He created a website that allegedly linked to copyrighted material. Now, the US wants Richard O'Dwyer, the former owner of TVShack, to face a US court over his websites activities prior to both domain seizures.

A source close to Richard said: “He’s in total disbelief over the charges against him and very anxious about the impact this may have on his studies since he has two years left of his degree. He’s daunted and frightened by the prospect of being extradited to America let alone the disruption to his career.” His mother Julia O’Dwyer said the decision to put him on trial in the US was ‘madness’. “Richard clearly has a talent for web design but was foolish in not understanding the implications of copyright,” she said. “Yet to try to haul him off to America for trial while he’s midway through his university studies is so utterly disproportionate it defies belief.”

Terms of his bail involved not entering ports or airports and not applying to register new domain names. On Tuesday, O'Dwyer appeared before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court for a brief preliminary hearing. His lawyer said the extradition demands made by the US breached O'Dwyer's human rights and there was no basis for extradition. "The server was not based in the US at all. Mr O'Dwyer did not have copyrighted material on his website; he simply provided a link. The essential contention is that the correct forum for this trial is in fact here in Britain, where he was at all times," Cooper is quoted in the report as saying.

Where this becomes really troubling is that other, very similar sites have been found legal in the UK multiple times. Running a site that users use to put up links and which doesn't host any actual content, is not seen as illegal in the UK. So it seems particularly ridiculous that there's some sort of attempt to extradite the guy to the US to face charges here. As some have pointed out it appears to be "an attempt to make US federal laws applicable in the UK." Unfortunately, the details of the extradition request are a bit muddled in all of the UK papers reporting on it. Lots of them are comparing the situation to the famous Gary McKinnon situation, but I think this is clearly different. This just seems blatantly vindictive for no good reason.

TVShack remains to be one of the most sought after website for streaming TV that is seemingly not making a return. The website continues to generate interest to this day and some even have started up clone sites to replace the site. Regardless, it doesn't look like the site survived to see the light of 2011, so we have compiled a list of alternatives to the famous streaming site.

Hi ! i was googleing around to shed some light on the recent closing of TV SHACK"CC . i read a previous article on the transition of domains from .net to .cc that you had written. i would be interested if you could shed some light on the matter, like you previously did. thank you

Dear drew! im a big fan of tvshack and wish you a speedy recovery! please if you could keep me posted on any new domains it would be greatly appreciated!

hey there drew...i am very glad that you kept all of the fans and users of tvshack updated by informing the transformation of tvshack.net to tvshack.cc but...now again it is taken over by the government people.can you please help the users once again....?? thanking you,

1. BlinkX

blinkx is the world’s largest and most advanced video search engine. Founded in 2004 by Suranga Chandratillake, the company completed a tremendously successful IPO on the London Stock Exchange (AIM) in May, 2007 rising in the first week of trading to a market capitalization of US$350M, with headquarters in San Francisco, CA and the UK. blinkx has built a reputation as the Remote Control for the Video Web. Now, with an index of over 35 million hours of searchable video and more than 720 media partnerships, including national broadcasters, commercial media giants, and private video libraries, it has cemented its position as the premier destination for online TV.

2. StreamTVGuide

3. LookForTV

4. Cucirca.com

5. TVDuck

TVduck.com is a site where you can simply browse and watch all of your favourite T.V. shows, movies, video clips online.

Mary Pickford, co-founder of United Artists, said that she thinks she has seen the "death of motion pictures" thanks to the advent of TV, which she believes will be the "real death knell of motion pictures" since people could watch programs from the comfort of their own living room instead.

Pickford: I, in my short life, well, comparatively short life, have seen the birth and the death of motion pictures. Thomas: You think the motion picture has died? Pickford: Mm hmm. Thomas: But why should it? Pickford: Because of the competition. Uh, you know. You can see the old motion pictures, that are just as good... or better than some of them today. And why should people leave their house? Thomas: But you can see a picture so much better on a big screen in a comfortable theater than you can on a box in your living room. Pickford: Hmm, well, that's true. But it's very expensive, and we have to face the fact that at one time there was 17,000 theaters -- I don't know what the number is today -- but there, it breaks my heart to go by them today and see them... bowling alleys and skating rinks. Certainly, the motion picture will always be there, but I, I believe when paid TV comes in, and I'm sure it'll be less expensive than going to the theater, that it'll be the real death knell of motion pictures.

If anyone thought the ideas around the Broadcast Flag have finally died off, they'd be dead wrong. Reports are coming in that the FCC has granted Selectable Output Control (SOC) meaning that they, not you, can choose what can be recorded on your own TV.

In this order, we act on a request for a waiver of Section 76.1903 of the Commission’s rules to allow multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) to disable certain audiovisual outputs on set-top boxes to assure that copy protection is active for certain high-value content, specifically early-release films. We deny the waiver request as filed, but, in order to encourage Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”) member companies, independent filmmakers, and their MVPD partners to offer their films for home viewing during early release windows, we grant a limited waiver of the prohibition on disabling audio-visual outputs.

“This action is an important victory for consumers who will now have far greater access to see recent high definition movies in their homes. And it is a major step forward in the development of new business models by the motion picture industry to respond to growing consumer demand,” said Bob Pisano, President and Interim CEO of the MPAA. “We deeply appreciate the recognition by the FCC that recently released movies need special protection against content theft when they are distributed to home televisions.”

Back in July, there were interesting reports coming out of Vancouver Canada where a price war was raging. Some suggested the Shaw move to charge a mere $9.95 per month for high speed internet, phone and TV was little more than an attempt to destroy a local fibre ISP. From the report at the time:

Canadian cable operator Shaw has dropped a bit of a pricing bomb on consumers and competitors in Vancouver. The operator is offering some unheard of deals, including 15Mbps service with a 100GB cap for $9.95 ($9.13 US), 200 channels of TV service (with 25 high-definition channels) for $9.95, or digital phone service with free installation, also for $9.95 a month. The catch? You have to live in an area served by Novus Entertainment, a Canadian fiber to the home operator that’s currently wiring Vancouver apartment buildings.

Novus offers symmetrical 10Mbps service for $37.50 a month (110GB cap), 30/10 Mbps service for $89.95 (200GB cap), or 50/10Mbps service for $179.95 (360GB cap). Given Novus’s small size of just 9,000 subscribers, Shaw can essentially give service away in Novus markets and just eat the losses.

Unfortunately, if you’re a Shaw customer in any other area, such amazing deals aren’t available to you. In fact, in some instances, you’re paying nearly $150 per month more.

At the time, Novus was unsurprisingly upset over this and launched a campaign saying that Shaw users from across the country should be allowed the same deal of ten bucks a month. It ultimately sparked a lawsuit in the B.C. Supreme Court as well as a complaint in the Competition Bureau.

Shaw had even sent “street teams” to the residents asking if they were Novus customers, and if they were, tell them about the Shaw deal.

The CBC is now reporting that Shaw has responded to the accusations of anti-competitive practises and sued Novus for defamation.

Calgary-based Shaw, which has more than two million customers, mostly in Western Canada, has fired back by filing a defamation lawsuit against Novus in B.C. Supreme Court.

Shaw president Peter Bissonnette said Novus is spreading misinformation. The offer isn’t just targeted at Novus customers but residents of West Vancouver in general, which is a “highly competitive” market.

“They’ve publicly stated in the past that they’re going to become the bane of the life of Shaw,” Bissonnette said. “True to their word, they’ve embarked on this defamation campaign.”

It’s clearly a sort of David and Goliath sort of situation. Shaw is one of the three large ISPs stretched across Canada while Novus is a smaller Vancouver based company. Already, North American markets have been notorious for monopoly-like problems in the ISP industry. Many Canadians were reminded of this problem when an OECD report ranked Canada as having the 3rd worst cellphone rates in the world only outranked by Spain (2) and the United States (1). Some have argued that Canada’s landmass is the biggest problem for these prices, but given that the United States has a smaller landmass and a higher population density and still outranked Canada, that left that particular argument in limbo.

It’ll be interesting if the OECD report plays any roll in this latest price war, but either way, it’s already gotten ugly between the two companies.

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.

There’s an interesting story on the New York Times recently about stream piracy which is where someone manages to get a stream from a major sports event pirated online live for free. The strange part is the fact that they practically tell you exactly how to get a pirated stream while some involved in the business end of sports talk about it being a threat.

In short, many major sports organizations are talking about how stream piracy is currently embryonic and not a major threat yet, but could be in the future. The story goes on to say how intellectual property officials complain how tvants.com is one of the biggest websites to get such feeds. The question is, if there were those that are worried about this sort of thing, why tell people on one of the largest news outlets in the entire United States where to get the pirated streams in the first place? No doubt there are alternatives out there as well to the site.

The good news in all of this is the fact that if stream piracy sharply rises, we have the very people who are most likely wanting to stop it to thank because they instructed everyone in the first place.

Sports, when it comes to p2p, has generally gotten off easy with only highlights off of sports broadcasters highlight reels appearing on video sites like YouTube. Still, the sports industry has capitalized off of the fact that the business is run off of the live broadcasting instead of something that has a set length and is quite viewable over and over again. Once a game ends, it’s over. Pirated live streaming could very well change a lot of this. Not everything can be received through a generic BitTorrent site.

Note to MLB officials – if you don’t want someone getting your games for free, don’t leave instructions with your plea.

Many would argue that the internet has been one of mans greatest inventions, in part, because it gives citizens new-found freedoms and a medium for expression that can be experienced by many people around the world without having to spend billions of dollars to do so. It was all fun and games until legacy businesses and governments from around the world entered the picture.

Since then, major corporate entities and governments have been grappling with many questions surrounding the internet including the question about how one controls the internet. Since there is no real central hub for the internet unless one counts the internet backbones as the internet’s central office (which is still arguably a flawed argument to make in the first place), the idea of controlling the internet had major difficulties making the transition from sounding good on paper to putting it into actual practise.

Recently, there have been a set of cases highlighting a new movement by various governments around the world to legally consider the internet as a “broadcaster” While it has been a rather subtle movement in many cases, the movement does have serious implications.

Recent Cases

Australia

One of the better known cases in recent memory is happening in Australia. Just ask digital rights advocates that reside in that country what has been protested recently. Essentially speaking, the Australian government wants to censor pornography and anything they deem “inappropriate” on the internet. From a Digital Liberty Coalition press release (PDF):

“The problem is not with the concept of protecting children, in fact Senator Conroy has been adamant at dismissing all criticisms of his filter by alluding that the critic clearly has a stash of child porn hidden away,” says Jasmine, one of the national organizers from DLC, “but in the fact it is mandatory, restricts adults to material only suitable for MA15 audiences, and filters out political communication of whatever is deemed ‘hate’ literature by the government in power at the time. There are no checks or balances in place in the legislation to prevent future abuses of this filter to infringe more on the human rights of all Australians.”

Restricting the internet to an MA 15+ medium is very similar to laws surrounding what can be aired on television – MA 15+ is the highest ranking broadcasting can go before it is unlawful to air it.

France

France just recently made a move to put a tax on the internet so that ISPs are forced to contribute just under 1% of all profits to a public television fund. Many are calling the move unconstitutional.

Why Governments Could Have Gotten the Idea that the Internet is a Broadcaster

Calling the internet a broadcaster can easily highlight again why the government has only the foggiest idea of what the internet is even to this day, but there are ways one can draw similarities between a broadcaster and the internet.

One of the major developments that was a part of the network neutrality debate was that ISPs were pushing for IPTV – a way to stream television shows from the ISP to the user for a fee. This was also one of the things that caused major PR damage because while the ISPs were promising to stream live TV over the internet to ISP customers, the ISPs were also saying that bandwidth is severely limited in spite of evidence that proved otherwise. This sparked the criticism that ISPs wanted to turn the internet into either another cable network or a phone package much like other services they offered. It wouldn’t be a surprise if governments actually took the idea and flew with it into pushing new legislation that ISPs wouldn’t like.

Another way to look at the internet may be to just look at YouTube. Many people consider YouTube as a great way for users to create user-generated video’s – streaming the results to the users. Broadcasters also stream content to users – they frequently create the content that is also streamed to the end-user.

Why the Internet is not a Broadcaster

In the many ways that the internet is a broadcaster, there are at least as many, if not, more ways in which the internet is not a broadcaster.

One way in which the internet is most commonly used is e-mail. Users send messages back and forth in the same way people send letters back and forth in the postal service (though some governments are legislating the ability to pry open letters unlike the mail system) The postal service is a far cry from what a broadcaster does.

Another commonly used way the internet is used is to play video games online (like MMORPG’s, first person shooters, casino’s like Full Tilt and the billions of Flash games posted on online gaming websites) often against each other for enhanced playability. The internet can be used as a virtual arcade enjoyed by billions around the world.

It’s hard to talk about the many uses of the internet and not include online chat which has been a staple of the internet since pretty much the beginning. In many ways, the online chatrooms (like IRC) and forums (like ZeroPaid’s vBulletine) can be likened to a phone conference that major businesses have more than likely used on a fairly regular basis. Many of these mediums for communications have been used time and time again like a help desk for various problems like computer related problems (and, by extension, through Google – ‘got a problem? Ask Google’). Again, almost nothing related to a broadcaster.

What about online shopping? One of the most common uses of the internet is internet shopping which even the copyright industry uses to make their billions. If there’s anything that can be credited for having the worlds largest supermarket/garage sale, it would be the internet.

While the copyright industry has no problem labelling the internet as a medium for piracy, the internet is also an anti-piracy mechanism quietly used by the copyright industry. Just ask anyone who has ever had to install and validate software like Windows XP. Similarly, one can say that the internet is an operating system if concepts like cloud computing ever takes off. Additionally, it can be considered an extra hard drive with the advent of online storage.

The internet is also frequently credited for being a source of online information. Wikipedia is the prime example on how the internet is basically an online encyclopedia and source of information. Is a broadcaster like a dusty series of books? That would be extremely hard to argue.

Try getting away with describing the internet like an virtual jukebox or radio station. Online websites like Soundclick and Newgrounds Audio portal for examples provides a massive legal means to listen to music for free through streaming or downloading. Of course, there are millions of others like Last.FM, Jamendo and WinAmp stations, but you get the idea. Like a broadcaster? So close, yet so far.

One can write an entire book on how the internet is not like a broadcaster, so the above should suffice.

Why it’s bad for governments to consider the internet as a broadcaster

Aside from being technologically inaccurate, it is also a politically dangerous way of thinking as well.

It’s bad for politics

The very people thinking of legislating in this manner will find that it’s bad for the political system. In the United States, the last election proved to be one of the most popular. The biggest reason was the fact that political parties were using the internet to spread their message in unprecedented ways. Voter turnout was practically record breaking. Considering the internet as little more than a broadcaster and legislating accordingly would have major negative consequences for all political parties in question.

It’s bad for business

Since we’ve seen some of the ways governments are legislating while looking at the internet as a broadcaster (like blocking anything considered ‘indecent’ or ‘inappropriate’ (Australia) or (as seen in France) tacking on extra taxes), ISPs will be forced to pass these ideas onto customers like through removing access to online content due to political pressure or moving the extra fees onto customers. If the prices rise for lesser content, fewer people will be interested in getting an internet connection. This means less revenue for major ISPs around the world. Less revenue also means less money going into various economies (weakening them) – something world-wide governments should be thinking is the last thing they want to do in the first place.

It’s bad for society

Never has the human race been able to communicate over such wide distances with such ease. This has allowed for an explosion of human knowledge to the point where the real question is, how does one organize all this information? If governments start censoring or taxing the internet, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that this will be a major set-back for the progress of society when that information starts disappearing from their computer screens.

Conclusion

In short, the internet does not need more enemies (The RIAA is still doing a stellar job at filling that role in) and in all practical purposes, the governments in the world should abandon the idea before they cause major harm to what has been, by and large, one of the best inventions humanity has, to date, ever had.

French media website 01net is reporting (Google translation) that the French government has passed a first reading on legislation that would put a tax on the internet. The news follows France doing everything in their power to install a ‘three strike’ law on file-sharers which has sparked major opposition all across Europe.

The report describes the new tax where 0.9% of all the profits made by French ISPs would contribute to a public broadcasting fund. It makes it look like the legislation would indirectly make the internet another broadcaster. Many players involved with the internet in France are arguing that the tax is unconstitutional. Digital Renaissance says that the government shouldn’t consider taxing the internet because the internet creates jobs and, therefor, must be stimulated rather than taxed.

French politician Frédéric Lefebvre defended the tax saying that all broadcasters must contribute to public funding. He also argues that arms traffickers, thieves drug dealers and pimps have found refuge on the internet. He also adds that “psychopaths, rapists, racists and thieves have made their nests [on the internet]”

There is little doubt that ISPs in France will fight this or face the very real possibility of being forced to pass the extra tax onto their customers – a move that wouldn’t bode well for digital France which aims to, among other things, enable all French citizens to have access to the internet. It’s worth noting that this is just the first reading that passed and there is plenty of time still to fight this.

The Associated Press is reporting that multimedia giant from Italy ‘Mediaset’ is suing YouTube. Add that to a long list of international content outlets trying to find a get rich quick scheme.

From the AP:

Mediaset, the media empire founded by Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, said Wednesday it was seeking at least 500 million euros ($779 million) in damages against Google Inc.’s YouTube service for allegedly misusing video produced by Mediaset.

In a lawsuit filed with Rome civil court, Mediaset said it had identified on YouTube at least 4,643 video clips of Mediaset-owned material that was available on June 10 alone after being posted “without obtaining rights.”

Those clips totaled 325 hours of broadcasts from Mediaset’s three private television stations, the Italian company said.

This obviously raises the age-old question ever since ThePirateBay started receiving lawsuits of ‘does the lawsuit have jurisdiction?’ YouTube isn’t located in Italy, should it be sued in a Roman court?

Earlier this year, French Broadcaster TF1 sued YouTube for 100 million. This latest lawsuit seems to show that YouTube is one of the broadcasters favorite scapegoat in copyright litigation. Exactly how this lawsuit can be successful is anyones guess.

Stories about the DRM embedded in Windows Vista has been a hot button topic for some. Those wary of the new operating system say that the DRM in Windows Vista would force users to forfeit control over the operating system. Others who embraced Windows Vista say that the worries are overblown and nothing short of fear mongering and unsubstantiated. For those who were wary of the latest version of Windows have just got one very solid example of embedded DRM forcing users to forfeit control for copyright holders.

The EFF has been following reports about NBC enacting the broadcast flag. What NBC reportedly has been doing is using the broadcast flag to prevent users from recording over-the-air TV shows for later viewing.

It turns out that when a user uses Windows Vista to record certain NBC shows, they’ll get a message that states that recording of the show has been prohibited. To prove the point, someone took a screenshot of what happens when one tries to user their PVR to record the shows.

Essentially, a broadcast flag is a bit that comes at the beginning of a digital TV show (typically High Definition shows) If, say, the bit was a one, then that bit tells a PVR that this show has been flagged and the PVR stops people from recording a show. If the bit is a zero, then there is no broadcast flag put in place and the PVR is allowed to record the show.

The EFF is particularly interested in this. They commented with the following:

The ability to flag broadcast content was created by the ATSC standard which governs digital TV broadcasts in the United States. By itself the broadcast flag cannot restrict use of broadcast content. Instead, its force comes from a tech mandate law – an FCC regulation – which required manufacturers of DTV-receiving devices to detect and respond to “switched on” broadcast flags. EFF and others opposed the use of the broadcast flag and fought successfully to have the FCC regulation overturned by the courts. We did that because it handed control over your hardware to a remote authority, limited your right to your fair use of media, and would have made illegal open source products like MythTV. As a result of that victory, manufacturers are not legally required to force their devices to detect and respond to the flag.

It would now appear that Microsoft has voluntarily chosen to obey such content restrictions in Vista, despite the successful work of thousands of users to defend Microsoft’s right to innovate and our right to fair use. Justin was attempting to record the program on Windows Vista Ultimate using Silicon Dust’s HDHomeRun external tuner, which decodes the digital TV signal, and sends it over Ethernet to many types of digital TV receivers, such as MythTV or EyeTV. As Silicon Dust says on its website, their decoder merely passes on the datastream, and does not interpret data like the broadcast flag field itself, so we know that it is Windows alone that has declared that this program should not be recorded.

To be perfectly clear: Microsoft is under no legal obligation to look for and respond in any particular way when it sees the broadcast flag being sent by NBC’s digital stations. Any DTV-receiving software technology or device – like MythTV – is free to take the same stream from HDHomeRun and ignore a broadcast flag transmitted with it. In other words Microsoft did not have to build its PC to look for and refuse to record a program which has its flag turned on.

EFF notes that consumers fought the FCC so that alternatives like MythTV could exist legally in the United States. Had this not happened, then very likely, the FCC would force companies who create devices and programs to record TV shows to obey the broadcast flag. It was decided that the FCC was outside it’s jurisdiction when it tried to force companies and open source developers to build electronic devices and programs in only certain ways. After the FCC lost in court, the content industry lobbied heavily to get the broadcast flag into the government, but a coalition to counter the lobbying was successful.

So why, after all that work, does Microsoft’s software appear to honor content restriction? It’s hard to say. Was it a content licensing requirement? Microsoft didn’t have to do so if it just wanted its devices to decode and display over-the-air digital NBC broadcasts — just as you don’t need to sign a contract in order to decode and display the signals sent over the public airwaves into your living room. American consumers can choose what to do with their digital broadcast TV, just as they have been able with analog broadcast TV.

Since this all seems to be a voluntary type of control, there’s definitely good reason to use alternatives should Microsoft be going ahead with enacting certain controls over what people can do with the operating system. There’s no word yet on whether or not this was actually accidental on Microsoft’s part.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/The_Return_of_the_Broadcast_Flag’;