ZeroPaid.com » eff http://www.zeropaid.com Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:53:21 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 US Cell Phone Service Provider Shuts Down Services to Disrupt Potential Protest http://www.zeropaid.com/news/95101/us-cell-phone-provider-shuts-down-services-to-disrupt-potential-protest/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/95101/us-cell-phone-provider-shuts-down-services-to-disrupt-potential-protest/#comments Sat, 13 Aug 2011 00:02:42 +0000 Drew Wilson http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=95101 censorship_pin_crop

There's some disturbing news coming out of the United States. BART, a San Francisco cell phone service provider that provides cellphone services for subways, shut down all services after rumors circulated that a protest might occur. An official did confirm that this was the sole reason for shuttering services.

Accusations of censorship are flying right now over the move to shut down the services to disrupt a protest in the US. A report from SFGate details a story about a subway cell phone service provider shutting down cell phone services to disrupt a rumored planned protest against police officers accused of shooting a knife-wielding man to death. From the report:
"All over the world, people are using mobile devices to protest oppressive regimes, and governments are shutting down cell phone towers and the Internet to stop them," said Michael Risher, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. "It's outrageous that in San Francisco, BART is doing the same thing."
A BART official confirmed that the reason for the shutdown was to try and disrupt the planned protest, but used the excuse of safety:
"Organizers planning to disrupt BART service stated they would use mobile devices to coordinate their disruptive activities and communicate about the location and number of BART Police," the transit agency said. "A civil disturbance during commute times at busy downtown San Francisco stations could lead to platform overcrowding and unsafe conditions for BART customers, employees and demonstrators."
Other civil rights groups are also outraged at the move. From the EFF:
This week, EFF has seen censorship stories move closer and closer to home — first Iran, then the UK, and now San Francisco, an early locus of the modern free speech movement. Operators of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) shut down cell phone service to four stations in downtown San Francisco yesterday in response to a planned protest. Last month, protesters disrupted BART service in response to the fatal shooting of Charles Blair Hill by BART police on July 3rd. Thursday’s protest failed to materialize, possibly because the disruption of cell phone service made organization and coordination difficult. Early reports indicated that BART cut off cell phone service by approaching carriers directly and asking them to turn service off. Later statements by James Allison, deputy chief communications officer for BART, assert “BART staff or contractors shut down power to the nodes and alerted the cell carriers” after the fact. AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile have not yet made comment as to whether or not they were complicit in the shutdown. Obviously, we'd like to know exactly what the carriers said to BART, but many other unanswered questions remain as well. Was pulling the plug on people's phones a quick, on-the-spot decision, or part of a protest-response plan vetted by BART's lawyers? Who decided that blocking all cellphone calls at these BART stations was the right response to news that there might be a protest? Were the carriers ever in the loop about this plan or action? Who decided that the news of this planned protest justified the shutdown? How do we know this isn't going to happen again?
The move comes on the heels of UK Prime Minister David Cameron wanting to stop people from communicating on social media in the midst of the UK riots. I, for one, am not one bit surprised some are comparing this to things that Mubarak would do. I'm also not surprised others are saying this is a clear case of infringement of free speech. If anything else, this will only serve to make awareness of the "No Justice, No BART" protest explode in to public consciousness like never before thanks to the efforts to censor it. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> censorship_pin_crop

There's some disturbing news coming out of the United States. BART, a San Francisco cell phone service provider that provides cellphone services for subways, shut down all services after rumors circulated that a protest might occur. An official did confirm that this was the sole reason for shuttering services.

Accusations of censorship are flying right now over the move to shut down the services to disrupt a protest in the US. A report from SFGate details a story about a subway cell phone service provider shutting down cell phone services to disrupt a rumored planned protest against police officers accused of shooting a knife-wielding man to death. From the report:
"All over the world, people are using mobile devices to protest oppressive regimes, and governments are shutting down cell phone towers and the Internet to stop them," said Michael Risher, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. "It's outrageous that in San Francisco, BART is doing the same thing."
A BART official confirmed that the reason for the shutdown was to try and disrupt the planned protest, but used the excuse of safety:
"Organizers planning to disrupt BART service stated they would use mobile devices to coordinate their disruptive activities and communicate about the location and number of BART Police," the transit agency said. "A civil disturbance during commute times at busy downtown San Francisco stations could lead to platform overcrowding and unsafe conditions for BART customers, employees and demonstrators."
Other civil rights groups are also outraged at the move. From the EFF:
This week, EFF has seen censorship stories move closer and closer to home — first Iran, then the UK, and now San Francisco, an early locus of the modern free speech movement. Operators of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) shut down cell phone service to four stations in downtown San Francisco yesterday in response to a planned protest. Last month, protesters disrupted BART service in response to the fatal shooting of Charles Blair Hill by BART police on July 3rd. Thursday’s protest failed to materialize, possibly because the disruption of cell phone service made organization and coordination difficult. Early reports indicated that BART cut off cell phone service by approaching carriers directly and asking them to turn service off. Later statements by James Allison, deputy chief communications officer for BART, assert “BART staff or contractors shut down power to the nodes and alerted the cell carriers” after the fact. AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile have not yet made comment as to whether or not they were complicit in the shutdown. Obviously, we'd like to know exactly what the carriers said to BART, but many other unanswered questions remain as well. Was pulling the plug on people's phones a quick, on-the-spot decision, or part of a protest-response plan vetted by BART's lawyers? Who decided that blocking all cellphone calls at these BART stations was the right response to news that there might be a protest? Were the carriers ever in the loop about this plan or action? Who decided that the news of this planned protest justified the shutdown? How do we know this isn't going to happen again?
The move comes on the heels of UK Prime Minister David Cameron wanting to stop people from communicating on social media in the midst of the UK riots. I, for one, am not one bit surprised some are comparing this to things that Mubarak would do. I'm also not surprised others are saying this is a clear case of infringement of free speech. If anything else, this will only serve to make awareness of the "No Justice, No BART" protest explode in to public consciousness like never before thanks to the efforts to censor it. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/95101/us-cell-phone-provider-shuts-down-services-to-disrupt-potential-protest/feed/ 18 Aussie ISPs Plan to Begin Voluntarily Filtering the Web http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93922/aussie-isps-plan-to-begin-voluntarily-filtering-the-web/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93922/aussie-isps-plan-to-begin-voluntarily-filtering-the-web/#comments Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:50:15 +0000 Jared Moya http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=93922 australia_censored

Starting next month, Telstra, Optus, and Primus will block customer access to more than 500 websites; critics complain of a lack of transparency and inability for sites to appeal placement on the secret list.

Aussie ISPs Telstra, Optus, and Primus are reportedly planning to voluntarily implement a web filtering regime beginning sometime next month. The plan, which reportedly involves more than 500 sites, would primarily target ones containing child pornography as identified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and unnamed "reputable international organizations." "The ACMA will compile and manage a list of URLs of child abuse content that will include the appropriate subsection of the ACMA blacklist as well as child abuse URLs that are provided by reputable international organizations (to be blocked)," said a spokesman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Senator Conroy has long been pushing for a "voluntary mandatory" web filtering regime, but the plan has been delayed for at least a year now as the govt's been unable to deliver a series of transparency and accountability measures it's promised will accompany the introduction of ISP filtering of Refused Classification content such as child pornography. Refused Classification also includes bestiality, extreme violence including rape, detailed instruction in crime or drug use, and incitement of a terrorist act, though it's not clear if sites containing these types of content will initially be included on the list of sites to block. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has pointed out a number of problems with the scheme. "The problem with such a plan is multi-layered: First, there is no transparency in the selection of URLs to be blacklisted, and no accountability from the regulatory bodies creating the blacklists," it said. "The 'reputable international organizations' providing child abuse URLs have not been named, but may include the Internet Watch Foundation, a UK-based organization that in 2008 advised UK ISPs to block a Wikipedia page containing an album cover from the 1970s that they deemed might be illegal." The AMCA has also had problems with its blacklist, at one point listing the site of a dentist who had nothing to do with child pornography. The EFF added that scheme does little to halt child pornography as perpetrators largely use P2P and encrypted VPN connections, and not publicly accessible websites. More importantly, the scheme lacks a mechanism for sites to appeal their placement on the list, and sets a precedent that filtering is acceptable. "If the ACMA were to make the decision that sites deemed "indecent" or politically controversial--for example--should be off-limits, would the ISPs comply?" it asked. If there were a silver lining in it all, it's that Telstra is not yet fully commiutted to the deal out of concern that hacktivist groups like Anonymous and LulzSec would target it for retaliation. Stay tuned, jared@zeropaid.com]]> australia_censored

Starting next month, Telstra, Optus, and Primus will block customer access to more than 500 websites; critics complain of a lack of transparency and inability for sites to appeal placement on the secret list.

Aussie ISPs Telstra, Optus, and Primus are reportedly planning to voluntarily implement a web filtering regime beginning sometime next month. The plan, which reportedly involves more than 500 sites, would primarily target ones containing child pornography as identified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and unnamed "reputable international organizations." "The ACMA will compile and manage a list of URLs of child abuse content that will include the appropriate subsection of the ACMA blacklist as well as child abuse URLs that are provided by reputable international organizations (to be blocked)," said a spokesman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Senator Conroy has long been pushing for a "voluntary mandatory" web filtering regime, but the plan has been delayed for at least a year now as the govt's been unable to deliver a series of transparency and accountability measures it's promised will accompany the introduction of ISP filtering of Refused Classification content such as child pornography. Refused Classification also includes bestiality, extreme violence including rape, detailed instruction in crime or drug use, and incitement of a terrorist act, though it's not clear if sites containing these types of content will initially be included on the list of sites to block. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has pointed out a number of problems with the scheme. "The problem with such a plan is multi-layered: First, there is no transparency in the selection of URLs to be blacklisted, and no accountability from the regulatory bodies creating the blacklists," it said. "The 'reputable international organizations' providing child abuse URLs have not been named, but may include the Internet Watch Foundation, a UK-based organization that in 2008 advised UK ISPs to block a Wikipedia page containing an album cover from the 1970s that they deemed might be illegal." The AMCA has also had problems with its blacklist, at one point listing the site of a dentist who had nothing to do with child pornography. The EFF added that scheme does little to halt child pornography as perpetrators largely use P2P and encrypted VPN connections, and not publicly accessible websites. More importantly, the scheme lacks a mechanism for sites to appeal their placement on the list, and sets a precedent that filtering is acceptable. "If the ACMA were to make the decision that sites deemed "indecent" or politically controversial--for example--should be off-limits, would the ISPs comply?" it asked. If there were a silver lining in it all, it's that Telstra is not yet fully commiutted to the deal out of concern that hacktivist groups like Anonymous and LulzSec would target it for retaliation. Stay tuned, jared@zeropaid.com]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93922/aussie-isps-plan-to-begin-voluntarily-filtering-the-web/feed/ 5 Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Plan to Filter the Internet http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93562/senate-judiciary-committee-approves-plan-to-filter-the-internet/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93562/senate-judiciary-committee-approves-plan-to-filter-the-internet/#comments Tue, 31 May 2011 16:23:41 +0000 Jared Moya http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=93562 filter

PROTECT IP Act would give the Department of Justice the power to force ISPs and search engines to block access to infringing sites. Bill now moves forward to a full vote by the Senate.

Late last week the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the controversial "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act," or "PROTECT IP Act as it's known, giving the Department of Justice and copyright holders greatly expanded powers in the battle against online infringement. “Today the Judiciary Committee took an important step in protecting online intellectual property rights," said Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) afterwards. "The Internet is not a lawless free-for-all where anything goes. The Constitution protects both property and speech, both online and off.” First proposed earlier this month, the PROTECT IP Act would give the Attorney General the power to force US based third-parties, including ISPs, payment processors, online advertising network providers, and search engines to either block access to an infringing site or cease doing business with it. Copyright holders would be able to target payment processors and online advertising network providers. “Increased online theft of intellectual property has become a rampant problem,” added Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “The impact of copyright piracy and sale of counterfeit goods imposes a huge cost on the American economy – lost jobs, lost sales, and lost income. This bill will help to protect against harmful counterfeit and pirated products that cause damage to both the economy and the health and safety of the consumer.” Copyright holder groups like the MPAA and RIAA are obviously pleased with the news. “It’s essential that we reign in online thieves and business models predicated on ripping off America’s songwriters, musicians and performers,” said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA Chairman. “A review of the most frequently visited web sites – including those specializing in pre-release songs that are not yet even available in the legitimate marketplace -- feature banner ads for some of America’s best known companies. The MPAA also welcomed passage of thge PROTECT IP Act. "The Judiciary Committee took an important step today to stop theft and save jobs," said Michael O'Leary, Executive Vice President, Government Affairs of the MPAA. "By helping shut down rogue websites that profit from stolen films, television shows, and other counterfeit goods, this legislation will protect wages and benefits for the millions of middle class workers who bring America's creativity to life." Critics, however abound. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has reminded people of the fact that it could have serious domain name system (DNS) implications. It writes:
When COICA was introduced in the Senate last fall, EFF wrote about its dangerous implications for the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). These remain true for PIPA, despite the removal of a provision that would have required registrars and registries to block domain names pointing to sites “dedicated to infringing activities.” Because blocking via registries and registrars underlies Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s ongoing practice of seizing domain names, taking this device out of PIPA is small gain. The bill will still require targeted DNS server operators like ISPs to prevent an identified domain name from resolving to the domain's IP address, thereby preventing their users from accessing those sites. As a result, the warnings that we and others gave last year about serious security vulnerabilities and a fractured Internet are unchanged.
Public Knowledge said it was "disappointed" with the news. “We are disappointed that the Senate Judiciary Committee today approved legislation (S. 968) that will threaten the security and global functioning of the Internet, and opens the door to nuisance lawsuits while doing little if anything to curb the issues of international source of illegal downloads the bill seeks to address," said Sherwin Siy, the group's deputy legal director. o That's the real problem. Internet users will still be able to bypass any proposed search engine filter or ISP-level site blocking, and foreign infringing sites will still be accessible. The PROTECT IP Act talks about “safeguards” like allowing domain name operators or site owners to petition the court to have the orders vacated, but it still occurs after the fact and the damage done. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com _____________________________ BillText-PROTECTIPAct]]> filter

PROTECT IP Act would give the Department of Justice the power to force ISPs and search engines to block access to infringing sites. Bill now moves forward to a full vote by the Senate.

Late last week the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the controversial "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act," or "PROTECT IP Act as it's known, giving the Department of Justice and copyright holders greatly expanded powers in the battle against online infringement. “Today the Judiciary Committee took an important step in protecting online intellectual property rights," said Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) afterwards. "The Internet is not a lawless free-for-all where anything goes. The Constitution protects both property and speech, both online and off.” First proposed earlier this month, the PROTECT IP Act would give the Attorney General the power to force US based third-parties, including ISPs, payment processors, online advertising network providers, and search engines to either block access to an infringing site or cease doing business with it. Copyright holders would be able to target payment processors and online advertising network providers. “Increased online theft of intellectual property has become a rampant problem,” added Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “The impact of copyright piracy and sale of counterfeit goods imposes a huge cost on the American economy – lost jobs, lost sales, and lost income. This bill will help to protect against harmful counterfeit and pirated products that cause damage to both the economy and the health and safety of the consumer.” Copyright holder groups like the MPAA and RIAA are obviously pleased with the news. “It’s essential that we reign in online thieves and business models predicated on ripping off America’s songwriters, musicians and performers,” said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA Chairman. “A review of the most frequently visited web sites – including those specializing in pre-release songs that are not yet even available in the legitimate marketplace -- feature banner ads for some of America’s best known companies. The MPAA also welcomed passage of thge PROTECT IP Act. "The Judiciary Committee took an important step today to stop theft and save jobs," said Michael O'Leary, Executive Vice President, Government Affairs of the MPAA. "By helping shut down rogue websites that profit from stolen films, television shows, and other counterfeit goods, this legislation will protect wages and benefits for the millions of middle class workers who bring America's creativity to life." Critics, however abound. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has reminded people of the fact that it could have serious domain name system (DNS) implications. It writes:
When COICA was introduced in the Senate last fall, EFF wrote about its dangerous implications for the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). These remain true for PIPA, despite the removal of a provision that would have required registrars and registries to block domain names pointing to sites “dedicated to infringing activities.” Because blocking via registries and registrars underlies Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s ongoing practice of seizing domain names, taking this device out of PIPA is small gain. The bill will still require targeted DNS server operators like ISPs to prevent an identified domain name from resolving to the domain's IP address, thereby preventing their users from accessing those sites. As a result, the warnings that we and others gave last year about serious security vulnerabilities and a fractured Internet are unchanged.
Public Knowledge said it was "disappointed" with the news. “We are disappointed that the Senate Judiciary Committee today approved legislation (S. 968) that will threaten the security and global functioning of the Internet, and opens the door to nuisance lawsuits while doing little if anything to curb the issues of international source of illegal downloads the bill seeks to address," said Sherwin Siy, the group's deputy legal director. o That's the real problem. Internet users will still be able to bypass any proposed search engine filter or ISP-level site blocking, and foreign infringing sites will still be accessible. The PROTECT IP Act talks about “safeguards” like allowing domain name operators or site owners to petition the court to have the orders vacated, but it still occurs after the fact and the damage done. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com _____________________________ BillText-PROTECTIPAct]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93562/senate-judiciary-committee-approves-plan-to-filter-the-internet/feed/ 18 Third Installment of Humble Indie Bundle Rakes in Over $500,000 http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93100/third-installment-of-humble-indie-bundle-rakes-in-over-500000/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93100/third-installment-of-humble-indie-bundle-rakes-in-over-500000/#comments Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:28:45 +0000 Drew Wilson http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=93100 Wolfire_Banner_crop

The Humble Indie Bundle gained quite a following by being an overwhelmingly successful pay-what-you-want DRM free sale. Now, the latest version of the famous sale has netted over half a million dollars in its first few days.

At it again. Video game developer Wolfire has posted the third instalment of the Humble Indie Bundle known as Frozenbyte after the featured developer FrozenByte. Like other bundles, a portion of the proceeds will go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Child's Play which is customizable for the contributor. The games featured this time around are Trine, Shadowgrounds: Survivor, Shadowgrounds, a pre-order of Splot and a prototype of Jack Claw. The games are DRM free and most of them are cross platform. As of ths writing, this sale has earned a total of $568,439.63 from a total of 110,708 sales. Last year, the original Humble Indie Bundle earned nearly $1,275,000 while its sequel, the Humble Indie Bundle 2, earned over $1.8 Million. The latest sale launched just three days ago and currently has just under a dozen days left. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> Wolfire_Banner_crop

The Humble Indie Bundle gained quite a following by being an overwhelmingly successful pay-what-you-want DRM free sale. Now, the latest version of the famous sale has netted over half a million dollars in its first few days.

At it again. Video game developer Wolfire has posted the third instalment of the Humble Indie Bundle known as Frozenbyte after the featured developer FrozenByte. Like other bundles, a portion of the proceeds will go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Child's Play which is customizable for the contributor. The games featured this time around are Trine, Shadowgrounds: Survivor, Shadowgrounds, a pre-order of Splot and a prototype of Jack Claw. The games are DRM free and most of them are cross platform. As of ths writing, this sale has earned a total of $568,439.63 from a total of 110,708 sales. Last year, the original Humble Indie Bundle earned nearly $1,275,000 while its sequel, the Humble Indie Bundle 2, earned over $1.8 Million. The latest sale launched just three days ago and currently has just under a dozen days left. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93100/third-installment-of-humble-indie-bundle-rakes-in-over-500000/feed/ 3 Humble Indie Bundle 2 Surpasses Previous Revenue Total http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91646/humble-indie-bundle-2-surpasses-previous-revenue-total/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91646/humble-indie-bundle-2-surpasses-previous-revenue-total/#comments Wed, 22 Dec 2010 04:43:59 +0000 Drew Wilson http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=91646 Wolfire ASCII_crop

The Humble Indie Bundle 2, a pay-what-you-want video game sale which contains cross-platform DRM free games by Wolfire, has now surpassed the total revenue earned in the previous Humble Indie Bundle.

It's a video game sale that turns traditional video game developing business models on its head. Sell video games with no copy controls (DRM/Digital locks/TPMs/etc.) whatsoever and let the buyer choose what price they are willing to pay. It's the kind of sale that would get some BSA members to pull all their hair out over, but it is indeed happening for a second time. The original Humble Indie Bundle sale ended with nearly $1.27 Million, a total that, no doubt, exceeded all expectations. Now, the current sale has exceeded that in one week earning over $1.31 Million as of this writing. The pay-what-you-want sale earned over $800,000 by day 3. The Wolfire sale is the second pay-what-you-want sale. It has exceeded the original Humble Indie Bundle success which made Wolfire famous for it's innovative tactics to showcase their products online. Some of the proceeds of both, at the choosing of the customer, will be going to two charities, the first being the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the second being the Fair Play charity. The sale appears to have been extended like the first sale and currently has about 3 days left. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> Wolfire ASCII_crop

The Humble Indie Bundle 2, a pay-what-you-want video game sale which contains cross-platform DRM free games by Wolfire, has now surpassed the total revenue earned in the previous Humble Indie Bundle.

It's a video game sale that turns traditional video game developing business models on its head. Sell video games with no copy controls (DRM/Digital locks/TPMs/etc.) whatsoever and let the buyer choose what price they are willing to pay. It's the kind of sale that would get some BSA members to pull all their hair out over, but it is indeed happening for a second time. The original Humble Indie Bundle sale ended with nearly $1.27 Million, a total that, no doubt, exceeded all expectations. Now, the current sale has exceeded that in one week earning over $1.31 Million as of this writing. The pay-what-you-want sale earned over $800,000 by day 3. The Wolfire sale is the second pay-what-you-want sale. It has exceeded the original Humble Indie Bundle success which made Wolfire famous for it's innovative tactics to showcase their products online. Some of the proceeds of both, at the choosing of the customer, will be going to two charities, the first being the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the second being the Fair Play charity. The sale appears to have been extended like the first sale and currently has about 3 days left. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91646/humble-indie-bundle-2-surpasses-previous-revenue-total/feed/ 1 Judge Deals Another Setback to Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91640/judge-deals-another-setback-to-mass-bittorrent-lawsuits/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91640/judge-deals-another-setback-to-mass-bittorrent-lawsuits/#comments Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:17:17 +0000 Jared Moya http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=91640 stop-collaborate-and-listen

US District Judge John Preston Bailey rules that simply committing the same type of copyright infringement in the same manner does not link all of the defendants together, and that each are likely to have a different defense of the claims against them. Also orders the Adult Copyright Company to narrow the eligible defendants to only those who have an IP address within the court's jurisdiction of the State of West Virginia.

The Adult Copyright Company, the self-proclaimed "market leader in fighting piracy of adult content," has suffered a severe setback to seven of of its mass BitTorrent lawsuits. "In these cases -- as in many others across the country -- the owners of the adult movies filed mass lawsuits based on single counts of copyright infringement stemming from the downloading of a pornographic film, and improperly lumped hundreds of defendants together regardless of where the IP addresses indicate the defendants live," notes the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The Adult Copyright Company tried to argue that the file-sharers named in the lawsuit could be joined together under Federal Rule 20(a)(2) of Civil Procedure "based upon the Does’ use of some of the same ISPs and some of the same peer-to-peer ('P2P') networks to infringe the same copyright." US District Judge John Preston Bailey disagreed, ruling recently that simply committing the same type of copyright infringement in the same manner does not link them together for the purposes of Rule 20. "Moreover, several courts agree that where there is no allegation that multiple defendants have acted in concert, joinder is improper," he writes. Judge Preston also noted that each defendant is likely to have a different defense of the charges in question, and therefore should have the opportunity to argue their individual cases on their own merits. He cited another district court ruling which reads:
Comcast subscriber John Doe 1 could be an innocent parent whose internet access was abused by her minor child, while John Doe 2 might share a computer with a roommate who infringed Plaintiffs’ works. John Does 3 through 203 could be thieves, just as Plaintiffs believe, inexcusably pilfering Plaintiffs’ property and depriving them, and their artists, of the royalties they are rightly owed.
Judge Preston dismissed all of the subpoenas submitted so far except one, and gave the Adult Copyright Company 30 days to refile amended complaints against the individuals it wished to continue to pursue cases against. However, he took the additional step of narrowing the eligible defendants to only those who have an IP address within the court's jurisdiction of the State of West Virginia. "According to testimony presented to the Court, there is a publicly-available website that allows the plaintiff to determine the physical location of each Doe’s computer at the time of the alleged copyright infringements," reads the ruling. "Specifically, Craig Goldberg, who supervises Time Warner Cable, Inc.’s subpoena compliance team, testified that the physical location of any IP address can be determined from a simple Google search. (Nov. 30, 2010, Hearing Transcript, at 21-26). Moreover, it appears to the Court that the search for Does from West Virginia can be narrowed by eliminating the Does with ISPs that do not provide internet service within the State." US District Judge Rosemary Collyer dealt a similar setback to mass BitTorrent lawsuits earlier this month when she told the US Copyright Group to limit defendants to only those “whom it reasonably believes the Court has personal jurisdiction" over. "This is the next nail in the coffin of the copyright trolls," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Now that judges are starting to reject the shoddy and unfair tactics being used by the attorneys filing these cases and force plaintiffs to play by the rules, this type of mass litigation will no longer be a good business model." Being that judges so far have prevented copyright holder from lumping together thousands of individual BitTorrent users, the cost of litigating the cases will rise dramatically, especially if each opt for a trial instead of an out of court settlement fee. "These lawsuits have caused massive collateral damage to the individuals targeted, due process, and the legal profession," she added. "Copyright owners have a right to protect their works, but not at the expense of the due process rights of thousands of Doe defendants." Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com ]]> stop-collaborate-and-listen

US District Judge John Preston Bailey rules that simply committing the same type of copyright infringement in the same manner does not link all of the defendants together, and that each are likely to have a different defense of the claims against them. Also orders the Adult Copyright Company to narrow the eligible defendants to only those who have an IP address within the court's jurisdiction of the State of West Virginia.

The Adult Copyright Company, the self-proclaimed "market leader in fighting piracy of adult content," has suffered a severe setback to seven of of its mass BitTorrent lawsuits. "In these cases -- as in many others across the country -- the owners of the adult movies filed mass lawsuits based on single counts of copyright infringement stemming from the downloading of a pornographic film, and improperly lumped hundreds of defendants together regardless of where the IP addresses indicate the defendants live," notes the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The Adult Copyright Company tried to argue that the file-sharers named in the lawsuit could be joined together under Federal Rule 20(a)(2) of Civil Procedure "based upon the Does’ use of some of the same ISPs and some of the same peer-to-peer ('P2P') networks to infringe the same copyright." US District Judge John Preston Bailey disagreed, ruling recently that simply committing the same type of copyright infringement in the same manner does not link them together for the purposes of Rule 20. "Moreover, several courts agree that where there is no allegation that multiple defendants have acted in concert, joinder is improper," he writes. Judge Preston also noted that each defendant is likely to have a different defense of the charges in question, and therefore should have the opportunity to argue their individual cases on their own merits. He cited another district court ruling which reads:
Comcast subscriber John Doe 1 could be an innocent parent whose internet access was abused by her minor child, while John Doe 2 might share a computer with a roommate who infringed Plaintiffs’ works. John Does 3 through 203 could be thieves, just as Plaintiffs believe, inexcusably pilfering Plaintiffs’ property and depriving them, and their artists, of the royalties they are rightly owed.
Judge Preston dismissed all of the subpoenas submitted so far except one, and gave the Adult Copyright Company 30 days to refile amended complaints against the individuals it wished to continue to pursue cases against. However, he took the additional step of narrowing the eligible defendants to only those who have an IP address within the court's jurisdiction of the State of West Virginia. "According to testimony presented to the Court, there is a publicly-available website that allows the plaintiff to determine the physical location of each Doe’s computer at the time of the alleged copyright infringements," reads the ruling. "Specifically, Craig Goldberg, who supervises Time Warner Cable, Inc.’s subpoena compliance team, testified that the physical location of any IP address can be determined from a simple Google search. (Nov. 30, 2010, Hearing Transcript, at 21-26). Moreover, it appears to the Court that the search for Does from West Virginia can be narrowed by eliminating the Does with ISPs that do not provide internet service within the State." US District Judge Rosemary Collyer dealt a similar setback to mass BitTorrent lawsuits earlier this month when she told the US Copyright Group to limit defendants to only those “whom it reasonably believes the Court has personal jurisdiction" over. "This is the next nail in the coffin of the copyright trolls," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Now that judges are starting to reject the shoddy and unfair tactics being used by the attorneys filing these cases and force plaintiffs to play by the rules, this type of mass litigation will no longer be a good business model." Being that judges so far have prevented copyright holder from lumping together thousands of individual BitTorrent users, the cost of litigating the cases will rise dramatically, especially if each opt for a trial instead of an out of court settlement fee. "These lawsuits have caused massive collateral damage to the individuals targeted, due process, and the legal profession," she added. "Copyright owners have a right to protect their works, but not at the expense of the due process rights of thousands of Doe defendants." Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com ]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91640/judge-deals-another-setback-to-mass-bittorrent-lawsuits/feed/ 4 Pay-What-You-Want Videogame Sale Rakes in Over $800,000 in 3 Days http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91592/pay-what-you-want-videogame-sale-rakes-in-over-800000-in-3-days/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91592/pay-what-you-want-videogame-sale-rakes-in-over-800000-in-3-days/#comments Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:16:48 +0000 Drew Wilson http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=91592 Wolfire_Banner_crop

It's called the "Humble Indie Bundle 2" where people can pay what they want and have the money go to whoever they choose. The famous video game sale by Wolfire is back and already, the sale has become hugely successful.

Back in May, an independent videogame developer created the Humble Indie Bundle - a sale that allowed users to pay what they want to get a set of DRM-free videogames. they even allowed the users to choose where the money would go - to the developers, to charity or a mixture in between. While some in the industry would consider the sale crazy, the sale did manage to net over a quarter of a million dollars in 24 hours and closed at nearly $1,270,000. For an independent video-game producer, that's nothing to sneeze at. So what happened since then? It turns out, Wolfire launched the Humble Indie Bundle 2 three days ago and, already, the sale has earned well over $800,000 with four days left to go. The sale looks like it is on track to match its previous success already, but we don't know for sure if it'll beat the previous sale total. The sale features Braid, Machinarium, Osmos, Cortex Command, and Revenge of the Titans. Like before, the games are platform independent. The charities involved are EFF and Child's Play. The video: What I think is cool is the fact that this proves that the first sale wasn't a one hit wonder. It's back-to-back success is showing that such a business model is, indeed, viable. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> Wolfire_Banner_crop

It's called the "Humble Indie Bundle 2" where people can pay what they want and have the money go to whoever they choose. The famous video game sale by Wolfire is back and already, the sale has become hugely successful.

Back in May, an independent videogame developer created the Humble Indie Bundle - a sale that allowed users to pay what they want to get a set of DRM-free videogames. they even allowed the users to choose where the money would go - to the developers, to charity or a mixture in between. While some in the industry would consider the sale crazy, the sale did manage to net over a quarter of a million dollars in 24 hours and closed at nearly $1,270,000. For an independent video-game producer, that's nothing to sneeze at. So what happened since then? It turns out, Wolfire launched the Humble Indie Bundle 2 three days ago and, already, the sale has earned well over $800,000 with four days left to go. The sale looks like it is on track to match its previous success already, but we don't know for sure if it'll beat the previous sale total. The sale features Braid, Machinarium, Osmos, Cortex Command, and Revenge of the Titans. Like before, the games are platform independent. The charities involved are EFF and Child's Play. The video: What I think is cool is the fact that this proves that the first sale wasn't a one hit wonder. It's back-to-back success is showing that such a business model is, indeed, viable. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91592/pay-what-you-want-videogame-sale-rakes-in-over-800000-in-3-days/feed/ 6 Thai Minister: Web Filtering Plan “Doesn’t Work” http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91359/thai-minister-web-filtering-plan-doesnt-work/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91359/thai-minister-web-filtering-plan-doesnt-work/#comments Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:20:40 +0000 Jared Moya http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=91359 ts

Thongchai Sangsiri, charged with overseeing Thailand's Web filtering regime, tells an audience that the plan has "become a burden on ISPs" as the length of the Blacklist grows, and that he'd rather see filtering left up to parents and teachers at the local level. Critics like the Freedom Against Censorship Thailand note the irony of its own site having been blocked for more than six months now even though it doesn't host any "illegal or even uncivil content."

With the US govt mulling a Web filtering regime of its own with the Combating Online Infringement & Counterfeits Act (COICA) it's worth noting that in Thailand, where a similar plan has already been put in place, the top govt official in charge has admitted it "doesn't work." Thongchai Sangsiri, director of computer forensics within Thailand's Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT), and charged with overseeing the Web filtering regime, told a an audience at a recent gathering at the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity cybersecurity forum that blacklists are too lengthy and have proved quite difficult for ISPs to properly handle. He said that Web filtering was a job best left up to parents. "We would like [to] leave parents and teachers to decide what to filter … because [the current system] is too much to handle," said Sangsiri. "The blacklists grow with many, many websites to become a burden on ISPs. Blacklisting doesn't work." Freedom Against Censorship Thailand, a Thailand-based group opposed the Web filter, submitted a letter recently to the country's Prime Minister which also criticized the ineffectiveness of the filter, pointing out the irony that's its site has been blocked for more than 6 months now. It reads:
Our website Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) has been blocked since May 9, more than six months. We host no illegal or even uncivil content. It is ironic that an anti-censorship website should itself be censored by government. What does a citizen do to get their website unblocked? I have been in contact with your ICT minister, your deputy prime minister will not return my calls and the military authorities at your CRES and CAPO are simply unreachable by the ordinary citizen.
In the US the COICA would try mandate similar blacklisting efforts by forcing ISPs to “prevent the importation into the United States of goods and services offered by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.” The Bill would give courts the power to order ISPs to prevent access to infringing websites by US citizens if the site is found to illegally offer copyrighted material. "Senator Leahy is leading the government into the swamp of trying to decide which websites should be blacklisted and which ones shouldn't, and they're going to discover that the line between copyright infringement and free political speech can be awfully murky," notes the EFF, one of the COICA's most vocal critics. Sangrisi added that he thought the whole Web filtering plan was simply a way to make the majority of the public think the govt was actually doing something about perceived problems on the Internet. "The majority of the public will think the government is doing something; for public image it is good," he said. Precisely. With the COICA US copyright holders like the RIAA or MPAA will think they've blocked access to foreign streaming and file-sharing sites when all they'll have managed to do is force people to reroute their traffic via proxies, VPNs, etc.. A coalition of businesses has been trying to play up the supposed positive benefits of the COICA like the protection of American consumers and jobs, but both are unlikely to happen as a result of the Bill's passage. Even if all of the illicit file-sharing sites in the world were eliminated this very moment, all we would see in the US is a shifting of revenue from other sectors of the US economy where file-sharers currently spend the money that would have otherwise been spent on accessing copyrighted material. There is no magic pot of revenue to be tapped. The Thai blacklist should also serve as a cautionary tale for Australia which has been mulling a Web filtering plan of its own for some time now. Australian Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy has argued the plan is essential to protect “all that is good about the Internet,” but critics like the country's Liberal-National Coalition have countered that the "best internet filter a child can have is a parent that is engaged in what their children do and see on the internet." The COICA currently under consideration in the US Senate is obviously slightly different from either of the aforementioned Web filtering schemes, but its inevitable failure will be the same nonetheless. All Internet users have to do is encrypt their traffic or route via Tor or proxies to bypass any filtering regime. If the Chinese people have been able to defeat that country's Great Firewall of China then why do the COICA's sponsors expect a far more modest US proposal to any more successful? Our National Security Agency has already "yelled" at France for passing the “Creation and Internet Law" which it says will only encourage Internet users to arm themselves with same encryption tools used by criminal networks, making their job of detecting threats and illegal activity that much harder. The COICA is sure to encourage the same practice, especially VPN services that have the dual benefit of file-sharing anonymity. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com ]]> ts

Thongchai Sangsiri, charged with overseeing Thailand's Web filtering regime, tells an audience that the plan has "become a burden on ISPs" as the length of the Blacklist grows, and that he'd rather see filtering left up to parents and teachers at the local level. Critics like the Freedom Against Censorship Thailand note the irony of its own site having been blocked for more than six months now even though it doesn't host any "illegal or even uncivil content."

With the US govt mulling a Web filtering regime of its own with the Combating Online Infringement & Counterfeits Act (COICA) it's worth noting that in Thailand, where a similar plan has already been put in place, the top govt official in charge has admitted it "doesn't work." Thongchai Sangsiri, director of computer forensics within Thailand's Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT), and charged with overseeing the Web filtering regime, told a an audience at a recent gathering at the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity cybersecurity forum that blacklists are too lengthy and have proved quite difficult for ISPs to properly handle. He said that Web filtering was a job best left up to parents. "We would like [to] leave parents and teachers to decide what to filter … because [the current system] is too much to handle," said Sangsiri. "The blacklists grow with many, many websites to become a burden on ISPs. Blacklisting doesn't work." Freedom Against Censorship Thailand, a Thailand-based group opposed the Web filter, submitted a letter recently to the country's Prime Minister which also criticized the ineffectiveness of the filter, pointing out the irony that's its site has been blocked for more than 6 months now. It reads:
Our website Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) has been blocked since May 9, more than six months. We host no illegal or even uncivil content. It is ironic that an anti-censorship website should itself be censored by government. What does a citizen do to get their website unblocked? I have been in contact with your ICT minister, your deputy prime minister will not return my calls and the military authorities at your CRES and CAPO are simply unreachable by the ordinary citizen.
In the US the COICA would try mandate similar blacklisting efforts by forcing ISPs to “prevent the importation into the United States of goods and services offered by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.” The Bill would give courts the power to order ISPs to prevent access to infringing websites by US citizens if the site is found to illegally offer copyrighted material. "Senator Leahy is leading the government into the swamp of trying to decide which websites should be blacklisted and which ones shouldn't, and they're going to discover that the line between copyright infringement and free political speech can be awfully murky," notes the EFF, one of the COICA's most vocal critics. Sangrisi added that he thought the whole Web filtering plan was simply a way to make the majority of the public think the govt was actually doing something about perceived problems on the Internet. "The majority of the public will think the government is doing something; for public image it is good," he said. Precisely. With the COICA US copyright holders like the RIAA or MPAA will think they've blocked access to foreign streaming and file-sharing sites when all they'll have managed to do is force people to reroute their traffic via proxies, VPNs, etc.. A coalition of businesses has been trying to play up the supposed positive benefits of the COICA like the protection of American consumers and jobs, but both are unlikely to happen as a result of the Bill's passage. Even if all of the illicit file-sharing sites in the world were eliminated this very moment, all we would see in the US is a shifting of revenue from other sectors of the US economy where file-sharers currently spend the money that would have otherwise been spent on accessing copyrighted material. There is no magic pot of revenue to be tapped. The Thai blacklist should also serve as a cautionary tale for Australia which has been mulling a Web filtering plan of its own for some time now. Australian Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy has argued the plan is essential to protect “all that is good about the Internet,” but critics like the country's Liberal-National Coalition have countered that the "best internet filter a child can have is a parent that is engaged in what their children do and see on the internet." The COICA currently under consideration in the US Senate is obviously slightly different from either of the aforementioned Web filtering schemes, but its inevitable failure will be the same nonetheless. All Internet users have to do is encrypt their traffic or route via Tor or proxies to bypass any filtering regime. If the Chinese people have been able to defeat that country's Great Firewall of China then why do the COICA's sponsors expect a far more modest US proposal to any more successful? Our National Security Agency has already "yelled" at France for passing the “Creation and Internet Law" which it says will only encourage Internet users to arm themselves with same encryption tools used by criminal networks, making their job of detecting threats and illegal activity that much harder. The COICA is sure to encourage the same practice, especially VPN services that have the dual benefit of file-sharing anonymity. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com ]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91359/thai-minister-web-filtering-plan-doesnt-work/feed/ 10 MPAA Defends Web Censorship Legislation http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91334/mpaa-defends-web-censorship-legislation/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91334/mpaa-defends-web-censorship-legislation/#comments Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:26:51 +0000 Jared Moya http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=91334 mpaa1

Interim MPAA head Bob Pisano says the First Amendment "was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means," but ignores the fact that entire sites, not just infringing material, would be censored, and that it would create no new overseas revenue, merely reshuffling the dollars users of "rogue sites" currently spend elsewhere.

Today the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is scheduled for consideration by Congress' Committee on the Judiciary and the MPAA, right on cue, is trying to brush aside the concerns of the Bill's critics. First proposed back in September, the COICA would give the Department of Justice an “expedited process” for cracking down on websites that illegally make copyrighted material available, including the ability to “prevent the importation into the United States of goods and services offered by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.” The Bill's authors believe it would finally give the Dept of Justice the tools it needs to track and shut down “websites devoted to providing access to unauthorized downloads, streaming or sale of copyrighted content and counterfeit goods.” Interim MPAA head Bob Pisano wrote an op-ed recently in advance of the current committee debate emphasizing what he believes are the harmful economic effects "rogue sites" have on the American economy. He says they " exist for one purpose only:  to make a profit using the Internet to distribute the stolen and counterfeited goods and ideas of others," and that the "economic impact of these activities — millions of lost jobs and dollars — is profound." But, this is hardly the case. Sure some illicit sites do earn a profit from the illegal distribution of counterfeit goods or "stolen ideas" (not sure what this means), but a large number of sites that the MPAA labels "rogue" or "notorious" do not. A little over a week ago the MPAA submitted a list of "notorious sites" to the Office of the US Trade Representative which included BitTorrent tracker sites like The Pirate Bay, Demonoid, Torrentz, and IsoHunt. Sure they may contain some ads, but the sites have to pay their server and hosting bills somehow. "Bipartisan congressional efforts to crack down on these operations are opposed by groups who claim the First Amendment protects the rights of these sites to use the Internet for their illegal practices," adds Pisano. "But the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means. Theft is theft, whether it occurs in a dark alley or in the ether, and to attempt to distinguish the two is to undermine the most basic tenets of our criminal laws." Critics like the Center for Democracy and Technology have pointed out that there are very real free speech concerns, among them the fact that an entire site, not just infringing pages would be blocked, and domain names owned by people living far outside the United Stateʼs geographic borders would likewise be "far from the kind of procedure that ensures a full and fair trial with all interested parties present." More importantly, the bill would mean for the US govt will set a precedent that any country can seize or order the blocking of a domain name if some of the content on the domain (even if located elsewhere) violates the country’s local laws. The EFF also points out that "sites that discuss and advocate for P2P technology or for piracy," like this very site, ZeroPaid, and which link to tools and information intended for file-sharing, could find themselves targeted by the DOJ. It could decide that infringement is "central" to their purpose and take entire sites offline. The crux of Pisano's whole argument falls apart when he argues that web filtering will protect and create American jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth. All the COICA will do is "prevent" American consumers from accessing sites devoted to copyright infringing activities - Americans! This means there will be no additional revenue created for copyright holders in the entertainment industry, only that they will potentially capture more of the dollars people are currently spending in other parts of the economy that they might otherwise spend on copyrighted material if it weren't access to illegal sites. "The operators of these sites knowingly break the law, harm the American economy, deprive American intellectual property owners of their rights, cost American jobs and, in the case of counterfeit prescription drugs, potentially threaten the health and welfare of American consumers," he says. Again, these are all bogus claims. It's highly unlikely any new American jobs will be created. All that may happen is that some jobs in the the industries he cites may be created, but they'll come at the expense of jobs in another industry. It's a game of musical chairs. As for the sites that sell counterfeit prescription drugs, sure this is a problem and its despicable, but isn't the larger question one of affordability? Many of the people who buy counterfeit prescription drugs are probably trying to do anything they can to keep costs down, especially in this poor economy. Censoring the web will not change this, they'll simply look elsewhere. True criminal activity means making a profit on the backs of the hard work of others. If file-sharing was “stealing” American jobs that why has the MPAA enjoyed year after year of record breaking profits, not to mention a 30% increase in global ticket sales since 2005. If the MPAA is doing so well where's the threat to the American economy? Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com ]]> mpaa1

Interim MPAA head Bob Pisano says the First Amendment "was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means," but ignores the fact that entire sites, not just infringing material, would be censored, and that it would create no new overseas revenue, merely reshuffling the dollars users of "rogue sites" currently spend elsewhere.

Today the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is scheduled for consideration by Congress' Committee on the Judiciary and the MPAA, right on cue, is trying to brush aside the concerns of the Bill's critics. First proposed back in September, the COICA would give the Department of Justice an “expedited process” for cracking down on websites that illegally make copyrighted material available, including the ability to “prevent the importation into the United States of goods and services offered by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.” The Bill's authors believe it would finally give the Dept of Justice the tools it needs to track and shut down “websites devoted to providing access to unauthorized downloads, streaming or sale of copyrighted content and counterfeit goods.” Interim MPAA head Bob Pisano wrote an op-ed recently in advance of the current committee debate emphasizing what he believes are the harmful economic effects "rogue sites" have on the American economy. He says they " exist for one purpose only:  to make a profit using the Internet to distribute the stolen and counterfeited goods and ideas of others," and that the "economic impact of these activities — millions of lost jobs and dollars — is profound." But, this is hardly the case. Sure some illicit sites do earn a profit from the illegal distribution of counterfeit goods or "stolen ideas" (not sure what this means), but a large number of sites that the MPAA labels "rogue" or "notorious" do not. A little over a week ago the MPAA submitted a list of "notorious sites" to the Office of the US Trade Representative which included BitTorrent tracker sites like The Pirate Bay, Demonoid, Torrentz, and IsoHunt. Sure they may contain some ads, but the sites have to pay their server and hosting bills somehow. "Bipartisan congressional efforts to crack down on these operations are opposed by groups who claim the First Amendment protects the rights of these sites to use the Internet for their illegal practices," adds Pisano. "But the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means. Theft is theft, whether it occurs in a dark alley or in the ether, and to attempt to distinguish the two is to undermine the most basic tenets of our criminal laws." Critics like the Center for Democracy and Technology have pointed out that there are very real free speech concerns, among them the fact that an entire site, not just infringing pages would be blocked, and domain names owned by people living far outside the United Stateʼs geographic borders would likewise be "far from the kind of procedure that ensures a full and fair trial with all interested parties present." More importantly, the bill would mean for the US govt will set a precedent that any country can seize or order the blocking of a domain name if some of the content on the domain (even if located elsewhere) violates the country’s local laws. The EFF also points out that "sites that discuss and advocate for P2P technology or for piracy," like this very site, ZeroPaid, and which link to tools and information intended for file-sharing, could find themselves targeted by the DOJ. It could decide that infringement is "central" to their purpose and take entire sites offline. The crux of Pisano's whole argument falls apart when he argues that web filtering will protect and create American jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth. All the COICA will do is "prevent" American consumers from accessing sites devoted to copyright infringing activities - Americans! This means there will be no additional revenue created for copyright holders in the entertainment industry, only that they will potentially capture more of the dollars people are currently spending in other parts of the economy that they might otherwise spend on copyrighted material if it weren't access to illegal sites. "The operators of these sites knowingly break the law, harm the American economy, deprive American intellectual property owners of their rights, cost American jobs and, in the case of counterfeit prescription drugs, potentially threaten the health and welfare of American consumers," he says. Again, these are all bogus claims. It's highly unlikely any new American jobs will be created. All that may happen is that some jobs in the the industries he cites may be created, but they'll come at the expense of jobs in another industry. It's a game of musical chairs. As for the sites that sell counterfeit prescription drugs, sure this is a problem and its despicable, but isn't the larger question one of affordability? Many of the people who buy counterfeit prescription drugs are probably trying to do anything they can to keep costs down, especially in this poor economy. Censoring the web will not change this, they'll simply look elsewhere. True criminal activity means making a profit on the backs of the hard work of others. If file-sharing was “stealing” American jobs that why has the MPAA enjoyed year after year of record breaking profits, not to mention a 30% increase in global ticket sales since 2005. If the MPAA is doing so well where's the threat to the American economy? Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com ]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91334/mpaa-defends-web-censorship-legislation/feed/ 6 Beatles Finally Allow Sale of Digital Music on iTunes http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91319/beatles-finally-allow-sale-of-digital-music-on-itunes/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91319/beatles-finally-allow-sale-of-digital-music-on-itunes/#comments Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:08:06 +0000 Jared Moya http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=91319 beatles 2

Apple says single albums will retail for $12.99 each,but it's nearly $5 more than a physical copy sells for on competitors like Amazon.com, a physical product, packaged, and shipped to a person's front door no less.

It what has to be one of the longest running bone-headed business decisions of all time The Beatles, up until today, have refused to allow Apple's iTunes to sell digital copies of their music. Part of the blame lies with a disagreement over royalties, that and a trademark dispute between Apple and the Beatles’ company, the Apple Corps that lasted for decades. The Beatles and Apple and have finally settled their differences and have announced that starting today, 13 remastered studio albums with iTunes LPs, the two-volume “Past Masters” compilation, and the classic “Red” and “Blue” collections are available for purchase. Beatles fans can also buy a special digital “Beatles Box Set” featuring the “Live at the Washington Coliseum, 1964” concert film, a worldwide iTunes exclusive which captures the Beatles’ very first US concert. “We’re really excited to bring the Beatles’ music to iTunes,” said Sir Paul McCartney. “It’s fantastic to see the songs we originally released on vinyl receive as much love in the digital world as they did the first time around.” Former drummer Ringo Star hints at the fallacy of having waited so long. “I am particularly glad to no longer be asked when the Beatles are coming to iTunes,” said Ringo Starr. “At last, if you want it—you can get it now—The Beatles from Liverpool to now! Peace and Love, Ringo.” The problem is that while The Beatles held out for whatever reason or reasons their fans filled the gap in the marketplace on their own, using P2P and other illegal methods to acquire their favorite tracks and albums. “Anybody that hasn’t managed to come up with a digitized version of the Beatles’ song by now never liked the Beatles,” notes Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Perry Barlow. The lack of a digital offering also bolsters the arguments made by Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson, the attorney representing convicted file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum. The judge in the case, Judge Nancy Gertner in the District of Massachusetts, had allowed for a fair-use exemption for illegal file-sharing only from 1999 until the music industry began offering legal alternatives around 2003 with the advent of Apple’s iTunes Music Store. Nesson had hoped to extend that exemption until 2007, the year the music industry finally did away with DRM. He argued that up until then Tenenbaum and other music listeners could not get “exactly the songs they wanted, in exactly the format they wanted.” In the meantime, some artists, most notably The Beatles, have refused to allow digital offerings altogether. This means that if you owned a Beatles CD you could have reasonably made the case that you are entitled to a "fair-use" exemption to acquire digital copies of it online via P2P. Though now that this time is over the pricing proposed for digital copies of Beatles albums is likely to make some still choose illegal alternatives. Apple says single albums will retail for $12.99 each, nearly $5 more than a physical copy sells for on competitors like Amazon.com. Double albums will retail at $19.99, a whopping $7 more than it's sold for on Amazon.com. I know iTunes doesn't run on hopes and hot air, but charging people more than that they would pay for a physical product, packaged, and shipped to their front no less, is unjustifiable. I'm not sure who's responsible for the album price points, but it seems to me the latest in another line of bad business decisions made in the age of digital music. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

]]> beatles 2

Apple says single albums will retail for $12.99 each,but it's nearly $5 more than a physical copy sells for on competitors like Amazon.com, a physical product, packaged, and shipped to a person's front door no less.

It what has to be one of the longest running bone-headed business decisions of all time The Beatles, up until today, have refused to allow Apple's iTunes to sell digital copies of their music. Part of the blame lies with a disagreement over royalties, that and a trademark dispute between Apple and the Beatles’ company, the Apple Corps that lasted for decades. The Beatles and Apple and have finally settled their differences and have announced that starting today, 13 remastered studio albums with iTunes LPs, the two-volume “Past Masters” compilation, and the classic “Red” and “Blue” collections are available for purchase. Beatles fans can also buy a special digital “Beatles Box Set” featuring the “Live at the Washington Coliseum, 1964” concert film, a worldwide iTunes exclusive which captures the Beatles’ very first US concert. “We’re really excited to bring the Beatles’ music to iTunes,” said Sir Paul McCartney. “It’s fantastic to see the songs we originally released on vinyl receive as much love in the digital world as they did the first time around.” Former drummer Ringo Star hints at the fallacy of having waited so long. “I am particularly glad to no longer be asked when the Beatles are coming to iTunes,” said Ringo Starr. “At last, if you want it—you can get it now—The Beatles from Liverpool to now! Peace and Love, Ringo.” The problem is that while The Beatles held out for whatever reason or reasons their fans filled the gap in the marketplace on their own, using P2P and other illegal methods to acquire their favorite tracks and albums. “Anybody that hasn’t managed to come up with a digitized version of the Beatles’ song by now never liked the Beatles,” notes Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Perry Barlow. The lack of a digital offering also bolsters the arguments made by Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson, the attorney representing convicted file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum. The judge in the case, Judge Nancy Gertner in the District of Massachusetts, had allowed for a fair-use exemption for illegal file-sharing only from 1999 until the music industry began offering legal alternatives around 2003 with the advent of Apple’s iTunes Music Store. Nesson had hoped to extend that exemption until 2007, the year the music industry finally did away with DRM. He argued that up until then Tenenbaum and other music listeners could not get “exactly the songs they wanted, in exactly the format they wanted.” In the meantime, some artists, most notably The Beatles, have refused to allow digital offerings altogether. This means that if you owned a Beatles CD you could have reasonably made the case that you are entitled to a "fair-use" exemption to acquire digital copies of it online via P2P. Though now that this time is over the pricing proposed for digital copies of Beatles albums is likely to make some still choose illegal alternatives. Apple says single albums will retail for $12.99 each, nearly $5 more than a physical copy sells for on competitors like Amazon.com. Double albums will retail at $19.99, a whopping $7 more than it's sold for on Amazon.com. I know iTunes doesn't run on hopes and hot air, but charging people more than that they would pay for a physical product, packaged, and shipped to their front no less, is unjustifiable. I'm not sure who's responsible for the album price points, but it seems to me the latest in another line of bad business decisions made in the age of digital music. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91319/beatles-finally-allow-sale-of-digital-music-on-itunes/feed/ 6