The next 'war on drugs'...

[Winehole23]

one of many open windows . . .

[mouse]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Picture038.jpg

[Winehole23]

what are they photos of?

[mouse]

Pirate Bay

[Winehole23]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/fbi-says-laptop-wasnt-hacked-never-possessed-file-of-apple-device-ids/

[Winehole23]

As live streaming video surges in popularity, so are copyright “bots” — automated systems that match content against a database of reference files of copyrighted material. These systems can block streaming video in real time, while it is still being broadcast, leading to potentially worrying implications for freedom of speech. On Tuesday, some visitors trying to get to the livestream of Michelle Obama’s widely lauded speech at the Democratic National Convention were met with a bizarre notice on YouTube, which said that the speech had been blocked on copyright grounds (https://contextly.com/redirect/?id=hH0PybEfaR&click=inbody).


On Sunday, a livestream of the Hugo Awards (https://contextly.com/redirect/?id=BhuIMudaAi&click=inbody) — the sci-fi and fantasy version of the Oscars — was blocked on Ustream (https://contextly.com/redirect/?id=3a9AlX95Jy&click=inbody), moments before Neil Gaiman’s highly anticipated acceptance speech. Apparently, Ustream’s service detected that the awards were showing copyrighted film clips, and had no way to know that the awards ceremony had gotten permission to use them.


“I thought it was a huge pity, and ridiculous,” said Gaiman in an e-mail exchange with Wired. “But I also think it highlights a potential problem that’s just getting bigger.”
Last month, footage from NASA’s triumphant Curiosity rover landing (https://contextly.com/redirect/?id=a3w6pLEMYf&click=inbody) was blocked numerous times on YouTube, despite being in the public domain, because several companies — such as Scripps Local News — claimed copyright on the material.


Those incidents foretell an odd future for streaming video, as bandwidth and recording tools get cheaper, and the demand for instant video grows. Just in the last year, Google Hangouts (https://contextly.com/redirect/?id=5ToRfuE9DE&click=inbody), a feature of Google+ that allows multiple people to video conference, became a cult hit. Now it’s used by news sites, such as the Huffington Post, for live video interview segments. Ustream and Justin.tv (https://contextly.com/redirect/?id=nQQCoopYM0&click=inbody) have made it simple to livestream book readings, Meetups and the police siege of Julian Assange’s embassy sleepover (https://contextly.com/redirect/?id=W0NNZAPjp5&click=inbody).


Copyright bots are being wired into that infrastructure, programmed as stern and unyielding censors with one hand ever poised at the off switch. What happens if the bot detects snippets of a copyrighted song or movie clip in the background? Say a ringtone from a phone not shut off at a PTA meeting? Or a short YouTube clip shown by a convention speaker to illustrate a funny point? Will the future of livestreaming be so fragile as to be unusable?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/streaming-videos-robotic-overlords-algorithmic-copyright-cops/

[velik_m]

Copyright to Class Notes: Do Students Own the Copyright to Their Notes?

http://blog.kunvay.com/copyright-to-class-notes-do-students-own-the-copyright-to-their-notes/

[mouse]

Soon your thoughts will be monitored.

[Blake]

Soon your thoughts will be monitored.

not without your consent.

That would be infringement.

[LnGrrrR]

not without your consent.

That would be infringement.

Unless you put those thoughts in an email... :D

[mouse]

not without your consent.

That would be infringement.


Did you have my consent to quote me ?

[Spurminator]

Court Rules Minnesota Woman Must Pay $222,000 to the RIAA for Sharing 24 Songs (http://pitchfork.com/news/47824-court-rules-minnesota-woman-must-pay-222000-to-the-riaa-for-sharing-24-songs-on-kazaa/)

[velik_m]

Prime Minister requests inquiry

Prime Minister John Key today announced he has requested an inquiry by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the circumstances of unlawful interception of communications of certain individuals by the Government Communications Security Bureau.

Mr Key says the Crown has filed a memorandum in the High Court in the Megaupload case advising the Court and affected parties that the GCSB had acted unlawfully while assisting the Police to locate certain individuals subject to arrest warrants issued in the case. The Bureau had acquired communications in some instances without statutory authority.

After being informed about the matter by the Director of the GCSB on September 17, the Prime Minister referred the Bureau’s actions to the Inspector-General, Hon Paul Neazor. The Inspector-General is an independent statutory officer with the power to enquire into any matter related to a government intelligence agency’s compliance with the law.

Mr Key says he has also asked the Inspector-General to recommend any measures he considered necessary to prevent the issue from happening again.

Mr Key expressed his disappointment that unlawful acts had taken place.

“I expect our intelligence agencies to operate always within the law. Their operations depend on public trust.

“I look forward to the Inspector-General’s inquiry getting to the heart of what took place and what can be done about it,” says Mr Key. “Because this is also a matter for the High Court in its consideration of the Megaupload litigation, I am unable to comment further.”

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/prime-minister-requests-inquiry

[velik_m]

Megaupload Readies for Comeback, Code 90% Done

...
“Quick update on the new Mega: Code 90% done. Servers on the way. Lawyers, partners and investors are ready,” Dotcom teases.

“Be patient it’s coming,” he adds.

From the brief progress update it’s clear that the site is on schedule for launch later this year. In addition, it’s interesting to note that despite the ongoing criminal case, partners and investors are happy to be involved.
...

http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-readies-for-comeback-code-90-done-120923/

[Blake]

Did you have my consent to quote me ?

Indirectly, yes.

[Winehole23]

Over two years ago, the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme of the European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/security-and-safeguarding-liberties/prevention-of-and-fight-against-crime/index_en.htm) awarded a €400,000 ($428,000) grant to CleanIT (http://www.cleanitproject.eu), a multi-party project that seeks to "counter the illegal use of Internet." As we reported last month (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/europes-quixotic-plan-to-clean-the-internet-of-terrorists/), by February 2013, the group says it will produce a list of non-binding voluntary "principles" aimed at stopping terrorist content and activity online.


"These principles can be used as a guideline or gentleman’s agreement, and can be adopted by many partners," the group states on its website. "They will describe responsibilities and concrete steps public and private partners can take to counter the illegal use of Internet."


Setting aside the fact that there is no clear-cut, universal agreement about who is a terrorist or what defines terrorist content, CleanIT has continued to move forward. It is led by But Klaasen (http://www.linkedin.com/in/butklaasen), the Dutch national coordinator for counterterrorism and security.

Since November 2011, CleanIT has published intermediary documents (http://www.cleanitproject.eu/documents/) on its website—the most recent one was released in May 2012. However, a Brussels-based Internet freedom organization, European Digital Rights, has recently published a leaked draft document from CleanIT, dated August 28, 2012.

An anti-terrorist browser? Huh?

The new 23-page document (http://www.edri.org/files/cleanIT_sept2012.pdf) (PDF) includes many disturbing provisions, some of which are labeled as "recommendations," and others as "to be discussed." Many of those in the latter category are questionable at best, and at worst are ridiculous and likely verge on illegal. They include:


"Knowingly providing hyperlinks on websites to terrorist content must be defined by law as illegal just like the terrorist content itself"
"Governments must disseminate lists of illegal, terrorist websites"
"The Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 (art 1.2) should be explained that providing Internet services is included in providing economics instruments to Al Qaeda (and other terrorist persons and organisations designated by the EU) and therefore an illegal act"
"On Voice over IP services it must be possible to flag users for terrorist activity."
"Internet companies must allow only real, common names."
"Social media companies must allow only real pictures of users."
"At the European level a browser or operating system based reporting button must be developed."
"Governments will start drafting legislation that will make offering... a system [to monitor Internet activity] to Internet users obligatory for browser or operating systems...as a condition of selling their products in this country or the European Union."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/proposed-eu-plan-to-stop-terrorist-sites-even-more-ridiculous-than-thought/

[velik_m]

Richard Posner, the federal judge who threw out the entire Apple v. Motorola patent battle in June, has penned a new blog post complaining about the proliferation of patents. "I am concerned that both patent and copyright protection, though particularly the former, may be excessive," Posner wrote on Sunday.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/judge-decries-excessive-copyright-and-software-patent-protections/

[Winehole23]

related, also from Ars Technica:


In 1972, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) got a new chief judge named Thomas Markey. At Markey's investiture ceremony, patent attorney Donald Dunner spoke of the "anguish of the patent bar about the treatment of patents in various federal courts." The CCPA, a DC-based court that heard appeals from the US Patent & Trademark Office, was considered to be relatively pro-patent—but other federal appeals courts had jurisdiction over actual patent lawsuits and tended to be friendlier to patent defendants. Even worse, in Dunner's view, the Supreme Court itself seemed unfriendly to patent holders.


This sad state of affairs made it a bad time to be a patent attorney. Because patents were frequently invalidated by the courts, companies filed many fewer applications for them than they do today. Patents were seen as a backwater in the legal profession. Dunner urged Markey to inspire "his associates on this bench to spread the patent gospel to their sisters and brothers on the other federal benches."


A decade later, the patent bar's anguish would turn to joy as Congress merged the CCPA with another court to create the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit would be just as patent-friendly as the CCPA, but unlike its predecessor, the Federal Circuit was handed jurisdiction over all patent appeals, including the lawsuits that had previously been handled by other courts. On October 1, 1982, Judge Markey became the chief judge of the new court and set to work to remake patent law.


No institution is more responsible for the recent explosion of patent litigation in the software industry, the rise of patent trolls, and the proliferation of patent thickets than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The patent court's thirtieth birthday this week is a good time to ask whether it was a mistake to give the nation's most patent-friendly appeals court such broad authority over the patent system.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-a-rogue-appeals-court-wrecked-the-patent-system/

[boutons_deux]

hmm, 30 years ago? that would be the Repug Congress under St Ronnie giving all patent jurisdiction to a single, known-to-be-patent-friendly court.

aka, the VRWC henchmen gaming the legal system to their corporate advantage.

[Winehole23]

#Johnny One Note


dinkdinkdinkdinkdinkdinkdinkdink....

[boutons_deux]

yep, and that one note is right on tune, the Big Picture Tune.

Do you really think the last 30 - 35 years decline of the 99% while the 1% romps and stomps is totally random, just how the natural way of things are?

[Winehole23]

not totally random by any means, but ascribing the trend to an unvarying, monolithic right wing is moronic.

[TeyshaBlue]

not totally random by any means, but ascribing the trend to an unvarying, monolithic right wing is moronic.
Easier than thinking.

[boutons_deux]

not totally random by any means, but ascribing the trend to an unvarying, monolithic right wing is moronic.

what other forces, drivers are there that would counterbalance or augment the VRWC's well-financed, relentless, predatory, multi-front 35-year strategy?

[Winehole23]

tautology club. if you beg every question, all the answers are easy.

[Winehole23]

it only looks like a strategy in hindsight. the vast right wing conspiracy you speak of is neither vast nor distinctively right wing. it isn't even a conspiracy, tbh. that's just your fairy tale simplification of the synthetic mass of overdetermined, real world results.

[boutons_deux]

tautology club. if you beg every question, all the answers are easy.

so you don't have answer

[boutons_deux]

it only looks like a strategy in hindsight. the vast right wing conspiracy you speak of is neither vast nor distinctively right wing. it isn't even a conspiracy, tbh. that's just your fairy tale simplification of the synthetic mass of overdetermined, real world results.

some strategies, esp ones kept secret, only become clear in hindsight, and after they are exposed by events. That doesn't invalidate the conspiracy. Then you go back and connect the dots to verify.

Still waiting for your explanation of how America got fucked, and how you think you can unfuck it, as if "get the word out" were anything near as effective as pissing into a hurricane.

[Winehole23]

so you don't have answerfor the gigantic, overdetermined ball of real world results?

no, I don't.

having pat answers for complex phenomena tallies better with ideology and superstition than knowledge, tbh.

[Winehole23]

I never claimed I could unfuck anything, boutons.

[Winehole23]

btw, the view from 30,000 feet is bound to miss a few important details.

[boutons_deux]

btw, the view from 30,000 feet is bound to miss a few important details.

debating and pissing around with details without the Big Picture from 30K feet is a sterile waste time. I see no evidence here that your detailed debates arrives at any higher perspective, Big Picture.

[Winehole23]

says you, johnny one note.

[velik_m]

Textbook Publisher Pearson Takes Down 1.5 Million Teacher And Student Blogs With A Single DMCA Notice
from the 38-year-old-content-in-a-5-year-old-post-equals-1.5-million-dead-blogs dept

If there's one thing we've seen plenty of here at Techdirt, it's the damage a single DMCA takedown notice can do. From shuttering a legitimate ebook lending site to removing negative reviews to destroying a user's Flickr account to knocking a copyright attorney's site offline, the DMCA notice continues to be the go-to weapon for copyright defenders. Collateral damage is simply shrugged at and the notices continue to fly at an ever-increasing pace.

Textbook publisher Pearson set off an unfortunate chain of events with a takedown notice issued aimed at a copy of Beck's Hoplessness Scale posted by a teacher on one of Edublogs' websites (You may recall Pearson from such other related copyright nonsense as The $180 Art Book With No Pictures and No Free Textbooks Ever!). The end result? Nearly 1.5 million teacher and student blogs taken offline by Edublogs' host, ServerBeach. James Farmer at wpmu.org fills in the details.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121013/18332220701/textbook-publisher-pearson-takes-down-15-million-teacher-student-blogs-with-single-dmca-notice.shtml

[velik_m]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/megaupload-mega/


...
They call it Mega and describe it as a unique tool that will solve the liability problems faced by cloud storage services, enhance the privacy rights of internet users, and provide themselves with a simple new business. Meanwhile, critics fear that Mega is simply a revamped version of Megaupload, cleverly designed to skirt the old business’s legal issues without addressing the concerns of Internet piracy.
...

[velik_m]

Outlawed by Amazon DRM

A couple of days a go, my friend Linn sent me an e-mail, being very frustrated: Amazon just closed her account and wiped her Kindle. Without notice. Without explanation. This is DRM at it’s worst.

Linn travels a lot and therefore has, or should I say had, a lot of books on her Kindle, purchased from Amazon. Suddenly, her Kindle was wiped and her account was closed. Being convinced that something wrong had happened, she sent an e-mail to Amazon, asking for help. This was the answer:
...

http://www.bekkelund.net/2012/10/22/outlawed-by-amazon-drm/

[velik_m]

Six-Strikes “Independent Expert” Is RIAA’s Former Lobbying Firm

Next month the file-sharing habits of millions of BitTorrent users in the United States will be monitored as part of an agreement between the MPAA, RIAA, and all the major ISPs. To guarantee the accuracy of the evidence that will be used for the accusations the parties agreed to hire an impartial and independent technology expert. However, their commitment to this promise is now in doubt as the hired experts have turned out to be a former RIAA lobbying group.
...

http://torrentfreak.com/six-strikes-independent-expert-is-riaas-former-lobbying-firm-121022/

[Winehole23]

foxes> henhouse

[velik_m]

That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform

So, late Friday, we reported on how the Republican Study Committee (the conservative caucus of House Republicans) had put out a surprisingly awesome report about copyright reform. You can read that post to see the details. The report had been fully vetted and reviewed by the RSC before it was released. However, as soon as it was published, the MPAA and RIAA apparently went ballistic and hit the phones hard, demanding that the RSC take down the report. They succeeded.

more: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121117/16492521084/that-was-fast-hollywood-already-browbeat-republicans-into-retracting-report-copyright-reform.shtml

[Winehole23]

A Senate proposal touted (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20071670-281/senator-renews-pledge-to-update-digital-privacy-law/) as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002722-38.html) to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled (http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=a4bac863917e3bf68f986f7431839d3c) for next week.

Revised bill highlights

✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.



Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57521680-38/feds-snoop-on-social-network-accounts-without-warrants/). It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. (CNET obtained the revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

[Wild Cobra]

Keep voting these authoritarians in, and that's what we get.

[Winehole23]

no crocodile tears for the victims of regulatory alligators?

how marvelously unsentimental, Mr. Wild Cobra.. . .

[ElNono]

I have a hard time believing the House will oppose any of this... soft on terror!

[ElNono]

That Was Fast: Leahy Drops Warrantless E-mail Surveillance Bill

"Under the right conditions, online activism can be very effective. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy has already abandoned his warrantless e-mail surveillance bill (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552687-38/leahy-scuttles-his-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill/) we discussed this morning (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/20/1331255/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants). 'The Vermont Democrat said today on Twitter that he would "not support such an exception (https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/status/270950052267180032)" for warrantless access. ... A vote on the proposal in the Senate Judiciary committee, which Leahy chairs, is scheduled for next Thursday. The amendments were due to be glued onto a substitute (PDF) to H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved. Leahy's about-face comes in response to a deluge of criticism today, including the ACLU saying that warrants should be required, and the conservative group FreedomWorks launching a petition to Congress -- with over 2,300 messages sent so far -- titled: "Tell Congress: Stay Out of My Email!""

[LnGrrrR]

Keep voting these authoritarians in, and that's what we get.

You're the one in other threads saying things to the effect of "If you didn't do anything wrong, why are you worried?" and "You don't own the internet pipe, so you shouldn't expect privacy/they shouldn't need a warrant/it's the third parties choice to do what they wish", aren't you?

[Wild Cobra]

You're the one in other threads saying things to the effect of "If you didn't do anything wrong, why are you worried?"
You are wrong in this case. I challenge you to show otherwise. You have me confused with someone else.

and "You don't own the internet pipe, so you shouldn't expect privacy/they shouldn't need a warrant/it's the third parties choice to do what they wish", aren't you?

Now this one, I accept for the most part, except "third party choice." What do you mean by that? It becomes what ever agreement you signed for. Almost all contracts have a third part clause where the owner of you account can share your activity with third parties.

[Wild Cobra]

That Was Fast: Leahy Drops Warrantless E-mail Surveillance Bill

"Under the right conditions, online activism can be very effective. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy has already abandoned his warrantless e-mail surveillance bill (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552687-38/leahy-scuttles-his-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill/) we discussed this morning (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/20/1331255/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants). 'The Vermont Democrat said today on Twitter that he would "not support such an exception (https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/status/270950052267180032)" for warrantless access. ... A vote on the proposal in the Senate Judiciary committee, which Leahy chairs, is scheduled for next Thursday. The amendments were due to be glued onto a substitute (PDF) to H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved. Leahy's about-face comes in response to a deluge of criticism today, including the ACLU saying that warrants should be required, and the conservative group FreedomWorks launching a petition to Congress -- with over 2,300 messages sent so far -- titled: "Tell Congress: Stay Out of My Email!""
Is he having senior moments, changing his mind like this, or is he a typical flip-flopper?

[ElNono]

Is he having senior moments, changing his mind like this, or is he a typical flip-flopper?

I wouldn't know, but I'm sure he'll try again under some 'protect the children from pedos' excuse.

[velik_m]

Police Raid 9-Year-Old Pirate Bay Girl, Confiscate Winnie The Pooh Laptop

An anti-piracy company has found itself in the middle of a huge controversy. CIAPC, the company that had The Pirate Bay blocked by ISPs in Finland, tracked an alleged file-sharer and demanded a cash settlement. However, the Internet account holder refused to pay which escalated things to an unprecedented level. In response, this week police raided the home of the 9-year-old suspect and confiscated her Winnie the Pooh laptop.

http://torrentfreak.com/police-raid-9-year-old-pirate-bay-girl-confiscate-winnie-the-pooh-laptop-121122/

[velik_m]

Dotcom: We've hit the jackpot (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10849627)

[LnGrrrR]

You are wrong in this case. I challenge you to show otherwise. You have me confused with someone else.

Now this one, I accept for the most part, except "third party choice." What do you mean by that? It becomes what ever agreement you signed for. Almost all contracts have a third part clause where the owner of you account can share your activity with third parties.

You don't own the copper for your telephone lines, but phone conservations are usually protected from being tapped without a warrant, aren't they? I think the same should apply for the internet.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't own the copper for your telephone lines, but phone conservations are usually protected from being tapped without a warrant, aren't they? I think the same should apply for the internet.
Yes, but not the database of numbers called.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, but not the database of numbers called.

Right, but the conversation is protected. Right now, you don't need a warrant to read the "conversation" of email, IIRC.

[Wild Cobra]

Right, but the conversation is protected. Right now, you don't need a warrant to read the "conversation" of email, IIRC.
Since when is a warrant required? Probable cause is all that is needed by the constitution. A warrant is a legal tool issued by a judicial authority requiring oath or affidavit.

[LnGrrrR]

Since when is a warrant required? Probable cause is all that is needed by the constitution. A warrant is a legal tool issued by a judicial authority requiring oath or affidavit.

Uhmm... I believe the Wiretap Act has some bearing here...

https://ssd.eff.org/wire/govt/wiretapping-protections

http://communications-media.lawyers.com/privacy-law/Wiretapping.html


The Wiretap Act requires the police to get a wiretap order whenever they want to "intercept" an "oral communication," an "electronic communication," or a "wire communication." Interception of those communications is commonly called electronic surveillance.

A user has an expected right to privacy. Now the SCOTUS may have recently overturned that...

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/11651-government-may-wiretap-us-citizens-without-warrants-federal-judge-rule

... But as far as I know, for the past few decades, especially before 9/11, warrants were required to intercept these kinds of communications. Can you show some evidence otherwise?

[LnGrrrR]

Oh and I'm pretty sure "probable cause" doesn't cover using a few keywords and trying to apply those to filter through terabytes of email data...

[Wild Cobra]

Uhmm... I believe the Wiretap Act has some bearing here...

https://ssd.eff.org/wire/govt/wiretapping-protections

http://communications-media.lawyers.com/privacy-law/Wiretapping.html



A user has an expected right to privacy. Now the SCOTUS may have recently overturned that...

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/11651-government-may-wiretap-us-citizens-without-warrants-federal-judge-rule

... But as far as I know, for the past few decades, especially before 9/11, warrants were required to intercept these kinds of communications. Can you show some evidence otherwise?
And one law can supersede another.

Don't like the laws? Stop putting the people in office we do!

It is in like with the highest law however.

[LnGrrrR]

And one law can supersede another.

Don't like the laws? Stop putting the people in office we do!

It is in like with the highest law however.

Which is why I'm not a fan of Obama when it comes to civil liberties. I'd rather the laws were strong enough to prevent te govt from listening in on my conversations without strong justifications.

[velik_m]

Researchers find Megaupload shutdown hurt box office revenues, despite gains for blockbusters (http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/11/24/researchers-find-megaupload-shutdown-had-a-negative-effect-on-box-office-revenues/)

[Winehole23]

For years, we've pointed out that as Hollywood kept insisting that piracy was killing its business, and all anyone would do is watch films for free at home, box office revenues kept increasing (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110224/08004213245/once-again-as-mpaa-whines-about-piracy-it-had-record-results-box-office.shtml). 2011 was a slight blip -- in that US box office revenue dropped (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111229/16024817230/us-box-office-revenue-finally-drops-not-because-infringement.shtml) a tiny bit, even as the global box office (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/09552018224/hollywood-once-again-sets-record-box-office.shtml) set new records. And the drop in US box office was mainly due to a bunch of less than stellar movie options. So it's little surprise that this year, on the backs of things like The Avengers, the latest Batman and The Hobbit, the US box office is back on the rise (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/business/media/hollywood-rebounds-at-the-box-office.html?adxnnl=1&smid=tw-share&adxnnlx=1356387702-O4v36g1hP3yZjueSAzFeTA). It's interesting to note that this year there's even an increase in number attending rather than just in revenue collected.

So, once again, we're left wondering two things. First, why does the industry keep insisting that piracy is killing it and second why has the theater industry still done so little to improve the movie going experience, to capture the clear interest in the public to go see movies in the theaters? Yes, some people will argue (as the MPAA likes to) that it's not the box office they're concerned about, but rather the home video market. But, really, that's pretty rich, given that it was less than 30 years ago, the very same MPAA was doing its damndest to make sure there was no home video market as it sought to kill off the VCR. That they should now be complaining that they can't make as much money there -- at the same time they've often failed to make their own movies available digitally in a reasonable manner -- reeks of just bad business, rather than any sort of existential threat.http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121225/01185721480/once-again-hollywood-is-making-tons-money-box-office.shtml

[Blake]

I'm left wondering why pirates continue to justify their piracy by blaming the industry for not protecting itself better and/or not putting out a better movie going experience.

[Winehole23]

pointing out the silliness of entertainment industry PR and bad business practices isn't as such a defense of pirates.

[ElNono]

Tech dirt is a pirate? Link?

[Blake]

pointing out the silliness of entertainment industry PR and bad business practices isn't as such a defense of pirates.

Pointing out box office revenue is on the rise before claiming ”bad business” is silly.

No, the article isn't directly defending piracy, but I see the empathy between the lines.

[Blake]

Tech dirt is a pirate? Link?

Was just talking anecdotally about pirates in general.

[Winehole23]

Pointing out box office revenue is on the rise before claiming ”bad business” is silly.pointing out that past claims of the existential threat of VCRs were overblown and that the film industry was slow to realize the money-making possibilities isn't silly, it's true.

[Blake]

pointing out that past claims of the existential threat of VCRs were overblown and that the film industry was slow to realize the money-making possibilities isn't silly, it's true.

Sure, but to equate the VCR to downloading or streaming brand new movies is silly.

I'd like to see Techdirt's proof that it would be good business to stream new movies while also defining ” reasonable manner”

[ElNono]

^ Doesn't Netflix does just that? iTunes too?

[Blake]

^ Doesn't Netflix does just that? iTunes too?

then what exactly reeks of bad business?

[ElNono]

then what exactly reeks of bad business?

The fact that they fought to cripple or outright end new technologies (like the VCR, like streaming) that are now making them money?

[Blake]

The piece says the MPAA is complaining now.

There is no link to the exact complaint.

The piece reeks of straw.

[ElNono]

Are you saying the MPAA isn't complaining about piracy anymore?

[Winehole23]

a quick online search might clear that up -- you might reread this thread as well, for relevant language from the MPAA.

I'm betting you won't.

[Winehole23]

Are you saying the MPAA isn't complaining about piracy anymore?seems so. hilarious.

[Blake]

Are you saying the MPAA isn't complaining about piracy anymore?

I'm asking when the most recent complaint was.

On a bigger scale, I'm asking what the point of this piece is other than just to whine that watching newer movies at home is not as easy as it could be.

[Blake]

a quick online search might clear that up -- you might reread this thread as well, for relevant language from the MPAA.

I'm betting you won't.

This is your baby. If it was that quick of a search, you could have cleared up just as quickly.

But you didn't. It seems you would prefer I walk away instead.

[Winehole23]

walk away rather than inform yourself? seems you prefer being spoon fed over reading through this thread for yourself. how unsurprising.

[Blake]

walk away rather than inform yourself? seems you prefer being spoon fed over reading through this thread for yourself. how unsurprising.

So to sum it up, it was a whiny article with no new insight on anything that hasn't already posted in this thread.

Thanks for nothing. Literally nothing.

[Trainwreck2100]

Pointing out box office revenue is on the rise before claiming ”bad business” is silly.

No, the article isn't directly defending piracy, but I see the empathy between the lines.
The MPAA is saying that their business is being hurt to receive government assistance. That is not the case so the government should maybe move some of those resources to other stuff

[Winehole23]

So to sum it up, it was a whiny article with no new insight on anything that hasn't already posted in this thread.

Thanks for nothing. Literally nothing.revenue and and butts in seats increased for the movie biz last year, despite all their whining about how piracy is putting them out of business.

not only is that news, it's relevant to the discussion. seems you're the broken record, Blake.

[Blake]

The MPAA is saying that their business is being hurt to receive government assistance. That is not the case so the government should maybe move some of those resources to other stuff

MPAA links research that says it is.

[ElNono]

http://www.mpaa.org/policy/filings

[Blake]

revenue and and butts in seats increased for the movie biz last year, despite all their whining about how piracy is putting them out of business.

not only is that news, it's relevant to the discussion. seems you're the broken record, Blake.

Box office revenue has consistently risen over the years. Nothing new. I'll see if I can find a similar ” article” from 2010 for shits and giggles.

Loss of revenue =/= being put out of business.......unless you want to provide a link where the MPAA claims the industry will ” go out of business”.

I'm betting you don't.

[Blake]

revenue and and butts in seats increased for the movie biz last year, despite all their whining about how piracy is putting them out of business.

not only is that news, it's relevant to the discussion. seems you're the broken record, Blake.

Box office revenue has consistently risen over the years. Nothing new. I'll see if I can find a similar ” article” from 2010 for shits and giggles.

Loss of revenue =/= being put out of business.......unless you want to provide a link where the MPAA claims the industry will ” go out of business”.

I'm betting you don't.

[Winehole23]

hi there, motormouth.

[Winehole23]

the existential threat of piracy isn't something I made up. it goes way back. if you don't think so, you haven't been paying attention.

[Blake]

hi there, motormouth.

Hi, sensitivehole.

[Blake]

the existential threat of piracy isn't something I made up. it goes way back. if you don't think so, you haven't been paying attention.

I'm surprised you slowed your engine down to only two successive posts.

Normally it's what, three? Four posts in a row?

[TeyshaBlue]

Hi, sensitivehole.

lol

[Winehole23]

In a criminal case sure to make programmers nervous, a software maker who licenses a program used by online casinos and bookmakers overseas is being charged with promoting gambling in New York because authorities say his software was used by others for illegal betting in that state.


New York authorities say that about $2.3 million that Robert Stuart and his company, Extension Software, received in cash and money orders for licensing his software constitutes direct proceeds of illegal, U.S.-based bookmaking operations.


“These defendants abetted large-scale illegal gambling in the U.S. and abroad,” said District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. in a press release (http://manhattanda.org/press-release/district-attorney-vance-announces-charges-against-sports-book-software-company-and-exe) in October when Stuart was charged. “In doing so, they gave bettors an easy way to place illegal wagers, and created an appetite for further unlawful activity.”


But Stuart, who has been charged along with his wife and brother-in-law with one felony count for promoting gambling in New York through their software firm, says that his company sells the software only to entities outside the U.S. and that he’s not aware of anyone using it in the U.S. or using it to take illegal bets in the U.S. He also says the software doesn’t place bets, it simply provides online gambling sites with the infrastructure to select and display which sporting events they want to offer for betting and also stores the bets.


“It’s overreaching where they’re going after a software developer who sells the software with a legal license, and yet we’re still being prosecuted on how it’s being used,” Stuart says. He notes that authorities have not told him yet who exactly he’s accused of aiding and abetting.


A hearing in the case is scheduled to be held in New York on Jan. 8.


The prosecution of a commercial programmer for crimes committed by people who used his software would set a dangerous precedent for other software makers who might be held liable for how their legally licensed software is used, says Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties for the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University.


“It’s scary for software distributors, if someone happens to use their software for illegal activity,” she says. “If you know what people could use it for, and didn’t prevent it, did you take enough steps? What level of knowledge you need to have and all of that is not as clear as it should be [under current laws].”


Stuart asserts that New York authorities only came after him because they wanted to use him as a conduit to uncover illegal gambling operations in that state. He says the New York district attorney’s office tried to strong-arm him into a plea agreement that would have had him hacking into the systems of his software clients in order to obtain the usernames and passwords of gamblers and their bookmakers to help authorities gather evidence of illegal gambling.


Although Stuart initially agreed to the terms of the plea, he later recanted because he said he was uncomfortable being used as a pawn to secretly collect information on his customers. He claims authorities are charging him now in retaliation for refusing to cooperate with them.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/coder-charged-for-gambling-software/

[velik_m]

Buffy vs Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

It has been three and a half years since I first uploaded my remix video “Buffy vs Edward: Twilight Remixed” to YouTube. The work is an example of fair use transformative storytelling which serves as a visual critique of gender roles and representations in modern pop culture vampire media.

Since I published the remix in 2009 it has been viewed over 3 million times on YouTube and fans have translated the subtitles into 30 different languages. It has been featured and written about by the LA Times, Boston Globe, Salon, Slate, Wired, Vanity Fair, Entertainment Weekly and discussed on NPR radio. It was nominated for a 2010 Webby Award in the best remix/mashup category. The video is used in law school programs, media studies courses and gender studies curricula across the country. The remix also ignited countless online debates over the troubling ways stalking-type behavior is often framed as deeply romantic in movie and television narratives.

This past summer, together with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I even screened the remix for the US Copyright Office at the 2012 hearings on exemptions to the DMCA. Afterward my Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office (pdf) on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work.

Despite the clear and rather unambiguous fair use argument that exists for the video, Lionsgate Entertainment has now abused YouTube’s system and filed a DMCA takedown and had my remix deleted for “copyright infringement”. Below is a brief chronicle of my struggle to get Buffy vs Edward back on YouTube where it belongs.

... (http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/2013/buffy-vs-edward-remix-unfairly-removed-by-lionsgate)





http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/2013/buffy-vs-edward-remix-unfairly-removed-by-lionsgate

[boutons_deux]

http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/2013/buffy-vs-edward-remix-unfairly-removed-by-lionsgate

you can't fight corporations (ask the 99%, ask OWS)

you can't fight city hall (ask Assange, ask OWS)

[Winehole23]

you can fight city hall.

nimby.

[velik_m]

Aaron Swartz commits suicide
By Anne Cai
NEWS EDITOR; UPDATED AT 2:15 A.M. 1/12/13

Computer activist Aaron H. Swartz committed suicide in New York City yesterday, Jan. 11, according to his uncle, Michael Wolf, in a comment to The Tech. Swartz was 26.

“The tragic and heartbreaking information you received is, regrettably, true,” confirmed Swartz’ attorney, ****** R. Peters of Kecker and Van Nest, in an email to The Tech.

Swartz was indicted in July 2011 by a federal grand jury for allegedly mass downloading documents from the JSTOR online journal archive with the intent to distribute them. He subsequently moved to Brooklyn, New York, where he then worked for Avaaz Foundation, a nonprofit “global web movement to bring people-powered politics to decision-making everywhere.” Swartz appeared in court on Sept. 24, 2012 and pleaded not guilty.

The accomplished Swartz co-authored the now widely-used RSS 1.0 specification at age 14, was one of the three co-owners of the popular social news site Reddit, and completed a fellowship at Harvard’s Ethics Center Lab on Institutional Corruption. In 2010, he founded DemandProgress.org, a “campaign against the Internet censorship bills SOPA/PIPA.”

http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N61/swartz.html

[velik_m]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/01/19/kim-dotcoms-new-mega-encrypted-cloud-storage-see-no-evil-store-no-evil/

[Winehole23]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/year-after-sopa-look-next-five-battles-internet-freedom

[velik_m]

argh, there soon be pirate country...

http://torrentfreak.com/antigua-government-set-to-launch-pirate-website-to-punish-united-states-130124/

[Winehole23]

or the past few months, some of the world’s leading cryptographers have been keeping a closely guarded secret about a pioneering new invention. Today, they’ve decided it’s time to tell all.

Back in October, the startup tech firm Silent Circle (https://silentcircle.com/) ruffled governments’ feathers with a “surveillance-proof” smartphone app (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/10/silent_circle_mike_janke_s_iphone_app_makes_encryp tion_easy_governments.single.html) to allow people to make secure phone calls and send texts easily. Now, the company is pushing things even further—with a groundbreaking encrypted data transfer app that will enable people to send files securelyfrom a smartphone or tablet at the touch of a button. (For now, it’s just being released for iPhones and iPads, though Android versions should come soon.) That means photographs, videos, spreadsheets, you name it—sent scrambled from one person to another in a matter of seconds.



“This has never been done before,” boasts Mike Janke, Silent Circle’s CEO. “It’s going to revolutionize the ease of privacy and security.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/02/silent_circle_s_latest_app_democratizes_encryption _governments_won_t_be.single.html

[ElNono]

Missed this when it happened (Aug 2012). Just wow.

Oops: After Seizing & Censoring Rojadirecta For 18 Months, Feds Give Up & Drop Case (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120829/12370820209/oops-after-seizing-censoring-rojadirecta-18-months-feds-give-up-drop-case.shtml)

[Winehole23]

Today the government filed a "voluntary dismissal" notice of the case against Rojadirecta.org and Rojadirecta.com. You can see the short dismissal notice below. What's unfortunate, of course, is that the government might now get away with this blatant censorship and disregard for basic due process, without a court ruling showing that it was an illegal move by the feds. In other words: without punishment, the feds may feel free to do this again. This is now the second (and third) example of the government seizing a domain and censoring it for over a year on a very questionable legal theory -- and when the pressure finally gets to be enough, the government turns tail and runs, giving back the domain with no explanation or apology for blatant censorship. That's unacceptable.

[boutons_deux]

Chinese Junk Patents Flood Into Australia, Allowing Chinese Companies To Strategically Block Innovation


Techdirt has been writing for a while about China's policy of providing incentives (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101015/02035211440/patents-create-incentives-for-more-patents-not-innovation.shtml) to file patents -- regardless of whether those patents have any worth. That's led to a naïve celebration (https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121213/08411621378/wipo-celebrates-chinese-patent-explosion-pretends-that-its-innovation.shtml) of the large numbers now being granted, as if more patents corresponded to more innovation.

Until now, this problem of junk patents has been confined to China, and the companies that operate there. But last year China went even further with its subsidy system, offering to pay the fees for filing overseas (http://chinaipr.com/2012/06/12/china-to-provide-financial-incentives-for-filing-patent-applications-abroad/), presumably to encourage Chinese companies to build up patent portfolios in foreign markets that can be used for defensive or even offensive purposes. We're now beginning to see the effects of this further distortion to the patent system, as Australian businesses struggle with the flood of new patents there (http://blog.patentology.com.au/2013/02/junk-patents-dumped-on-australia-as.html). The Patentology blog explains:

A Chinese government scheme providing financial incentives for small and medium sized enterprises, public institutions or scientific research institutions appears to be resulting in abuse of the Australian patent system, and the 'dumping' of numerous low-quality innovation patents on the Australian Register.

These 'junk' patents are not being examined or certified. They therefore represent no more than potential enforceable rights. Even so, they generate costs to companies operating legitimately in Australia, which may need to obtain advice on the likely scope and validity of these patents in order to avoid possible infringement. In extreme cases, the existence of junk patents could result in an Australian business choosing not to take the risk of bringing a new product to market, even though the Chinese owner of a patent is not itself offering any products or services in this country.

This is a perfect example of how granting more patents actively harms innovation. Thanks to China's incentive scheme, which encourages patent quantity rather than quality, Australian businesses must now spend more time searching through them all to see if they are likely to affect their own products, deciding if they are a threat, and what to do about it. All that costs money that could have been spent on real innovation, developing new products. Thanks to the patent system, and China's new incentives, that money will now go to the lawyers.

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130221/01521022047/chinese-junk-patents-flood-into-australia-allowing-chinese-companies-to-strategically-block-innovation.shtml

[boutons_deux]

French Politicians Worry That Free Creative Commons Works Devalue 'Legal' Offers

As Techdirt noted last year, France has a regrettable habit of dreaming up really bad ideas (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121209/07085621316/french-hadopi-scheme-gutted-other-bad-ideas-to-be-introduced-instead.shtml) when it comes to the Internet, most famously with the three-strikes scheme, now known there by the name of the body the oversees it -- Hadopi. Guillaume Champeau (http://www.numerama.com/magazine/25191-lescure-envisage-t-il-de-rendre-les-creative-commons-payantes.html) points us to a piece in the French newspaper Libération, which contains yet more appalling possibilities (original in French (http://www.ecrans.fr/Lescure-les-positions-du,15982.html)).

The article concerns Pierre Lescure and his team, who have been charged by the French government with coming up with ways to help the world of culture in France adapt to the Internet economy. One idea, kindly suggested by the French recording industry, is to replace Hadopi's court procedures for those accused of unauthorized file sharing with an automatic fine (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130210/02081221934/jealous-copyright-trolls-entertainment-industry-looks-to-move-three-strikes-disconnect-to-fines.shtml) of 140 euros after three strikes. That is, from being guilty until proven innocent, as now, under the proposed scheme those accused would simply be found guilty without any further discussion. And then there's this:


In parallel, no de-penalization for non-commercial sharing, but a desire to "increase the value" of free licences of the Creative Commons kind. The Lescure team believes that letting works circulate freely (as they do now...) would hinder the development of legal offers, particularly VOD [Video On Demand].

Yes, apparently the way to "increase the value" is to no longer allow Creative Commons content to "circulate freely" because it might compete with other business models. Lescure has now taken to Twitter (kudos that at least he's on Twitter) to state (https://twitter.com/pierrelescure/status/306046405615689728) that what was reported bears "almost no relation to what we are preparing." But he doesn't explain what exactly they are planning, nor does he deny that their plans involve Creative Commons licenses.

We shall have to wait to see what he has in mind. But it would be hard to find a better symbol of the French establishment's attitude to the Internet and its extraordinary new possibilities than trying to make people pay for works that could be shared freely (because their creators want that), on the grounds that it might hinder a service that turns the Net into television.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130225/10451922101/french-politicians-worry-that-free-creative-commons-works-devalue-legal-offers.shtml

[ElNono]

Draft Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Update Expands Powers and Penalties

Despite calls to limit (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/02/14/0418245/lawmakers-say-cfaa-is-too-hard-on-hackers) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, it looks like Congress is planning to drastically expand the law and penalties. walterbyrd writes with a few of the major changes listed in the draft bill (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/627265-sr-005-xml.html) (22 pages):

"Adds computer crimes as a form of racketeering. Expands the ways in which you could be guilty of the CFAA — including making you just as guilty if you plan to 'violate' the CFAA than if you actually did so (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130324/14342822435/rather-than-fix-cfaa-house-judiciary-committee-planning-to-make-it-worse-way-worse.shtml). Ratchets up many of the punishments. Makes a very, very minor adjustment to limit 'exceeding authorized access.' Expands the definition of 'exceeding authorized access' in a very dangerous way. Makes it easier for the federal government to seize and forfeit anything."

TechCrunch also reports rumors that the plan is to push the bill through quickly for approval with a number of other "cybersecurity" bills in mid-April.

[Winehole23]

The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users' stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders, which represent an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed.


If the government is able to determine a person's password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user. Obtaining it also would aid in deciphering encrypted devices in situations where passwords are reused.


"I've certainly seen them ask for passwords," said one Internet industry source who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We push back."


A second person who has worked at a large Silicon Valley company confirmed that it received legal requests from the federal government for stored passwords. Companies "really heavily scrutinize" these requests, the person said. "There's a lot of 'over my dead body.'"


Some of the government orders demand not only a user's password but also the encryption algorithm and the so-called salt, according to a person familiar with the requests. A salt is a random string of letters or numbers used to make it more difficult to reverse the encryption process and determine the original password. Other orders demand the secret question codes often associated with user accounts.http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57595529-38/feds-tell-web-firms-to-turn-over-user-account-passwords/

[Blake]

I get tired of biased websites that like to spin words.

[Winehole23]

like cnet?

[Blake]

like cnet?

They used the word "demand" in the beginning and end of that piece, while gently sliding the word "request" in the middle, which is disingenuous, imo.

I also don't like anonymous sources.

[Winehole23]

hair splitting, tbh. government and LE enforcement requests are sometimes rightly perceived as being more than that.

[Winehole23]

there can be consequences for saying no to power.

[Blake]

hair splitting, tbh. government and LE enforcement requests are sometimes rightly perceived as being more than that.

If it was a real demand to release password info, the internet companies would go straight to big media outlets.

Demand =/= request

[exstatic]

If it was a real demand to release password info, the internet companies would go straight to big media outlets.

Demand =/= request

...and the next time that they tried an acquisition or merger, strangely, the DOJ would put the kibosh on it.

[ElNono]

Dentist Who Used Copyright To Silence Her Patients Drops Out of Sight

According to a report at Ars Technica, a dentist named Stacy Makhnevich, who billed herself as "the Classical Singer Dentist of New York," threatened patients who wrote bad Yelp reviews with lawsuits, along the same lines as the online dental damage-control (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/05/25/1632250/doctors-to-patients-first-do-no-yelp-harm) outlined in a different Ars story in 2011 (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/all-your-reviews-are-belong-to-us-medical-justice-vs-patient-free-speech/). This time, though, there's something even stranger than bargaining with patients to forgo criticism: when a patient defied that demand by describing his experience in negative terms on Yelp, Makhnevich followed up on the threat by seeking a takedown order based on copyright (putatively signed over to her for any criticism that patients might write, post-visit) — then disappeared entirely (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/dentist-who-used-copyright-to-silence-her-patients-is-on-the-run/) when lawyers for patient Robert Lee filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the validity of the agreement.

[Blake]

...and the next time that they tried an acquisition or merger, strangely, the DOJ would put the kibosh on it.

Because they didn't cooperate?

Doubtful

[Winehole23]

July 23, 2013 | By Morgan Weiland



Congress and the Justice Dept's Dangerous Attempts to Define “Journalist” Threaten to Exclude Bloggers

Lawmakers in Washington are again weighing in on who should and should not qualify as a journalist—and the outcome looks pretty grim for bloggers, freelancers, and other non-salaried journalists.


On July 12, the Justice Department released its new guidelines on investigations involving the news media (http://www.justice.gov/ag/news-media.pdf) in the wake of the fallout from the leak scandals involving the monitoring of AP (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/doj-subpoena-ap-journalists-shows-need-protect-calling-records) and Fox News reporters (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/5-overlooked-lessons-justice-depts-leak-investigations). While the guidelines certainly provide much-needed protections for establishment journalists, as independent journalist Marcy Wheeler explained (http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/07/12/in-bid-to-placate-legacy-media-doj-moves-closer-to-instituting-official-press/), the DOJ’s interpretation of who is a “member[] of the news media” is dramatically narrower than the definition provided in the Privacy Protection Act and effectively excludes bloggers and freelancers from protection. This limiting definition is causing alarm (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/15/administration-doj-media-protection-column/2515919/) among bloggers like Glenn Reynolds on the right as well.


While the DOJ’s effort to limit the scope of who can be recognized as a journalist is problematic, it doesn’t have teeth. Guidelines are, well, guidelines. But the report is part of a broader legislative effort in Washington to simultaneously offer protection for the press while narrowing the scope of who is afforded it. Importantly, Congress introduced federal shield bills in May—both ironically named the “Free Flow of Information Act of 2013”—that arguably would exclude bloggers, freelancers, and other non-salaried journalists from protection because they are not included within the bills’ narrow definition of who qualifies as a journalist.


If these bills—support for which the White House reaffirmed in its DOJ report—pass without change, Congress effectively will create two tiers of journalists: the institutional press licensed by the government, and everyone else. That’s a pretty flimsy shield if what we are really trying to protect is the free flow of information.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/congress-and-justice-depts-dangerous-attempts-define-journalist-threaten-exclude

[Blake]

I wonder if those definitions of journalist will spill over into the sports world

[Winehole23]

MLB and NFL? Probably not. NCAA has no collective bargaining. . .

. . .yet.

[Winehole23]

Because they didn't cooperate?

Doubtfulask Anthony Natsios and Qwest.

[Blake]

I can't ask Qwest. They've been bought out and their former CEO during that time frame got convicted for insider trading, didn't he?

[ElNono]

Downloading Is Mean! Content Industry Drafts Anti-Piracy Curriculum for Elementary Schools

Listen up children: Cheating on your homework or cribbing notes from another student is bad, but not as bad as sharing a music track with a friend, or otherwise depriving the content-industry of its well-earned profits.

That’s one of the messages in a new-school curriculum being developed with the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America and the nation’s top ISPs, in a pilot project to be tested in California elementary schools later this year.

Read more:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/mpaa-school-propaganda/

[velik_m]

Spain's new piracy penalty: Six years in jail

Summary: The country is proposing prison time for owners of sites that link to illegal versions of copyrighted material.

Spain is introducing tough new penalties for owners of websites that link to pirated versions of copyrighted material, after pressure from the US over its piracy record.

Under new legislation introduced as part of a wider reform of the country's penal code, owners of sites found to be making money from linking to pirated material will face prison sentences of up to six years and the closure of their site.

It is the first time Spanish authorities have targeted owners of sites that just provide links to copyrighted material that is illegally distributed via other websites. Previously the law targeted just those who "reproduce, plagiarise, distribute or pass on" copyrighted material, while leaving those who provide the links immune from prosecution, a report in the Spanish newspaper El Pais said.

However, users of these link-sharing sites will not be targeted under the new law and search engines and peer-to-peer users will also be exempt.

...


http://www.zdnet.com/spains-new-piracy-penalty-six-years-in-jail-7000020973/

[Blake]

Downloading Is Mean! Content Industry Drafts Anti-Piracy Curriculum for Elementary Schools

Listen up children: Cheating on your homework or cribbing notes from another student is bad, but not as bad as sharing a music track with a friend, or otherwise depriving the content-industry of its well-earned profits.

That’s one of the messages in a new-school curriculum being developed with the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America and the nation’s top ISPs, in a pilot project to be tested in California elementary schools later this year.

Read more:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/mpaa-school-propaganda/

was that really one of the messages?

[ElNono]

was that really one of the messages?

Haven't seen all the courses, but here's 6th grade:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/09/Grade-6-Copyright-Lesson.pdf

[velik_m]

Netflix CEO says torrent piracy in Canada down 50 per cent

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings dropped a surprising statistic during an interview with Dutch website Tweakers last week, as he made the rounds promoting the launch of Netflix Netherlands.

When asked if Dutch viewers would switch from piracy to Netflix, Hastings said sure, some will switch, and that piracy helps “create the demand” for easier, legitimate ways to watch video through the Internet. Pressed for examples of markets where Netflix has actually brought about a decrease in piracy, Hastings pointed to Canada. Here, he claims, “Bittorrent traffic’s down by about 50 per cent since Netflix launched three years ago.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/17/netflix-ceo-says-torrent-piracy-in-canada-down-50-per-cent/

[velik_m]

The Hole in Our Collective Memory: How Copyright Made Mid-Century Books Vanish

...

By this calculation, the effect of copyright appears extreme. Heald says that the WorldCat research showed, for example, that there were eight times as many books published in the 1980s as in the 1880s, but there are roughly as many titles available on Amazon for the two decades. A book published during the presidency of Chester A. Arthur has a greater chance of being in print today than one published during the time of Reagan.

Copyright advocates have long (and successfully) argued that keeping books copyrighted assures that owners can make a profit off their intellectual property, and that that profit incentive will "assure [the books'] availability and adequate distribution." The evidence, it appears, says otherwise.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-hole-in-our-collective-memory-how-copyright-made-mid-century-books-vanish/278209/

[Blake]

Haven't seen all the courses, but here's 6th grade:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/09/Grade-6-Copyright-Lesson.pdf

Yeah, I figured it was over the top.

There's a tie-in to plagiarism in that presentation. And schools don't have to show it if they don't want to. I don't see the problem.

[Blake]

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-hole-in-our-collective-memory-how-copyright-made-mid-century-books-vanish/278209/

I like the ideas mentioned in the comments about implementing a "use it or lose it" policy.

[mouse]

learn from history people.....


http://blog.mlive.com/kalamabrew/2008/04/large_PROHIBITION-END_partyfoul.jpg

[boutons_deux]

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 (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/temporary-copies-another-way-tpp-profoundly-disconnected) troubling (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/21st-century-agreement-is-really-best-way) provisions (https://www.eff.org/node/58380) of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) (https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp) that is being negotiated under wraps (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/internet-users-again-shut-out-secret-tpp-negotiations). 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 (http://law.duke.edu/pd/papers/boyle.pdf): "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 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=freetrade_ctte/rel_links/index.htm) that the copyright extension has resulted in Australians sending an extra $88 million per year in royalties overseas.1 (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/all-nations-lose-tpps-expansion-copyright-terms#footnote1_6fy6n5n) This is particularly troubling because international law has been exploited (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/beijing-treaty-audiovisual-performances)to 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. (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=908998)” 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 economic (http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/18426)and (http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/18426)legal (http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/18426)studies (http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/18426) focused on the importance of a rich commons for innovation and creativity, and contrary to recommendations such as those of European-basedCommunia (http://www.communia-association.org/recommendations-2/)Association (http://www.communia-association.org/recommendations-2/), the TPP seeks to extend the internationally agreed copyright term far beyond what is required by international (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm%23copyright) standards (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm%23copyright) set out in the Berne (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/index.html) Convention (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/index.html) (WIPO) and the Agreement (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm%231) on (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm%231) Trade (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm%231)- (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm%231)Related (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm%231) Aspects (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm%231) of (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm%231) Intellectual (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm%231) Property (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm%231) Rights (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm%231) or TRIPS. According to a leaked (http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/tpp-10feb2011-us-text-ipr-chapter.pdf) IP (http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/tpp-10feb2011-us-text-ipr-chapter.pdf) chapter (http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/tpp-10feb2011-us-text-ipr-chapter.pdf) of (http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/tpp-10feb2011-us-text-ipr-chapter.pdf) the (http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/tpp-10feb2011-us-text-ipr-chapter.pdf) agreement (http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/tpp-10feb2011-us-text-ipr-chapter.pdf) [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/2012/08/all-nations-lose-tpps-expansion-copyright-terms

[boutons_deux]

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.

[Blake]

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.

[boutons_deux]

https://openmedia.org/campaign/say-no-internet-censorship-0

[Winehole23]

I can't ask Qwest. They've been bought out and their former CEO during that time frame got convicted for insider trading, didn't he?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/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resisted-nsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/

[velik_m]

Three 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 titles 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 title 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.

http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/Three-Three-Battlefield-4-Fail-Launch-DRMd

The pirated version though works fine apparently.

[Winehole23]

In 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 (https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014mj0231-2), 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://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/judge-denies-warrant-application-because-he-thinks-the-government-doesnt-need-a-warrant/?tid=up_next

[Winehole23]

Over the past several years hundreds of thousands (https://torrentfreak.com/200000-bittorrent-users-sued-in-the-united-states-110808/) 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 identity of the Defendant,” Ungaro wrote in an order last week.
“There is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district,” she adds.

http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-person-140324/

[Blake]

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.

[Winehole23]

SOPA rebranded as "notice and staydown":


The 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 (http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=contentid). 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.http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140313/17470826574/rebranding-sopa-now-called-notice-staydown.shtml

[Winehole23]

for profit copyright cops:


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.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/meet-rightscorp-the-internets-new-for-profit-copyright-cop/

[Winehole23]

Looking 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.same

[Winehole23]

Forbes on mesh networking:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/06/05/could-this-app-create-a-free-secret-web/

[Winehole23]

CIS(P)A coming back around:


CISA 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 (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/consequences-cispas-broad-legal-immunity), vague definitions (https://www.eff.org/cybersecurity-bill-faq#copyright), and aggressive spying powers (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/yes-cispa-could-allow-companies-filter-or-block-internet-traffic) 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 (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/114th-congress/senate-report/32/1) are due to unencrypted (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/personal-data-of-4-million-federal-employees-hacked-118655.html) files, poor computer architecture (http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml), un-updated servers (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/entry-point-of-jpmorgan-data-breach-is-identified/), and employees (or contractors) who clicked malware links (http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/02/email-attack-on-vendor-set-up-breach-at-target/).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 latitude 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.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/week-action-opposing-cisa-over-400k-faxes-sent-halfway-point

[Winehole23]

send a fax to Congress here: https://www.stopcyberspying.com/

[Winehole23]

end to end encryption as material support for terrorism?


“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 circumstances, be construed as material support,” Wittes and Bedell write. The answer, they say, “may be unnerving to executives at Apple.”

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/obama-administration-war-apple-google-just-got-uglier/

[ElNono]

TPP Copyright Chapter Leaks: Website Blocking, New Criminal Rules On the Way

Knowledge Ecology International (http://keionline.org/) (KEI) [Wednesday] morning released the May 2015 draft (http://keionline.org/node/2309) of the copyright provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership (copyright (http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Section-G-Copyright-Related-Rights-TPP-11May2015.pdf), ISP annex (http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Addendum-XV-Internet-Service-Providers-TPP-11May2015.pdf), enforcement (http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Section-H-1-11-of-Enforcement-TPP-IPChapter-11May2015.pdf)). The leak appears to be the same version that was covered by the EFF (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/new-leaked-tpp-chapter-reveals-countries-converging-anti-user-copyright) and other media outlets earlier this summer. Michael Geist unpacks the leaked documents (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/08/the-tpp-copyright-chapter-leaks-canada-may-face-website-blocking-new-criminal-provisions-term-extension/), noting the treaty includes anti-circumvention 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.

[Winehole23]

white hat hacking banned, infringing devices to be destroyed?


Under 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 (http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comments-020615/), which were used to identify critical vulnerabilities in vehicles (http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comments-020615/InitialComments_longform_EFF_Class22.pdf), surveillance devices (http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comments-020615/InitialComments_ShortForm_Brown_Class25.pdf), voting machines (http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comments-020615/InitialComments_LongForm_SecurityResearchers_Class 25.pdf), medical implants (http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comments-020615/InitialComments_ShortForm_Radcliffe_Class25.pdf), and many other devices in our world.


Since the docket opened, we've lived through the recall of 1.4 million jeeps (http://boingboing.net/2015/07/24/chrysler-has-to-recall-its-car.html) whose steering and braking could be seized by Internet-based attackers and Dieselgate, which saw VW using DRM to hide its emissions-cheating (http://boingboing.net/2015/09/19/vws-car-drm-let-it-get-away.html).


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 circumvention tools. For example, you may have installed Handbrake (https://handbrake.fr/) to rip DVDs, or VLC (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html) 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.”

http://boingboing.net/2015/10/13/tpp-requires-countries-to-seiz.html

[boutons_deux]

Hundreds of thousands protest in Berlin against EU-U.S. trade dealhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/10/us-trade-germany-ttip-protests-idUSKCN0S40L720151010

Meanwhile, in the USA ....

[Winehole23]

piracy is destroying the movie industry:

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/04/13/1957231/piracy-fails-to-prevent-another-box-office-record

[Blake]

piracy is destroying the movie industry:

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/04/13/1957231/piracy-fails-to-prevent-another-box-office-record

I would figure the bigger hit is dvd/Blu Ray etc sales than at the box office. Haven't really looked tho

[Winehole23]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/warner-bros-google-takedown/

[Winehole23]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100913/22513210998.shtml

[Winehole23]

So, we have two issues, neither of them useful to end users. On Adobe's end, we have a protection scheme that requires an internet connection. That's classic DRM -- phone home, get permission (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121105/17594020942/when-mouse-requires-internet-connection-youre-doing-cloud-wrong.shtml)… all well and good (NOT REALLY) until someone needs access to documents but can't because they're not connected to the internet.


Then we have an update that breaks the connection Adobe's DRM relies on, forcing the same problem on users who do have internet access. The problem with DRM schemes like these is that they rely on a bunch of parts that aren't interconnected (Adobe, Windows) but both have to be working properly to get the job done... rather than just, say, open Adobe Reader and be done with it. Subtract an internet connection and Adobe's documents are useless, even to authorized users. Throw a suprisingly volatile Windows update into the mix and end users doing everything right are still screwed. Combine the two and sensitive documents are suddenly so "protected" that a majority of users can't even view them. And, remember, this is a "privilege" corporate customers pay for.


DRM: still mostly useless and still mainly a pain in the ass (https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=drm) for paying customers.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160901/08413835414/drm-still-hurting-paying-customers-most.shtml