The seizure of ThePirateBay.org's entire server farm will guarantee this BitTorrent tracker will remain offline until the police complete their investigation.
This part of the Slyck article is demonstrably false, because there is obviously a legal procedure to file a motion to a court for the seized property to be returned. In Sweden, this motion must be heard within 4-7 days depending on rest of the case.
I would say that it's instead quaranteed that such a motion will be filed promtly and highly likely that some of the seized servers are returned immediately and quite possible that the servers actually running TPB will also be returned, because the police has no basis for holding them anymore after making copies of their contents.
Nothing as I can see it. It's still perfectly legal to link to copyright violating material in Sweden.
Actually, that's not true.
Actually that WAS true according to the very same Swedish Supreme Court decision which you are refering to! Public performance didn't at the time fall in to the exclusive right of the copyright holder in Sweden (Aricle 46 of 1960:729 Lag om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk), so it was legal. In the Olsson case the SSC affirmed the Appeals Court decision of not guilty!
However, this provision was removed in the July 2005 reform to conform with the EUCD (by adding provision 2 to the first paragraph as follows "except in cases where the communication occurs in such a way that members of the public may access the sound recordings from a place and at a time individually chosen by them").
This didn't fortunately affect the situation with links or other references to information stored elsewhere, because the "making available" definition was clarified in Article 2 so that linking can no longer be considered either "public performance" or "communication to the public", in accordance with the definitions in EUCD, so it falls completely outside the scope of the copyright law. Only if there is some collusion between the persons who actually make the material available from under their control, and the person who makes an online reference to it, can it be prosecuted for aiding and abetting.
So basically your precedent is now completely irrelevant and you are also wrong on the face of the text of the law and the preliminary works.
Has anyone seen a proper analysis of what P2P applications it attempts to uninstall and what kind of media files does it list?
The industry sites pushing it have no list of "detected" P2P apps or any complete details of DFC function, just vague remarks like this:
Will Digital File Check find all the file-sharing programmes that have been installed on my computer?
Digital File Check searches for all the most common file-sharing software programmes.
It's a typical censorship approach not to let people know what they are trying to block in order to not let people properly evaluate whether the selection of the material to be removed is really done according to the claimed criteria. Usually the excuse is to "not give the wrongdoers any ideas of what to look for", but this obviously fails because the underground will always have that information and the general public who is converned about the implications of the censorship won't.
Also, IFPI makes many other "interesting" propaganda claims in relation this this campaing, such as:
Is file-sharing illegal in every country?
File-swapping copyrighted music and videos without permission is illegal throughout the world.
This is pretty boldfaced lie, because many countries, especially 3rd world ones, are not part of the Berne Convention and many which are, still don't have laws that regulate "making works available to the public" in any Internet-relevant sense. Yet others (like Russia) have laws that make it legal to upload copyrighted works without any permission, even for profit, as long as a collection society representing the rights holders gets paid.
Keeping any copyrighted material in these folders is likely to be illegal.
"Is likely to be" approaches misleading in many situations. "May be" is what they should claim to be more factual.
All in all, I think making this kind of hostile software is well in line with the long term plans of the copyright mafia. It's all about vilifying fair use and long standing traditions of sharing things between people in the village (the Global Village these days), trying to lump them together and move the threshold of "publicly acceptable behavior" to just respecting the DRM limitations and controls which will be beneficial to the corporate profit margins and detrimental to human rights (indirectly) and consumer rights (directly).
Just to compare, this Bay of Bengal quake was 8.9 Richters and let's say it caused maybe 10 000 casualties.
According to http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ 2004 MN4 could cause only a 7.0 Richter seismic effect (worst case scenario) when hitting water depth of 100m. Those kind of quakes happen all the time around the world's oceans, causing negligible casualties.
Time of possible impact is stated by NEODyS as 62239.90032 MJD
Just to correct myself, this is their estimate of time of closest encounter, not impact. Should a better estimation of the trajectory indicate impact, the impact time estimate is likely to differ with a few minutes, but this estimate will naturally be able to narrow down the impact region significantly as well.
There is no such thing as "UTC days" (perhaps you mean Julian Date days?). Time of possible impact is stated by NEODyS as 62239.90032 MJD, which translates as 2029/04/13.90032, 21:36:27 in TT (Terrestial Time), which is about UTC + 32 seconds.
MJD (Modified Julian Date) days are calculated as beginning from midnight, not noon as some other Julian Dates. See:
Julian Day Numbers
So the estimation, that the currently known center of the probable impact region is in 45E longitude, is correct. However, I don't see any bias towards the north latitudes from the orbit simulations thus far (and remember, it's April, so not much bias from Earth rotation axis inclination either). So for the time being, Somalia seems to be in the center of the probable impact area.
It has become really casual copying and people do not even think they're committing anything illegal when they download software using torrents.
It's quite an open question whether downloading software using BT is illegal in Finland. BT is a markedly different technology than the only P2P case (CuteMX) that has reached the court thus far.
While I don't think it's very likely that using BT could be found completely legal, I believe there is a strong possibility of a judgement by which for example only seeding full archives is considered "making available for public". OTOH it might be that an opposite spectrum decission is reached, whereby just running a tracker is illegal. There is absolutely no applicable precedent for those actions in the Finnish copyright law.
I could lecture a lot about this because I have followed all of the relevant cases and have the decission papers with me.
However, I would like the international audience to take note that our parliament is CURRENTLY debating the 2nd attempt to pass the Euro-DMCA into Finnish Law (actually it's in the education committee right now). Coincidence? The first attempt failed miserably, probably because there was no huge "piracy ring of ordinary kids en masse" to push it through the final vote. Could this be it? I don't know. The lobbyists are claiming that the central piece of the new legistlation is to control HOME USERS, not professional "pirates".
The industry wants for some reason a precedent case under the old law before the law changes. However, the proposed law will add very important new restrictions to customers and new milking rights for the corporations.
This is a huge subject and personally I would like to talk on end about this, but on Slashdot this thread will be forgotten in a day or so. It will be too fast to really participate in it, like in a tradition small circle deep rooted discussion of a highly technical-legal subject (for example the thread about the actual Finreactor and Dutch bust went dead in some 24 hours).
All I can say, we all are in a world of shit within about 10 years if nothing is done to control these corporations by a GLOBAL consumer rights effort. Their lobby groups and enforcement clubs are international (or should it be supernational?), and this is how they can write the law all around Earth with their total control of the media (which they use both to get funds and secure more WIPO-laws for even more funds and so on).
And I might add that this is not so much because the actual loss of connectivity to the site (or the separate tracker server which went down soon after), but because of the huge wave of rumormongering that has scared all the little kids to cut their P2P-connections, including many other unrelated P2P networks. Many have also been scared to sweeping files from their HDs, encrypt them or physically hide them in fear of further raids.
The scares have included various "pranks", some very elaborate, to scare even more people to unnecessary panic. While the police has stated that there are no more busts being planned and the investigation will take months, it has not stopped or calmed these fears (this is the second only Finnish P2P case to be investigated by police with home raids).
False rumours have included: a) Claim that police is using an IT-security company to deploy backdoors with trojaned files released over BT (this was in a form of a fake internal police email) b) Police is planning to raid 1500 homes in connection with the investigation beginning next year (this was in a form of a fake police internal memo) c) Police forces are being trained in crash courses and students are drafted from the National Police Academy just to provide enough manpower for this gargantuan operation (bigger than any in the US thus far for example) d) That police has been issued court orders to obtain traffic logs from all major ISPs in Finland f) Various other bullshit which has no base on any reality, but sounds scary enough to make some people stick forks inside their HDs and burn them! (well that fork picture was probably a joke, but that's the general idea)
Now THIS is what really dropped the traffic by several fractions. Expect it to return for the Xmas holidays when things calm down.
However, there is an alternative defence, which is based on that a part of a copyrighted work may only receive copyright protection independently of the work it belongs to. If the smaller piece doesn't meet the requirements for copyright protection, it receives none by just being a piece of another work.
Nope. I am an ex-law student. The precendence for this is that small-part distribution is LEGAL as i falls under the quotation part of the copyright law.
Pardon me, but that claim explains the "ex-" part pretty clearly. There is no quatation right without your own independent literary work with which you use the quotation. The quoted material also needs to have relevance (a quotation function) in combination with your own material. In P2P none of that applies.
Contrary to what MPAA says they had nothing to do with Finreactor raid.
There is no official word as to the effect of who exactly has filed the criminal complaint. There are rumors about BSA, Microsoft as well as other companies.
So technically, the police could claim "MPAA has nothing to do with this", while in practice some MPAA companies might have.
Anybody developing newer versions with encryption and anonymity, feel free to contact me. I have both developer time (C, C++, HTML, Perl, Javascript, etc.) and disposable income, to support creating a new version.
Have you considered instead trying to bring the BT advantages to a more secure system already under development? How about teaming with this guy:
ANts
The basic concept for a secure version of BT consists of this - there are 3 users: User 1 wants to download User 2 wants to upload User 3 is the intermediate
This way User 3 has no idea wtf they're sending and it is basically scrambled to all intents and purposes, and the downloader doesn't know the IP address of the uploader so it is truly anonymous.
The problem is when user 1 & 3 are BayTSP machines. Then user 2 is screwed (user 3 gives the IP-address and user 1 the content decrypted).
The solution to that problem is to use such routing that doesn't prove that user 2 is the originator (and not like user 3, just an uninterested relaying party). However, this is a weak legal defence in countries where just relaying for someone without the knowledge about the content could still be charged as accessory, or "aiding and abetting" or under some such reasoning.
The only solid system is where user 1 is also secure (meaning that he is a trusted party in a PKI-style web of trust, which is established outside the whole system).
The basic concept for a secure version of BT consists of this - there are 3 users: User 1 wants to download User 2 wants to upload User 3 is the intermediate
This way User 3 has no idea wtf they're sending and it is basically scrambled to all intents and purposes, and the downloader doesn't know the IP address of the uploader so it is truly anonymous.
The problem is when user 2 & 3 are BayTSP machines. Then user 1 is screwed (user 2 gives the IP-address and user 3 the content decrypted).
The solution to that problem is to use such routing that doesn't prove that user 1 is the originator (and not like user 3, just an uninterested relaying party). However, this is a weak legal defence in countries where just relaying for someone withou the knowledge about the content could still be charged with accessory.
The only solid system is where user 2 is also secure (meaning that he is a trusted party in a PKI-style web of trust).
In Finland and Holland the police shut down torrent sites by coming and taking the servers away (as evidence of suspected felonious copyright infringment).
Well, BitTorrent wasn't originally conceived as *AA-proof. It wasn't meant to avoid the central weakness problem.
Unfortunately the current state of art means that you need at least high level of decentralization and some level of anonymity to survive against the legal onslaught.
Or maybe the filesharing community could try to win friends from the *AA camp and make some of the big companies defect from the dark side?
Let's see, if everyone currently sharing files would send a personally grafted paper letter to the customer relations department announcing a boycott of the said corporation's products, unless they decide to finally come out and start meeting the customer demand for inexpensive (compared to traditionally distributed), legal, free format downloads.
It greatly puzzles me why not a signle one of the big companies forming those lobby/enforcement clubs has not decided to gamble with the public relations and just say "Enough of this!".
Without naming names, I'd fathom some big CEO to step to the podium and announce that their firm is leaving the league and instead starting their own (let's call it "Fairplay" shalle we?), promoting competition through pricing and meeting moder customer demands of high quality DRM-free formats, with one time or attractive licence payments schemes.
From the response of the techie crowd to the "stick" forumla currently employed EXCLUSIVELY by the industry, everybody would just LOVE if there was any "carrot" alternative.
They call me an optimist, but hey, someone has to have naive dreams...
In response to earlier reports by a third-party website measurement service that inaccurately portrayed the impact of the attack on specific Web sites, Akamai released today the following information (based on Akamai's over 1,100 total customers under long-term services contracts):
* the domain name service impact was limited to approximately 4 percent of the Akamai customer base
* 2 percent had noticeable impact
* less than 1 percent of Akamai customers had a significant impact affecting more than 20 percent of their users
Where Akamai tries to sidestep the issue that some of the nets most accessed sites were inaccessible for millions of users (sure, those that were not spesifically targetted had no impact). Also later they bash Keynote for not accurately portraying site availability due to different DNS caching than the end-users (which I don't believe without details).
Also:
The problem was quickly detected by Akamai's automated monitoring systems, and Akamai personnel mitigated the attack by working closely with customers, making key adjustments in the Company's infrastructure, and cooperating with several network partners around the world to shut down the source of the attack. Further, Akamai is cooperating with U.S. Federal law enforcement agencies that are investigating the incident.
Still no mention that the only effective solution to the attack was dropping Akamai DNS completely, which was employed in the customer DNS, not in Akamai. Also, it talks about a single source of attack.
I think the most important piece of information in that press release is the announcement that FBI is involved in the investigation. Apparently, however the attack was done, Akamais is now firmly committed to it being a deliberate attack and not a problem caused by their own operations.
In response to earlier reports by a third-party website measurement service that inaccurately portrayed the impact of the attack on specific Web sites, Akamai released today the following information (based on Akamai's over 1,100 total customers under long-term services contracts):
* the domain name service impact was limited to approximately 4 percent of the Akamai customer base
* 2 percent had noticeable impact
* less than 1 percent of Akamai customers had a significant impact affecting more than 20 percent of their users
Where Akamai tries to sidestep the issue that some of the nets most accessed sites were inaccessible for millions of users (sure, those that were not spesifically targetted had no impact).
Also:
The problem was quickly detected by Akamai's automated monitoring systems, and Akamai personnel mitigated the attack by working closely with customers, making key adjustments in the Company's infrastructure, and cooperating with several network partners around the world to shut down the source of the attack. Further, Akamai is cooperating with U.S. Federal law enforcement agencies that are investigating the incident.
Still no mention that the only effective solution to the attack was dropping Akamai DNS completely, which was employed in the customer DNS, not in Akamai. Also, it talks about a single source of attack. By definition, that's DoS, not DDoS. Which should be child's play to filter. Something is missing here.
I think the most important piece of information in that press release is the announcement that FBI is involved in the investigation. Apparently, however the attack was done, Akamais is now firmly committed to it being a deliberate attack and not a problem caused by their own operations.
I don't think this is ever going to fly (pun intended). There have been so many space tourism ventures and none have come to fruition so far, except the ones started by the Russians with the long ago re-entered and burned Mir space station. You need the hardware up and running to do this sort of thing without massive financing.
I mean there are plans to build space ladders from earth surface to orbit (forgot the link but you can find it with Google for sure) and what not propellerhead ideas out there. But no final funding.
I believe this when I see some hardware.
If you want free advice for running this kind of operation: 1) Contract the Russians or the French who have excess launch capacity for the greenbacks 2) Design a small module for the ISS 3) Launch it with 1) 4) Send your millionaires up to ISS Mir-style 5) Exchange service agreements with NASA/ESA/Russians for some PR promos
Slashdot Mirror
I would say that it's instead quaranteed that such a motion will be filed promtly and highly likely that some of the seized servers are returned immediately and quite possible that the servers actually running TPB will also be returned, because the police has no basis for holding them anymore after making copies of their contents.
However, this provision was removed in the July 2005 reform to conform with the EUCD (by adding provision 2 to the first paragraph as follows "except in cases where the communication occurs in such a way that members of the public may access the sound recordings from a place and at a time individually chosen by them").
This didn't fortunately affect the situation with links or other references to information stored elsewhere, because the "making available" definition was clarified in Article 2 so that linking can no longer be considered either "public performance" or "communication to the public", in accordance with the definitions in EUCD, so it falls completely outside the scope of the copyright law. Only if there is some collusion between the persons who actually make the material available from under their control, and the person who makes an online reference to it, can it be prosecuted for aiding and abetting.
So basically your precedent is now completely irrelevant and you are also wrong on the face of the text of the law and the preliminary works.
The industry sites pushing it have no list of "detected" P2P apps or any complete details of DFC function, just vague remarks like this:
It's a typical censorship approach not to let people know what they are trying to block in order to not let people properly evaluate whether the selection of the material to be removed is really done according to the claimed criteria. Usually the excuse is to "not give the wrongdoers any ideas of what to look for", but this obviously fails because the underground will always have that information and the general public who is converned about the implications of the censorship won't.
Also, IFPI makes many other "interesting" propaganda claims in relation this this campaing, such as:
NEOP of JPL
Two later than 2029 Torino class 2 possibilities remain, even though the news release mentions "no concern".
Closest approach with the nominal orbit down to 86 702 km (53 874 miles).
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2004mn4.html
So, when is 2029-04-13.89?
.89 x 24 = 21.36 hours
.36 x 60 = 21.6 minutes
.6 x 60 = 36 seconds
21:21:36
So in other words, Friday, the 13th April 2029, 9:21 PM.
Just to compare, this Bay of Bengal quake was 8.9 Richters and let's say it caused maybe 10 000 casualties.
According to http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ 2004 MN4 could cause only a 7.0 Richter seismic effect (worst case scenario) when hitting water depth of 100m. Those kind of quakes happen all the time around the world's oceans, causing negligible casualties.
Time of possible impact is stated by NEODyS as 62239.90032 MJD
Just to correct myself, this is their estimate of time of closest encounter, not impact. Should a better estimation of the trajectory indicate impact, the impact time estimate is likely to differ with a few minutes, but this estimate will naturally be able to narrow down the impact region significantly as well.
No, UTC days begin at noon, London time.
There is no such thing as "UTC days" (perhaps you mean Julian Date days?). Time of possible impact is stated by NEODyS as 62239.90032 MJD, which translates as 2029/04/13.90032, 21:36:27 in TT (Terrestial Time), which is about UTC + 32 seconds.
MJD (Modified Julian Date) days are calculated as beginning from midnight, not noon as some other Julian Dates. See: Julian Day Numbers
So the estimation, that the currently known center of the probable impact region is in 45E longitude, is correct. However, I don't see any bias towards the north latitudes from the orbit simulations thus far (and remember, it's April, so not much bias from Earth rotation axis inclination either). So for the time being, Somalia seems to be in the center of the probable impact area.
And definitely the spare chips left outside those Vaults must be left in the tender care of the Brotherhood of Steel and not some stupid ass ghouls ;-)
It has become really casual copying and people do not even think they're committing anything illegal when they download software using torrents.
It's quite an open question whether downloading software using BT is illegal in Finland. BT is a markedly different technology than the only P2P case (CuteMX) that has reached the court thus far.
While I don't think it's very likely that using BT could be found completely legal, I believe there is a strong possibility of a judgement by which for example only seeding full archives is considered "making available for public". OTOH it might be that an opposite spectrum decission is reached, whereby just running a tracker is illegal. There is absolutely no applicable precedent for those actions in the Finnish copyright law.
I could lecture a lot about this because I have followed all of the relevant cases and have the decission papers with me.
However, I would like the international audience to take note that our parliament is CURRENTLY debating the 2nd attempt to pass the Euro-DMCA into Finnish Law (actually it's in the education committee right now). Coincidence? The first attempt failed miserably, probably because there was no huge "piracy ring of ordinary kids en masse" to push it through the final vote. Could this be it? I don't know. The lobbyists are claiming that the central piece of the new legistlation is to control HOME USERS, not professional "pirates".
The industry wants for some reason a precedent case under the old law before the law changes. However, the proposed law will add very important new restrictions to customers and new milking rights for the corporations.
This is a huge subject and personally I would like to talk on end about this, but on Slashdot this thread will be forgotten in a day or so. It will be too fast to really participate in it, like in a tradition small circle deep rooted discussion of a highly technical-legal subject (for example the thread about the actual Finreactor and Dutch bust went dead in some 24 hours).
All I can say, we all are in a world of shit within about 10 years if nothing is done to control these corporations by a GLOBAL consumer rights effort. Their lobby groups and enforcement clubs are international (or should it be supernational?), and this is how they can write the law all around Earth with their total control of the media (which they use both to get funds and secure more WIPO-laws for even more funds and so on).
And I might add that this is not so much because the actual loss of connectivity to the site (or the separate tracker server which went down soon after), but because of the huge wave of rumormongering that has scared all the little kids to cut their P2P-connections, including many other unrelated P2P networks. Many have also been scared to sweeping files from their HDs, encrypt them or physically hide them in fear of further raids.
The scares have included various "pranks", some very elaborate, to scare even more people to unnecessary panic. While the police has stated that there are no more busts being planned and the investigation will take months, it has not stopped or calmed these fears (this is the second only Finnish P2P case to be investigated by police with home raids).
False rumours have included:
a) Claim that police is using an IT-security company to deploy backdoors with trojaned files released over BT (this was in a form of a fake internal police email)
b) Police is planning to raid 1500 homes in connection with the investigation beginning next year (this was in a form of a fake police internal memo)
c) Police forces are being trained in crash courses and students are drafted from the National Police Academy just to provide enough manpower for this gargantuan operation (bigger than any in the US thus far for example)
d) That police has been issued court orders to obtain traffic logs from all major ISPs in Finland
f) Various other bullshit which has no base on any reality, but sounds scary enough to make some people stick forks inside their HDs and burn them!
(well that fork picture was probably a joke, but that's the general idea)
Now THIS is what really dropped the traffic by several fractions. Expect it to return for the Xmas holidays when things calm down.
However, there is an alternative defence, which is based on that a part of a copyrighted work may only receive copyright protection independently of the work it belongs to. If the smaller piece doesn't meet the requirements for copyright protection, it receives none by just being a piece of another work.
Nope. I am an ex-law student. The precendence for this is that small-part distribution is LEGAL as i falls under the quotation part of the copyright law.
Pardon me, but that claim explains the "ex-" part pretty clearly. There is no quatation right without your own independent literary work with which you use the quotation. The quoted material also needs to have relevance (a quotation function) in combination with your own material. In P2P none of that applies.
Contrary to what MPAA says they had nothing to do with Finreactor raid.
There is no official word as to the effect of who exactly has filed the criminal complaint. There are rumors about BSA, Microsoft as well as other companies.
So technically, the police could claim "MPAA has nothing to do with this", while in practice some MPAA companies might have.
Anybody developing newer versions with encryption and anonymity, feel free to contact me. I have both developer time (C, C++, HTML, Perl, Javascript, etc.) and disposable income, to support creating a new version.
Have you considered instead trying to bring the BT advantages to a more secure system already under development? How about teaming with this guy: ANts
Sorry about that, now it makes more sense:
The basic concept for a secure version of BT consists of this - there are 3 users:
User 1 wants to download
User 2 wants to upload
User 3 is the intermediate
This way User 3 has no idea wtf they're sending and it is basically scrambled to all intents and purposes, and the downloader doesn't know the IP address of the uploader so it is truly anonymous.
The problem is when user 1 & 3 are BayTSP machines. Then user 2 is screwed (user 3 gives the IP-address and user 1 the content decrypted).
The solution to that problem is to use such routing that doesn't prove that user 2 is the originator (and not like user 3, just an uninterested relaying party). However, this is a weak legal defence in countries where just relaying for someone without the knowledge about the content could still be charged as accessory, or "aiding and abetting" or under some such reasoning.
The only solid system is where user 1 is also secure (meaning that he is a trusted party in a PKI-style web of trust, which is established outside the whole system).
The basic concept for a secure version of BT consists of this - there are 3 users:
User 1 wants to download
User 2 wants to upload
User 3 is the intermediate
This way User 3 has no idea wtf they're sending and it is basically scrambled to all intents and purposes, and the downloader doesn't know the IP address of the uploader so it is truly anonymous.
The problem is when user 2 & 3 are BayTSP machines. Then user 1 is screwed (user 2 gives the IP-address and user 3 the content decrypted).
The solution to that problem is to use such routing that doesn't prove that user 1 is the originator (and not like user 3, just an uninterested relaying party). However, this is a weak legal defence in countries where just relaying for someone withou the knowledge about the content could still be charged with accessory.
The only solid system is where user 2 is also secure (meaning that he is a trusted party in a PKI-style web of trust).
FICIX
TeliaSonera (biggest ISP in Finland)
In Finland and Holland the police shut down torrent sites by coming and taking the servers away (as evidence of suspected felonious copyright infringment).
Well, BitTorrent wasn't originally conceived as *AA-proof. It wasn't meant to avoid the central weakness problem.
Unfortunately the current state of art means that you need at least high level of decentralization and some level of anonymity to survive against the legal onslaught.
Or maybe the filesharing community could try to win friends from the *AA camp and make some of the big companies defect from the dark side?
Let's see, if everyone currently sharing files would send a personally grafted paper letter to the customer relations department announcing a boycott of the said corporation's products, unless they decide to finally come out and start meeting the customer demand for inexpensive (compared to traditionally distributed), legal, free format downloads.
It greatly puzzles me why not a signle one of the big companies forming those lobby/enforcement clubs has not decided to gamble with the public relations and just say "Enough of this!".
Without naming names, I'd fathom some big CEO to step to the podium and announce that their firm is leaving the league and instead starting their own (let's call it "Fairplay" shalle we?), promoting competition through pricing and meeting moder customer demands of high quality DRM-free formats, with one time or attractive licence payments schemes.
From the response of the techie crowd to the "stick" forumla currently employed EXCLUSIVELY by the industry, everybody would just LOVE if there was any "carrot" alternative.
They call me an optimist, but hey, someone has to have naive dreams...
The key points are:
Where Akamai tries to sidestep the issue that some of the nets most accessed sites were inaccessible for millions of users (sure, those that were not spesifically targetted had no impact). Also later they bash Keynote for not accurately portraying site availability due to different DNS caching than the end-users (which I don't believe without details).
Also:
Still no mention that the only effective solution to the attack was dropping Akamai DNS completely, which was employed in the customer DNS, not in Akamai. Also, it talks about a single source of attack.
I think the most important piece of information in that press release is the announcement that FBI is involved in the investigation. Apparently, however the attack was done, Akamais is now firmly committed to it being a deliberate attack and not a problem caused by their own operations.
An article also reveals that the attack involved a bot net:
'Zombie' PCs caused Web outage, Akamai says
The key points are:
Where Akamai tries to sidestep the issue that some of the nets most accessed sites were inaccessible for millions of users (sure, those that were not spesifically targetted had no impact).
Also:
Still no mention that the only effective solution to the attack was dropping Akamai DNS completely, which was employed in the customer DNS, not in Akamai. Also, it talks about a single source of attack. By definition, that's DoS, not DDoS. Which should be child's play to filter. Something is missing here.
I think the most important piece of information in that press release is the announcement that FBI is involved in the investigation. Apparently, however the attack was done, Akamais is now firmly committed to it being a deliberate attack and not a problem caused by their own operations.
I don't think this is ever going to fly (pun intended). There have been so many space tourism ventures and none have come to fruition so far, except the ones started by the Russians with the long ago re-entered and burned Mir space station.
You need the hardware up and running to do this sort of thing without massive financing.
I mean there are plans to build space ladders from earth surface to orbit (forgot the link but you can find it with Google for sure) and what not propellerhead ideas out there. But no final funding.
I believe this when I see some hardware.
If you want free advice for running this kind of operation:
1) Contract the Russians or the French who have excess launch capacity for the greenbacks
2) Design a small module for the ISS
3) Launch it with 1)
4) Send your millionaires up to ISS Mir-style
5) Exchange service agreements with NASA/ESA/Russians for some PR promos