Slashdot Mirror

it's far safer to base these businesses in an entirely different country if they are going to accept US customers

Not. If you are US-based you will receive some polite legal hassle. If you are foreign you will be arrested and thrown in federal prison to await trial if you are unlucky enough to find your plane diverted into US airspace. If you're lucky you'll just get the swat team.

The moral is clear. Don't do business with the US. Ever.

Once you have Windows 3.1 loaded and functioning properly in DOSBox, you can run pretty much any 16 bit game you can find. You might need to install certain drivers to get some games to display properly which this guide covers nicely. Ideally, you'd be running the 16 bit game in straight DOSBox first. If it asks for a Windows installation, then boot up 3.1 first and execute it via file manager. There are entire repositories of Abandonware if you do a little Googling around, so you are literally opening yourself up to being able to play thousands of games you wouldn't otherwise be able to. One video game that is legally being distributed is Elder Scrolls II, though I don't believe you need Windows 3.1 for that. I've also heard of people running Microsoft Works for Windows using this method, but it's kind of redundant when you have Open Office and Libre Office floating around. Windows 3.1 and DOSBox is really a compatibility thing, so you can take it to whatever your needs are.

I don't think they are trying to "validate" bittorrent.

I'd bet $100 that the EFF is trying to validate BitTorrent. They have a history of trying to protect and validate Torrents (and piracy). Examples:

"EFF Releases ‘Switzerland’ to Test if Your ISP is Throttling BitTorrent" - http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9677/eff_releases_switzerland_to_test_if_your_isp_is_throttling_bittorrent/
"EFF defended StreamCast Networks, the company behind the Morpheus peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software, in an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 2005" - http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/

John Gilmore of the EFF said, "The Archive is helping people to understand that BitTorrent isn't just for ephemeral or dodgy items that disappear from view in a short time. BitTorrent is a great way to get and share large files that are permanently available from libraries like the Internet Archive."

In other words, the EFF is working towards legitimizing BitTorrent so that illegal uses can continue unabated. I'll go ahead and say what I've been saying for a long time: the EFF has been a pro-piracy organization for a long time, and this is just another example of the EFF skulking around on the fringes of the piracy issue, trying to make moves that help pirates.

Some more quotes from the EFF, just because I know Slashdot doesn't want to listen when I say that the EFF is a pro-piracy organization:

"EFF: Piracy Not the Problem" - http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1999/09/21645
"there is no evidence out there that "Internet piracy" is leaving us with fewer creators or fewer copyrighted works” - http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/most-pirated-movie-makes-heaps-money
"EFF Releases ‘Switzerland’ to Test if Your ISP is Throttling BitTorrent" - http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9677/eff_releases_switzerland_to_test_if_your_isp_is_throttling_bittorrent/
"EFF defended StreamCast Networks, the company behind the Morpheus peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software, in an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 2005" - http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/

Dave Winer, an early supporter of the EFF: "I gave $5000 to the EFF when they started, I think it was in 1990, with the noble goal of protecting freedoms as our technology and culture move online. I think I have supported every cause the EFF has adopted since then, but that’s no longer true. I gave this a lot of thought, believe me, and had a long email exchange with Brad Templeton, the chairman of the EFF board of directors, and think they have become as radically polarized as the entertainment industry, and like Hollywood are now working against the interests of those they were meant to serve. The issue appears to be copyright, and it appears that the EFF believes there should be no copyright. The problem with the EFF position is that in order to remain consistent, they have had to say that copyright doesn’t exist — if a policy or law restricts what a user can do on the Internet then that is a bad policy or law. The courts can’t agree with the EFF. I don’t agree with the EFF."

The MPAA's five years of consecutive record profits don't help with the evidence either.

I'm always amused that every DVD I rent or buy in Canada has stern warnings from police forces in other countries. The day when the RCMP has their own warning before the movie is the day when I'll take it seriously.

Thankfully, the RCMP recognize the futility of it.
Unfortunately, bills C-30 & C-32 are opening up the doors to privately-funded enforcement, so it won't be the RCMP beating down your door, but some law-enforcement "agency" paid for by the people who are getting the laws put in place.

Confusing France and Nazi Germany is just fucking dumb.

You reckon?

You mean a group of organisations which don't shy away of using lies to see the law passed is better in your eyes, eh? After all, SS was equally a "protection squad"... even if the subject of protection was not quite the interest of the part of the German society that preferred democracy and freedom of expression... Besides, you know?, shit will happen when the things are rushed by organisations showing little respect for due process.

Recording artists from major labels now put their songs on youtube for free and still sell copies. Why they are still getting bent out of shape over file sharing is beyond me.

They're not. The middle-men, i.e., the RIAA, is the one getting bent out of shape.

The internet has basically eroded their hold on distribution and they're fucking pissed off about it. The whole "stealing from artists" line is just propaganda, the RIAA has been fucking stealing from artists since it's inception. Here's a suit from just a few years ago that, using their own calculations when going after individual copyright-infringers, found $6 BILLION in damages due to piracy by the CRIA (the Canadian wing of the RIAA). They later settled for $45 million, less than 1% of the original damages.

And then there's their latest legal arguments. In their case against Redigi, the RIAA argued that an MP3 downloaded from the internet was not owned, it was licensed, and therefore First Sale Doctrine did not apply. That's nothing new; we've heard that argument a billion times. The funny part is, while that case with Redigi was being argued, the RIAA was being sued for not paying disco group Sister Sledge their contracted royalties. See, they were contracted to receive a small percentage of "sales" revenue, and a higher percentage of "licensing" revenue. The RIAA, in a fit of irony it seems, argued that the music they sell online isn't licensed, it's sold, and thus, the group was not due the higher percentage of royalties for their online music 'sales'.

So, according to the RIAA, music sold online is both licensed and sold, depending on whichever argument justifies their thievery in open court.

Anyone defending these fucking assholes should have their head examined.

Move to an top level encrypted torrent programs. That includes secure torrent files (if they do not exist, go out and invent them!). It might not be possible to hide your IP. But it is possible to encrypt the torrent and other p2p traffic with an high level encryption. If the current RSA-4096 bit encryption is not good enough. Go and invent an better one.

The pure greed of MPAA and RIAA is an shame to the creative industry. As in the end most artist do get little for the work while the companies them self make all the profit. In fact, MPAA has never made so good profits. Yet they claim piracy is damaging them. But that claim is not supported by any evidence and is therefor an lie.

On MPAA profits for 2011, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/piracy-once-again-fails-to-get-in-way-of-record-box-office.ars
Even RIAA admits that P2P is not only to blame for drop in cd-sales, http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91984/riaa-admits-p2p-not-solely-to-blame-for-decreased-music-sales/

Go ask the people of Wilson, North Carolina how well private interests provided high speed to them.

Then ask the people of Monticello, Minnesota

These state-sponsored monopolies have gone on long enough. If the 'private market' market will not meet the demand, what else are people supposed to do? Just deal with shit-tier internet at exorbitant prices? Bullshit on that...the major ISPs are no worse than the MAFIAA or the Cartels.

My older brother used to run an ISP in Monticello, and was doing quite well until TDS got the FCC to allow them to raise their tariffs. They squeezed him out of business by quadrupling the price for an T1.

Go ask the people of Wilson, North Carolina how well private interests provided high speed to them.

Then ask the people of Monticello, Minnesota

These state-sponsored monopolies have gone on long enough. If the 'private market' market will not meet the demand, what else are people supposed to do? Just deal with shit-tier internet at exorbitant prices? Bullshit on that...the major ISPs are no worse than the MAFIAA or the Cartels.

Feature films? Maybe when they stop having consecutive record profits, year after year.

This is the biggest lie of all, because in reality the MPAA affiliated studios have been having record profits year after year. The whole "piracy is killing us" is just simply false.

2010 was the fifth consecutive year of record profits, ffs!

The Chinese seem to be enjoying the fine tradition of internet hyperbole moreso than usual. The PM did not in fact suggest there was any plan to shut off social media whatsoever. What he did say was

Mr. Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck- will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services, and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people from communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.

We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.

Qualifiers are thinly veiled threats.

Christ you are a gullible twit.

The Chinese seem to be enjoying the fine tradition of internet hyperbole moreso than usual. The PM did not in fact suggest there was any plan to shut off social media whatsoever. What he did say was

Mr. Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck- will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services, and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people from communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior. We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.

Jesus was tried and crucified as a criminal, too. The definition of a "criminal" varies from country to country. Don't you think the protesters in Iran weren't labeled as "criminal", too? Or the people who toppled the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia? The guys in China's KP probably can't stop laughing - with talk like this, Western political "leaders" reveal their calls for human rights in China and elsewhere as what they really are: soapbox speeches. Granted, the riots in UK didn't have a political dimension. It was "just" people who wanted to own a large plasma or LCD TV, and iPad or designer-clothes but couldn't afford any of these. But it's a slippery road and no one who actually believes in democracy and the right to protest should ever feel compared to go down that road!

Mr. Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck- will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services, and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people from communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.

We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.

IFPI Boss and CEO Accused of Tax Evasion in Germany http://www.zeropaid.com/news/94106/ifpi-boss-and-ceo-accused-of-tax-evasion-in-germany/ After the SGAE, Germany investigates IFPI and its dome accused of tax fraud http://en.wikinoticia.com/Technology/general-technology/90182-after-the-sgae-germany-investigates-ifpi-and-its-dome-accused-of-tax-fraud

Now that the US and Eurozone economies are in shambles, they are going after everyone, the bigger the better. In more prosperous times, this would have been swept under the rug for the price of a nice dinner and a movie ($225,000 according to the MPIAA).

It seems no matter how much you pay corrupt officials, they'll still turn on you at the drop of a hat.

Could you Americans please hang a few of them from streetlights so that the ones in well to do Australia remain scared.

IFPI Boss and CEO Accused of Tax Evasion in Germany http://www.zeropaid.com/news/94106/ifpi-boss-and-ceo-accused-of-tax-evasion-in-germany/ After the SGAE, Germany investigates IFPI and its dome accused of tax fraud http://en.wikinoticia.com/Technology/general-technology/90182-after-the-sgae-germany-investigates-ifpi-and-its-dome-accused-of-tax-fraud

You don't need to seize domain names to do that. The ISP wants the sniffers rooted out just as much as the victims.
Don't kid yourself into believing the DOJ/FBI have enough people to actually run a Domain so that no one would notice
its been taken over.

Seizing the domain name has been totally ineffective to date, serving more as a club to beat hapless ISPs than anything else.
Its one thing when you have a pirate warz site. But seizures are now used when ever there is a case with anything to do
with the internet. Even entire hosting companies can be seized with nothing but a bit of paper work.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91460/law-professor-points-out-flaws-in-us-domain-seizure-campaign/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110314/01204913484/more-reasons-why-homeland-security-seizing-domain-names-is-unconstitutional.shtml

Why is there a problem creating a copy? Because, then you are not sharing. When two people share something, a single thing is used by both. When creating a copy, two things are used by two people, that is not sharing.

It figures you have never shared an idea. Software is much closer to an idea than a physical thing.

The person who cares is the copyright holder whose livelihood depends on the creation distribution of said copies. Or, do you suggest that those who create should not be compensated? How long do you think people would continue to create works if they had to work full time doing something else to support themselves? Perhaps, they should resort to patronage, creating works solely at the whim of and for the use of a patron and whomever the patron dictates.

Study: File Sharers spend more money on music.

And if sharing hurts content creators, then since file sharing has been rising year after year, content creators profits should be down, right?
MPAA celebrates 5th consecutive year of record profits.
Swedes confirm UK study: Artist income rising.

Has for software, creating and adapting OSS is a valid business model for thousands of companies. I'll be working on one a few weeks from now.

How much does it cost to higher a programmer?

How is that relevant? Is it or not an advantage for the buyer, which you claimed not to exist?

So, you would do away with trade secrets too. Nice to know.

How the **** did you read that? If competitors can buy a copy of the program and study the code that reads the files, they can implement it in their programs.

Who is going to pay for a modification when one can purchase something that works the way one wants?

I don't get your point. Do you mean that the existing software already covers all the the needs for all the users, forever?

And, what of the one who invents the wheel? How does the inventor of the wheel gets recompense for his time, effort, and materials used to create the wheel?

First, that wheel was already created from other wheels. In fact, huge amounts of proprietary software are made using open source languages, libraries and tools.
Second, there are other ways of making money. Do you think the companies who develop Linux, just because it can be used for free? Or do you think that Java isn't lucrative just because you don't have to pay to develop software in it?
Or to move to applications, do you think Oracle does not make money from OpenOffice?

Your car analogy fails because we are talking software and not computers. Each component of a car would is the equivalent of a piece of software. So, when a computer breaks, you take it to a repair person who finds the problem and fixes it. This can be as simple as a "tune up" by cleaning out old files, registry entries, etc. It could be by replacing a broken component such as a hard drive, faulty ram, re-installing a corrupted program or removing malware. It could be something serious such as a bad motherboard, processor, or having to reinstall the operating system. Really, try to use a valid analogy because I have no problem pointing out your failures.

Yes, if you apply my analogy to something different than I did, no wonder it fails.

Cars are like applications, which is what we were talking about, not computers. Now go re-read the analogy.

I see, so I should be able to call you an evil person because you do something I don't like and if you don't like it, you just don't have to read it and all is well, yes?

So it's ok for CRIA to screw artists out of their money for years and to settle for less than 0.5% of what the artists were entitled to . But not OK for ISOhunt to provide torrent trackers to people who may legitimately own the title they are attempting to download. It's funny to see how things are handled when the shoe is on the other foot. It's interesting that these same record labels did not try to sue CRIA for their artists which they were so concerned. "At one point the lists had grown to over 300,000 works for which no license had been obtained and no compensation paid by record labels, thus in October of 2008 artists gave up trying to convince record labels to listen to their complaints and turned to the courts for help."

Mozilla's VP of Engineering On H.264

If 'Machiavellien' is intended as a faux German plural, it's almost funny.

The whole thing is entirely Machiavellien, including the MPAA's worst fear that if we ignore the boobirds among our ranks long enough to discover we *can* win this battle, they're completely screwed. Power is brittle in that way. From what I've read of Machiavelli, that was his thesis statement, and one of driving factors in why alliances are so fluid: everyone has their finger in the wind, all the time.

I don't understand why this battle is ultimately hard to win. It's an established fact that H.264 has dubious intimate hygiene (concerning licensing terms). Yeah, but she's a looker, and went to a slightly better dentist than her twin sister, who is captain of her field hockey team and a lemon twist decisively less attractive on her Facebook page.

Geek Time with Chris DiBona

What DiBona had to say about the visual difference is that there isn't much for mass streaming, except that VP8 streams better from the infrastructure perspective. I wasn't entirely sure what to make of that interview except that Chris is definitely a sharp guy. I think he's 80% a straight shooter and 20% shrewd reality distortion field.

The next time some wanker within earshot complains that their favorite H.264 feed isn't accessible I'll loudly explain that the president of the MPAA is currently fighting extradition to Sweden and we don't yet know how it will pan out, whereas VP8 has none of the same legal encumbrances.

Machiavellian? Yes.

And if anyone with a clue complains, I'll admit that, yes, it's technically a difference rape and legal encumbrance, and the problems with Paypal on one side are mirrored by the frequent glitches in the Vigpull account on the other.

Judge Deals Another Setback to Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits

Right. Which is why the original poster said that using an alternative DNS (such as the one proposed by the piratebay founders, among other projects out there) is a good solution to being relieved of the censorship and control of government controlled DNS:

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91415/pirate-bay-co-founder-proposes-alternative-p2p-dns/

Of course, I'm not sure how that solves the problem. What are there, like three backbones in the nation? Or at worse, at the ISP level, a few ISPs blocking traffic to any non-sanctioned resolver solution would probably block 95% of the traffic in the country, so . . . sort of doesn't really solve anything, when it comes down to it.

here

I mean they were essentially distributing their website for free online anyways, and its long been shut down, so its not like they are losing any money, so no damages can be set. At what point do you have a case to bring in front of a judge? It's copyrighted and being distributed therefor I need moneys? Like I said before - I could see someone using their copyrighted designs and that might cause damages to any new sites they might have launched after Geocities came down.

Under the current copyright laws, no damages have to be proven - the law allows the rights holder to sue for statutory damages, without a single bit of actual evidence that they were actually harmed in any way by the infringement. This is how the RIAA companies are able to sue people like Jammie Thomas and get damages of $80k per work infringed.

(Note that in the Capitol v. Thomas case it's pretty unlikely that they'll ever get any actual money from her, and even if the outrageous award was actually paid probably wouldn't cover their legal costs. They're just trying to make an example of her. But I could see a copyright troll like the US Copyright Group sending out tons of threat-o-grams, in the hopes of collecting $500-$1000 from those who are afraid that putting up a fight will bankrupt them).

That basically means the only viable solution left is no more digital music - live performances only.

Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music
Another Study Finds Pirates Buy More Music

If a majority of the population decided bank robbery was okay, does that mean we should re-evaluate if robbing banks is really a bad thing? Of course not!

Ultimately, yes. Either you convince them that they benefit more from not doing so, or you legalize it.

Ultimately, copying someone else's IP, to which you have no rights

Says who? You are you to say what person A should share with person B using their personal property?

, means someone didn't get paid.

Assuming they would get paid in the other case. Which not only isn't certain, in many cases is definitively not true. Especially when that "someone" has been dead for years.

And if you copied it, you have assigned some value to it.

Yes.

At best, it means you've inflicted direct financial harm by devaluing of the product in question. If you doubt me, I encourage you to verse yourself in the basics of economics.

So I have when I resell my stuff instead of destroying it.

No bones about it, if you pirate IP, you absolutely are harming the IP owners. Either that, or *everything* published on economics is wrong. The reasonable, safe bet, is the former rather than the later.

Again, the only harm is the same as when you resell something. Doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Time and time again the pirate position seems to be, I want it. You can't stop me. Its unlikely I'll be prosecuted. Therefore, I'm entitled to whatever I can take. If you try to stop me, you're a bad person.

The position I see is: I bought the CD, I should be allowed to do what I want with my property. Who are you to tell me what I should do with my CD?

When a massive number of people feel entitled to take what isn't theirs, what do you expect is going to happen. Draconian laws are the only likely result. And frankly, you can't really blame them.

iTunes dropped the DRM, sales are up. Clearly draconian measures work better.

If you worked and didn't get paid time and time again

MPAA revenue has been rising every year, so that's clearly not true for movies.
Music artists revenue is also rising.

The only people losing revenue are the labels. Cry me a river over their outdated business model. We should now ban cars for the poor carriage drivers in the unemployment. Or ban cellphones because of the telegraph companies.

If 4chan is the "first, last, and best lines of defense for freedom" then we're already fucked. Thankfully there are other more conventional measures, like the elections here in May that got rid of ID cards, contact point database, gave us a review of anti-terror legislation & RIPA and the hope of a Great repeal\freedom bill. No 4chan involved, just voters.
And where the legislature has failed, the courts are currently taking a look New types of protest\action are good, but the old ways still work as well.

Not that responding to ACs is a worthwhile endeavour, but see http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89494/ascap-declares-war-on-free-culture/.
Specifically note the group that ASCAP is considering their enemies. Note, among others, Creative Commons. How will you feel when you no longer have the right to distribute stuff you make under the conditions and license you choose?

No, the Canadian government has been following the US policies regarding this kind of thing pretty closely. They're even trying to put forward the same kind of copyright legislation as the US has through Bill C-32, which used to be similar to a bill previously proposed as Bill C-18 which ran its course because of the proroguing of parliament last year. Bill C-32 is another attempt at the same copyright http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89303/a-detailed-look-at-bill-c-32-canadas-copyright-reform-bill-part-1/ .

In my limited understanding of legal mumble jumble I believe it says in short:

        * The express legalization of format shifting, or the copying of content from one device to another, such as a CD to a computer or an iPod.
        * The express legalization of time shifting, or recording television programs for later viewing but not for the purposes of building up a library.
        * Allowing consumers to make a back-up copy of content to protect against loss or damage.
        * A YouTube clause that allows people to mash up media under certain circumstances, as long as it's not for commercial gain.
        * A "notice-and-notice" system where copyright holders will inform internet providers of possible piracy from their customers. The ISP would then be required to notify the customer that he or she was violating the law. The violator's personal information could then be released to the copyright holder with a court order.
        * ISPs and search engines would be immune from the copyright violations of their users.
        * A differentiation of commercial copyright violation versus individual violation. Individuals found violating copyright law could be liable for penalties between $100 and $5,000, which is below the current $20,000 maximum.
        * New exceptions to fair dealing that will allow copyright violations for the purposes of parody, satire and education.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/02/copyright-bill-clement-montreal.html#ixzz0yxLUq6jO

My question is, if I find a device on one of my motorcycles or car, is it legal for me to remove said strange device. One of those times I like being in Canada

Then you must be just as ignorant and as Right Wing as most other Canadians are. If the U.S. is doing something oppressive, then Canada almost always follows suit.

Right now, while Canada's crime rate is decreasing (and we've NEVER had crime like in the U.S., with its prison economy), the Right Wing conservative government of Stephen Harper wants to spend $10 BILLION dollars to build new prisons. I will repeat: crime is decreasing but the Conservatives want to build more prisons. Well, this is because they don't think enough people are in jail. One of their earliest mandates was to make jail sentences longer and put more people into prison.

The present Right Wing Conservative government of Stephen Harper has also said they will introduce DMCA-style legislation, have warrantless wiretapping, etc etc. I'm not sure what type of delusion you are having by implying that Canada is somehow safe from oppression.

I've did a quick Google to back up my claims. But as a person who only occasionally reads/listens/watches the political news in Canada, these are well known facts to me because they are so ubiquitous to the type of society that we live in. Next time you say something so ignorant (or deceptive?) you should Google to see what political party is in office in Canada.

References:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/845272--ottawa-s-prison-plan-won-t-work-critics-say
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/26/police-emergency-wiretaps.html
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9639/warrentless_wiretapping_comes_to_canada__canadian_media_censored/ ... etc and so on...

"Does John Q. Public really care all that much about file sharing?"

They don't, which makes the label's attempts to equate file sharing with more egregious crimes all that more laughable. This three strikes nonsense they're trying to pass in France is one example; French law makers passed it with flying colors last year because label lobbyists showering them with contributions and everything was great. Then a little earlier this year those same politicians realized they had to get re-elected; now they're balking, and some are even backing out of the pockets of those label lobbyists. http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89860/french-ump-members-having-second-thoughts-on-three-strikes/ Bend with the breeze indeed. I'm sorry, but file sharing is not as criminally dangerous as murder. Not even a little.

They forgot the cd protection cracked with a black marker...
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/1069/black_marker_cracks_cd_protection/

That's a logical argument, except that it doesn't cope well with reality, since file sharing is rising and so are the movie profits, year after year.

Inform yourself.

Canadian survey and study, which shows a direct positive influence on purchases due to downloading.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/h_ip01456.html

The key findings of above study

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9086/canadian_govt_study_p2p_increases_cd_sales/

A Harvard Business School study with clear proof that sales are affected by downloads, for the positive.

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

A recent Norweigen school of management study, which shows not only are filesharers increasing sales they themselves are the largest purchasers of that media.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86009/study-pirates-buy-10-times-more-music-than-they-steal/

This may sound in your head as something quite insightful, however when its broken down its clear it has very little meaning at all. Are you suggesting that the initial profit increase is somehow not an increase in sales? Or are you suggesting that a higher initial profit has nothing to do with sales? Or is it a preemptive statement and you are hoping to deflect arguments about current profit increases by the big media houses? Furthermore how does this statement help your case? You are agreeing and disagreeing with yourself in the same sentence.

Inform yourself.

Canadian survey and study, which shows a direct positive influence on purchases due to downloading.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/h_ip01456.html

The key findings of above study

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9086/canadian_govt_study_p2p_increases_cd_sales/

A Harvard Business School study with clear proof that sales are affected by downloads, for the positive.

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

A recent Norweigen school of management study, which shows not only are filesharers increasing sales they themselves are the largest purchasers of that media.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86009/study-pirates-buy-10-times-more-music-than-they-steal/

This may sound in your head as something quite insightful, however when its broken down its clear it has very little meaning at all. Are you suggesting that the initial profit increase is somehow not an increase in sales? Or are you suggesting that a higher initial profit has nothing to do with sales? Or is it a preemptive statement and you are hoping to deflect arguments about current profit increases by the big media houses? Furthermore how does this statement help your case? You are agreeing and disagreeing with yourself in the same sentence.

They are getting an appeal and the earlier judgment means nothing.

"Pirate Bay Appeal Scheduled for September 28th"
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/88349/pirate-bay-appeal-scheduled-for-september-28th/

Judges note, among other things, that record labels didn't dramatically lower their prices for online music as compared to physical CDs despite the fact that they "experienced dramatic cost reductions in producing" it.

Within the last few days, slashdot has published internet censorship stories from all these countries.

All of those countries may have differernt motovations, and use different tactics, but the results are similar.

January 01, 2010
China Reaffirms Plans to "Purify" the Internet

> Says crackdown on online pornography is part of overall effort to preserve "national long-term stability," build a "harmonious socialist society," and prevent the "poisoning of young people's physical and mental health," but most likely is all about strengthening its grip on the what could be a dangerous conduit for threatening images and ideas.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87485/china-reaffirms-plans-to-purify-the-internet/

January 03, 2010
Your Rights Online: Google Sets Censorship Precedent In India

> "Censorship varies from country to country but India, home to a sixth of the world's population, appears to be shaping up much like China. Not far behind everyone else, Google has increasingly censored websites with an incident where a very popular politician died and Google forcibly deleted and dissolved a group on Orkut where offensive comments about the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh were posted. An official from India's Ministry of Communications and Information Technology said, 'If you are doing business here, you should follow the local law, the sentiments of the people, the culture of the country. If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site, that could start riots.' The lengthy opinion piece calls attention to the beginnings of a definitive lack of free speech online for Indian citizens. A spokeswoman for the 'Do No Evil' company explained, 'India does value free speech and political speech. But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.'"

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/03/0123216/Google-Sets-Censorship-Precedent-In-India

In the USA, I think corporations are behind the censorship. Unethical corporations, and sometimes individuals (possibly backed by corporations), use various legal tricks, and harassment techniques, to remove websites that are not favorable to the interests of those corporations. Sometimes the same corporations have methods of flooding the media with propaganda that is favorable to their interests, or lanching smear campaigns against competiors.

For example, I seem to remember somebody with the initials JVM getting a certain blog removed, and possible arranging a major whitewash on wikipedia. And of course we all remember the harassment of PJ.

Then there was the case of the judge that had three websites removed. I may not care for him personally, but I think the APEX v. tunnelrat case raises some serious issues:

1) When is it right for a judge to expose an anonymous blogger?

2) When is it right for a judge to order a website to be taken down, and personal property (domain name) to be compensated?'

3) Is it illegal to publicly display legal contracts?

4) Does a judge in NJ have jurisdiction over of website that is not hosted in NJ, or owned by a NJ resident?

I don't care what APEX is telling us, or what the court is telling us. The APEX scam is clearly a case of a company bullying a blogger in order to hide information that company finds embarrassing, and maybe even illegal.

The case has been covered on several other sites.

Court orders three H-1B sites disabled
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142806/Court_orders_three_H_1B_sites_disabled

Legal action PR nightmare
http://www.techgoss.com/Story/2109S14-Legal-action-PR-nightmare.aspx

Your Rights Online: Court Orde

It is not just porn that China is censoring.

January 1, 2010:
China: Reaffirms Plans to "Purify" the Internet

Says crackdown on online pornography is part of overall effort to preserve "national long-term stability," build a "harmonious socialist society," and prevent the "poisoning of young people's physical and mental health," but most likely is all about strengthening its grip on the what could be a dangerous conduit for threatening images and ideas.

As part of that effort it says that it intends to create a "blacklist" that will provide "timely information about foreign propaganda, radio and television, publishing and other areas for their disposal."

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87485/china-reaffirms-plans-to-purify-the-internet/

When the music industry returns to a realistic business model

The first problem is the terminology: "the music industry" does not have a problem with piracy. The "music recording and publishing industry" has a problem with piracy. Note that it's the Recording Industry Association of America that is talking. The recording industry keeps saying that the "music industry" is in trouble, but it turns out it's just the recording industry that's in trouble: the music industry revenue is up.

So if you're interested in helping to solve all this, the first thing is to take back the language: the music industry is not only alive and well - it's growing. People are spending more on music then ever before, it's just the recording industry that needs to adapt. (imho, they can adapt by following in the footsteps of the dinosaur and extinct already...)

• "How the net saved live music"
• "British music industry is in rude health"
• "UK music economist says music industry revenue up 4-7"

These reports all say the same thing: concert ticket sales growth more than makes up for the decline in recorded music sales.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86356/mpaa-says-making-even-one-copy-of-a-dvd-is-illegal/

I will draw a correlation to Kathy Lee Gifford http://www1.american.edu/ted/kathylee.htm and other celebrities finding out their named products being built with child labor in sweat shop conditions. Do you continue to let it happen or do you speak out against it? Do you discontinue your association with the RIAA? The fans and press need to pressure bands for an answer.

well before posting I looked up Metallica and they have apprantly changed their view and look to be ending their association with Warner Music. http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9440/metallica_now_embraces_filesharing/

I don't get it

There's 20,000+ miles of dark fiber in America owned by a couple of shells or consortiums. All this was laid out during the late 90's dot com boom and the bandwidth per fiber was tripled with DWDM. Most of the holding companies acquired the infrastructure for pennies on the dollar as deployed fiber costs fell with dwdm.
On top of that the telcos laid out an extra set of conduits with all fiber to snake future fiber through..all the backbone they need to double of triple their bandwidth is already available..

The ISP's are really reluctant to invest money in leasing more fiber and upgrading their switches, god forbid they accidentally invest money in something actually beneficial for their customers. they prefer to spend money lobbying and threatening out the competition.. http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86081/big-us-isps-roll-out-push-polling-to-stop-cheap-internet/

Let's create some more FUD on 'brownouts' and roll out the bandwidth caps... On a related note TWC will be repackaging a recent Southpark episode as a documentary on excess internet usage and broadcasting it for free on all channels tonight..

Why do companies and governments not see that cheap, plentiful broadband is the only way to grow Internet adoption and the online industry as a whole? Especially now that the worldwide economy is in the shitter, the information age is poised to drag us out of it, if only self-serving companies and conrgresscritters wouldn't stifle progress to make their own quick buck.

Apparently you've missed the news. The "information age" was stifled a long time ago, and its remains expelled from its gestation chamber in a dead bloody mess.

Sorry, the link I included didn't clearly illustrate what it was supposed to.
This one should be better (and it's "caught three times", not "caught").

Can't you set TiVo to strip commercials automatically?

Oh, heck no. Hollywood gets all kinds of upset about that kind of thing. It's such a touchy thing that the automagic 30sec skip is an easter egg for the TiVo (and you have to unlock it any time you reboot your device).

RCN dropped newsgroup support last week without prior notice.

Nail, meet hammer...

I was scheduled to fly from Vancouver to Amsterdam on the 12th of september 2001. Needless to say I did not leave Vancouver for a week or so. Before that I visited the US quite regularly, on average 2-3 times per year. After that I have visited the US only once - to attend the 2003 IETF meeting in SF. What can I say? I just don't feel very welcome anymore. And as the world is a large place with many other locations to visit I just go elsewhere. Strangely enough I have not even considered going to the US this year, even though the low dollar would make this quite affordable. It just does not feel like it would be a pleasant experience.

I sincerely hope this paranoia will eventually pass so that the US will get the chance to show its good side(s) again.

USsians, make it happen! Get those terrorists out from between your ears and return to those ideas which made you a great country!

(says I while thinking about how to encrypt all communications so my Swedish government will not intercept everything...)

given that THE ARTICLE HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

Hmmmm, there is more than one article quoted here to give some background on this whole anti-piracy thing, so I'll give you the link here (actually given above):

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9652/Leaked+British+Government+Letter+-+P2P+Will+be+Cut+by+80%25

Now, a leaked letter dated just two days before the major revelation has surfaced and shows that the British government is just as adamant over the idea of ISPs being copyright police as the major copyright industry - if not, more so......the British government has secretly set a goal of reducing file-sharing by 80% over the course of the next three years. The letter was signed by Baroness Vadera, the business minister.

Reading the whole article text usually helps. There you go. This is pretty much British government policy. You got modded insightful for not actually reading.

But please, don't let this stop your plans for a generalized semi-conspiratorial anti-government, to say nothing of anti-USA rant. Becaause clearly this is what qualifies as "insightful" here.

Fuck. You've been modded up to insightful because you believe that that comment was an anti-USA rant - which it wasn't in any way, because it describes the situation as-is from the point of view of someone who, presumably, actually, you know, lives in the UK? It certainly rings true with me and the article proves it.

The irony seems to go like this:

1. Attack a comment for something you believe it says, but actually doesn't.
2. Fail miserably to read the context around the article, or even the links, and say that it has nothing to do with something when in fact it does.
3. Add in a sarcastic comment about what passes as 'insightful' around here.
4. As a result of 3, get the mods second guessing themselves.
5. Get a stupid comment modded as insightful.