For the most part, due to limitations in both the hardware and the service contract, you probably won’t be downloading much directly from the Internet to the phone itself.  There are a few beta Android applications that claim to allow for eitherBittorrent or Usenet downloading, but I have not been successful in getting them to work, either with 3G or Wi-Fi connections.  AndroidTorrent can open .torrent files, but does not actually get the download started, while the Groundhog Usenet reader can download the headers from binary newsgroups, but it cannot, as far as I can tell, actually download files in a binary format, much less handle the more complicatedunrar and par operations.  Rapidshare and Megaupload also proved to be unworkable from the built-in Android browser.  And it should be mentioned that large-scale downloading would almost assuredly create problems of bumping into the actual limits to the supposedly “unlimited” data plans (rumored to be around 5GB a month).

Despite those unfortunate limitations, Android-powered phones can be very useful for members of the downloading community, just in the role of portable dashboards for remote operation.  Torrent-fu for Bittorrent, and NZBdroid for Usenet allow users to control downloading from where ever they are via the Android phone, queuing up files to be enjoyed later, but also in the case of Torrent-fu giving users the ability to scan commercial goods via their barcodes, search major Bittorrent portals like BT-Junkie and IsoHunt, and then initiate downloads, all remotely.  And, of course, those files could be accessed by the Android phone if the remote computer is set up to serve files as well (although video files, for instance, would likely have to be re-encoded before they could be watched on the phone itself, but that’s a different article).

Torrent-fu is a free application available from the Android Marketplace and works on all variety of Android phones.  It acts as a client application for uTorrent (or Transmission) when the latter program is set up for control via its Web UI.  A bit of knowledge about port forwarding will be necessary, but without too much hassle you can leave uTorrent running on your home computer, and then both manage and add .torrent files to it completely from your phone.  Downloaded .torrent files, integrated search from within Torrent-fu, or most inventively, via the scanning of barcodes, can all generate downloads.  As a test, I scanned an old Big Lebowski DVD, and Torrent-fu did an excellent job of providing me with a number of different options for download.  Overall, Torrent-fu does an excellent job of giving any Android phone owner the power to amass a large media collection, while entirely away from their main computer.

NZBdroid is also available from the Android Marketplace, for either free or a $.99 donation, whatever the user decides.  It is very similar to Torrent-fu in concept, except that this app remotely controls a user’s SABnzbd+ downloading from Usenet.  As a huge fan of Usenet (and SABnzbd+) I truly love this application.  Since SABnzbd+ is essentially designed for a web-based interface anyway, NZBdroid is a bit easier to set up than Torrent-fu and really just operates in the background, only appearing when an .nzb file is downloaded from the web to the phone.  At that point the NZBdroid icon pops up allows for the information contained in the .nzb file (which is essentially just an XML file anyway) to the SABnzbd+ instance running on the home computer for eventual download.  All the options presented to control SABnzbd+ from the web are present on the phone as well.  NZBdroid is simple, powerful, and is absolutely worth the suggested $.99 donation for anybody seriously into Usenet downloading.

We are still very much in the early days of smart phones, as they continue to evolve from merely portable telephones into what are essentially small but relatively powerful computing devices.  Their processing power, storage limitations and most crucially data transmission bottlenecks (both physical and financial) prevent them from being used currently up to their potential for downloading from Bittorrent, Usenet and direct download sites, but there are some very cool applications like Torrent-fu and NZBdroid that already give them some very interesting functionality.  And in the future we are likely to see even more powerful phones with greater storage and even cheaper bandwidth capabilities that will let users fully take advantage of portable computing.

Have any of you tried out these programs?  Other Android apps for Bittorrent or Usenet?  How do the iPhone or the Pre compare in this regard?  I’d love to hear any other experiences Zeropaid users have had with mobile downloading.

It appears that late last week search engine giant Google briefly removed Swedish BitTorrent tracker site the Pirate Bay from its search results after receiving a “cease and desist” letter of copyright infringement from Evasive Angels, a porn company based in Irving, Texas.

“In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 8 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org,” read a notice on the bottom of the search results page according.

Google later said the removal was an “internal error and not part of a DMCA request,” but it still caused many to speculate why, after the countless complaints that preceded it, it had decided to act on this particular one.

“Google received a (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) take-down request that erroneously listed Thepiratebay.org, and as a result, this URL was accidentally removed from the Google search index,” Google said in a statement. “We are now correcting the removal, and you can expect to see Thepiratebay.org back in Google search results this afternoon.”

Former Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde was quick to ask for answers on his Twitter page.

He wrote:

Ok, someone from Google can please reply: why is “thepiratebay.org” (the frontpage) removed from your index?

@moxiba Well, the frontpage of TPB certainly does not infringe on any copyright, in any way or form. It’s a competitor to Google though.

@mattcutts can you check how it came that Google decided to filter out “thepiratebay.org” frontpage from it’s index?

It’s since been reinstated to the search results, but it’s still funny nonetheless being that the Pirate Bay doesn’t actually host any copyrighted material. You’d think Google would be well aware of the implications since it too links to copyrighted material, oftentimes without the permission of the copyright holder.

It’s the argument the Pirate Bay made with little success at its trial for copyright infringement this past April. Type in “x-men filetype:torrent” on Google for example and you get the same results as you would on the Pirate Bay.

One guy took it a step further the day after their conviction and created ThePirateGoogle, a mash up between Google and the Pirate Bay.

In the meantime, looks as though Evasive Angel’s “Bigg Butt Latin Maids 2,” and “My Black MILF Neighbor” among others will still be accessible by Pirate Bay users.

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com

People who are frustrated at the guilty verdict handed down to ThePiratebay, to which the admins have currently vowed to appeal, have been quick to draw comparisons between ThePirateBay and Google. One user went so far as to create a mash-up website called ThePirateGoogle – a website that has since been blocked.

Even though lawyers have been contemplating the legal implications of the guilty verdict for Google, one observant user noticed a feature in the Google AppEngine that may be a surprise to many. It’s a service known as IPNM which allows users to use BitTorrent trackers to upload to friends – an app that is currently hosted by Google.

It should be noted that the service has been running for about a month now, but it’s confusing that when Google cries foul over people comparing them to ThePirateBay when they, in turn, offer an app that provides a similar service themselves. While it doesn’t appear that the service is searchable yet, what’s to stop someone from creating a private forum and running the BitTorrent service through IPNM? That much isn’t clear. What also isn’t clear is whether or not the service is filtered.

Still, this won’t do much to quell those who say that there is a double standard going on here – more than likely re-invigorate the debate.

For reference, when some people refer to the “Google double standard”, there are those who believe there is a legal double standard when it comes to looking at how Google operates and one of the reasons why ThePirateBay was found guilty. As referenced in the article regarding the legal implications towards Google, ThePirateBay was found guilty based on the fact that it is possible to download copyrighted material through their services. There are those who say that given that it is possible to download copyrighted material through Google in some form or another, then there should not have been a reason that ThePirateBay should have been found guilty – thus, why is Google allowed to operate in Sweden thanks to this ruling? So essentially, the “Google double standard” to some is not a criticism towards Google, but rather a criticism towards this point in the ruling that was handed down against ThePirateBay admins. It’s “double standard” because one site can operate in such a way while another website can’t in a similar fashion. It’s “Google” because the comparisons are primarily referencing Google.

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.

A policy blog posting in Italy says (Google translation) that there is a world of difference between The Pirate Bay and Google. Interestingly enough, they offer two main ways the two sites differ. The first difference is that Google indexes everything. The second is that there is a procedure to report copyright infringing URLs and they promote legitimate content. They then offer this tidbit:

Our commitment is recognized by the holders of rights. And in fact have been many explanations about the differences between Google and Pirate Bay expressed by others in recent days. Just to name a few, remember John Kennedy, chairman of IFPI, which has already clarified this difference in his testimony at trial against the Pirate Bay. And in Italy Enzo Mazza, president of FIMI, has written to point Informatico: “Compare to Google Pirate Bay is instrumental because even a person with little familiarity will note the huge differences. If we use simple terms such as Google is with the yellow pages ‘list of banks. The Pirate Bay is the pole by the bank while the robbery accomplices. Google, as well as YouTube, eBay and others, are zealous and active in removing illegal content on the reporting of the rights holders and therefore act in an environment that promotes the legitimate use of content uploading, and discourages the abuse. “

Users who do say that there are similarities between Google and The Pirate Bay have gone as far as to make a mash-up between the two sites, creating ThePirateGoogle. While the site itself is blocked by Google, it was more meant to prove a point that you can use Google in the same ways you can use The Pirate Bay. Distill the argument down and you can come up with, ‘What can you do on Google that you couldn’t do on The Pirate Bay?’ Good question.

What is most unusual about the arguments from Google is the fact that only one point can actually stand up against scrutiny – the reporting feature. Unlike Google, The Pirate Bay ridiculed a number of legal threats. Google, on the other hand, has taken heat several times over how easy it is to take down, say, a YouTube video (Google acquired YouTube) to the point that EFF has had to, on a number of occasions, criticized the website for not standing up for fair use rights. Unfortunately, aside from cosmetic differences, that’s where the differences end.

Google claims that YouTube goes a step further and has a system known as Content ID which removes any hint of a copyrighted work. As with every other known filtering technology on an open system, the system contains numerous flaws and users can bypass the filters if they use certain sound editing techniques. One YouTube user ran an experiment and found out several ways to foil the filters through relatively simple editing techniques. If Google wants to say that the Content ID is perfect, they have a tough sell ahead of them (though they haven’t claimed such things to date).

Another argument was that Google promoted legitimate content. The argument insinuates that The Pirate Bay never advertised legitimate content. That insinuation, in fact, is a completely false. On a few occasions, The Pirate Bay has actively promoted legitimate content like Steal This Film. Adding to popular legitimate content, Nine Inch Nails officially released part of an album on the website as well.

Another point being made to separate the two websites is that Google indexes everything. This is true, but anyone can upload a torrent on The Pirate Bays trackers. Technically speaking, both sites index torrent files, it’s just that the one site specializes in torrent files while Google has been sued by both French and Italian broadcasters for hosting copyrighted works on their servers – something even The Pirate Bay never did and prosecutors have systematically failed to prove. A side point to make, Google has indexed The Pirate Bay as well as part of their caching system to make searching easier for users. All this on top of the lawsuit against Google by Perfect10 for hosting thumbnails of images.

On an architectural level, The Pirate Bay hosts torrent files which are essentially hash values and tracker information contained in a file. Users can get pretty much any file through searching and downloading from both sites. The files found through The Pirate Bay are more likely to be found on people’s computers while Google tends to find files on servers. This point was driven home in 2007 when a YouTube user created a video tutorial to show how Google users can use Google’s search feature as their own p2p network.

On virtually every front, Google can easily be compared to The Pirate Bay. While Google might not like it, it’s extremely difficult to say that the differences between Google and The Pirate Bay is like night and day because the operations are so similar.

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.

Enter ThePirateGoogle, a website that Cory Doctorow labels as a mash up between Google and the Pirate Bay.

“The intention of this site is to demonstrate the double standard that was exemplified in the recent Pirate Bay Trial.” Writes the website creator. The creator continues, “Sites such as Google offer much the same functionality as The Pirate Bay and other Bit Torrent sites but are not targeted by media conglomerates such as the IFPI as they have the political and legal clout to defend themselves unlike these small independent sites.”

The Pirate Bay operates in a way that allows anyone to upload a torrent to the tracker. From there, through the BitTorrent protocol, they can share their files on their own computer to anyone who can find that content on a search query. By that point of view, it’s pretty easy to get the connection between that and Google – there’s only one extra step involved. Someone creates a torrent and uploads the torrent onto a tracker. Google then automatically caches the resulting page. Afterwards, anyone can type in a certain string of boolean and find that torrent file and start downloading off of the uploaders computer. The extra step, of course, being that Google is caching that file. The level of openness is pretty much identical.

The website seems to be more about proving a point rather than offering an alternative to ThePirateBay. Why can Google cache torrent file pages while ThePirateBay can’t?

Of course, such a site is already the subject of debate. Some copyright restricting supporters say that ThePirateBay only has a purpose for copyright infringement. Others point out that ThePirateBay’s mission is to bolster free speech. One of the themes one can get from the legal threats section is that ThePirateBay doesn’t host any of the files in question and that it is not illegal to provide infrastructure to search for something. Indeed, some of the lesser informed can put in a keyword into Google and conclude the internet is all about buying stuffed toys, news, gaming, or lolcats. In actuality, a given search infrastructure can be whatever it is you are looking for and one search query doesn’t necessarily overpower another on an individual basis.

Additionally, one can look at ThePirateBay and say that the website is all about downloading Linux, or Open Source content.

Still, ThePirateBay trial is far from over. In fact, many argue it’s only beginning after defence lawyers discovered that the judge was heavily involved in advocacy in restricting copyright laws. Of course, the other point to make is the fact that ThePirateBay is still online.

A report from The Wall Street Journal has gotten numerous people talking recently. The article says that network neutrality is losing major supporters. One of the prominent figures that the WSJ says is losing support for network neutrality is Google because, allegedly, they are negotiating with internet service providers for preferential treatment. Other claims include Microsoft and Yahoo withdrawing from a coalition to keep the network neutral, that Lawrence Lessig is also “shifting gears” on the subject and that advisers to President Elect Barack Obama who support network neutrality are now changing their views on the subject. Quite a news story and certainly news to many including some of the figures that were mentioned in the story.

Epicenter points to a Google blog posting which didn’t exactly fill the posting with praise for the Wall Street Journal. Richard Whitt called the news article “confused” and denied making comments about Obama advisers, suggesting that the Obama teams stance really hasn’t changed. Whitt also said that the company is currently setting up caches for ISPs to help speed up web page loading times, improving the network by delivering content closer to the user – not interfering with competing traffic.

BoingBoing points to Lawrence Lessig’s blog posting. Lessig said that the story was a “made-up drama” and that his views on network neutrality isn’t new. His view is that internet service providers have a right to charge different rates for different services.

BoingBoing updated the posting to include a blog posting explaining in depth why the Wall Street Journals article is “bogus”.

What makes this story so scandalous is the fact that the Wall Street Journal has been around for years and, as such, collected so much credibility that pretty much everything printed in the Journal is perceived as fact. These people go from casual readers all the way up to University scholars which have used articles from the Journal to write scholarly articles (which works its way down to essay pieces written by College and University students) No doubt that the accuracy of the Journal is currently being brought into question by some, though it’s also possible that the Journal is written by human beings who will eventually screw up sooner or later.

On Friday, the Football Association Premier League, England’s most prestigious soccer organization, filed suit in New York against the massively popular video-sharing site, accusing it of enabling users to violate copyright law. On the same day, in California, NBC Universal and Viacom filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of journalist Bob Tur, who in a lawsuit filed last summer accused YouTube of infringing on his copyrighted material by posting without his permission video he shot during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

And reports out of Thailand indicate that the government there is considering suing YouTube for displaying a video that it claims is offensive to the nation’s monarch.

But not even an angry king poses as much of a threat to YouTube as repeated accusations that the Web’s largest video site enables the theft of intellectual property, analysts say.

Whether that defense will work is up to the courts. But Google is in a much better position to defend itself against copyright violation changes than peer-to-peer networks were several years ago, when music companies went after the likes of Grokster and the original Napster for similar offenses. For one, Google’s YouTube has always limited the length of video clips that you can upload to its service, making users have to work much harder if they want to share full-length copyrighted material. For another, YouTube has a take-down mechanism in place, and has indicated that it would comply with copyright holders when asked to remove material. Plus it does use tools to try to filter out copyrighted content from being uploaded in the first place–however ineffective Viacom argues them to be–and is working on improving those tools even now.

But more than that, unlike P2Ps, YouTube doesn’t depend on copyrighted material for its success. A recent study by Vidmeter.com said that less than 10 percent of the site’s most popular videos were owned by copyright holders who want them gone, as fellow PC World blogger Cathy Lu pointed out. Even if the study’s numbers are too low, as Viacom and other content owners allege, it seems clear that a significant portion of YouTube’s appeal and success owes nothing to copyrighted content.

In addition, Google Video has content deals in place with some copyright owners and has shared ad revenue with them, a practice that is migrating to YouTube. That makes Google look much more like a partner than a pirate.

V CAST subscribers will be able to watch a limited selection of videos on YouTube, including ones considered the "most popular." V CAST subscriptions require a supported handset and either a $15 per month subscription or the payment of a $3 daily access fee. Currently, Verizon offers short sports, news, weather, and entertainment clips from the major networks over V CAST.

"We are excited to launch our new mobile service and to partner with Verizon Wireless to bring YouTube videos to a new audience," said Steve Chen, cofounder and CTO of YouTube. "This service offers our community and Verizon Wireless subscribers a new opportunity to connect and engage with their favorite videos. We will continue to roll out more exciting partnerships and features for the mobile user over the coming year."

We first reported on the negotiations earlier this month, noting that licensing deals such as this would prove to be an important source of revenues to YouTube.

READ REST OF ARTICLE

This stunning video, which had a person attend a Landmark indoctrination weekend equipped with hidden cameras, was aired to 1.5 million people on national TV. Within weeks Landmark pulled out of France with claims of abuse and unpaid labour.

The EFF is backing Google in this, claiming that Landmark is trying to silence critics. The three sites have removed the 450 MB video but the cat is out of the bag and available through BitTorrent or for online viewing at the Cult Awareness and Information Centre site.

French audio, ENGLISH SUBS.

BitTorrent:
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3537369/2003_Inside_Landmark_Forum.avi

Cult Awareness and Information Centre:
http://www.caic.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1243&Itemid=12