ZeroPaid.com » piracy

RIAA’s VP of Strategic Data Analysis Issues Statement On Megaupload Shutdown

Jon Kaykin — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:46:19 +0000

RIAA's VP of Strategic Data Analysis believes that the shutdown of Megaupload and other P2P file sharing sites is mandatory and will decrease file sharing. Truthfully, it will upset many. Megaupload's shutdown by the Justice Department has caused a lot of controversy regarding piracy and whether file sharing sites like Megaupload should exist. One of the major supporters of the shutdown was the Recording Industry Association of America, naturally because they handle copyrighted music and want to make sure that no "unauthorized content including music, movies, and other copyrighted works" is shared. The shutdown led the RIAA's Vice President, of Strategic Data Analysis, Josh P. Friedlander, to issue a statement on their blog, titled Why Closing Megaupload Matters. Although, the post is aimed towards Megaupload, it mainly points out why they believe closing P2P services is important, alluding to Limewire's shutdown. Supposedly, the shutdown of Limewire, according to the NPD group, decreases the use of P2P file sharing but really, with all the P2P file sharing sites out there, I find it hard to believe there is a decline in use. Friedlander also points out, "Digital music sales that had been flagging jumped in the month immediately after the Limewire shutdown, and have remained stronger ever since (note that while the Beatles did go on iTunes in November of 2010, they only account for a small portion of that sales increase, and current music sales went up even more than catalog). When Billboard looked at the data after the Limewire shutdown it said “The spike in sales was immediate, noticeable and lasting." A chart of the sales spikes in 2011 can be seen below. While this evidence may support the shutdown of P2P file sharing sites, the problem is that it doesn't matter. Shutting down these sites will not, as Friedlander says, "encourage users to go to legitimate sites," rather it will make them upset and angry, as in the case of Pirates of Catalonia, a political party in Catalonia that supports intellectual property reform, open access to culture and knowledge, transparency and Direct Democracy. They have announced a collective civil action in Spain against the FBI because the shutdown has caused many users to lose files containing personal information and this may have violated Articles 197 and 198 of the Spanish Penal Code. It's understandable that many artists (and there record labels) want to be compensated for their hard work but in the case of many Megaupload users who lost their important personal files, action against the unlawful seizure of those files must be taken. Many have spoken out regarding the shutdown of Megaupload and many P2P file sharing sites such as Filesonic, Fileserve, FileJungle, UploadStation, 4shared, VideoBB, VideoZer, UploadBox, and Uploaded.to have shutdown their services to the U.S. As I stated above, regardless of the shutdowns, people will continue to use P2P file sharing sites and they will collectively rise up to keep the sites around. See Also: 10 Alternatives to LimeWire Jon@zeropaid.com | @jkaykin

American Prosecutors Censor ZeroPaid Reporter!

Drew Wilson — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:03:59 +0000

While over one hundred thousand websites and millions of people were taking a stand against a potential American censorship by copyright regime thanks to SOPA and PIPA, ZeroPaid's very own Drew Wilson, for the first time, has officially become a victim of censorship by copyright.

The BBC is reporting that one-click hoster MegaUpload was shut down over piracy accusations. From the report:

Federal prosecutors have accused it of costing copyright holders more than $500m (£320m) in lost revenue. The firm says it was diligent in responding to complaints about pirated material. Investigators denied a link to recent protests against proposed piracy laws, according to the Wall Street Journal. The US Justice Department said that Megaupload's two co-founders Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and Mathias Ortmann were arrested in Auckland, New Zealand along with two other employees of the business at the request of US officials. It added that three other defendants were still at large. "This action is among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States and directly targets the misuse of a public content storage and distribution site to commit and facilitate intellectual property crime," said a statement posted on its website.

Back in 2010, when authorities and the content industries were trying to cut off payment processes to MegaUpload, MegaUpload spoke to ZeroPaid, saying in response to being called a rogue website, “Megaupload is a legitimate business operating within the boundaries of the law. In five years of operation we have not been sued by a single content owner. If the RIAA or MPAA would have legal grounds they would have taken us to court by now. We suggest that they attack us within the legal system and stop labeling us until they have something to show.” That apparently doesn't seem to matter much at this point with the owners of the site being arrested and the website forced offline. The question is, where does that leave MegaUpload's users? I, for one, have used MegaUpload to spread my music around. Under my DJ name, DJ Frozen IceCube, I've used the site on numerous occasions to allow access to my own personal music I've made. Examples of this include my tracks Kinda Distracted, Phantoms of London and Constructing Light. All of these tracks and more were posted to MegaUpload - a site now shut down by American prosecutors. For years, I have been following cases of censorship by copyright. I've advocated that copyright abuses are a major problem that shouldn't be ignored. Now, as of today, I am officially a victim of censorship by copyright. While I can easily find other one-click hosters to host my music, that does not fix the underlying issue I now have with American authorities. American authorities, plain and simple, are censoring artists who have legally produced and uploaded their music for free for others to listen to. This action is blatantly anti-competitive in that if I independently upload my music, I am under the threat of having my music censored under the guise of copyright infringement. Make no mistake, I am far from the first victim and I certainly will not be the last. The content industry will not stop censoring legitimate free speech until the competition is strangled and destroyed and only they have the exclusive power to decide who can reach an audience and who can not. To add insult to injury, they will use government resources, and therefore, taxpayers money, to push their anti-competitive agenda. I am Drew Wilson, I am a reporter and music producer, and I am now officially a victim of America's censorship by copyright tactics. 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.

Opinion – What SOPA Means for a Non-US Citizen

Drew Wilson — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:26:39 +0000

SOPA heads for a vote tomorrow. There's no question what kind of damage it could do to internet companies, users of the internet, jobs and the economy within the United States. Drew Wilson offers a perspective on what SOPA means as a citizen of a country outside the United States.

BoingBoing is noting that today is the last day for US citizens to have their voices heard before the legislation is brought to a vote. SOPA - (Stop Online Piracy Act) is basically enacting a sort of "Great Firewall of America". This is named after China's famous internet censorship known as the Great Firewall of China. SOPA The term, "Great Firewall of America" is especially appropriate given what the legislation is really about - censoring the internet. If someone wants to take down their competition, all they have to do is secretively go to a government body and complain that the website is infringing on copyright. That can set the wheels in motion to have the website simply vanish off the internet - all over a single, unproven claim of infringement. Proponents say that this is merely to stop rampant piracy, but for the end-user, it means little more than an inconvenience. We were one of the first websites to discuss ways for users to bi-pass, circumvent and defeat such censorship (some more effective than others). Unfortunately, defeating American censorship is pretty much an end-user game. For websites, trying to avoid being censored is a completely different story short of moving servers and domain names offshore to a free speech friendly country. Knowing this, I am proud that ZeroPaid participated in the American day of censorship and I thank Chris, Jorge and Jared for having this website a participant on such an important issue. We took a stand and said government mandated censorship on the internet without critical oversight is wrong. A lot of the concern, in spite of all of the ways Americans can avoid censorship, still revolves around the negative effects of the US end-user. What is discusses less, however, is the negative effects SOPA would have on non-US citizens and why it's bad for the US. Not to sound egotistical, but I am personally an excellent example of this. What SOPA Would Mean for Me I am a non-US citizen residing outside of the US. I am a journalist who reports on copyright, privacy, technology and all things related to the best of my ability. ZeroPaid, here, is a US-based website. Since I contribute a lot of my time and effort to a US-based website, that means the inherent value of the website goes up (given that an additional staff member working to make the website better means the value of the website goes up). More content on the main page means more traffic to the website. More traffic to the website more or less means more advertisement revenue. A number of these advertisements advertise for US companies. This means that not only is there additional revenue for ZeroPaid, but also for a number of these other websites as well. All of these companies would then be contributing to the US economy. Really simple web economics, really. Now, SOPA comes in to the picture. Knowing that nothing more than a simple accusation can theoretically remove a website from the internet, I personally get concerned; especially knowing that I've had my fair share of questioning the motives and actions of the entertainment industry. I do what any rational person, who has contributed to the US economy from the outside, does: ask what sort of assurance the web administrator has that the website I work for isn't a case of "here today, gone tomorrow". If SOPA is passed, the honest answer that a web administrator residing in the US ultimately is, there is nothing the administrator can offer that can guarantee the security of the websites existence. Even if the website was moved completely offshore, the administrator is still in the US jurisdiction. What US authorities and lobbyists can do is anyone's guess for the foreseeable future theoretically speaking. The SOPA Effect on Others I wouldn't be alone in this. I'm sure there are thousands, if not, more, people in the same boat as me. They work for a US website and now their website can theoretically be targeted maliciously and censored. They would then be unable to contribute to the US economy just like me. The websites existence is just one bad review, one troll or one user posted link away from being terminated. People such as myself would have two choices should SOPA pass, either choose to stick it out and hope that, by luck or chance, won't be the next website targeted by US censors, or look for a website that has as few connections to the US as possible. Some people do require that sense of stability and may choose to leave based on lack of technical assurance that the website won't be censored or removed. So, even before a single website is removed, SOPA is harming the US economy. Once the entertainment lobby, several over corporate entities and who knows what else starts ordering the takedown of numerous websites, the threat will become real for many non-US citizens. Non-US citizens will be able to fully appreciate the type of threat the legislation has whether they want to believe it or not. Some might choose to stay on the website they work for or freak out and leave for a non-US website. In other words, whether the website is censored or not, the damage on the US continues. Follow the Legislation "Leader" We've seen it with the Three Strikes law and we've seen if through the DMCA (re: TPP). Once one country enacts a draconian copyright law, entertainment lobbyists use it as a license to pressure other countries to enact similar legislation. If SOPA is passed, then other countries would face pressure from these major corporations. Some would likely bow to pressure immediately while other countries would resist and hold out for a while. This is the next immediate threat to non-US citizens. While there is the direct impact of having job losses due to a tough censorship regime, the second is the threat of the local government enacting similar (or worse) laws. The Effect on Piracy Websites are being censored on the whim of a single complaint. Proponents say that this legislation is needed to stop rampant piracy and that those who question the legislation based on censorship concerns are ignoring the serious implications of piracy. I'd like to explain how the issue of piracy in the face of this legislation will work in the real world. Websites outside the US would start getting blocked. OK, what to hardcore pirates do when this happens? They circumvent it. We already covered 8 ways pirates could theoretically accomplish this. These methods existed before SOPA was the talk of the town. There will be an arms race to beat the censors should this legislation pass with increasingly more sophisticated way to defeat censorship. Failing this, there would likely be ways of sharing IP addresses for servers. We know how successful private BitTorrent websites are and it's very likely that success in a similar method of file-sharing is entirely possible. If ISPs started enacting protocol blocking, traffic encryption would be presented as a way to bipass such restrictions at the ISP level. With some back and forth, it'll likely get to the point where, at best, the ISP will see a lot of traffic from certain users, but they wouldn't know exactly what it is for because it's heavily scrambled. In short, the effect SOPA would have on piracy is zero - zero, zilch, nothing. Let me reiterate my point concisely: through SOPA, for the price of lost jobs, increase is restraint on free speech, an economy that would be more vulnerable than before, a destroyed reputation of being the world leader in human rights like never before, and the destruction of innovation used to make the US compete better in the global economy, the net gain is absolutely nothing. As a content creator and producer of music, I say SOPA is very bad news for everyone. I am against it because in this day and age, the loss of freedom, the economy and jobs in general is something I wouldn't wish on anyone. We need to look forward, not drive the traditionally strongest economy into the stone age just to keep a handful of maladaptive corporations happy. Website people can use to join the cause of stopping American censorship [Americancensorship.org] 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.

ZeroPaid Speaks to Executive Director of Tor Project About PROTECT-IP Act

Drew Wilson — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:39:40 +0000

We've discussed the PROTECT-IP Act at length here at ZeroPaid. While we have plenty of ways of examining the PROTECT-IP Act, we've decided to talk to Andrew Lewman, the Executive Director of Tor Project, about Tor, and the PROTECT-IP Act.

There's been plenty of discussion about the PROTECT-IP Act. One way we've examined it is the technical side of it. The main question we asked a little while ago is essentially, is it technologically possible to actually stop alleged piracy on the internet through the PROTECT-IP Act. Our findings were really an overwhelming "no" after we explored 8 technical methods that, in theory, could easily circumvent DNS censorship. We even picked apart and debunked a piece by Don Henley who supports the PROTECT-IP Act late last month. One of the technical measures we suggested would be likely effective against DNS censorship was using Tor which is sometimes referred to as the onion router. It can be described as a network of proxies one can use to better protect their online privacy among other things. Since then, we asked Andrew Lewman, Executive Director and press contact of the Tor Project for his take on a few things. We mentioned to Lewman that there was some debate over which solution was best to bi-pass internet censorship. Is one solution better over another? This was the subject of some debate in our comments section and websites linked to our article. Lewman had an interesting take on that. "The first issue with the story is that there is no best solution for everyone. Censorship circumvention is very localized. Generally, using the least sophisticated method to circumvent is all you need to do." Lewman also explained, "The arms races with the censors proceeds slowly, in some cases by design, so as to not accelerate it for little gain on either side. The general population cannot keep up with the technical arms race, at least from our experience. It takes time for people to understand the risks and act accordingly." I think that is a very important point to make. It's one thing to say one person will start using tools to better protect their privacy, but it's quite another for the general population in a given country to start using such tools. In our e-mail conversation, I said to Lewman, "one person [in the debate over whether or not one technical measure is better than another] said that officials would start creating honey-pot nodes in the Tor network. To me, that doesn't make any sense because Tor uses multiple proxies, so it would make such an effort be almost a waste of time." "Law enforcement organizations already create 'honey pot' servers on many networks, including Tor. These servers fully log all accesses at a service, network, and ISP level. If the core, underlying protocol is correctly implemented, then the users have little to fear. Law enforcement agencies around the world are known to run Tor, I2P, Freenet, and generic socks/http proxies servers as part of a dragnet to catch criminals. While this statement may get you lots of page views, anyone that has thought about this for 30 seconds will realize this is of course the reality. Whether protecting someone's audio/video bits is equivalent to murder, rape, extortion, bribery, and slavery is for individual societies to determine." It is interesting that Lewman brought this up given one of our more recent reports noted that, in France, someone could get the same legal punishment for manslaughter as they would for online copyright infringement. We asked Lewman, "looking at what lawmakers are proposing in the PROTECT-IP Act, do you think that the proposed law is a threat to the internet? If DNS censorship is one way the government wants to remove remove copyright infringement, do you see that as being effective or do you see potential pirates simply routing their way around it?" "PROTECT-IP will break the American Internet." Lewman told ZeroPaid. He said, "It will simply move innovation elsewhere and drive the arms race towards an alternate domain name system not controlled by the US government. It may temporarily quell some sorts of piracy, but that victory will be short lived. In the beginning, there were many DNS root servers, not one single set. AlterNIC and many universities ran their own DNS root servers for their own purposes. Having spoken to various agents, they privately wonder why protecting someone's commercial bits is now equivalent to stopping child pornography, human trafficking, and other heinous crimes." ZeroPaid also asked, "if governments like the US government decide on trying to censor the internet, do you see it being possible that users will start using things like Tor more so than before because of a perceived threat to something like free speech?" It's already happening. See [Tor Metrics Portal - User Statistics] Lewman explained, "Our top ten countries by users is filled with "free democracies" that have started to either censor the Internet or implement Internet traffic data retention in some way." We would like to thank Andrew Lewman for taking the time out of his busy schedule to speak to us. To learn more about Tor Project or download and try out Tor project or otherwise support Tor in general, you can check out their homepage at TorProject.org. 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.

French Report – Legal Punishment for Filesharing as Severe as Manslaughter

Drew Wilson — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:14:08 +0000

One of the criticisms of copyright laws has, for some time, been that the punishment is far too severe for the crime being committed. This debate is nothing new and it seems to be heating up in Europe right now. One French news site decided to compare the penalties of file-sharing to the penalties of other offenses. The results? They are a little scary.

The report comes from Numerama which was inspired by a recent conviction in Sweden. They asked, if someone could be put in jail for 3 years for file-sharing, what other crimes could someone commit and get either an equal sentence or less? They said (Google translated, original) said that the answers pretty much speak for themselves and I, for one, completely agree. Two things to keep in mind: this is all about French law and the laws are sourced nicely (job well done to Numerama in that department for sure). Here are some of the offenses that could earn you a jail sentence similar to that if you were convicted of copyright infringement on a file-sharing network:

Manslaughter
Repeatedly sending death threats on a transfixed medium
Conducting biomedical procedures on someone without the consent of the patient
Theft
Breach of trust
Some forms of obstruction of justice

Here are some of the offenses that could land you in jail for less time:

Sexual exhibition in a public place
Harassment in order to obtain sexual favors
The desecration of a corpse in a cemetery/attacking a corpse
Third party identity theft (note: this wasn't entirely clear in the translation, but we are presuming that the translation meant "third party" since it simply says "by a third")
The abandonment of a child/infant
Making sexual advances to a minor whether electronically or otherwise (if the minor is 15 years old or younger)
Destruction of other people's property
Serious offenses related to animal abuse

I'm looking through this and I really wonder what is wrong with a legal system that says that if you are caught sharing copyrighted works, you could get a sentence as long as someone who killed someone. I personally can't see how it should be possible in the first place. Still, this has always been an extremely effective way of showing just how extreme the penalties have become for something so trivial as someone having a copyrighted work in their shared directory. I'm a music producer myself and I have always been all for the sharing of my works online for free. I think that even if I were hardcore all for copyright, I would have a hard time, at the very least, trying to explain to the public why someone who made sexual advances to a minor should serve less time than someone who is uploading an album on the Gnutella network. The thing is that with a lot of these offenses in the list are offenses where people are being directly harmed. For me, I don't think anyone could make a convincing case that file-sharing is a crime that is as bad as killing someone. Such comparisons have been made before. One great example in the US was looking at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill - the largest oil spill in US history. According to one report, BP was facing a $21 Billion fine. Looking at the damages for infringement one can find out that the BP fine presented in that particular report can be the equivalent to downloading 140,000 songs or 70,000 songs in the case of willful infringement. In any event, I think for French people, this really does put into perspective how high the penalties are for infringement. The day we start placing intellectual property on a higher level of value than life itself is the day I think society needs to seriously re-look at our values. 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 Response to Don Henley on the PROTECT IP Act

Drew Wilson — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:45:43 +0000

It almost sounds silly that someone could possibly salvage the PROTECT IP Act at this point in time. Still, that doesn't stop some people from trying to pass off the PROTECT IP act as something that would actually do anything at all to stop piracy. We'd like to respond to this opinion with some counter-arguments of our own.

There's still debate around whether or not the PROTECT IP Act should be passed. While some have taken the viewpoint that it's simply a violation of free speech, among other things, we've taken the arguments against the Act one step further and provided 8 ways to circumvent such a law in the US. To date, no one has stepped forward and provided an explanation why all 8 methods would not work against the Act. In my opinion, showing that the Act would never even accomplish any of the goals it sets out to accomplish is really the ultimate trump card for proponents of the act (as a bonus, it's technically a neutral point of view). Don Henley recently wrote an opinion piece trying to support the Act. We'll say this right off the bat, Henley failed completely to show how the Act would stop piracy, only that the Act somehow magically provides the tools necessary to stop piracy. This pretty much amounts to wishful thinking at this stage, but it was amusing (and sad) to read about him trying to sell the Act as a great idea. Here's his opening remarks in his opinion piece.

If there is any question about the need for the United States to crack down on foreign websites engaged in criminal commerce, one need only enter keywords such as "MP3," "DVDScreener," or "Oxycontin" into popular search engines and scroll through the countless pages of site listings and sponsored ads.

You know you've lived to see it all when you see someone like me, someone who isn't even a US citizen, finding himself explaining how copyright law works to a US copyright maximalist. If one is seeing such things in the "popular search engines", it means those who are responsible for enforcing the DMCA haven't been doing their job. I'm sure Google would rightly point out that if there is an infringing link on their search results, all the rights holders have to do is file a DMCA complaint against the search engine and the links quickly get removed. Rights holders have been using the DMCA in the past and it's possible to see messages that point out that some results have been taken down under the DMCA via Google. Maybe rights holders actually don't care that infringing links can be found on Google and that's why they are there in the first place. If some people's experiences on YouTube are anything to go by, you don't even have to prove you are the rights holder in the first place to take something down on a Google owned website. The US has a DMCA law, use it and don't complain if you think links are being missed. In another point, Henley makes the following comment:

Theft of American products and ideas is no longer the hobby of teenagers with laptops; it's big business, as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative warns in a recent report on the world's most notorious illicit markets. And they're not just stealing movies and music; they are stealing America's jobs and future.

The problem here is that the US entertainment industry was established thanks to piracy. Just ask Lawrence Lessig. I think Henley would be ignoring history if he thinks that piracy started as a "hobby of teenagers with laptops". Moreover, downloading of music and other such content has been going on way before laptops were considered a replacement to the desktop computer. Personally, I think if piracy destroyed American jobs, they would have been destroyed by now. Instead, we live in a world where recycled movies are still being made, bad music is still being played on mainstream radio and games still being created so that you have to buy more expensive computers to see every lousy shard of 3D animation or face having the game crash your computer. Now, before Henley thinks of saying something like, "well, look at the movie industry and all the jobs being lost!", I encourage him to look at the problem of Hollywood's outsourcing habit first. Henley also goes so far as to try and push what are probably made up numbers to begin with:

Criminal foreign websites trafficking in American arts and entertainment products cost the U.S. economy $58 billion annually, including more than 373,000 lost American jobs, $16 billion in lost earnings, plus $2.6 billion in lost federal, state and local government tax revenue, according to the Institute for Policy Innovation.

Henley might have one cherry picked study that tries saying this, but we'll counter this with not one, not two, but three studies that would beg to differ. Those three are only scratching the surface of a large body of research in this area that says that file-sharing and p2p activity either have a net positive effect on the industry or have no effect on the creative industry at all. Sorry Henley, try again. Don't worry, he does:

Stealing American entertainment products and counterfeiting our goods are federal crimes. Search engines are the No. 1 way people find rogue websites. Yet as Congress debates legislation that would enable U.S. law enforcement to protect American businesses and consumers from foreign criminal enterprises on the Web, search engines such as Google are heavily lobbying lawmakers to allow the companies to continue to list illegal websites in search results. This loophole would render the bill virtually useless.

It seems convenient to use vague terminology here. It needs to be pointed out that non-commercial copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. I challenge Henley to cite the laws that say downloading an MP3 online for free is a criminal offense (and not a civil matter) and cite court cases that agree with this. Sorry Henley, using vague terminology in an effort to confuse matters doesn't work with me. In addition, Henley suggests that search engines are lobbying congress to be able to list "illegal" websites in their search results. Since Henley completely failed to do so, I think he should cite when this type of lobbying occurred. At what point is Google saying, "We wish to display illegal websites in our results"? I don't recall hearing search engine spokespeople say something to that effect, maybe Henley would like to elaborate on that. On the contrary, though, we are more than aware of Google co-operating with rights holders. Besides the DMCA complaints, I do distinctly recall Google agreeing to filter web results for pirated material back in January. Was this somehow forgotten in Henley's comments? Maybe. So we hope the link jogs his memory. Henley goes on to try attacking a few opponents to the bill:

Critics of this pending legislation need to be honest about the company they keep and why they essentially aid and abet these criminal endeavors. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a civil liberties group, claims such a bill would "break the Internet," while Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt says it sets "a disastrous precedent" for freedom of speech. No one has the freedom to commit or abet crimes on the Internet. Stopping crime on the Internet is not, as EFF says, "censorship." There is no First Amendment right to infringe intellectual property rights.

To Henley's credit, he actually did offer citations in this particular instance. Still, just looking at this paragraph, one can easily identify this as a straw man attack. Henley acknowledged that the EFF said that this could break the internet and that this could be a slippery slope of introducing censorship. Then, he suddenly says that there's no First Amendment right to infringe intellectual property rights. Sure, Henley could say that there is no First Amendment right to infringe, but that is not what the EFF is saying. Henley is exaggerating and distorting what the EFF is saying in the first place. If you are wondering what did the EFF actually said, then let's take a look at the very link Henley is referring to:

Free speech is vitally important to democracy, which is why the government is restricted from suppressing speech except in very specific, narrowly-tailored situations. But this bill is the polar opposite of narrow — not only in the broad way that it tries to define a site "dedicated to infringing activities," but also in the solution that it tries to impose — a block on a whole domain, and not just the infringing part of the site.

In other words, what is to fear here is the fact that an entire website would be blocked. What if only one page contains infringing material and the rest is perfectly legal? What would happen if that website is censored too? Then legal free speech is technically being infringed. This is not about trying to bundle infringing material into the First Amendment, but protecting free speech. I think, in this case, Henley needs to attack the argument, not the straw man. Henley continues with the following:

Search engines, including Google, already make filtering tools that block references and links to websites featuring pornographic and other content considered unsuitable or offensive. The technology is there, but the will of some companies is not. It seems that their real agenda is to avoid the loss of advertising, "pay per click" and other revenue if these sites were shut down. After all, Google is reportedly bracing for a $500 million fine for doing just that — accepting untold advertising dollars from illegal online pharmacies.

To address the first part, Henley is referring to Google's Family Safety tools. While, on the surface, Henley sounds like he's making a reasonable argument, 5 seconds of research completely obliterates the credibility of this point. If you look on that page and click on the FAQ, you'll see the following:

How does Google protect kids from sexual content and other content that’s inappropriate for them? Google’s SafeSearch screens for sites that contain inappropriate content and eliminates them from search results. While no filter is 100% accurate, Google’s filter uses advanced technology to check keywords, phrases, and URLs. Users can modify and lock their search settings by selecting the Settings on the top right corner of the Google homepage and choosing Search Settings. Scroll down to SafeSearch Filtering and click “Lock SafeSearch”.

In other words, it filters for keywords among other things. I think that if you ask someone who knows a lot about filtering technology, they'll probably acknowledge that a keyword filter is pretty much useless in stopping piracy. Keyword filtering also bares little resemblance to what is being proposed here in the PROTECT IP Act - DNS filtering. ISP level DNS filtering and user level keyword filtering are two completely different pieces of filtering technology. I don't think Google can compel ISPs to block a whole lot of websites. besides, I would imagine that if Google were to be put in a position where they think certain websites should be removed from the internet, then they'd probably refer the matter to police. To address the second part of this paragraph of Henley's, I think it's a little absurd to insinuate that Google makes it's money solely on pirated material. I would imagine that people use Google for way more than just piracy related activities (i.e. solving a computer problem, shopping, video game help, and looking for medical related information when they should be consulting doctors). Suggesting that Google runs on pirated material through their ads is simply presumptuous at best and a flat out lie at worst. To name one example, last I checked, ThePirateBay doesn't use Google Adsense. Party Poker? Sure. Google Adsense? Not to my knowledge these days. Henley then goes on to say the following:

Proposed solutions aren't radical; they are common-sense extensions of current legal powers. As with other federal crimes, authorities have the ability to seize ill-gotten gains along with the tools used to commit the crimes. But most criminals register their domain names overseas, forcing U.S. law enforcement officials to play a frustrating online cat-and-mouse game. In order to take down these illegal sites, they need cooperation from U.S. Internet service providers and search engines. American firms can and should block these criminal sites, and U.S. ad networks and credit card companies should cut off money going to them. The "Protect IP Act" would give law enforcement the tools to accomplish this goal.

Like I said in the beginning, the proposed solutions are easily by-passed. So if common sense was put in to the process, the PROTECT-IP act would have been scrapped by now. In addition, what's to stop the so-called "cat and mouse" game in the PROTECT-IP Act? With the PROTECT-IP Act, a domain is censored, and a new domain starts up. Does the name MAFIAAFire mean anything to you? What will really happen is that before, domains are seized by the FBI, knocking websites offline causing the operators to use alternate domain names (hence the cat and mouse suggestion). After the PROTECT-IP, domains will be censored, causing website operators to re-locate to new domains (hence the cat and mouse domain). Henley then closes with the following:

Online thieves are stealing American creativity, ingenuity and innovation. They are killing American jobs. Members of Congress should not be taken in by special interest agendas disguised as First Amendment claims, or they themselves will be as culpable of abetting theft as the rogue sites and companies that support them.

So really, he's using everything that can be so easily debunked and concluding that if politicians don't legislate his way, they are aiding and abetting criminals. I think before Henley writes anything more on this topic, he should go out and see how things work in the real world. If he had points grounded in reality, he might be able to have something convincing. For now, I'll just say this about Henley's article: Completely debunked. 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.

Porn Industry Sues the Blind

Drew Wilson — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:37:40 +0000

He's one of thousands in the lawsuit campaign against file-sharers, but he seems to be an unlikely candidate. He's legally blind and too busy with his personal life to secure his WiFi connection. Unfortunately for him, he's also unable to afford to fight the case and might be forced to settle anyway.

For years, we here at ZeroPaid have been saying over and over again that an IP address doesn't necessarily connect to a guilty party of any alleged wrong-doing online. This is for a number of reasons which does include the possibility of WiFi hacking. It's very likely that was the case in this instance. According to Seattle Weekly, a blind man is amongst the thousands targeted in a mass BitTorrent lawsuit because he allegedly downloaded a porn movie. If you think this is odd that a blind person would be downloading porn movies, the accused would definitely agree. From the article:

He stood accused of having illegally downloaded a copyrighted film five months earlier, at precisely 6:03 a.m. on the morning of January 27. The name of the Imperial Enterprises movie he purportedly purloined wasn't mentioned until four pages later. Though printed in tiny italic font in a court filing, it practically leapt off the page: Tokyo Cougar Creampies. Yet when Mrs. Doe set eyes on that ignominious title, she couldn't help but crack a smile at the absurdity of the situation. Her husband is legally blind, with vision roughly 1/100th of that of a person with normal sight. He is physically incapable of watching any film, this particular porno included. "To be honest, it's a little ridiculous," Doe 2,057 says with a rueful chuckle. "My movie-watching ability is nonexistent. My kids watch movies, but they are 4 and 6, so they don't watch porn either. Well, hopefully they don't."

This is just, yet, another case of how a mass lawsuit campaign can go wrong. For those that have followed these stories for years, this case might remind them of how the RIAA sued dead people for copyright infringement. There might also be the reminder of the case where the RIAA sued a family that didn't even own a computer. As long as rights-holders erroneously believe that an IP address always links to the person downloading copyright infringing material, false accusations will always be a running theme of any lawsuit campaign or three strikes law. Rights holders might as well open up a phone book, point to random people and say, "sue" because that tactic is just as accurate. Sadly, with the case of the blind person today, he very likely won't have a choice but to settle due to financial constraints. Going before a judge would cost thousands - and if he lost, hundreds of thousands. How could this have happened? The suspicion amongst the accused is WiFi hacking. They apparently live in a densely populated area. Being unable to find time to secure their connection, their network was open to hacking. I think that as long as these lawsuit campaigns continue, we'll keep getting stories like this. There are rights holders out there that constantly want to sue file-sharers into non-existence, but they often have a habit of not caring who the intended target is in the end. Sometimes, the target is completely innocent of any wrong doing. When the target is innocent, it really sends the message that rights holders are simply suing completely random people. [Via /.] 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.

NZ Government Faces Disconnection As a Result of Three Strikes Law

Drew Wilson — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:12:38 +0000

With New Zealand three strikes law in place, some might wonder who could be one of the first victims might be. It turns out that it could be none other than the New Zealand government itself. Facing liabilities of copyright infringement, the Green Party of New Zealand says that this could ultimately force the New Zealand government to disconnect itself from the internet.

Many would argue that the New Zealand government simply didn't think their three strikes law through before passage. This latest development might not quell those thoughts. According to the Green Party of New Zealand, the New Zealand government could face fines for copyright infringement if they do not disconnect themselves from the internet. "There doesn't seem to be a plan for Parliament to deal with the new copyright law," Green Party ICT spokesperson Gareth Hughes said. "This law could bring the gears of government to a grinding halt because the holder of the account — Parliamentary Services — provides internet access to hundreds of users anyone of whom could cause infringement notices to be sent." Indeed, shortly after we reported on the passage of the law (which comes in to effect September 1st), we also reported on the fact that it could end all public WiFi in the country. It would appear that the countries own government wouldn't be immune to this. "Like Parliament, schools, libraries and universities run the risk of fines or disconnection. Unitec in Auckland has even said they might cease providing internet services for students due to possible copyright liability," said Mr Hughes. "The Government has a responsibility to ensure that public institutions can navigate around the new law and not run the risk of fines or disconnection. "By not providing information or advice and relying on InternetNZ, Internet Service Providers, and the media, Mr Power has left schools and universities in a legal grey area." Shortly after the three strikes law in New Zealand was passed, diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks showed that the three strikes law was Pushed, Bought and Paid for by the US. This raised serious concerns with the Green Party of New Zealand who asked why Hollywood was writing New Zealand's laws to begin with. I think this is a sign that the New Zealand government simply concerned themselves with the interests of major foreign corporations and disregarded any domestic interests in all of this. That is why a dead on arrival policy like a three strikes law was enacted in the first place. Forget concerns about national security, small business, the local economy, human rights and potential for abuse of the system, foreign corporations wanted this law and that apparently trumps all reason and all other interests in the debate. [Via BoingBoing] 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.

8 Technical Methods That Make the PROTECT IP Act Useless

Drew Wilson — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 11:04:49 +0000

We've been running a series of guides that show just how easy it is to bi-pass general DNS censorship. It's general DNS censorship that has been proposed in the PROTECT-IP Act among other things. Rather than simply debate philosophically on why the PROTECT-IP act will do absolutely nothing to deter copyright infringement, we decided to do one better and prove it instead.

Hiding your IP address, using a proxy, using the onion router and obtaining an IP address to a website so you won't have to rely on a public DNS server - these seem like a very intimidating tasks for the unprepared. To be honest, when I first chose to try and figure these out, it seemed intimidating even to me - especially given that I don't really even make use of proxy servers (or do any of the above for that matter). So really, I felt that I could relate to a number of moderately informed users on these topics. Certainly, being able to remain anonymous online is something that can benefit many people - especially those who are marginalized by their own government in various ways - but I personally never felt that motivated to use any tools as it seemed to be an unnecessary layer of security when I simply browse news articles and listen to Creative Commons music among other things. So, a vast majority of the guides I've written over the last few weeks have been quite a learning experience to me. The PROTECT-IP act has given me motivation to figure out how all of these methods work mainly due to the arbitrary nature of it all. If Hollywood doesn't like that fan edit of a short clip, they can make that whole website disappear. If the RIAA thinks that a site like SoundClick doesn't need to be seen by anyone else, they can erase easy access to that site almost with the snap of their fingers. So, how does the PROTECT-IP act work? Just look at the following from Wikipedia's entry:

The Protect IP Act says that an "information location tool shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, to remove or disable access to the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order". In addition, it must delete all hyperlinks to the offending "Internet site".
At a technical level domain name servers would be ordered to blacklist the suspected websites. Although the websites would remain reachable by IP address, links directing to them would be broken.[9] Also search engines—such as the already protesting Google—would be ordered to remove links in their index of the web of an allegedly infringing website. Furthermore, copyright holders themselves would be able to apply for court injunctions to have sites' domains blacklisted.

To me, the scarier part is the fact that DNS servers would be affected by this. Forget search engines censoring websites based on copyright complaints, that has been happening for years through the DMCA. What I was more concerned about was the DNS servers because it would affect every internet user that uses that given server. So really, the taller order was figuring out how to make DNS censorship useless. What struck me when writing these guides was just how easy some of these methods really were. In some instances, the only way to make defeating such censorship easier is to have a really big red button on the side of your computer that you can press to make DNS censorship go away. As such, I am convinced, at this point, that the PROTECT-IP Act will do absolutely nothing to curb copyright infringement. Sure, it'll hamper free speech, sure it's probably unconstitutional, sure it is politically unsound, sure it'll probably hurt small and medium business, sure it's probably anti-competitive, sure it'll probably cause some security headaches, but stopping copyright infringement? Not by a long shot. Not with such methods I found that would be useful in circumventing such censorship anyway. So, without further ado, the list including pros and cons of each (each method links to a corresponding guide we wrote):

1. Using a VPN Service

Quick Explanation: A security tunnel that protects your data as it travels from your computer to the VPN server before letting it out on to the internet. As long as that VPN service is outside the United States, it'll be very difficult to stop users using such services to circumvent DNS censorship. Pros: Very good security benefits. For the most part, it's reliable. Plenty of technical support to go around depending on which VPN service you choose. Access pretty much everything on the internet. Very good for privacy. Cons: Costs money. May include bandwidth caps. Reliability of service isn't consistent for every VPN service (though frontrunners are generally easier to spot in terms of reliability). Reportedly, you may need to install software you aren't completely familiar with (depends on which service is being used).

2. Using Your HOSTs File

Quick Explanation: For most users, there is actually a hosts file on their computer that can be used to connect domain name to server IP address without the use of a public DNS server. If a website is censored through a DNS server, one can simply use the HOSTs file so that a public DNS server isn't even used in the first place. You just type in the domain name in your URL and the website would still appear. Pros: Completely removes the need to use a public DNS server when accessing specific websites. Prevents links from breaking due to DNS censorship. Enables you to have greater power over how you view webpages. No installation or downloading of software. Cons: Requires maintenance. Not always easy to find in your system (solved by our guide). May raise security issues on a LAN with multiple users (difficult to see how in a number of cases since one can use the HOSTs file to increase security for others). Side benefit of having an effective way of blocking ads on the web (hint: Use 127.0.0.1 for domains that deliver ads). You also need to find accurate IP addresses in the first place (solved by two other guides we have in this list.

3. Using TOR

Quick Explanation: TOR is more or less a network of proxies. One person accesses a proxy and that proxy forwards that access to another proxy, trying to erase the users tracks. That proxy sends that stream to another proxy and the stream keeps going through these steps until it finally reaches what is known as an "exit-node". That exit node then accesses the internet on the users behalf and acts as an intermediary in the process. As long as that exit node exists outside of the US, there is a very good chance that it won't be affected by DNS censorship imposed by the ISPs onto their DNS servers. Pros: Added bonus of a very secure source of anonymity (not 100% chance of anonymity of course, but close enough). An interesting way of seeing the internet through the eyes of someone not in your country. Cons: You might not be able to get everything your want from the internet through this network (there may be way of making things not break through this, but it isn't without the risk of compromised security). Requires downloading content to run (though installation is minimal)

4. Using a Web DNS Tool

Quick Explanation Just by using publicly available DNS look-up tools, one can easily obtain server IP addresses for later use. If a domain is censored, one can simply replace the domain name part of the URL with the IP address and still access the website. Pros: Potentially obtain multiple IP addresses for later use. Free. Obtain the addresses once and you don't have to worry about losing access to the site for as long as the server IP address remains the same. Cons: Preferably, the IP addresses must be obtained before the site is actually censored (there may be a brief window between when the domain is censored and when DNS records are updated, but there's no telling how long that window is for sure). If the website obtains a new server and changes all of its IP addresses and you don't have the new addresses, then you could lose the ability to use the website. There's no guarantee this will always be an option should ISPs start blocking IP addresses as well.

5. Changing Your DNS Server

Quick Explanation: Since we are talking about censoring DNS servers in the US, one can always just use a DNS server over seas (like ones used by ISPs overseas). By changing a your DNS server, you are no longer relying on a server that could be censored by the US government and/or corporate interests. Pros: No installation or downloading of additional software (everything you need should be on your computer already). Just a few menu clicks away. Can always be changed again at a later time without too much hassle. Cons: Can be a security risk to your computer if not done properly. Difficult to obtain DNS server IP addresses that will guaranteed be available for the foreseeable future. No guarantee that ISPs won't start blocking this type of activity.

6. Using Command Prompt

Quick Explanation: In Windows at least, one can simply open up command prompt (explained in tutorial) and simply type in "ping [insert domain name here]" and obtain a server IP address for later use. Pros: No installation or downloading of any software (use what you already have on your computer). Probably the fastest way to shield yourself from censorship. Only one command is technically necessary before you get what you are after. Cons: Obtaining this information through command prompt must be done before the domain is censored. Only one IP address can be obtained this way. If the website changes IP address for their server, you'll lose access to the site unless you have the new one as well.

7. Using Foxy Proxy

Quick Explanation: It's a simple plug-in for FireFox you can download and install. After getting a nice list of simple proxies that preside outside of the US, you have a better chance at accessing the website that has been censored by the US government and/or corporate interests. Pros: Easy to install. Being able to access censored websites can merely be a click away. A fast fix with minimal effort if you have access to a decent size list of proxies (provided in guide). Cons: Reliability is no guarantee. Based on the technological aspect of this method, it's not that secure since you are relying on one proxy. Not able to use this method for all kinds of web traffic. Confined to FireFox.

8. Using MAFIAAFire

Quick Explanation: A simple plug-in for FireFox (or Chrome) you can download and install. If a website has had it's domain seized, then you can be redirected to an alternate domain and still access the website. Pros: Easy to install. Is maintained for you through updates. Cons: Uses DNS servers that can be censored. Depends on there being an alternative domain name being used in the first place for access (if an alternate domain doesn't exist, then the site might not be accessible in this fashion). Technically, the site could be censored and block all possible updates as well. Final Thoughts By no means is this list comprehensive in any way. Still, I think some of these methods go way beyond circumventing types of censorship as suggested by the PROTECT-IP act. It'll be interesting to see how some services respond both who support internet censorship and those who are against internet censorship. I have a feeling it will be extremely difficult to stop these already existing methods to defeat DNS censorship. If, say, ISPs find a way to stop all of the above, a combination of some of the above or any enhancements to any of the above, I'll be very impressed. Good luck to the ISPs on stopping this, they are going to need 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. Update: Your e-mails are greatly appreciated. Thank you everyone for the supporting notes!

Guide: How to Defeat US DNS Censorship (Changing Your DNS Server)

Drew Wilson — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:50:27 +0000

We've been running a series for guides for some time on how to defeat DNS censorship as suggested by the PROTECT-IP Act. Today, we'll show you another method that requires no installation or downloading anything. All it requires is what comes with your computer. We'll show you how to do this with Windows 7 and show you a helpful tip if you are using Windows XP instead.

If the United States is planning on simply modifying the DNS system so that alleged copyright infringing websites will no longer appear, then defeating such censorship has proven very trivial. Here's a list of guides detailing methods of defeating such censorship:

Many of these methods are actually not that difficult to use. In fact, half of these methods require no installation of software of any kind - just using what you already have on your computer. Today, we will show you another method of defeating DNS censorship that also requires absolutely no installation of any software or downloading content of any kind (minus obtaining a DNS server IP address of course) Since we are talking about trying to use websites that could be blocked through DNS censorship, why not simply use a different DNS server? After all, if ISPs are compelled to modify their DNS servers, why not simply avoid US DNS servers altogether and use a non-censored DNS server? This is not all that hard with Windows 7 and we'll show you how it's done. Step 1: Obtain a DNS Server IP Address Under the advise of Aaron_Walkhouse (a ZeroPaid reader and forum member), we have chosen not to reveal or search for any DNS server IPs given the amount of potential traffic might overwhelm the server. However, simply searching for DNS server IP addresses being used by ISPs in countries outside of the United States might be the best method of attack. Still, that doesn't mean we can't show you what to do once you have obtained a trustworthy DNS server IP address. Step 2: Locate the DNS Server Option This likely varies from Operating System to Operating System. In Windows 7, you can find this option by doing the following: Right click on the network icon (this is located near your clock) and click on "Open Network and Sharing Center": In the new window, click on the Manage networks option. It depends on what kind of connection you have that determines specifically what this says. If you're like me and use a wireless network, it'll say "Manage wireless networks": In the next screen, select whatever router you are using, then click on "Adapter Properties" Click on the "Internet Protocol Version 4 (TCP/IPV4) and click on the "Properties" button: You should find your DNS server option at the bottom of the next window. Step 3: Change the DNS Server If you have a DNS server IP address, then you can do this step. Next to the "Preferred DNS Server", you can type in the IP address of the DNS server you want to use. The "Alternate DNS Server", you can type in an additional DNS server in the even the primary DNS server goes down: After that, just click on OK, then OK in the previous window and test our your new DNS server (just remember what your original DNS Server IP address is in the event something goes wrong (i.e. writing it down or put it in a temporary unsaved notepad file - and not saving it after you are done) Under Windows 7, that is it! Windows XP Users ZeroPaid forum member Aaron_Walkhouse was able to show us the windows for Windows XP users: For full context, you can view his comments on the forums. Changing DNS servers - the power is yours! Final Thoughts It is imperative that you use a DNS server you can trust. The reason for this is that a malicious DNS server could easily cause performance and security problems. If you do find a trustworthy DNS server (typically, a server used by an ISP) outside of the country attempting DNS censorship, this can easily bi-pass any local DNS censorship. Potentially, this is a very effective method of defeating possible DNS censorship in the United States. 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.