdown on social media companies faced a new legal challenge on Tuesday, as a technology policy organization claimed in a lawsuit that he violated the companies’ right to free speech with his executive order aimed at curtailing their legal protections.

The nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology says in the suit that Mr. Trump’s attempt to unwind a federal law that grants social media companies discretion over the content they allow on their platforms was retaliatory and would have a chilling effect on the companies.

The lawsuit — filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — is indicative of the pushback that the president is likely to face as he escalates his fight with social media companies, which he has accused of bias against conservative voices. It asks the court to invalidate the executive order.

Twitter, which is Mr. Trump’s preferred method of communicating with the public, faced off with him last week after adding fact-check labels to two of his tweets and later restricting a post in which he said protesters who engaged in looting would face a violent crackdown.

In response on Thursday, Mr. Trump signed an executive order asking regulators to chip away at legal protections that prevent social media companies from being held liable for much of the content that is posted on their sites. The order targets Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which internet companies have said is essential to their business operations.

Mr. Trump’s order is “plainly retaliatory,” the Center for Democracy and Technology said in a legal filing. “It attacks a private company, Twitter, for exercising its First Amendment right to comment on the president’s statements.”

The order could also prevent other companies from speaking freely, the organization argued. “President Trump — by publicly attacking Twitter and issuing the order — sought to chill future online speech by other speakers,” its filing said.

The center added, “The order clouds the legal landscape in which the hosts of third-party content operate and puts them all on notice that content moderation decisions with which the government disagrees could produce penalties and retributive actions, including stripping them of Section 230’s protections.”

Other social media companies have been reluctant to duplicate Twitter’s actions. Although Mr. Trump posted identical comments on Facebook, Facebook has not touched the posts.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, said last week that social media companies should not be in the business of moderating comments from political figures like Mr. Trump.

“We’ve been pretty clear on our policy that we think that it wouldn’t be right for us to do fact checks for politicians,” Mr. Zuckerberg said in an interview with Fox News. His stance has led to widespread protest by Facebook employees.

Representatives for Facebook and the Justice Department declined to comment on the lawsuit. Twitter thanked the Center for Democracy and Technology for its action.

“It is so essential that platforms that host such an enormous amount of content be able to take steps to address and mitigate widespread misinformation,” said Alexandra Givens, the chief executive of the center.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/t...h-lawsuit.html





Small ISP Cancels Data Caps Permanently after Reviewing Pandemic Usage

Antietam Broadband cancels cap—Comcast, AT&T only waived caps through June 30.
Jon Brodkin

The coronavirus pandemic caused big ISPs to put data caps on hold for a few months, but one small ISP is going a big step further and canceling the arbitrary monthly limits permanently. Antietam Broadband, which serves Washington County in Maryland, announced Friday that it "has permanently removed broadband data usage caps for all customers," retroactive to mid-March when the company first temporarily suspended data-cap overage fees.

The decision to permanently drop the cap was made partly because of "learnings from the COVID-19 pandemic as more people worked and learned remotely," Antietam explained. "During this period customers moved into broadband packages that more accurately reflected their broadband needs." Like most other ISPs, Antietam charges different prices based on speed tiers as measured in bits per second, with Antietam's advertised download speeds ranging up to 1Gbps.

"These are uncertain times. We felt a need to give customers as much certainty over their bill as possible," Antietam President Brian Lynch said in the press release. "Eliminating data usage caps means that customers will know the exact amount of their broadband bill every month."

US residents have been using more Internet data at home since mid-March, when the pandemic caused the closure of offices and schools. "Since the pandemic began, we have seen as much increase in broadband usage as we generally would see over the course of a year," Lynch said. Antietam said it has responded to the growing usage "by adding backhaul, server capacity and local nodes."

Antietam imposed its data cap in 2015, charging a $10 overage fee for each additional block of 50GB. The monthly data caps ranged from 500GB to 1.5TB per month, except for a gigabit fiber plan that already included unlimited data, according to a Stop the Cap article.

Comcast, AT&T dropped caps—but not permanently

The two biggest US home-Internet providers that impose monthly data caps are Comcast and AT&T. Both companies suspended their data caps for the pandemic in March, initially saying the upgrade to unlimited data would last for two months and expire on May 13. Comcast and AT&T have both since extended the data-cap holiday to June 30 but haven't promised to extend it any further or get rid of the caps permanently.
waiving data caps hasn’t hurt its network—why not make it permanent?

ISPs enforce data caps primarily to boost revenue rather than to manage congestion. Comcast says it imposes a data cap to ensure "fairness" among its customers but coincidentally does not impose the data cap in the Northeast United States, where Comcast faces strong competition from Verizon's un-capped fiber-to-the-home FiOS service.

Comcast has boasted that its network has enough capacity to handle the pandemic-related surge in broadband use even without any usage caps, but that fact isn't likely to play a big role in whether Comcast eventually reimposes the cap. Comcast and other ISPs dropped caps temporarily to avoid a public-relations problem during the pandemic; once the crisis is over, they'll be tempted to restart the data-cap revenue stream, especially in regions where they don't face any meaningful competition.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...andemic-usage/





HBO Max Won’t Hit AT&T Data Caps, but Netflix and Disney Plus Will

Welcome to a world without net neutrality
Nilay Patel

HBO Max, AT&T’s big bet on the future of streaming, will be excused from AT&T’s mobile data caps, while competing services like Netflix and Disney Plus will use up your data.

That’s the follow-up from a Vergecast conversation with Tony Goncalves, the AT&T executive in charge of HBO Max. Asked whether HBO Max would hit the cap, Goncalves said his team “had the conversation” but didn’t have the answer. AT&T later confirmed to The Verge that HBO Max will be excused from the company’s traditional data caps and the soft data caps on unlimited plans.

According to an AT&T executive familiar with the matter, HBO Max is using AT&T’s “sponsored data” system, which technically allows any company to pay to excuse its services from data caps. But since AT&T owns HBO Max, it’s just paying itself: the data fee shows up on the HBO Max books as an expense and on the AT&T Mobility books as revenue. For AT&T as a whole, it zeroes out. Compare that to a competitor like Netflix, which could theoretically pay AT&T for sponsored data, but it would be a pure cost.
"Netflix could theoretically pay AT&T for sponsored data, but it would be a pure cost"

That’s why the last time we looked at AT&T’s sponsored data system, the only three streaming services we could find using it... were owned by AT&T. It’s also why sponsored data systems fly in the face of net neutrality principles. AT&T’s streaming services have a major advantage over its competitors, all of which run up against the cap. But there’s no net neutrality in the United States anymore, so AT&T is free to give itself preferential treatment.

“The network is the plumbing, and the content is the water. And you’re seeing water and the plumbing kind of coming together,” said Goncalves.

Listen to the entire show, or check out the full transcript here.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/2/21...net-neutrality





Senators Criticize AT&T for Not Counting HBO Max Toward Data Caps

AT&T is zero-rating HBO Max data
Jay Peters

Senators Ed Markey (D-MA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CO) have written a letter to AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson criticizing the company’s decision to exempt HBO Max streaming data from counting toward AT&T mobile customers’ data caps. The practice is known as zero-rating, and it’s been a contentious issue in the telecom industry for years. The letter follows AT&T’s recent confirmation to The Verge that HBO Max data wouldn’t count toward AT&T’s mobile data caps.

AT&T is able to do this thanks to the Federal Communication Commission’s rollback of net neutrality protections that prohibited companies from, among other things, giving their own data streams preferential treatment. The loss of those protections back in 2018 opened the gate for zero-rating.

"The FCC’s rollback of net neutrality protections gave companies like AT&T the green light"

While it may sound like a benefit, the concern with zero-rating is that it harms competition. It means even though HBO Max, which is operated by AT&T subsidiary WarnerMedia, won’t use up data on AT&T mobile customers’ data plans, other streaming services like Disney Plus and Netflix will. In theory, that could incentivize customers to watch HBO Max content instead of content from other service providers — an option AT&T makes even more tempting thanks to bundling free access to HBO Max with some wireless, internet, and TV plans.

“This practice of allowing one arm of your company to ‘pay’ another arm of your company for preferential treatment attempts to mask its true impact,” said the senators in the letter. “The Trump FCC may have gutted critical net neutrality protections, but AT&T nonetheless has a responsibility to avoid any policies or practices that harm consumers and stifle competition.”

AT&T reportedly has a policy of not counting use of HBO Max, which AT&T owns, against AT&T customers’ data caps. The Trump FCC may have gutted #NetNeutrality, but AT&T still has a responsibility to avoid policies that harm consumers and stifle competition.https://t.co/QKJ5Hjkktr
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) June 4, 2020

HBO Max is taking advantage of AT&T’s “sponsored data” program, an AT&T executive told The Verge. That program lets users stream content from partners who then pay AT&T for the streamed data instead of having it count toward a customer’s data cap. But HBO Max is ultimately paying AT&T Mobility for the data used, meaning AT&T is essentially paying itself for the exemption and giving its customers a free perk that could give HBO Max an edge over the competition.

The senators have asked Stephenson to respond to the letter and explain why AT&T is doing this by June 25th. You can read the letter in full below.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/4/21...net-neutrality





Belgian Man has been Receiving Pizzas he Never Ordered for Years
Maïthé Chini

A 65-year-old man in Flanders says he is “losing sleep” because he has been receiving pizzas he never ordered for nearly a decade, sometimes several times a day.

Over the past nine years, pizzas he never asked for have been delivered to Jean Van Landeghem’s home in Turnhout, in the Antwerp province. “It started nine years ago,” Van Landeghem told Het Laatste Nieuws. “Suddenly, a pizza delivery man handed me a whole load of pizzas. But I hadn’t ordered anything,” he added.

At first, he thought it was a simple mistake in the delivery address, but orders of pizzas, kebabs, pittas and other food that he never ordered kept flowing in.

“It can be on a weekday or during weekends, and at any time of day. [The orders come from] delivery services in Turnhout, but also from the surrounding area. I have even had orders delivered to me at 2:00 AM,” Van Landeghem said.

“I cannot sleep anymore. I start shaking every time I hear a scooter on the street. I dread that someone will come to drop off hot pizzas yet another time,” he added.

One day in January 2019, Van Landeghem said, ten different delivery men showed up at his house, one of which had 14 pizzas with him.

“I have always refused the deliveries, so I have never paid for anything,” he said, adding that the harassment is not only annoying for him, but also for restaurants.

“It costs them money and they have to throw the food away. On the day that ten deliveries showed up, I did the math: it cost €450,” Van Landeghem said.

“I only buy frozen pizzas from Colruyt or Aldi. I have never asked for them to be delivered to my house,” he added.

“A friend of mine who lives in Herenthout is going through exactly the same thing as I am. She has been receiving pizza she has not ordered for nine years, too,” Van Landeghem said.

“Sometimes we both get them on the same day. When that happens, we warn each other to expect a delivery,” he said, adding that it is likely someone they both know.

He reported the false deliveries to the police several times, he said, but he still has no idea who the person harassing him is. “I cannot take it anymore. When I find out whoever has been bothering me for the past nine years, it will not be their best day,” he said.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-ne...red-for-years/

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

May 30th, May 23rd, May 16th, May 9th

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 12:55 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)