Reply With Quote
learn from history people.....
I like the ideas mentioned in the comments about implementing a "use it or lose it" policy.
learn from history people.....
TPP will be GAMEOVER for downloaders (and just about all of modern civlization) as trans-national mega-corps supercede national governments as the supreme, unchallengeable power.
All Nations Lose with TPP's Expansion of Copyright Terms
EFF has previously written about various troubling provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that is being negotiated under wraps. One other major concern is that TPP seeks to propagate the excessive copyright terms currently found in American copyright legislation, and will become yet another tool of the second enclosure movement: "the enclosure of the intangible commons of the mind."
There are many problematic issues around enacting such long copyright terms into an international agreement. Primarily, it would force everyone living in a TPP signatory country to pay a heavy price in continued royalties for content. For example, one scholar estimated that the copyright extension has resulted in Australians sending an extra $88 million per year in royalties overseas.1 This is particularly troubling because international law has been exploitedto escalate the scope of copyright. The incorporation of international copyright obligations into national law does not focus on whether the protection is “economically, culturally, or socially desirable.” Rather, it presents new lobbying opportunities for the entertainment industry that can result in broader copyright regimes than required by the international obligations, which in turn could be used back home to demand matching legislation.
Contrary to economicandlegalstudies focused on the importance of a rich commons for innovation and creativity, and contrary to recommendations such as those of European-basedCommuniaAssociation, the TPP seeks to extend the internationally agreed copyright term far beyond what is required by international standards set out in the Berne Convention (WIPO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights or TRIPS. According to a leaked IP chapter of the agreement [pdf], the United States' proposal would require countries to enact much longer copyright terms than exist in most of the signatory countries.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/0...opyright-terms
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from off the goose.
The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine.
The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.
Anonymous
http://law.duke.edu/pd/papers/boyle.pdf
eg, XL pipeline/BigCarbon/Kock Bros claiming eminent domain to steal "the common" from landowners.
I have a lot more sympathy for commoners stealing geese for food than music for fun.
yep. claims his prosecution was politically motivated, which he was forbidden to raise in his own defense.
it's hard set much by the tale of a rationalizing and self-justifying convict, but Nacchio could be 50% right: wrong about his own innocence but right about why the government prosecuted.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...snowden-leaks/
http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Te...il-Launch-DRMdThree For Three: Battlefield 4 Fail Launch. DRM'd!
Subject: General Tech | October 29, 2013 - 06:48 PM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: ea, DRM, battlefield 4
I just do not have any luck with pre-ordering les on Origin. Battlefield 3 had a rough launch, especially on my computer, with it being almost a year until they sorted through the mouse lag hiccups (seemingly related to having Google Chrome running) and random crashes. My second le was SimCity, which requires no further explanation, and my latest is Battlefield 4. Now, it seems as though the actual game launched decently for the majority of customers. They try really hard; they really, really do.
The problem? Origin will not unlock it until October 30th at 7PM EDT for myself and many others.
The pirated version though works fine apparently.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...t/?tid=up_nextIn the last two weeks, Magistrate Judge John Facciola of the District of Columbia has issued five remarkable decisions involving computer search and seizure law. In each case, Magistrate Judge Facciola denied applications for search warrants on Fourth Amendment grounds and issued published opinions explaining his denial. An appeal of at least some of Facciola’s decisions seems likely, so I thought I would blog on the various decisions and explain why I find them unpersuasive. I’ll start with the simplest of the decisions: In Matter of United States of America for a Search Warrant for a Black Kyocera Corp Model C5170 Cellular Telephone with FCC ID: V65V5170, dated March 7th. In the decision, Judge Facciola does something I have never seen before: He denies a warrant application with prejudice on the ground that he thinks the government could execute the search without a warrant. Does he have the power to do that? Let’s take a look.
http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-person-140324/Over the past several years hundreds of thousands of alleged BitTorrent pirates have been sued by so-called ‘copyright trolls’ in the United States.
The rightsholders bringing these cases generally rely on an IP address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena, forcing Internet providers to hand over the personal details of the associated account holder.
The problem, however, is that the person listed as the account holder is often not the person who downloaded the infringing material. Although not many judges address this crucial issue early on, there are exceptions, such as the one raised by Florida District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro.
Judge Ungaro was presented with a case brought by Malibu Media, who accused IP-address “174.61.81.171″ of sharing one of their films using BitTorrent without their permission. The Judge, however, was reluctant to issue a subpoena, and asked the company to explain how they could identify the actual infringer.
Responding to this order to show cause, Malibu Media gave an overview of their data gathering techniques. Among other things they explained that geo-location software was used to pinpoint the right location, and how they made sure that it was a residential address, and not a public hotspot.
Judge Ungaro welcomed the additional details, but saw nothing that actually proves that the account holder is the person who downloaded the file.
“Plaintiff has shown that the geolocation software can provide a location for an infringing IP address; however, Plaintiff has not shown how this geolocation software can establish the iden y of the Defendant,” Ungaro wrote in an order last week.
“There is nothing that links the IP address location to the iden y of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district,” she adds.
Them bringing up the fact that the IP address was residential and not a hot spot should be irrelevant.
I'm wondering at what point will rights holders start trying to hold all owners of IP addresses accountable for the deeds of their users.......including hot spot owners like Starbucks, McDonalds or even a public library.
^ good ruling in that case though.
SOPA rebranded as "notice and staydown":
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...staydown.shtmlThe idea is, more or less, that if a site receives a takedown notice concerning a particular copy of a work, it should then automatically delete all copies of that work and, more importantly, block that work from ever being uploaded again. This may sound good if you're not very knowledgeable about (a) technology and (b) copyright law. But if you understand either, or both, you quickly realize this is a really, really stupid solution that won't work and will have all sorts of dangerous unintended consequences that harm both creativity and the wider internet itself.
First, as was pointed out in the 5 myths piece, content itself is not illegal. It's actions concerning a piece of content. So, by doing a notice and staydown, you're guaranteeing that perfectly legitimate uses -- including both licensed uses and fair uses -- get blocked as well. That's because to determine if something is infringing, you have to view it in the full context. No matter how much some copyright maximalists want to believe that copyright is a strict liability law, it is not. The very same content may be infringing in some cases and not infringing in others. Not checking the context of each use would clearly block forms of perfectly legitimate expression. That's a big problem.
Second, and perhaps even bigger, is the fact that such a law would more or less lock in a few big players, like YouTube, and effectively kill the chance of any startup or entrepreneur to innovate and offer a better solution. Throughout the hearing, you hear people refer to Google's ContentID system -- which takes fingerprints of audio and video works and matches new uploads against it -- as an example of a proactive system "done right." Except, that system cost Google somewhere around $50 or $60 million to build. No startup can replicate that. And, even then, if you ask plenty of regular YouTube users, ContentID is really, really bad. It kills off fair use work all the time, it creates tremendous problems for legitimate and licensed users of content who suddenly find their content pulled and strikes on their account. It more or less proves that even if you have all the money in the world, no one can yet build a fingerprinting system that is particularly accurate.
If such a rule did get put in place, however, it would basically just guarantee that the few big players who could afford both the technology and the legal liability/insurance over the inevitable lawsuits, would be able to continue hosting user generated content. That's more or less ceding much of the internet to Google and Facebook. Considering how often copyright maximalists like to attack big companies like Google for not "sharing the wealth" or "doing their part," it's absolutely ridiculous that their biggest suggestion is one that would effectively give the big internet players more power and control.
for profit copyright cops:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...copyright-cop/Call them "RIAA-lite."
Six years after the US recording industry stopped seeking money from file-sharers, a new company is now preparing technology that could flood the Internet with "hundreds of millions of notices" to alleged copyright infringers.
Rightscorp, the company behind the campaign, already sends out thousands of notices to users, while making big promises to investors—and not-so-subtle threats to Internet Service Providers. The company's whole strategy is based on telling ISPs that they're likely to face a high-stakes copyright lawsuit if they don't forward the notices that Rightscorp creates.
It works like this: users accused by Rightscorp are found via IP addresses appearing in BitTorrent download swarms. If ISPs agree to forward Rightscorp's notices—and an increasing number of them are doing so—the users get notices that they could be liable for $150,000 in damages. Unless, that is, they click on a provided link and agree to settle their case at a low, low price. Typically, it's $20 per song infringed.
sameLooking at the big picture, attempts to enforce Internet copyrights on a wide scale haven't generally been profitable. (Remember Righthaven?) The one big exception has been "porn trolling," and critics say the quick payouts in that field are driven largely by consumers who are too embarrassed to fight back. Rightscorp has ruled out that line of work, promising it won't go into the business of enforcing copyrights on adult material.
Forbes on mesh networking:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyols...ee-secret-web/
CIS(P)A coming back around:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/0...-halfway-pointCISA is a "cybersecurity" bill aimed at granting companies immunity for sharing information about "cybersecurity threats"—which could include personal information—with the government. Unfortunately, the bill's broad immunity clauses, vague definitions, and aggressive spying powers combine to make the bill a surveillance bill in disguise. The provisions are ripe for abuse and allow for companies to share completely unrelated personal information directly with intelligence agencies like the NSA.
What's worse is that CISA isn’t likely to improve users' computer security. The bill's sponsors—Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein— are painting the bill as a way to stop corporate and government data breaches. But many of the breaches they point to are due to unencrypted files, poor computer architecture, un-updated servers, and employees (or contractors) who clicked malware links.Information sharing won't cure these failings.
The bill also includes a countermeasures provision that creates additional dangers for everyday users. The provision authorizes companies to launch "defensive measures" protecting any "information system" (defined as either hardware or software) from any perceived threat, including threats from "anomalous patterns of communications." The standard grants wide la ude for potentially egregious attacks against unwitting users who don’t know their machines are part of a botnet. While the bill prohibits measures that cause “substantial harm,” we don’t know what “substantial” means—leaving open the possibility that companies will launch countermeasures causing significant (but not “substantial”) harm.
All of the information being shared and collected is kept away from public scrutiny because the bill contains exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Combined with the broad legal immunity, the FOIA exemptions ensure the public is kept in the dark about what companies are sharing and how the law is operating.
send a fax to Congress here: https://www.stopcyberspying.com/
end to end encryption as material support for terrorism?
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...st-got-uglier/“In the facts we considered,” wrote Wittes and his co-author, Harvard law student Zoe Bedell, “a court might — believe it or not — consider Apple as having violated the criminal prohibition against material support for terrorism.”
FBI Director James Comey and others have said that end-to-end encryption makes law enforcement harder because service providers don’t have access to the actual communications, and therefore cannot turn them over when served with a warrant.
Wittes and Bedell argue that Apple’s decision to “move aggressively to implement end-to-end encrypted systems, and indeed to boast about them” after being “publicly and repeatedly warned by law enforcement at the very highest levels that ISIS is recruiting Americans” — in part through the use of encrypted messaging apps — could make the company liable if “an ISIS recruit uses exactly this pattern to kill some Americans.”
The blog compares Apple’s actions to a bank sending money to a charity supporting Hamas — knowing that it was a listed foreign terrorist organization.
“The question ultimately turns on whether Apple’s conduct in providing encryption services could, under any cir stances, be construed as material support,” Wittes and Bedell write. The answer, they say, “may be unnerving to executives at Apple.”
TPP Copyright Chapter Leaks: Website Blocking, New Criminal Rules On the Way
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) [Wednesday] morning released the May 2015 draft of the copyright provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership (copyright, ISP annex, enforcement). The leak appears to be the same version that was covered by the EFF and other media outlets earlier this summer. Michael Geist unpacks the leaked do ents, noting the treaty includes anti-cir vention rules that extend beyond the WIPO Internet treaties, new criminal rules, the extension of copyright term for countries like Canada and Japan, increased border measures, mandatory statutory damages in all countries, and expanding ISP liability rules, including the prospect of website blocking for Canada.
white hat hacking banned, infringing devices to be destroyed?
http://boingboing.net/2015/10/13/tpp...s-to-seiz.htmlUnder TPP, signatories are required to give their judges the power to "order the destruction of devices and products found to be involved in" breaking digital locks, such as those detailed in this year's US Copyright Office Triennial DMCA Hearing docket, which were used to identify critical vulnerabilities in vehicles, surveillance devices, voting machines, medical implants, and many other devices in our world.
Since the docket opened, we've lived through the recall of 1.4 million jeeps whose steering and braking could be seized by Internet-based attackers and Dieselgate, which saw VW using DRM to hide its emissions-cheating.
TPP allows countries to create security exemptions to the seize-and-destroy rule, but it requires them to enact the rule itself.
The implications go well beyond security of course. Many of us routinely use cir vention tools. For example, you may have installed Handbrake to rip DVDs, or VLC to let you capture streams or watch out-of-region discs. Under this rule, governments must enact legislation allowing court orders to destroy your laptop if you have these programs installed on it.
This means that if you use your laptop to rip a DVD movie, your computer could be seized or even destroyed by authorities, Vivek Krishnamurthy, a cyberlaw instructor at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, told me over the phone. Even more importantly, he said, security researchers—experts who hack cars and other consumer goods to make sure hardware and software is secure—could be prevented from doing their jobs.
Because of this, the “internet of things,” a theoretical future where every device is networked via the internet, could be left in a state of chronic device ecosystem insecurity, Krishnamurthy said.
“What we’re seeing now is that every country in the TPP is going to, in the first instance, prohibit people from checking these devices to see if they work as advertised: if they’re safe, if they’re effective, etcetera,” Krishnamurthy told me.
“They’re going to go have to get permission from someone to do that research.”
Hundreds of thousands protest in Berlin against EU-U.S. trade deal
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/10/us-trade-germany-ttip-protests-idUSKCN0S40L720151010
Meanwhile, in the USA ....
piracy is destroying the movie industry:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/04...-office-record
I would figure the bigger hit is dvd/Blu Ray etc sales than at the box office. Haven't really looked tho
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions