ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Quote from: "cutter"Ne znam, ali ako ga skinu, Gugl i njegovi sajtovi su prvi do njega, strahujem za njih.

QuoteOne may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Quote from: "Meho Krljic"pošto ne mogu da zatvore google, kakve bi mere bezbednosti zahtevale od država da nametnu ISP-jevima...

Quote
9:53AM Monday Apr 20, 2009
Pat Pilcher
Peter Sunde, one of the founders and spokesperson for bitorrent tracker site, The Pirate Bay, is said to have found out that they had lost their court case in Sweden several hours before the official verdict was delivered thanks to information supposedly leaked by what is claimed to be a "trustworthy source".

The Swedish Courts are unimpressed and brought in the police to investigate. Regardless of the final outcome after the dust has cleared from any remaining legal wrangles, The Pirate Bay verdict appears to be achieving the opposite to the outcome intended by the copyright advocates with support for the site and its political offshoot, the Pirate Party reportedly going from strength to strength.

Since the verdict, support for the Swedish Pirate Party has surpassed that of the Swedish Green Party and it now appears that almost half of all Swedish males under the age of 30 are considering voting for the Pirate Party in the 2009 European Parliament elections. In the first 24 hours since the verdict, over 3000 people joined the Pirate Party, raising its membership from under 15,000 to over 18,000, making it the 5th largest, and the most popular political party within the youth demographic. The Pirate Party will however require at least 100,000 votes to gain a seat in the European Parliament.

Politics aside, future victories for copyright holders are looking increasingly shaky as Bitorrent tracking sites such as The Pirate Bay are about to be replaced by applications such as the Tribler. Where the current crop of bittorrent filesharing applications need to be pointed at torrent tracking sites such as The Pirate Bay to find files, Tribler's searches are done over the networks of fellow bittorrent users, sidestepping centralised torrent tracking sites altogether.

With iPredator about to launch, downloaders will be easily able to anonymously continue their activities whilst Tribler will leave no centralised point of vulnerability for the prosecution and policing of copyright infringers. Both Tribler and the iPredator service are merely the opening salvos fired in a technological arms race. The ball is now firmly in the court of slow moving regulators who will need to step up the development of countermeasures if they intend to make in-roads into enforcing copyright infringement.

* Disclaimer: Although Pat Pilcher Works for Telecom, his opinions do not represent those of his employer.

Quote
Ne politika, ne NVO, ne grupa gradana! Srpski pirati: Wiki-like ljudi današnjice u novim komunikacijama!

Istinski umetnik živi kroz stvaranje i za stvarenje. Ali ne, danas ste priznati umetnik jedino ako imate milione na racunu, overenu avionsku kartu za evakuaciju iz zemlje u slucaju sranja i jake veze sa establišmentom.

Taj film naravno nikada necu gledati. Obrisacu kantu sa njim.

Deljenje je briga.

Mi smo iznad sistema! Nemamo akta, nemamo dokumenta, nemamo potpise i pečate, nemamo lažne obaveze i dvojne dogovore. Mi smo dovoljno svesni svojih razlika i nećemo se nikada njih odreći! Nemamo potrebu da mislimo isto ili da se tako deklarišemo. Nikada nikome nećemo klimati glavom niti ćemo praviti kompromise oko fundamentalnih vrednosti!

Decentralizacija!
Fuck bg centrala!!! (Decentralizacija, jebeš beogradsku centralizaciju!!!)

  1.  Ostati po svaku cenu van političkog sistema Srbije kakav je danas. Politički sistem Srbije je trenutno najveća nacionalna bolest, veći i od zlostavljanja, nasilja, narkomanije, trgovine ljudima, nekulture i primitivizma.
  2. Doći u situaciju da utičemo na Zakon jedino wiki mehanizmima iznošenja prave vrednosti.
  3. Znaj svoje mesto! Ne zaboravi ko si i odakle si!
  4. Kolektivna svest ali jedino kroz pojedinačnu.
  5. Uticaj na okolinu kroz znanje i ideje.
  6. Poštovanje volje i interesovanja onog pored tebe kao suštinska nijansa u odnosu.

Sigh! Muka mi je od vas polovnjaka, malograđanštine i skorojevića!!!

QuoteMINNEAPOLIS – A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.

A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.

Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.

The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.

Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.

Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.

"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."

Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.

Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.

"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said.

In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed what the evidence showed.

An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.

Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.

"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa," Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."

Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to the jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.

His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. He didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, are copyright violations.

This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.

In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.

The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.

Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.

Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol address — the online equivalent of a street address — and to her modem.

He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions to jurors.

Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.

Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for several years.

He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.

"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said.

Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.

The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.

The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums

Quotehttp://thepiratebay.org/blog/164


Quote:
Yes, it's true.

News reached the press today in Sweden - The Pirate Bay might get aquired by Global Gaming Factory X AB.

A lot of people are worried. We're not and you shouldn't be either!

TPB is being sold for a great bit underneath it's value if the money would be the interesting part. It's not. The interesting thing is that the right people with the right attitude and possibilities keep running the site.
As all of you know, there's not been much news on the site for the past two-three years. It's the same site essentially. On the internets, stuff dies if it doesn't evolve. We don't want that to happen.

We've been working on this project for many years. It's time to invite more people into the project, in a way that is secure and safe for everybody. We need that, or the site will die. And letting TPB die is the last thing that is allowed to happen!

If the new owners will screw around with the site, nobody will keep using it. That's the biggest insurance one can have that the site will be run in the way that we all want to. And - you can now not only share files but shares with people. Everybody can indeed be the owner of The Pirate Bay now. That's awesome and will take the heat of us.

The old crew is still around in different ways. We will also not stop being active in the politics of the internets - quite the opposite. Now we're fueling up for going into the next gear. TPB will have economical muscles to let people evolve it. It will team up with great technicians to evolve the protocols. And we, the people interested in more than just technology, will have the time to focus on that. It's win-win-win.

The profits from the sale will go into a foundation that is going to help with projects about freedom of speech, freedom of information and the openess of the nets. I hope everybody will help out in that and realize that this is the best option for all. Don't worry - be happy!
Posted Heute 10:43 von TPB 

Q: Does that mean the RIAA/MPAA/etc now owns TPB?
A: Fuck no!

Q: Does that mean I will have to pay to download stuff in future?
A: Fuck no!

Q: Is everything/anything written in stone?
A: Fuck no! lets wait and see how everything turns out... before jumping to conclusions

best wishes
tob

PS: dont bombard Brokep with msg at the moment, he has a full inbox and will be posting on twitter and his blog ...

http://twitter.com/Brokep (http://twitter.com/Brokep)

http://blog.brokep.com/ (http://blog.brokep.com/)


Quote:
12:47 anakata
it WONT become a fucking pay-99c-to-download-a-song service and there will still be a public tracker so, those misunderstandings may be laid to rest 

Quote:
Update 1.0

Q: Will Superbay be sold?
A: No. it will stay as it is... or it will be updated to a newer version under the current Management. 

Quote:
Update 2.0

Q: Will the sister sites be sold?
A: No. We might finally have some time to put more effort into them... this would include:

http://suprbay.org/ (http://suprbay.org/)
http://sharereactor.com/ (http://sharereactor.com/)
http://thevideobay.org/ (http://thevideobay.org/)
http://pastebay.com/ (http://pastebay.com/)
http://bayimg.com/ (http://bayimg.com/)
http://slopsbox.com/ (http://slopsbox.com/)
http://baywords.com/ (http://baywords.com/)
http://suprnova.org/ (http://suprnova.org/)

Quote:
From Twitter (Translated)

Daniel Goldberg:
@ brokep Is this correct? http://bit.ly/1YR0m (http://bit.ly/1YR0m)

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg Yes.

Daniel Goldberg:
@ brokep What a thing! Who gets the money? Who owns the TPB?

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg Foreign company, with demands from our side to finance a fund for internet projects. We get no money.

Daniel Goldberg:
@ brokep Cool. What do you mean internet project? Will you not have to use the money to cover the damages?

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg Internet Project in the form of political activism, etc. TPB changed hands in 2006 already to not be sued.

Daniel Goldberg
@ brokep Congratulations, the scoop! Who is the owner of TPB today?

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg It's partly why we've have been so sure that lawsuits against us is pointless in the end ... :-)

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg I do not think that I may say for legal reasons. But they are people we trust. And have conditioned things too.. 


will update this as we move along... if you have a question ask it in irc or in the discussion thread... Quote:
Whatever happens at the end of this case, Pirate Bay wins. 

QuoteSo The Pirate Bay shut down its tracker today. That shouldn't come as a shock to anyone following the shenanigans surrounding the Swedish-run website, which has been battling foreign media companies for years. A big verdict was handed down to the site on April 17, 2009 (TMT News), ruling all the involved parties guilty of facilitating copyright infringement. Each Pirate Bay member was sentenced to a year in prison and had to pay a combined 30 million Swedish krona fine ($3.5 million in U.S. dollars).

But what should come as a shock is the site itself is not being shut down. The owners of The Pirate Bay have opted to continue running the site without a tracker. Briefly, a BitTorrent tracker is what currently powers the technology. A tracker does not house any content itself, instead it contains information about all the places where you CAN get the data, mainly end-user computers. Trackers have been the source of litigation for just about every site that's been shut down, as it can be successfully argued that, while the trackers do not house copy-written data themselves, they facilitate the transfer of said data.

So how the hell is this torrent shizz gonna work without a tracker? And the Hydra replied: DHT, PEX, and Magnet links. I'll explain each briefly, then use a hot analogy to show how they click together like sexy Lego.

DHT is a technology that predates BitTorrent, and it's currently available in just about every torrent client out there. It works by building a web of data behind the scenes, which can provide information on a needed basis. Think of it as a phone book (remember those?) split apart. Every household has a chunk of the worldwide phone book. Whenever you need some data that's not in your piece of the phone book, you shout real loud until somebody hands over the relevant chunk of the book.

PEX is a fairly new technology that still has some kinks to work out. It works in a similar fashion to DHT, but instead of compiling data, it compiles clients/nodes/people. So to continue our phone book analogy from above, instead of running around screaming your head off until you get what you want, you politely go ask your neighbors if either they have the chunk you need or if they know somebody who does. If your neighbors have no clue what you're talking about, you're still free to run around shouting until you find it.

Magnet links are the last piece of the puzzle. They work by providing a link to the data, rather than to where the data is located. So, to keep with this phone book angle, let's say you don't even know the page on which the information is held. Using either method described above, you ask for the page that contains the relevant information. Somebody will eventually tell you the page, then you're free to either run around like a nut or ask politely. It's up to you.

Now, you might be thinking "this is boring," and you would be correct. Stay with me for another paragraph, because the interesting part in all of this is that The Pirate Bay is taking the first step towards a continual night terror for the media industries. There is NOBODY to sue except the end users. The Pirate Bay will house magnet links only. Magnet links don't contain any data outside of a random string of numbers and letters. The Pirate Bay is no longer running the service that allows people to connect to each other. All that is handled within your torrent program. I wouldn't doubt it if the next step is for the torrent programs to include some kind of search capability, making The Pirate Bay and other sites irrelevant. It took about 10 years, but we've finally come full circle with a quality replacement to Napster. Since all this new technology is based on open standards and protocols, anyone can design a program that will be play nice with the existing data. So even if Vuze or uTorrent gets shut down, another program can pick up the slack; it's all the same phone book.

Quote from: Bonoreverse Robin Hoods

QuoteActually, 53 billion pirates can't exist. The world population is estimated to be 6,892,982,184. But, according to the US Chamber of Commerce sponsored MarkMonitor's report, this is how many site visits is generated by 43 "digital piracy" sites that were observed. To put that into perspective, this is about 7 visits each year by every single person of Earth's estimated population at the time of this post.

Granted many of these sites are probably visited by the same people, these figures are still quite impressive. At the time of this writing, thepiratebay.org alone claims 40,412,921 peers are active. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing just how many individuals visit pirate sites.

I want to take a look at what I think is a ridiculous quote where this report equates the sell of fake drugs with sharing digital media.

"Whether it is the sale of counterfeit bags and fake pharmaceuticals or illegal distribution of movies, music, and software, online IP theft is theft—plain and simple," added Tepp. "Rogue websites have no place in a legitimate online market. If left unchecked, these sites will continue to flourish at our expense and further hinder our economic growth. The MarkMonitor report underscores the urgency of enacting proactive policies to enhance enforcement tools to shut down these rogue websites."

"Plain and simple." A fact paid for by the nation's tax dollars. Now let's look at the vast difference in visits generated by people downloading media vs people purchasing counterfeit drugs and other vids.

* The 43 sites that were classified as 'digital piracy' generated over 146 million visits per day, representing more than 53 billion visits per year.
* The combined traffic to the 48 sites selling counterfeit physical goods is more than 87 million visits per year.
* The 26 sites selling counterfeit prescription drugs (separate from the counterfeit physical goods analysis) generated 51 million visits per year.

Wow! That is quite a difference visitors. Sure, file-sharing is free, but I would have thought with something as plain and simple as "theft is theft" we wouldn't see such an astonishing gap between the visits by "thieves" to one type of site over another. If this yields any useful information, it is that the amount of people willing to download from a pirate source is far less than the amount of people willing to buy from a pirated source, let alone from a legitimate source.

Data transferred does not equal a sale lost!

The rate of software piracy in the US is reported to be at a rate of 20%. It is a 59.9% average across all nations studied worldwide as of the Fifth Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study of 2007.

Strangely, a much lesser rate of software piracy is reported in regions with larger software markets. Meanwhile, the dollar losses claimed in these regions is tremendously higher. We're talking billions of dollars higher. How can this possibly be you ask? A very astute question. I'm not quite certain it is possible. Let's see what the report has to say about it.

Lower piracy regions and markets like Japan, North America, and Western Europe have among the highest dollar losses. These markets are so large that piracy at relatively low levels can generate significant losses.

Wtf? Did this report by the Business Software Alliance just state that dollar losses from piracy have little to do with the actual amount of piracy? Yes it did. Such figures are generated by the industry based on how much they have for sale, not how much is pirated. If I offer licensing to use software which I price at one billion dollars and one person uses it without purchasing from authorized distributors, I have lost a billion dollars that I would otherwise have been guaranteed.

In other words, the software industry has control over the amount of losses reported by way of creating a larger market. A larger market equals larger losses.

Losses
The retail value of pirated software is calculated using the size of the legitimate software market and the
piracy rate. The actual formula is: Value of Pirated Software = (Legitimate Market)/ (1-Piracy Rate)- Legitimate Market.

DC finds that worldwide losses from piracy increased 20%, [...] from 2006 to 2007. Losses to the industry from piracy were calculated using the known size of the legitimate software market in a country or region and using the piracy rate to derive the retail value of software that was not paid for.

Here I was being told by the government, news media and intellectual property industries that pirates are to blame for the software market's losses and along comes the software industry telling me they themselves are responsible for the amount of losses by increasing market size.

How are these piracy rates calculated anyway?

The total software base is the amount of software,
legitimate and pirated, installed during the year. It is obtained by multiplying the number of PCs receiving
new software during the year by the average number of software packages per PC that were installed in 2007.

Oh. Right off the bat they are calculating based on figures they can't possibly fathom. Nobody knows how much software I've installed from pirated sources with out purchasing. It could be anywhere from zero to thousands of software packages. Multiply that unknown amount by the number of people who install pirated software and... oh wait you can't. The amount of people who download and install pirated software is also not known. I don't know what to say. Should I bother posting any more about how the BSA or other content industries gather such data?

Nothing gained does not equal something lost! We have a serious problem when we enable the same industries claiming a loss to have a direct influence over creating the amount of losses claimed. This is one of the largest threats to the security of the nation's economy and puts a great deal of jobs at risk. These markets should not be allowed to grow, as they have demonstrated market growth as being the largest cause of creating economic damage. We simply can not afford to plan for economic growth based on calculating anything other than real numbers above zero. These hypothetical losses are baseless and have, thus far, only led to a tremendous amount of tax dollars being spent on poor research and attempts to enforce laws against non-commercial data transfer.

Which is the real economic loss? The data transferred for free or the black hole of government spending to pursue am imaginary threat?

Update: It looks as tho RapidShare is fed up with biased reports and may seek legal action against MarkMonitor. The fact that RapidShare has been operating as a legitimate service for years and has been labelled a "digital piracy" site in this report really takes away any chance credibility the report may have had. -STOP WASTING TAX DOLLARS ON SHIT REPORTS US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE!!!
Edit: The USCC is not an agency of the US gov't (I have always assumed them to be. That "US" part fooled me >_<). They are known to be the biggest spending lobbyist group annually. Tax dollars are not directly spent on these reports which are in turn used to persuade government officials to spend tax dollars on things like shutting down services like RapidShare, apparently.

Also, here is zeropaid post regarding the 53 billion visits reported. It displays some interesting examples of just how deceptive such reports can be. I think we can safely toss MarkMonitor's report in the rubbish bin.

QuoteThe music industry's latest annual report on the digital world has one main "ask" in it: would governments around the world please, please, pretty please get off their collective lard-filled posteriors and start passing the sorts of laws that would dragoon Internet providers into the antipiracy wars?

Whatever one thinks of this as a policy approach, it certainly represents a considerable shift in Internet regulation. Given the strength of the medicine, it's worth examining just how bad the disease is; that is, how many music pirates actually exist?

Given draconian public pronouncements in the past that, for instance, 95 percent of digital music has been illegally acquired, one might be forgiven for thinking that almost everyone on the 'Net is a pirate. It's not true. In fact, according to the music industry's own research, only a small percentage of Internet users are even pirates in the first place—and even the pirates turn out to spend money on music.

Pirates by the numbers
For US numbers, we can turn to Warner Music, one of the world's largest music labels and a company that devoted plenty of time to researching the audience for its products. Last year, Warner execs stopped by the offices of the Federal Communications Commission to brief the agency on its findings—and what it found was that 13 percent of Americans were music pirates.


Music listeners, by category
Warner Music
That's still a substantial number, but the effects of that piracy are mitigated by the fact that even the pirates spend their money on music. As you might expect, they listen to more music and spend less money than other groups, but Warner's own chart shows that piracy doesn't cut one's expenditures to nothing. And, as the company notes in another slide, the pirates "tend to drive high discovery for others ('others always want my advice on music')."


Even pirates spend some money
Warner Music
Piracy also skews young, with that 13 percent figure being heavily weighted by 13- to 25-year-olds. Above 25, the figure drops rapidly.


Pirates vary by age group
Warner Music
The situation in Europe is similar. In 2009, research by Jupiter Networks found that 16 percent of Internet users there "regularly" use P2P networks to share and acquire music, while a 2010 study from Harris Interactive found that 14 percent of UK Internet users get video content from P2P networks. (Note that, because these numbers are only for Internet users, they would be even lower if applied to the entire population, putting them more in line with the US figures.)

Pirates turn out to have large music collections—Warner estimates the average piratical treasure chest to hold 3,100 tracks—and they do share huge amounts of music online. But they account for relatively small percentages of Internet users, and even this percentage isn't a group of total freeloaders.

This fits with recent academic work on file-sharing, which last year looked at various file-sharing studies and concluded that about 20 percent of the music industry's woes could be blamed on online infringement; the other 80 percent was caused by things like the decline of the album, the rise of singles on iTunes, and the death of high-priced CDs.

Further reading
Warner Music presentation to the FCC (fjallfoss.fcc.gov)

Quote
Bashing current copyright law is easy—just ask Jessica Litman, a professor of law at the University of Michigan. She calls current US copyright a "swollen, barnacle-encrusted collection of incomprehensible prose." Or, to change the metaphor to aging, copyright law is "old, outmoded, inflexible, and beginning to display the symptoms of multiple systems failure."

Suggesting something new to replace it can be a harder job, and Litman turns her attention to that task in an unpublished new paper called "Real Copyright Reform" (PDF). Part of a spate of recent reform proposals (Public Knowledge is heading another high-profile effort, for example), Litman's quest to reform the 1976 Copyright Act is, as she acknowledges, quixotic.

"None of these proposals is likely to attract serious attention from Congress or copyright lobbyists," she writes. "Right now the copyright legislation playing field is completely controlled by its beneficiaries. They have persuaded Congress that it is pointless to try to enact copyright laws without their assent."

Still, academics have never limited themselves to something as tawdry as "reality," and Litman's theoretical work here is no exception. Her entire reform proposal is based on a few key principles: returning power to both creators and consumers, radically simplifying the law so that people can understand it without a lawyer, and beating the record companies, publishers, and movie studios about the head with a shovel.

Who might object to that? The big distributors, for one, would probably not be pleased with any plan devoted to ousting "the current vested intermediaries from their control of pieces of copyright, and return that power to the creators."

Removing the barnacles
Litman's reform is predicated on the idea that current law gives too much advantage to distributors. That model was more appropriate decades ago when distribution was a capital-intensive business that featured printing presses, fleets of delivery trucks, national retail stores, CD printing plants, and television transmitters.

In today's brave New World, "the new economics of digital distribution mean that we no longer need to shape our copyright law in ways that disadvantage creators vis-à-vis distributors unless we want to," writes Litman.

In fact, current copyright law may contain the seeds of its own destruction by breeding a general contempt for the very idea of copyright. If the general public looks at laws like the Sonny Bono copyright term extension act of 1998 (which added 20 years to many existing copyrights) and sees only rent-seeking behavior by major corporations, copyright itself can come to seem illegitimate. Debacles like the Sony BMG rootkit haven't helped, nor has the entire field of DRM, which has largely failed to stop piracy but has energized and outraged a generation of tech-savvy kids.

"A public citizenry that believes its copyright law is illegitimate may respond by withdrawing its support from the system," writes Litman. "Enforcing copyright law in an atmosphere of public cynicism about the legitimacy of the law is a difficult task. A public that complies with copyright only because it's afraid of the copyright police will soon find ways to invade or restrain the copyright police. The long-term health of the copyright system, thus, requires that members of the public believe that their investment in copyright is well spent."

The other big goal of this reform proposal is simplification. "The fact that legacy copyright rules bind ordinary people engaging in everyday transactions, but are too complicated to explain to them, is nothing for us to be proud of," Litman writes. She cites the many distinctions "that makes no apparent sense."

"If you tell the owner of a sports bar that the copyright statute allows him to install up to six television sets in his sports bar so long as the picture is turned off, but only one television set if the picture is turned on, he will understandably tell you that the law is looney."

To accomplish these goals, Litman's main suggestion is that the multiple rights provided for in copyright law (the reproduction right, the right to make derivative works, the right to make public performances, etc.) be compacted into a single right: the author's right to control commercial exploitation of the work.

Anyone engaged in noncommercial use of a given work would be free to do so without seeking a license and without worrying about lawsuits. Things like fair use would still exist, but would only come into play in commercial exploitations (such as when The Daily Show uses news clips from other networks).

This single change would reduce the length and complexity of copyright law, make it easier for creators to understand and control their rights, and could cut down the power of the distributors and intermediaries. One of the key problems with this proposal, of course, is defining "noncommercial use." P2P Defendants have often made the case that their file-sharing was noncommercial, for example; the recording industry has repeatedly argued in court that, because the songs were being sold commercially and because at least some of those people downloading files would have purchased them, even actions done without payment can be "commercial."

Termination and readers' rights
Litman also argues that creators should have more chances to take back their copyrights. Currently, US law does provide certain "termination rights" to artists who want to reclaim the copyrights they signed away. These rights are difficult enough to access and practice that Litman calls them "fake." In her view, creators should be able to terminate their contracts with the readers after 15 years, subject to a five-year notice.

The reform proposal also recognizes a greater place for "readers' rights." This idea goes back to the earlier concerns about the legitimacy of copyright law. "If copyright law expressly recognizes the reader, listener, and viewer interests must sometimes be protected against overreaching creators and distributors, it is much easier for members of the public to invest in the principle that copyright should protect creators and distributors from exploitation of readers, listeners, and viewers."

In addition, the Copyright Office would gain a new position: the "copyright ombudsman." The ombudsman's job would be to "explain the copyright system to the public and articulate the public's interest to the staff of the Copyright Office and to Congress."

Finally, Litman takes a broad whack at collecting societies like ASCAP, BMI, and SoundExchange, arguing that such entrenched middlemen need to be "de-trenched." In this ideal future, the collecting societies would be reborn as more transparent, more competitive voluntary organizations.

Why is reform so tough?
Reform is tough for many reasons, including the fact that it takes substantial legislative time, and more pressing matters of war and economics continue to dominate Congressional attention spans. But it's also tough due to the sheer power of existing institutions, who wield armies of lawyers and lobbyists to prevent negative changes to the laws underlying their business models.

This resistance doesn't extend only to the obvious players; even copyright lawyers enjoy the complexities of the current system. "Copyright lawyers have great affection for the arcane bits of the current system," Litman writes. "Knowing how to navigate distinctions that make no apparent sense proves our membership in a priestly class of copyright-knowers. The arcaneness of the rules is tolerable when the club of copyright rule followers is small. If we are going to insist that the rules apply more broadly, though, we need to make them sensible, and a necessary first step is to make them simpler."

To probably change US copyright laws, then, Litman believes that we need nothing less than a wholesale change in the ways that laws are made—a position echoed by Litman's friend Larry Lessig of Stanford, who currently devotes most of his time to a project called "Change Congress" with exactly this goal. Until the funding mechanisms underlying our democracy are changed, Lessig believes, real advances on a host of issues (including but not limited to copyright) will be difficult to come by.

Even if you share this view, however, there is no need to get too pessimistic. Especially on copyright law, the general public has shown itself to be interested, even passionate, in the subject over the past decade in ways that it never did before. Litman's paper also notes this trend, pointing out that copyright now affects "tens of millions of ordinary people whose use of YouTube and peer-to-peer file-sharing networks gives them a direct, personal stake in the copyright law. Nobody has yet succeeded in mobilizing them into a significant political force, but the majority of them are over 18, and many of them vote."

If Congress does eventually take up a major copyright reform bill, expect the debate to be both loud and lengthy—as it was recently in Canada when the government launched a major new copyright proposal and found itself facing unanticipated resistance from a whole new class of creators and consumers.

Further reading
Read Litman's voluminous set of copyright papers from her 20+ years of teaching (www-personal.umich.edu)

QuoteShangri-La is the official name of a small Chinese town in a mountainous valley on the edge of the Tibetan plateau. Formerly called Zhongdian, the town was renamed Shangri-La by local businessmen with the blessings of the national government in order to spur tourism. Who would not want to visit Shangri-La? I've been twice, and sorry to say, it is no Shangri-La. But on my last visit there a pristine 6-inch layer of snow in April covered the normally dusty and dilapidated old town, and in this clean robe it actually looked picturesque.



Old guy on the main street of Shangri-La.

For hundreds of years this frontier town has been an overnight stop for travelers along the winding road from the agriculturally rich highlands of Yunnan to the dry wind-swept lands of Tibet. The shops along the main street of Shangri-La today sell an exotic assortment of household goods to a steady stream of Tibetan and minority farmers trudging in from the countryside. A hundred one-room shops along a drab main street offer sturdy leather boots, brightly woven carpets, farm hardware, rugged horse blankets, hot water thermos bottles, solar battery rechargers, cheap iron tools, and fancy striped fabrics and ribbons. Mixed among this traditional ware were dozens of shops that sold nothing but DVDs for thousands of movies. A few of the shops had a greater selection of movies for sale or rent than your local Blockbuster. Some of the thousands were Hollywood hits, some were Hong Kong kungfu episodes, or Korean series, but most were Chinese-made films. Almost all of the discs were cheap (less than $3) pirated copies. The new digital "freeconomy" where copies flow without payment is not just a trait of cosmopolitan cities; information wants to be free even in the most remote parts of the globe.

I was in China, in part, to answer this simple question: how does the China film industry continue to produce films in a land where everything seems to be pirated? If no one is paying the filmmakers, how (why) do they keep producing films? But my question was not just about China. The three largest film industries in the world are India, Nigeria and China. Nigeria cranks out some 2,000 films a year (Nollywood), India produces about 1,000 a year (Bollywood) and China less than 500. Together they produce four times as many films per year as Hollywood. Yet each of these countries is a haven, even a synonym, for rampant piracy. How do post-copyright economics work? How do you keep producing more movies than Hollywood with no copyright protection for your efforts?

This question was pertinent because the rampant piracy in the movie cultures of India, China and Nigeria seemed to signal a future for Hollywood. Here in the West we seem to be headed to YouTubeland were all movies are free. In other words we are speeding towards the copyright-free zones represented by China, India and Nigeria today. If so, do those movie industries operating smack in the middle of the cheap, ubiquitous copies flooding these countries have any lessons to teach Hollywood on how to survive?

The answers uncovered by my research surprised me. My first surprise was the discovery that in each of these famously pirate-laden countries, piracy is not really rampant – at least not in the way it is usually portrayed by copyright police. Piracy of imported (i.e., Hollywood) films is rife, but locally produced films are pirated to a lesser degree. The reasons are complex and subtle.



Most Nollywood films are completed in two weeks.

The first consideration is quality. Nigerian films are a unique blend of a soap-opera and a Bollywood musical; there's a bunch of talking then a bunch of dancing. To call some of the Nigerian films low-budget would be to insult low-budget films. Many of the thousands of Nigerian movies are more like no-budget films. But even big-budget Bollywood films are cheap compared to Hollywood, so the total revenue needed to sustain their production is much smaller than Hollywood blockbusters. Naturally the smaller the costs, the less needed to recoup the expenses. For some films even a trickle of revenues may be enough.



Posters on the Lagos street (via Esquire)

But more importantly, low quality is not just a trait of illegal stuff. In Nigeria, particularly in the poorer north, a vast network of small-time reproduction centers serve up copies of films for an audience of many millions. Originally an underground network of copy centers replicated VHS tapes; now the network pumps out optical disks. In the former days of VHS tape copies, the official versions had much better printed covers. These readable and brightly colored covers were their chief selling point, and printing the covers was the bottleneck at which the film industry exerted their policing. But these days in Nigeria, as in the rest of the developing world, movie disks are usually VCDs (video CDs) rather than DVDs. Although lower in resolution, VCDs are easier to duplicate, with cheaper blanks, and in a quality that is "good enough" on a cheap TV screen. These copies are rented out for a few cents from small dusty shacks. But often the cheap VCDs which rent for pennies are "legitimate" – duplicated under an arrangement with the movie producer. The filmmakers and the duplicators have cleverly reduced the price of legitimate discs near to the price of pirated disks. In fact the same operators will usually duplicate both. Since the legitimate disks aren't that much more expensive than illicit ones, distributors have less incentive to bother with lower-quality pirated versions.



In addition the financing of films in Nigeria is closely aligned with the underground economy. Investing in a film is considered a smart way to launder money. Accounting practices are weak, transparency low, and if you are a thug with a lot of cash "to invest" you get to hang around movie stars by bankrolling a film. In short the distinction between black market disks and official disks generated with black market money is slim.

Nigerian filmmakers look to two other sources of revenue for their trickle of money: theaters and TV. Theaters in Nigeria offer a very precious commodity for very cheap ticket: air conditioning for several hours. The longer the film the better the deal. Theaters also offer a superior visual experience to watching a tape of VCD on an old television. You might actually be able to read the subtitles, or hear the background sounds. The full theatrical experience of a projected film is simply not copyable by a cheap optical disk. So box office sales remain the major revenue support for a film. As Nigeria's nascent TV industry grows, its appetite for content means there is additional revenues for broadcasting films on either airways or cable systems.



Bollywood wall poster in Rajastan (via Meanest Indian)

Bollywood is likewise supported by air-conditioning. Few Indians have aircon in their homes, fewer own air-conditioned cars. Mid-afternoon in the summer you really don't want to be anywhere else except in a cool theater for several hours – which is why Bollywood films can go on forever. You can sell a lot of movie tickets this way, even though someone could get the same movie for almost free as a DVD on the steaming hot, dusty street one block away.

Like Nigeria, India has a similar mixture of piracy and legitimacy in its film industry. Bollywood and mafia money are famously intertwined. In terms of money laundering, tax-avoidance, and covert money flows, the entire film industry is a gray market. The behind-the-scenes people making illegal copies of films also make the legal copies. And prices for legit and pirated versions are almost at parity.

So why even bother with pirated movies? Because India has had a very draconian censorship policy for official studio films. Their famous "no kissing" rule is but one example. This censorship has pushed niche films to the underground where they are served by the piracy network. If you want something independent, racy, out of the ordinary, or simply not in the mainstream, you are forced to patronize the pirates. This includes the filmmakers as well as the audience. If you produce an avant-garde film how else to get it seen? Cheap duplication on the street is the way a filmmaker will get his art out, further blurring the distinction between legit and illegal. As in Nigeria, this convergence means the purchase price of an official VCD may not be much more than a pirated version, about US$3. In effect Indian filmmakers see these low disc prices as advertising to lure the masses into cool theaters to see the latest releases on the glorious big screen. The hi-touch factor of the theaters is the reward for paying, and the pirated versions are the tax or costs for getting attention.

China also has a censorship problem. Big budget films are subsidized by the government, and live off theatrical release. In fact getting screen time in theaters is heavily politicized. Independent films can't get booked in the limited number of theaters, so they get to their audience on optical disks. And if a viewer wants to watch a film not produced by state-sponsored studios they have to find one on the streets. As in India and Nigeria, the price of legitimate copies are close to pirated, so for consumers there is no difference between the two. You can rent a copy of either type for about 25 cents a night.

The third leg supporting indigenous film industries in lands without copyright enforcement is television. Particularly cable television. Television is a beast that must be fed every hour of the day, and the industry insiders I spoke to in India, China, and Nigeria all saw a television spot as a legitimate destination for independent artists. The sums paid for work appearing on cable TV were not large, but they were something. Because television runs on attention and is supported by ads, the issues of piracy are sidestepped. For some producers pirated discs on the street create an audience, which might translate into a call to run their work on TV, or else prompt an invitation to produce something new.

Where indigenous filmmakers feel the sting of piracy is not within their own countries but in the very active export market. Nigerian films are watched throughout African and in the Nigerian diaspora; likewise Indian films are early sought out throughout South Asia and the Mid-East and in deep Indian communities in the West. Chinese films are watched in East Asia. Most of this market is served by pirated editions, depriving the filmmakers of potential international income. In this way these ethnic film industries share the same woes as Hollywood. But in their home turf, where the success of a film really lies, piracy is a different animal than the specter predicted by Hollywood.

Back on the gritty streets in Shangri-La I went looking for that utopian dream: a DVD of a first run movie for a dollar. That dream was too optimistic, even for Shangri-La, but I did find a copy of the latest Harry Potter movie (with Chinese subtitles) for $3, and upon close inspection it sure looked like a legit version. Clean design, Chinese style, crisp printing on the box, no typos, official looking holograph seal, etc. It was most probably illegal, but who knows? It would take a lot of research to determine its true origins, and for most consumers, like me, a moot question since every DVD vendor in town seemed to have the same inventory of mixed goods, all priced about the same.

What do these gray zones have to teach us? I think the emerging pattern is clear. If you are a producer of films in the future you will:

1) Price your copies near the cost of pirated copies. Maybe 99 cents, like iTunes. Even decent pirated copies are not free; there is some cost to maintain integrity, authenticity, or accessibility to the work.

2) Milk the uncopyable experience of a theater for all that it is worth, using the ubiquitous cheap copies as advertising. In the west, where air-conditioning is not enough to bring people to the theater, Hollywood will turn to convincing 3D projection, state-of-the-art sound, and other immersive sensations as the reward for paying. Theaters become hi-tech showcases always trying to stay one step ahead of ambitious homeowners in offering ultimate viewing experiences, and in turn manufacturing films to be primarily viewed this way.

3) Films, even fine-art films, will migrate to channels were these films are viewed with advertisements and commercials. Like the infinite channels promised for cable TV, the internet is already delivering ad-supported free copies of films.

Producing movies in a copyright free environment is theoretically impossible. The economics don't make sense. But in the digital era, there are many things that are impossible in theory but possible in practice – such as Wikipedia, Flickr, and PatientsLikeMe. Add to this list: filmmaking to an audience of pirates. Contrary to expectations and lamentations, widespread piracy does not kill commercial filmmaking. Existence proof: the largest movie industries on the planet. What they are doing today, we'll be doing tomorrow. Those far-away lands that ignore copy-right laws are rehearsing our future.

QuoteDuring the first trial, iiNet CEO Michael Malone was asked whether iiNet had ever terminated a subscriber for repeat infringement. No, said Malone, it had not, because "no one had been found [by a judge] to infringe copyright"; all iiNet had were mere allegations of wrongdoing. The studios' lawyer then asked Malone if this was some kind of "joke" response. As the trial judge noted, "The respondent's policy was not a joke, and its conduct was entirely consistent with the policy as outlined even though it may not have been the kind of policy that the applicants anticipated."

QuoteIt's been a while since we've had an uproar over Facebook's handling of its users personal information, so we suppose the time is ripe.

So cue the online outrage: Facebook announced today in a letter to Congress that the social-media platform is moving forward with plans to give third parties access to user information, such as phone numbers and home addresses.

In a letter to Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Tex.), who both expressed concerns over Facebook's plan to make such data available, company officials reiterated their now-familiar pledge to leave it up to users to decide whether they want their personal contact information to go out to app developers and outside websites. Markey has previously said that "Facebook needs to protect the personal information of its users to ensure that Facebook doesn't become Phonebook."

The company, meanwhile, sounds as though it has no plans to trim back its information-sharing ambitions.

"We have not yet decided when or in what manner we will redeploy the permission for mobile numbers and addresses," the letter states. "We are evaluating whether and how we can increase the visibility of applications' request for permission to access user contact information. We are also considering whether additional user education would be helpful."

Facebook has incited user revolts in the past by arbitrarily re-calibrating its privacy settings and then making it difficult for even the most seasoned web geeks to figure out how to reset them. And once again, anger is roiling among tech industry observers.

"Facebook is the slowly warming pot of water and we, my friends, are the frog. By the time we noticed our peeling skin, another hunk of our privacy is long gone," MSNBC tech writer Helen A.S. Popkin wrote about the latest move. "This is how Facebook rolls: Strip away a huge chunk of your privacy, cry 'Our bad!' and roll it back when users and/or privacy advocates complain. Then wait awhile, and do whatever it is Facebook planned to do anyway. Voila! Boiled frog."

Or as Facebook VP Elliot Schrage bluntly (if less colorfully) put things in the midst of a similar uproar last year: If you don't want Facebook to share your personal information, don't share your personal information with Facebook.

Quote

Google knows it. Viacom knows it. The Chamber of Commerce knows it. Internet democracy groups know it. BoingBoing knows it. But, the Internet hasn't been told yet -- we're going to get blown away by the end of the year. The worst bill in Internet history is about to become law. Law is very real here in the United States and legal language is often different than stated intentions -- this law would give government and corporations the power to block sites like BoingBoing over infringing links on at least one webpage posted by their users. Believe the EFF, Public Knowledge, Google when they say this bill is about much more than copyright, it's about the Internet and free speech everywhere. The MPAA, RIAA, Hollywood knows that they have been flying in CEOs of as many companies as possible, recruiting people to get petition signups at malls in California, and here's the big point-- they know they have gotten their message through to Congress -- the worst bill in Internet history, the one where government and their corporations get unbelievable power to take down sites, threaten payment processors into stopping payment to sites on a blacklist, and throw people in jail for posting ordinary content is about to pass before the end of this year. The only thing that is going to stop Hollywood from owning the Internet and everything we do, is if there is a big surprise Internet backlash starting right now. PROTECT IP (S. 968)/SOPA (HR. 3261) creates the first system for Internet censorship - this bill has sweeping provisions that give the government and corporations leeway and legal cover for taking down sites "by accident," mistakenly, or for NOT doing "enough" to protect the interests of Hollywood. These bills that are moving very quickly through Congress and can pass before Christmas aim to give the US government and corporations the ability to block sites over infringing links posted by their users and give ISPs the release to take any means to block peoples' sites, including slowing down your connection. That's right, some say this bill is a workaround to net neutrality and is bigger than net neutrality. This is the worst piece of Internet legislation in history - the lawmakers who have been sponsoring (Leahy, Lamar Smith, Conyers) this bill need to be shamed by the Internet community for wasting taxpayer dollars on a bill that would break the very fabric of the Internet, create an Internet blacklist, kill jobs and great startup companies, huge blogs, and social networks.

Everyone, the entire Internet community needs to stand together if we don't want to see this bill actually become law. Internet and democracy groups are planning an Internet-wide day of protest called American Censorship Day on Wednesday, November 16th for the day Congress holds a hearing on these bills to create the first American Internet censorship system. Every single person with a website can join and needs to. Boing Boing, Grooveshark, Free Software Foundation, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Demand Progress, Open Congress/PPF, TechDirt, Fight for the Future and dozens of other sites have created this day to ask you to join them to stop S. 978 and HR 3261, as hard as you can. Write them, protest, call them, protest, support your favorite sites, protest, sign a letter, block out your site, protest. Many public intellectuals who are often the ones to help win the public interest over and over are about to come out to lead the charge to stop PROTECT IP/ SOPA - they have to when they learn that the House and Senate will be working to pass this bill before the Christmas. From those doing work on the hill, it's very clear we have been stacked comparatively lightly. The House bill has 40 co-sponsors and major industry support. The only thing that will change the dynamic now is if Congress gets a knock on their door by CEO"s of small and large tech companies, blogs, and news sites and if Internet users start piling on, one by one, and protest. Tech companies, blogs, news sites are already in a death-do-die battle cry -- listen to them -- it's a few days before the hearing on this bill. But, we need more tech companies, blogs, new sites before the hearing on this bill. Help get them. I've been trying to think about whether or not the world is going to end if this bill passes like it's supposed to -- and the answer is, "kind of yes". When small sites, and it's the small sites that get turned off in the night and no one for the most part notices, say my friend's political blog or news site gets blocked by the US government and she has no way to get it back up even though everything she did was legal according to current law, and no one can help her except she can choose to file suit to defend herself, I feel like I die inside a little. Living in a country where you are being shut out and left powerless to really defend yourself is like living in another country, the ones you hear about. Life starts to feel shot when that happens, especially to our friends or our favorites sites. Every site who has user-generated content, posts links or videos to anything copyrighted in it could face new legal threats. If a copyrights holder disliked links you have on your site, they could simply file a complaint with a payment processor (Visa, PayPal), who would then have 5 days to respond to their request or risk legal ramifications. If bills like this are allowed to pass, we'll be spending another $47 million dollars every year to help corporations fill out and enforce Internet blacklists. Sites that would be legal under the DMCA and its safe harbor provisions would now risk losing everything for allowing user generated content. It also has added in the streaming felony bill that would make it so ordinary Internet users are at risk of going to jail for 5 years for post any copyrighted work that would cost $2,500 to license. And because copyright is so broad, that means videos with copyrighted music in the background, kids in a school play, people singing karaoke could all be a risk. Because the law affects almost every Internet user and the sites they use every day and have come to love, and because granting sweeping blacklisting powers is just sickening to almost everyone, we need your help -- if you can encourage your favorite site to join the protest, and help drive the maximum number of people to contact Congress on November 16th (until the bill dies), please help. These bills represent a major blow to openness and freedom on the Internet, free speech rights, and the fabric of the Internet itself. If SOPA is allowed to pass, the Internet and free speech will never be the same again.

QuoteEvo, na bis:

Priprema se glasanje o zakonu u američkome kongresu, a lobisti za Holivud su odradili sjajnu artiljerijsku pripremu tako da dobar deo predstavnika obe partije kao da će glasati ZA, koji će omogućiti korporacijama da kontrolišu stvari na Internetu još radikalnije nego danas. Do sada ste po DMCA zakonu mogli da, ako ste vlasnik autorskih prava, zatražite od sajta da ukloni sadržaj koji se distribuira bez vaše dozvole. Ako oni to ne bi učinili, mogli biste da ih tužite. Razume se, trn u oku je bilo to što je gomila toga hostovano po stranim, ne-američkim sajtovima pa niste mogli da ih gonite na američkom sudu. SOPA predviđa da možete u takvom slučaju da podnesete zahtev firmi koja se reklamira na tom sajtu i firmi koja im procesuje plaćanja (PayPal, kreditne kompanije itd.) da im u roku od pet dana obustave usluge. U slučaju da oni ne podnesu protivzahtev, ovo se automatski radi.

Dakle, za jedan link koji vodi do, recimo mp3 miksa u kome se nalazi jedna pesma na koju niste platili autorska prava, a koji je postavio neko u komentarima na neki od vaših tekstova, možete da budete odsečni od reklama i plaćanja, bez suđenja ili ikakvog procesa koji nije automatizovan. Korporacije na taj način zaobilaze do sada podrazumevani sistem optužbe i dokazivanja i de fakto kontrolišu sadržaj na Internetu.

Quote from: niko on 26-11-2011, 14:17:29


još jedan bis please. znači li to da će rapidshare, megaupload i osali serveri pocrkati i da je to kraj pirateriji kakvu znamo ili će nastaviti da živi u nekom drugom obliku? može li se kakav rasplet predvideti ako taj zakon bude izglasan?

   "DNS and IP blocking is probably the most dangerous part of SOPA/PIPA in terms of 'breaking the Internet,' so we tackled that first. We will be going after the other parts of SOPA in later releases but probably not in 'our usual plugin form' – the other parts require different solutions that we have already started work on," we were told.
Although the add-on carries The Pirate Bay in its name it also works with other sites such as Newsbin2 and BTJunkie which are blocked in the UK and Italy respectively. In a broader sense it can also be used to bypass national "firewalls" such as in China, and soon perhaps the US.
Putting the add-on to work only requires two clicks and is completely free.

Quote
  By Edward Wyatt

New York Times
Posted: 01/14/2012 07:05:18 PM PST Updated: 01/14/2012 09:09:23 PM PST 

    WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration said Saturday that it strongly opposed central elements of two congressional efforts to enforce copyrights on the Internet, all but killing the current versions of legislation that has divided both political parties and pitted Hollywood against Silicon Valley.
The comments by the administration's chief technology officials, posted on a White House blog Saturday, came as growing opposition to the legislation had already led sponsors of the bills to reconsider a measure that would force Internet service providers to block access to websites that offer or link to copyrighted material.
"Let us be clear," the White House statement said, "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs."
However, it added, "We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."
The bills were designed to combat the theft of copyrighted materials by preventing U.S. search engines from directing users to sites that allow for the distribution of stolen materials. They would cut off payment processors like PayPal that handle transactions.
The bills also would allow private citizens and companies to sue to stop what they believed to be theft of protected content. Those and other provisions set off fierce opposition among Internet companies, technology investors and free speech advocates, who said the bills would stifle online innovation, violate the First Amendment and even compromise national security by undermining the integrity of the Internet's naming system.

In December, a group of influential technology figures, including founders of Twitter, Google and YouTube, published an open letter to lawmakers saying that the legislation would enable Internet regulation and censorship on par with the government regulation in China and Iran.
 

QuoteNEW YORK (AP) — Can the world live without Wikipedia for a day? The shutdown of one of the Internet's most-visited sites is not sitting well with some of its volunteer editors, who say the protest of anti-piracy legislation could threaten the credibility of their work. "My main concern is that it puts the organization in the role of advocacy, and that's a slippery slope," said editor Robert Lawton, a Michigan computer consultant who would prefer that the encyclopedia stick to being a neutral repository of knowledge. "Before we know it, we're blacked out because we want to save the whales." [Related: Timeline of SOPA, PIPA bills (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=119totv8a/EXP=1328124256/**http%3A//yhoo.it/yQOHE9)]  The protest is aimed at the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House of Representatives and the Protect Intellectual Property Act under consideration in the Senate. Both bills are designed to crack down on sales of pirated American products overseas, and they have the support of the film and music industry. Among the opponents are many Internet companies such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, eBay and AOL. They say the bills would hurt the industry and infringe on free-speech rights. Wikipedia's English-language site shut down at midnight Eastern Standard Time Tuesday (0500 GMT Wednesday) and the organization said it would stay down for 24 hours. Instead of encyclopedia articles, visitors to the site saw a stark black-and-white page with the message: "Imagine a world without free knowledge." It carried a link to information about the two congressional bills and details about how to reach lawmakers. It is the first time the English site has been blacked out. Wikipedia's Italian site came down once briefly to protest an Internet censorship bill put forward by the Berlusconi government. The bill did not advance. The shutdown adds to a growing body of critics who are speaking out against the legislation. But some editors are so uneasy with the move that they have blacked out their own user profile pages or resigned their administrative rights on the site to protest. Some likened the site's decision to fighting censorship with censorship. One of the site's own "five pillars" of conduct says that Wikipedia "is written from a neutral point of view." The site strives to "avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them." Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales argues that the site can maintain neutrality in content even as it takes public positions on issues. "The encyclopedia will always be neutral. The community need not be, not when the encyclopedia is threatened," he tweeted. The Wikimedia Foundation, which administers the site, announced the blackout late Monday, after polling its community of volunteer contributors and editors and getting responses from 1,800 of them. "If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States," the foundation said. Social news website Reddit.com is shutting down for 12 hours on Wednesday, but most companies are staying up. Google Inc.'s home page, with its logo covered by a black rectangle, linked to a petition urging Congress: "Don't censor the Web."

Dick Costollo, CEO of Twitter, said he opposes the legislation as well, but shutting down the service was out of the question.
"Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish," Costollo tweeted.
Since Wikimedia depends on a small army of volunteers who create and update articles, it's particularly concerned about a lack of exemptions in the bills for sites where users might contribute copyrighted content. Today, it has no obligation under U.S. law except removing that content if a copyright holder complains. But under the House version of the bill, it could be shut down unless it polices its own pages.
The bill's prospects appeared to be dimming. On Saturday, Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, said the bill would not move to the House floor for a vote unless consensus is reached. However, Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said work on the bill would resume next month.
The White House raised concerns over the weekend, pledging to work with Congress to battle piracy and counterfeiting while defending free expression, privacy and innovation in the Internet. The administration signaled it might use its veto power, if necessary.
That the bill seems unlikely to pass is another reason Lawton opposes the blackout.
"I think there are far more important things for the organization to focus aside from legislation that isn't likely to pass anyway," he said. He's been contributing to Wikipedia for eight years.
Danny Chia, another contributor to the site, said he had mixed feelings about the blackout. The neutrality applies to the content, but a lot of people interpret it as being about the site as a whole, said the California software engineer.
In an online discussion, others raised the same point about the blackout: Appearances matter, and if the audience sees Wikipedia taking a stand, it might not believe the articles are objective, either.
Wikipedia has seen a small decline in participation, from a peak of 100,000 active editors a year ago to about 90,000 now. Wikimedia Foundation blames this mainly on outdated editing tools, and believes it can get the number growing again with software upgrades.
___
AP Technology Writer Mike Liedtke contributed to this report.
 

Quote
   A number of high-profile US politicians have withdrawn their support for the controversial SOPA and PIPA anti-piracy laws in the face of online protests.
Senators Marco Rubio (Florida) and Roy Blunt (Missouri), co-sponsors of PIPA, otherwise known as the Protect IP Act, both changed their stance yesterday.
"Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences," Rubio said in a statement.
Utah Senator Orrin Hatch no longer backs PIPA either. "After listening to the concerns on both sides of the debate over the Protect IP Act, it is simply not ready for prime time and both sides must continue working together to find a better path forward," he said in a statement.
Democrat Ben Cardin and the rest of the Republicans have also stopped supporting PIPA.
Over in the House of Representatives, Republicans Ben Quayle of Arizona, Dennis Ross of Florida and Lee Terry of Nebraska all withdrew their support for SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Despite all this, the House intends to resume work on SOPA next month, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid still intends to bring PIPA to the Senate floor next week.
SOPA and PIPA were conceived as a way for the likes of film, music and game companies to protect their content from online piracy.
However, opponents have argued that the bills are overbearing and draconian, with potentially devastating consequences should they go through.
For example, SOPA would allow courts to order ISPs and services like Google and Paypal to block access to websites without the sites in question being allowed to defend themselves.
Yesterday many websites chose to protest (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-01-17-websites-protest-against-sopa) against all this by blacking out or altering their homepages to raise awareness.   

Quote"It begs the question that if you can find and arrest people who are suspected to be involved in piracy using existing laws, then why introduce further regulations which are US-only and potentially damaging."

Quote from: Джон Рейнольдс on 20-01-2012, 11:13:22
Сачекајмо да видимо није нека превара,

Quote from: Джон Рейнольдс on 20-01-2012, 01:33:05
Да, само што је то привремено, а МУ оде заувек. Још увек ми је мука од беса, пошто сам последњих година користио скоро искључиво њега. Има још добрих хостера, али има и зајебанција с оним кепча-срањима, не држе веће фајлове...

Quote from: Melkor on 21-01-2012, 01:51:51
SOPA is dead (http://boingboing.net/2012/01/20/sopa-is-dead.html)  By Mark Frauenfelder (http://boingboing.net/author/mark_frauenfelder_1) at 11:05 am Friday, Jan 20 
Mashable (http://mashable.com/2012/01/20/sopa-is-dead-smith-pulls-bill/): "Lamar Smith, the chief sponsor of SOPA, said on Friday that he is pulling the bill 'until there is wider agreement on a solution.' ... and ... "'In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday's vote on the PROTECT IP Act,' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a statement Friday morning."

Quote from: Харвестер on 21-01-2012, 02:36:26
Зашто непристојно гестикулираш према Мелкору? Ово је одлична вијест!

Quote from: Ghoul on 23-01-2012, 03:24:15
većina njih su govna.
spori ološi koji postoje za GNJAVAŽU fri juzera (plati ako nećeš da te jebemo! kupi premium pa vozi bez smaranja sa kepčerima, limitima, parčićima, veličinama, brzinama...!)

ostala još 3 kasvetna - rapid i wup (i mediafire, na kome ima vrlo malo filmova).
ako oni odu, biće skoro propas sveta kakav poznajemo!

QuoteInternetNZ CEO Vikram Kumar says the MegaUpload case shows that "Hollywood and the music industry are now sending signals that wherever you are around the world 'we're going to after you'."
He says it will be up to the courts to decide if the New Zealand police followed due process in arresting Kim Dotcom (http://www.pcworld.com/article/248454/megauploads_owner_faces_charges_in_court.html?tk=rel_news) and his colleagues on Friday. "It seems from reading the indictment that the U.S. court handed down that the financial charges that have been put on alleging money laundering and racketeering are secondary to copyright violations. And it's quite possible that the New Zealand authorities reacted much more to the financial charges." he says.
"The question becomes if Hollywood and the music industry are going after him for copyright violation, is it right to put on additional financial charges just to make it appear more serious and to get other governments to take it more seriously?"
He questions what would happen if a similar case occurs in New Zealand involving a teenager who is alleged to have downloaded illegal files, but made no profit from it. "Would we be happy to have him extradited and stand charge under those laws? I believe there is a larger issue that we have to start tackling at some point."

Quote from: Харвестер on 23-01-2012, 19:15:05
Ово захтијева хитну реакцију. До даљег прекидам са куповином оригиналних филмова/игара/музике и бацам се на скидање нових ствари са оних неколико преживјелих хостера + торента.

   
• MegaUpload.com – (Down) (TakeDown)
• EnterUpload.com – (Down) (Redirect)
• FileServe.com – (As good as dead) (Closed affiliate program; You can no longer download files unless you own them)
• FileSonic.com – (As good as dead) (Closed affiliate program; You can no longer download files unless you own them)
• FilePost.com – (Closed affiliate program ; Suspending accounts with infringing material)
• FileJungle.com – (As good as dead) (Closed affiliate program; You can no longer download files unless you own them)
• UploadStation.com – (As good as dead) (Closed affiliate program; You can no longer download files unless you own them)
• Uploaded.to – (Blocked U.S. Visitors)
• VideoZer.com – (Closed affiliate program)
• VideoBB.com – (Closed affiliate program)
• x7.to – (Dead)
• UploadBox.com – (Closing. All files will be deleted on January 30th.)
• Uploading.com – (Affiliate program suspended)
• Crocko.com – (Closed affiliate program)
• 4shared.com – (Closed affiliate program ; Deleting multiple files and waits in line at the FBI.)
• MediaFire.com – (Called to testify in the next 90 days and it will open doors pro FBI.)

QuoteJust as the SOPA and PIPA debate winds down in the US, the European Union is later this week set to work on ratifying a global intellectual property enforcement treaty: the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

European countries, including Ireland, will later this week join the US, Australia, Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Canada in supporting ACTA.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/issues/acta) (EFF), ostensibly the agreement deals primarily with counterfeit physical goods, such as medicine.

However, it will in actual fact have broader scope and in particular will deal with new tools targeting "internet distribution and information technology."

Last week, hundreds of major websites in the US - including Wikipedia, WordPress, Boing Boing, Craigslist and Reddit - protested the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bill and its sister Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). Millions of web users took to social media to join the protests.

The protests, which included petitions and letters to politicians, succeeded in swaying the White House and members of the US Senate to withdraw support (http://www.siliconrepublic.com/new-media/item/25434-lamar-smith-decides-to-post/) for the controversial bills.

One of the reasons ACTA is arousing suspicion and concern is so little is actually known about it.
According to the EFF, it contains several features that raise concerns for consumers' privacy and civil liberties, as well as legitimate commerce, innovation and the free flow of information.

ACTA, it argues, also limits developing countries' ability to choose policy options that best suit their domestic priorities and levels of economic development.


Why is ACTA so mysterious?

The EFF said: "ACTA is being negotiated by a select group of industrialised countries outside of existing international multilateral venues for creating new IP norms, such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the World Trade Organisation.

"Both civil society and developing countries are intentionally being excluded from these negotiations. While the existing international fora provide (at least to some extent) room for a range of views to be heard and addressed, no such checks and balances will influence the outcome of the ACTA negotiations," the EFF warns.
Few countries that are about to ratify the agreement, including Ireland, have provided information to the public about the ACTA negotiations.

A document seen by the EFF, a sort of discussion paper, reveals that rightsholders are asking for new legal regimes to "encourage ISPs to co-operate with rights holders in the removal of infringing material." In Ireland, the Government is within days about to pass a statutory instrument (http://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/item/25316-record-giants-sue-irish-gov/) that may give rights holders, such as music labels and movie studios, the right to seek injunctions against ISPs concerning illegal downloading on their networks.

The EFF says that rights holder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by ISPs and three strikes-style graduated response practices.

The EFF warns that the kind of filtering methods ACTA may usher in may include deep packet inspection of citizens' internet communications, raising considerable concerns for civil liberties, privacy rights and internet innovation.

John Kennedy (http://www.siliconrepublic.com/authors/john-kennedy) (https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.siliconrepublic.com%2Fimg%2Fsocial%2Ftwitter-18.gif&hash=2fa8aea6ee6f3366a703d736e5c79381aea7435d) (http://twitter.com/#%21/MrJohnFKennedy)|    (https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.siliconrepublic.com%2Fimg%2Fsocial%2Fgplus-18.gif&hash=a7bf1fd1e5a6c34a08d8a183e1a60904fba4732a) (https://profiles.google.com/100193439583256048516)

QuoteThe ultimate objective is that large emerging economies, where IPR enforcement
could be improved, such as China or Russia, will sign up to the global pact. ACTA
is not intended to isolate these countries or point the finger at their enforcement
efforts. In light of the growing international consensus on IPR enforcement, the
Commission is confident that more countries will join ACTA when they feel the time
is right.

QuoteRapidShare,MediaFire,BitShare and MegaShares seem to be our only hope...

Oh..and the above list missed:

Code: http://oron.com/ (http://oron.com/) and Code: http://netload.in/ (http://netload.in/) and Code: http://crocko.com/ (http://crocko.com/) and Code: http://depositfiles.com/ (http://depositfiles.com/) So it comes out at 8 untouched filesharing sites, and I have not been looking very hard (https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg9.warez-bb.org%2F%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Ficon_smile.gif&hash=f40c90f2ddd2a255a48a5e6e69f0fe18d540acc6)

Quote from: tomat on 24-01-2012, 16:10:16
oron hostuje brdo pornografije, samo da njega ne sjebu  :cry:

Quote from: Father Jape on 23-01-2012, 14:25:24
Meni je samo bitno da niko ne dira ifile.it na koji je okacena vecina knjiga na Gigapediji. Verovatno je pre svega za manje fajlove, poput pdfova, cim ga ne koriste za ostalo.

Quote from: tomat on 24-01-2012, 16:28:01gigapedija, ili misliš na library.nu?

Quote from: Perin on 26-01-2012, 23:44:08
Sve dok rapid ne krepa, dobro je.

  I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly.
As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands."
Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications.
This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-01-2012, 10:41:59

A ovo što Đapetov tekst kaže ja pričam već godinama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Postao sam Skalop  :lol: :lol:

QuoteACTA, skraćeno od Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, slična je aktima koje je američki kongres nameravao da usvoji, SOPA i PIPA, ali je još opasnija, piše američki portal Mashable.

Prema objašnjenju Electronic Frontier Foundationa (https://www.eff.org/) , međunarodne neprofitne organizacije koja zastupa zaštitu korisničkih digitalnih prava, ACTA će se primarno boriti protiv falsifikovanja fizičkih dobara, poput lekova.

Međutim, sporazum će u stvarnosti imati puno širu primenu te će svoje resurse naročito koristiti za nadzor 'distribucije podataka na internetu kao i informacione tehnologije'.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/poland-signs-international-copyright-treaty-that-has-sparked-days-of-protests/2012/01/26/gIQAz3rOSQ_story.html) piše da je ACTA dalekosežan sporazum čiji je cilj usklađivanje međunarodnih standarda zaštite autorskih prava u muzičkoj, filmskoj, farmaceutskoj, modnoj i nizu drugih industrija koje su često žrtve krađe intelektualnog vlasništva.

O njemu se razgovara i pregovara još od 2008. godine, često iza čvrsto zatvorenih vrata, daleko od očiju javnosti.

Prema njenim odredbama, provajderi će morati da nadgledaju sve aktivnosti svojih korisnika, ne bi li pronašli moguća kršenja autorskih prava.

Osim zemalja Evropske unije, ACTA-u su potpisali i Australija, Kanada, Japan, Južna Koreja, Maroko, Novi Zeland, Singapur i SAD, u oktobru prošle godine.

Njima su se od juče pridružile Austrija, Belgija, Češka, Danska, Finska, Francuska, grčka, Irska, Mađarska, Italija, Litvanija, Letonija, Luksemburg, Malta, Poljska, Rumunija, Slovenija, Španija, Švedska i Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo.

Bez obzira na njihove potpise, ACTA-u mora ratifikovati Evropski parlament, kako bi ona stupila na snagu, a to bi trebalo da se desi ovog leta.

SOPA i PIPA su odložene na neodređeno vreme nakon protesta velikog broja internet korisnika i velikih kompanija. Da li će se pred odluku Evropskog parlamenta odluka ponoviti, ostaje da se vidi.

Anonymousi su se već aktivirali po ovom pitanju, a njihovo objašnjenje ovog sporazuma pogledajte u priloženom videu.

Sporazum za sada nisu potpisale samo Nemačka, Kipar, Estonija, Slovačka i Holandija.

Quote from: D. on 30-01-2012, 14:26:36

Jednostavno, Internet se ispostavio neočekivano efikasnim sredstvom demokratije po njenoj izvornoj definiciji.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-01-2012, 15:30:32
Nije lopovluk jer ne uzimaš ništa što je nečije vlasništvo nego kršiš pravo kopiranja. Njen efekat je smanjenje projektovanog obima prodaje što opet smanjuje profit vlasnika autorskih prava što jeste slično lopovluku. Ali za sada nismo videli ozbiljno istraživanje koje bi utvrdilo kolike su stvarne štete od piraterije - to jest, ugrubo, koliko je realno umanjena projektovana prodaja zbog njenih efekata, a koliko je povećana zbog povećanja svesti o produktima (dakle, besplatne reklame) koje je takođe posledica piraterije.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-01-2012, 15:30:32
Nije lopovluk jer ne uzimaš ništa što je nečije vlasništvo nego kršiš pravo kopiranja. Njen efekat je smanjenje projektovanog obima prodaje što opet smanjuje profit vlasnika autorskih prava što jeste slično lopovluku. Ali za sada nismo videli ozbiljno istraživanje koje bi utvrdilo kolike su stvarne štete od piraterije - to jest, ugrubo, koliko je realno umanjena projektovana prodaja zbog njenih efekata, a koliko je povećana zbog povećanja svesti o produktima (dakle, besplatne reklame) koje je takođe posledica piraterije.

Quote from: jeremiah on 30-01-2012, 15:27:38

Quote from: D. on 30-01-2012, 14:26:36

Jednostavno, Internet se ispostavio neočekivano efikasnim sredstvom demokratije po njenoj izvornoj definiciji.

Ni u jednoj definiciji demokratije nije definisan lopovluk, a piraterija nije ništa drugo do lopovluk, sviđalo se to nama ili ne ...

Quote from: PingvinPatuljak on 30-01-2012, 15:40:01

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-01-2012, 15:30:32
Nije lopovluk jer ne uzimaš ništa što je nečije vlasništvo nego kršiš pravo kopiranja. Njen efekat je smanjenje projektovanog obima prodaje što opet smanjuje profit vlasnika autorskih prava što jeste slično lopovluku. Ali za sada nismo videli ozbiljno istraživanje koje bi utvrdilo kolike su stvarne štete od piraterije - to jest, ugrubo, koliko je realno umanjena projektovana prodaja zbog njenih efekata, a koliko je povećana zbog povećanja svesti o produktima (dakle, besplatne reklame) koje je takođe posledica piraterije.

plus, koliko je zarada raznih industrija tipa prazni cd-i, dvd-i, stickovi, hard diskovi, internet promet itd. itd...

vrlo je teško sve to utvrditi, prihodi ili gubici. ostaje činjenica da se "skidanje s neta" pojavilo kao fenomen, zbiljsko je i taj fakt treba uvažiti.
što se mene tiče, potpuno sam na strani skidanja; to vidim kao pošteniji način uravnoteživanja svijeta, kada se sve zbroji i oduzme. "originalne" cd-e i dvd-e nek si kupuju džeremaje-moralci.

Quote from: Харвестер on 30-01-2012, 15:38:36

Да, једна од основних "грешака" (ака намјерних извртања чињеница) које праве компаније у својим антипиратеријским дерњавама је што претпостављају по дифолту да једна илегално скинута копија филма/игре/серије/било чега значи један продат примјерак мање, што је потпуна будалаштина.

Quote from: PingvinPatuljak on 30-01-2012, 15:40:01

plus, koliko je zarada raznih industrija tipa prazni cd-i, dvd-i, stickovi, hard diskovi, internet promet itd. itd...

vrlo je teško sve to utvrditi, prihodi ili gubici. ostaje činjenica da se "skidanje s neta" pojavilo kao fenomen, zbiljsko je i taj fakt treba uvažiti.
što se mene tiče, potpuno sam na strani skidanja; to vidim kao pošteniji način uravnoteživanja svijeta, kada se sve zbroji i oduzme. "originalne" cd-e i dvd-e nek si kupuju džeremaje-moralci.

Quote from: Харвестер on 30-01-2012, 15:41:35

Quote from: jeremiah on 30-01-2012, 15:27:38

Quote from: D. on 30-01-2012, 14:26:36

Jednostavno, Internet se ispostavio neočekivano efikasnim sredstvom demokratije po njenoj izvornoj definiciji.

Ni u jednoj definiciji demokratije nije definisan lopovluk, a piraterija nije ništa drugo do lopovluk, sviđalo se to nama ili ne ...

Молим те не лупај.

Quote from: Джон Рейнольдс on 30-01-2012, 16:10:33
Џеремаја, да ли ти је сав софтвер на компјутеру лиценциран, да ли су сви филмови и сва музика коју имаш легално купљени? И на крају, да ли је сва одећа коју носиш заиста произвела фабрика бренда који на њој стоји?

Quote from: jeremiah on 30-01-2012, 16:30:37
reći ču ti i gde je koren
problema - loš životni standard, uopšte ne napredak tehnologije kako kroz redove vidim da je Mehova teza.

Quote from: Джон Рейнольдс on 30-01-2012, 16:36:35
Џеремаја, разлика између твог и Харвијевог поста практчно не постоји.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-01-2012, 16:34:28

Quote from: jeremiah on 30-01-2012, 16:30:37
reći ču ti i gde je koren
problema - loš životni standard, uopšte ne napredak tehnologije kako kroz redove vidim da je Mehova teza.

Daj malo elaboriraj ovo. Nisam siguran šta želiš da kažeš ovde.

Quote from: jeremiah on 30-01-2012, 15:27:38
Ni u jednoj definiciji demokratije nije definisan lopovluk, a piraterija nije ništa drugo do lopovluk, sviđalo se to nama ili ne ...

QuoteSrbija: Anonymousi napali stranke
Sajt vračarskog odbora Demokratske stranke posetili su Anonymousi, a jutros je bio hakovan i sajt novosadskog odbora Lige socijaldemokrata Vojvodine.

Pomenuti sajt LSV-a, koji je jutros izgledao ovako, sada je u funkciji, a na sajtu DS-a, Anonymousi su ostavili sledeću poruku:

"Mi spremamo hranu. Mi raznosimo đubre. Mi radimo u fabrici. Mi čuvamo miran san. Mi smo legija! Mi ne opraštamo!! Mi ne zaboravljamo!!! Mi smo Anonimusi.

Ovim putem ne želimo da idemo protiv sistema, ne želimo da naškodimo bilo kome na bilo koji način, ovim putem samo iskazujemo svoje nezadovoljstvo zbog stanja u našoj zemlji u kakvoj živimo.

Ovim putem skrećemo pažnju svakom svesnom građaninu da i dalje ima nas koji se bore za pravdu - na bilo koji način. Politička ,,elita" nam maše devedesetima kao kugom.

Nikakve konkretne planove za BUDUĆNOST ne dobijamo, nego samo ustaljene fraze. Kao da im govore i izjave pišu autori tempejta za mobilne telefone. Svim "akterima" ove pogubljenosti političkog establišmenta."

Na fotografiji, koja se u trenutku pisanja vesti nalazi na sajtu DS-a, prikazani su ljudi sa prepoznatljivim Anonymous maskama.

Quote from: D. on 30-01-2012, 17:01:16

Ti si osnovao preduzeće i počeo da radiš u vreme kada je piraterija već bila jaka, a kopije produkata svima dostupne. Šta sad?

Quote from: D. on 30-01-2012, 17:14:56
Isto.

Koja je bila prva delatnost tvog preduzeća, a koja je današnja? I na osnovu kojih i kakvih informacija si razvijao proizvode preduzeća?

Quote from: Джон Рейнольдс on 30-01-2012, 17:01:08
Ово горе што сам написао, за техничку подршку за пословни софтвер... Имао сам веома лоше искуство са једном не тако непознатом фирмом. Хтели су да развију извесни софтвер и ту је требало да им радим као бета тестер и саветник (за развој  8) ), али да програм испадне онако како сам га замислио (то јест, био би надградња постојећег јер је нека њихова брљотина већ постојала). Чак нисам ни паре хтео да им узмем, хтео сам само функционалан програм. Али киту. Сећам се једном, седнем направим списак замерки у десет тачака, добијем нову верзују - урађено само пет. Наравно, нови багови миле на све стране, па ми онда пола времена прође на хватање буба, а пола на пописивање онога што у програм треба унети или изменити. И никад, ниједном, нисам добио све што сам тражио. Док једном нисам добио директан одговор програмера - у лице: "Не треба ти то." Ало, рођаче!

Пошто је фирма за коју сам то радио већ на компензацију узела и софтвер и неку опрему, ја ове отерам у три лепе, опремим себе пиратским софтвером (не њиховим, наравно), препоручим колегама да ураде исто, а све што ми је преостало јесте да сам инсистирао да се унесе одређени број импорта других формата и да студијска (главна) верзија буде колико-толико стабилна. Јер, размишљам, коју ћу ја техничку подршку као корисник лиценцираног софтвера имати од ових павијана кад не цене не само мој бесплатни бета тестинг, него и познавање потреба крајњег корисника? Боље је одјебати такве и узети пирата који нема подршку али је стабилан и шљака и може се "накалемити" на оно што је кориснику потребно.

Quote from: jeremiah on 30-01-2012, 17:28:47
tvoju insinuaciju da smo
piraterijom stekli ovo što imamo ću ignosati ...

Quote from: tomat on 30-01-2012, 17:31:23
znaš kako kažu za programere: najbolji korisnik im je mrtav korisnik, pošto nema zahteve.

Quote from: Melkor on 30-01-2012, 17:53:00
@Джон

jeste da skrecem u oftopik, ali nije to isto. Sto se zdravstvenog tice ne mozes da garantujes da se nikad neces razboleti, kao i da nikada neces koristiti bar subvencionisani lek ako ne ceo sistem, a da ne govorimo da je neko vec uplacivao pre tebe te smo svi imali zdravstvenu zastitu i u periodu kada nismo mogli da priredjujemo. A TV pretplata je problem o kom se bezbrojno puta razglabali i ja nisam a priori protiv pretplate ali onda ta televizija treba drugacije da izgleda.

Quote from: jeremiah on 30-01-2012, 16:57:44

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-01-2012, 16:34:28

Quote from: jeremiah on 30-01-2012, 16:30:37
reći ču ti i gde je koren
problema - loš životni standard, uopšte ne napredak tehnologije kako kroz redove vidim da je Mehova teza.

Daj malo elaboriraj ovo. Nisam siguran šta želiš da kažeš ovde.

Kada je standard bio bolji, jedino na šta smo pazli je da ne kupimo CD koji nam se na prvi pogled dopao
pa posle ispadne crap.

Ovde razgovaramo o pirateriji filmova, muzike, izdavaštva i softvera, dakle onog dela široke lepeze gotovih
proizvoda na tržištu koje je najlakše kopirati. Naglasak je i bukvalno na kopirati (ni ne pomišljaj na reč napraviti).
Mislim da sam naslutio kroz tvoj post da imaš ideju da je sa pojavom jeftine tehnike (rezači, skeneri, internet)
došlo do naglog povećanja piraterije u ovoj oblasti. Baš gledam kada sam kupio poslednji put originalni CD ... pre 2 meseca
u One Hi-Fi, Anat Fort - What If (ECM) jer nisam bio zadovoljan ni jednom od zilion verzija koje sam pre toga skinuo.
Dakle, ipak standard. Samo jedan CD u dva meseca ...

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-01-2012, 18:11:50

A to što ti (i ja) kupujemo CDove znači najviše da smo stari. Mnogi mlađi danas ih ne kupuju ne samo zato što je piraterija jeftinija nego jer su navikli da muziku slušaju na telefonu, po jednu ili dve pesme, na JuTjubu itd pa i kada kupuju kupuju po jednu pesmu sa ajTjunsa i sličnih servisa.

Quote from: Gwydion on 30-01-2012, 19:06:20
Svi možemo da se složimo da je piraterija nemoralna.

Quote from: jeremiah on 30-01-2012, 19:01:08


Ovo u vezi mlađarije si u pravu 100%, uostalom, koliko mladih audiofila poznaješ ?
Neki ovde u kraju kažu - došao Đavo po svoje, ubrzao vreme. Ko još uvek može sebi da priušti par sati dnevno i sluša muziku u 4 zida ...

Quote from: Melkor on 30-01-2012, 19:16:36

Quote from: Gwydion on 30-01-2012, 19:06:20
Svi možemo da se složimo da je piraterija nemoralna.

Ne mozemo bas. Kao sto rekoh gore Crni Gusar i Crnobradi se veoma razlikuju :)

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-01-2012, 19:36:30
drži se ideje da je jedan daunloudovan film isto što i jedan kupac DVD-ja manje.

Quote from: Melkor on 30-01-2012, 19:16:36

Quote from: Gwydion on 30-01-2012, 19:06:20
Svi možemo da se složimo da je piraterija nemoralna.

Ne mozemo bas. Kao sto rekoh gore Crni Gusar i Crnobradi se veoma razlikuju :)

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-01-2012, 19:36:30
Na primer, ako sam daunloudovao deset filmova jednog dana a nisam pogledao ni jedan od njih - koliko sam ja oštetio industriju odnosno vlasnike autorskih prava?

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-01-2012, 19:36:30

Piraterija svakako jeste nemoralna u smislu da podrazumeva da uživamo u plodovima nečijeg rada a da ga ne kompenzujemo za taj rad. Čini se intuitivnim da bi odnos između mene i proizvošača sadržaja morao biti dvosmeran i na ekonomskom planu jer u najmanju ruku on ne može da nastavi da radi to što radi ako gladuje, dakle moralno je i na direktnom i na društvenom planu da se kompenzuje.

Quote from: Gwydion on 31-01-2012, 00:08:13
Da nema autorskih prava i da nema zarada kreativnost bise dvela na minimum, a kvalitet bi bio ispod svih kriterijuma...

Quote from: Gwydion on 31-01-2012, 00:08:13Da nema autorskih prava i da nema zarada kreativnost bise dvela na minimum, a kvalitet bi bio ispod svih kriterijuma...

Quote from: sodomizer on 31-01-2012, 04:28:49
Ne znam kako je rnr u Srbiji propao-Bora Đorđević još uvek pravi pare.

Quote from: Джон Рейнольдс on 31-01-2012, 02:19:27

За те "мале" бендове увек постоји и варијанта да се потпуно препусте свиркама, као што то раде матори енглески панкери, па држе по 200-250 концерата годишње. Треба бити спреман на такав живот, али опет ми се чини да таквима погодује да се њихова музика што више шири нетом јер ће клинци лакше до ње долазити. А и за високе цене студија постоји решење, ево провалили су га сви могући RAC бендови па снимају албуме по Бугарској, Мађарској, Русији и - Србији. Што, ако могу скињаре, не могу и неки други? Могу и још лакше.

Дакле, само мислим да се тржиште мења и да аутори морају да се понашају сходно томе. Конкуренција је већа не само међу савременицима, већ и у чињеници - а то се ретко спомиње - да клинци имају на изволте не само нову музику и филмове, него и све оно што се досад свирало и снимало. Самим тим, прошло је време кад је неко могао да изда платинасти албум или сними хит филм, па онда седи и лова капље. Нови аутори боре се не само са промењеним тржиштем, новим медијима и технологијама, него и са конкуренцијом, садашњом и прошлом. За сада им слабо иде, неко написа нешто о томе, јер је квалитетних дела све мање... Али, добро, видећемо како ће то све ићи. Са сушом идеја која влада, не постоји шанса да бих ишта куповао наслепо кад не купујем и оно што ми се помало и допада (осим домаћих издања).

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 31-01-2012, 11:01:21

Sve to je naravno otvoreno za raspravu, ali ne ukida osnovni argument a taj je da za proizvedeni produkt/ dodeljenu uslugu vlasnik prava na njih valja da bude pravično kompenzovan.

Quote
Piraterija svakako jeste nemoralna u smislu da podrazumeva da uživamo u plodovima nečijeg rada a da ga ne kompenzujemo za taj rad. 

Quote from: PingvinPatuljak on 30-01-2012, 21:25:08

jednako tako, taj autor o kojem pričaš, nigdje nije rečeno da on gladuje. on može (dobro) biti plaćen za svoj TEKUĆI rad.
recimo, banalan primjer: glazbenik; sve i da ne živi od prodaje cd-a (zašto i bi??), može raditi: koncerti. živi rad, a ne mrtvi. to se plaća i to je, možebiti, poštenije.
što ga više skidaju, znači da je popularniji te da može dobiti veće pare za nastup. da ne govorimo o društvenom ugledu, slavi i slično. pa i to je kompenzacija.

Quote from: mac on 30-01-2012, 23:52:33
Ako hoćemo bolje društvo onda je početna premisa vrlo jednostavna: ukinuti autorska prava. Kada jednom informacija postane javna onda niko ne može da je povuče, niti je bilo kakva upotreba informacije ičim uslovljena. Društvo treba graditi oko te početne postavke. Takvo društvo je moguće.

Quote from: Alex on 31-01-2012, 17:02:28

Quote from: PingvinPatuljak on 30-01-2012, 21:25:08

jednako tako, taj autor o kojem pričaš, nigdje nije rečeno da on gladuje. on može (dobro) biti plaćen za svoj TEKUĆI rad.
recimo, banalan primjer: glazbenik; sve i da ne živi od prodaje cd-a (zašto i bi??), može raditi: koncerti. živi rad, a ne mrtvi. to se plaća i to je, možebiti, poštenije.
što ga više skidaju, znači da je popularniji te da može dobiti veće pare za nastup. da ne govorimo o društvenom ugledu, slavi i slično. pa i to je kompenzacija.

Kompozitori ne sviraju uživo. Ne sviraju uopšte, oni komponuju.

Quote from: Alex on 31-01-2012, 17:02:28

Kompozitori ne sviraju uživo. Ne sviraju uopšte, oni komponuju.

Quote from: angel011 on 31-01-2012, 17:13:38

Kad smo kod toga, šta je sa piscima? Treba li pisci da dobiju novac samo kad javno čitaju svoja dela?

Quote from: PingvinPatuljak on 31-01-2012, 17:14:37

Quote from: Alex on 31-01-2012, 17:02:28

Kompozitori ne sviraju uživo. Ne sviraju uopšte, oni komponuju.

da, i?

možda tebe bune pojmovi kompenzacija i kompozitor, pa upadaš s nebulozama.

Quote from: Alex on 31-01-2012, 17:06:35

Quote from: mac on 30-01-2012, 23:52:33
Ako hoćemo bolje društvo onda je početna premisa vrlo jednostavna: ukinuti autorska prava. Kada jednom informacija postane javna onda niko ne može da je povuče, niti je bilo kakva upotreba informacije ičim uslovljena. Društvo treba graditi oko te početne postavke. Takvo društvo je moguće.

Mac, izvini, ali ovo je nešto najbesmislenije što sam čuo poslednjih meseci.

Da li si svestan do čega bi to dovelo?

Quote from: PingvinPatuljak on 31-01-2012, 17:47:31
ti si ovo sanjao. gdje sam ja to "predložio"?
meni je sasvim svejedno hoćeš li mu ti plaćati cd ili ne.

riječ je bila o nečemu drugom, tj. težište na nečem drugom. cd nije jedini izvor prihoda glazbenika. kompozitor također nije osuđen da zarađuje isključivo od prodaje cd-ova. "tekući rad" nije samo sviranje ili pjevanje na koncertu (kako naivno od tebe), ako si se uhvatio za taj pojam: on može sjediti doma u sobi i smišljati partiture = to je također rad. sad, ima više mogućnosti za njega: a) netko mu naruči, on to odradi i ovaj ga plati b) radi za sebe, za svoju dušu (ne mora biti komercijaliziran) c) želi raditi komercijalno; upušta se u borbu sa svijetom kakav on jest, računajući da će zaraditi od prodaje cd-a recimo; dakle, ide na takav ugovor

Quote from: PingvinPatuljak on 31-01-2012, 16:11:40
a ja sam pokušao reći da je "mjesto konzumacije", recimo, koncert. dođeš, platiš, ovaj odradi. to je to.
plaćanje na mjestu rada.

Quote from: PingvinPatuljak on 31-01-2012, 16:11:40
jedenje krumpira i slušanje glazbe su bitno različite konzumacije: krumpir je tom prilikom uništen i preobražen, glazba ne. krumpir ne možeš skinuti s neta, glazbu možeš. kada krumpir uzmeš ili otmeš vlasniku, uzeo si mu nešto što je realno posjedovao. kada glazbu skineš s neta bez prava, nisi uzeo vlasniku ništa što je on posjedovao, nego samo njegovu potencijalnu, apstraktnu mogućnost. apstraktne mogućnosti i zbiljsko su pak potpuno različite stvari.

Quote from: Jevtropijevićka on 31-01-2012, 18:12:14

Problem je što je b) izvodljivo samo ako ima ko da autora izdržava ili je autor bogat. Pisanje simfonija nije hobi sem ako nisi Borodin, a onda se nećeš pretrgnuti od produktivnosti. c) onemogućuje ova sloboda daunloudovanja koju ti predlažeš. Sve ovo za kompozitore važi i za pisce.
Mecenatski sistem ima iste prednosti i mane u odnosu na sistem sa autorskim pravima kao i tiranija u odnosu na demokratiju: više potencijala i za dobro i za loše. Pitaj Mocarta i Salijerija. :wink:

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 31-01-2012, 18:18:07

Ali taj princip isključuje bilo koga ko koristi distributivnu mrežu bilo kog tipa da bi trgovao. Nema smisla da to ograničavamo na recimo muzičare ali ne i na proizvođače krompira, auto-delova ili deterdženta za veš. Svaki od njih je uložio merljiv, izvršen rad u proizvod i sada čeka da mu tržište kompenzuje isti kupovinom jedinica robe od kojih on dobija deliće. I onaj ko je dizajnirao formulu praška za pranje veša ali i onaj ko je na traci radio da ga spakuje u vreću i ubaci u kamion. Svi oni kao i muzičar zavise od distribuirane prodaje a jedino njemu treba da ne priznajemo pravo na to prihodovanje zato što je njegov proizvod lako kopirati? To postaje praksa ali se opet postavlja pitanje pravičnosti.

Quote from: mac on 31-01-2012, 18:06:47

Quote from: Alex on 31-01-2012, 17:06:35

Quote from: mac on 30-01-2012, 23:52:33
Ako hoćemo bolje društvo onda je početna premisa vrlo jednostavna: ukinuti autorska prava. Kada jednom informacija postane javna onda niko ne može da je povuče, niti je bilo kakva upotreba informacije ičim uslovljena. Društvo treba graditi oko te početne postavke. Takvo društvo je moguće.

Mac, izvini, ali ovo je nešto najbesmislenije što sam čuo poslednjih meseci.

Da li si svestan do čega bi to dovelo?

Jesam svestan, ali čini mi se da se razilazimo oko posledica. Ja cenim da bi dovelo do širenja znanja. Šta ti ceniš?

Quote from: PingvinPatuljak on 31-01-2012, 18:35:46

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 31-01-2012, 18:18:07

Ali taj princip isključuje bilo koga ko koristi distributivnu mrežu bilo kog tipa da bi trgovao. Nema smisla da to ograničavamo na recimo muzičare ali ne i na proizvođače krompira, auto-delova ili deterdženta za veš. Svaki od njih je uložio merljiv, izvršen rad u proizvod i sada čeka da mu tržište kompenzuje isti kupovinom jedinica robe od kojih on dobija deliće. I onaj ko je dizajnirao formulu praška za pranje veša ali i onaj ko je na traci radio da ga spakuje u vreću i ubaci u kamion. Svi oni kao i muzičar zavise od distribuirane prodaje a jedino njemu treba da ne priznajemo pravo na to prihodovanje zato što je njegov proizvod lako kopirati? To postaje praksa ali se opet postavlja pitanje pravičnosti.

pa je li pravično da, ako već potežeš krumpire ili aute, onaj tko je uložio svoj rad u proizvodnju krumpira ili auta, može prodati svoj proizvod samo JEDNOM, a ovaj koji je uložio svoj rad u glazbu odradio to jednom, pa mu je umnoženo u desetine tisuća i sada on taj proizvod prodaje BEZBROJ puta ako treba?
ha, ni to onda nije pravično

Quote from: PingvinPatuljak on 31-01-2012, 18:35:46
dalje odlaziš u nebuloze, pa to ne bih komentirao.
i tebi je jasno da su razlike  između skidanja glazbe i uzimanja zbiljske stvari očite. a obojici nam je jasno da je pitanje polemično. da se raspravljati.
u svakom slučaju, nemam nikakav problem da skinem glazbu s neta. čak to preferiram, u svijetu kakav jest. to je pravednije.

što se tiče tvog prijedloga da društvo osmisli način; slažem se. samo sam ja za to da se ne uzima porez građanima, nego da se kompenzira iz kapitala, tj. industrije koja uzima ogromne profite na čitavom tom svijetu zabave.

Quote from: mac on 31-01-2012, 19:59:58
Ne znam zašto bi neko uopšte konzumirao proizvod slabijeg kvaliteta kad mu je po istoj, "nabavnoj", ceni dostupan proizvod dobrog kvaliteta? Ako su mi i dobar i loš Helboj besplatni, zašto bih čitao lošeg Helboja?

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 31-01-2012, 22:26:31

Hm, pa ne mogu da se složim, to je priroda robe. Kao kada bi rekli da pozorište može da naplaćuje samo prvu predstavu a svaku sledeću ne jer je "već viđena". Roba de fakto pronalazi način da dođe do potrošača i dobije cenu kada za njom postoji potražnja. Problem sa ovim slučajem o kome pričamo je što potražnja postoji ali je nađen zgodan način da se izbegne kompenzacija. Dakle, ja mislim da pričamo o načinima da omogućimo pravičnu kompenzaciju.

Quote from: Gwydion on 31-01-2012, 23:26:10
zuašto bi iko i radio bilo šta na kvalitetan način ako od toga neće imati adekvatnu satisfakciju? Recimo u vidu para koje je svojim radom i zaslužio?

Quote from: PingvinPatuljak on 01-02-2012, 15:36:41

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 31-01-2012, 22:26:31

Hm, pa ne mogu da se složim, to je priroda robe. Kao kada bi rekli da pozorište može da naplaćuje samo prvu predstavu a svaku sledeću ne jer je "već viđena". Roba de fakto pronalazi način da dođe do potrošača i dobije cenu kada za njom postoji potražnja. Problem sa ovim slučajem o kome pričamo je što potražnja postoji ali je nađen zgodan način da se izbegne kompenzacija. Dakle, ja mislim da pričamo o načinima da omogućimo pravičnu kompenzaciju.

gle meho, više uopće nije jasno sa čim se ne slažeš. oko čega se mi sporimo zapravo?
ne skidamo li svi glazbu s neta, uključivši tebe?
dakle, ti skidaš s neta i smatraš da to nije pravedno.
ja skidam i smatram da je to pravedno.
je li ovo naš spor ili što?

kažeš, priroda robe. pa da, i ujedno je priroda robe koju radi glazbenik da se može lako umnožiti i skinuti s neta, recimo. dakle, sve je tu poznato, njemu, nama, svima.
oko kompenzacije se ne slažem, jer je on  na ovaj ili onaj način - kompenziran. kada to ne bi bio slučaj, ta bi djelatnost nestala. međutim, upravo obratno: poplava glazbenika, filmova, svega. očito postoje načini kompenzacije.

Quote from: PingvinPatuljak on 01-02-2012, 15:36:41
ali tek ovo što sad radiš, svađaš na "robu", e tek tu promašuješ sa moralkom i pravičnošću.
evo što ti govoriš: ajmo vršiti razmjenu, ali tako da sva moralnost, pravednost bude na strani prodavača.
tu leži temeljni nesporazum svijeta.
ako smo došli do toga da glazbenik radi zato da bi prodao, dakle njegov se rad promatra kao roba, onda tu važi igra koju igraju obje strane: prodavač nastoji izvući korist od kupca, ali i obratno: kupac od prodavača.
jednostavno rečeno, ako mi on želi nešto prodati, znači da želi nešto od mene, želi moj novac, ukratko i pod navodnicima, želi me preći, nadigrati, zeznuti.
okej, to je u redu gledano s njegove strane, ali neću ja gledati njegovu stranu nego svoju: želim i ja njega nadigrati.
on bi da njegovu robu uzmem po njegovim uvjetima, a ja bi po svojim.
dakle, ako pričamo o robi i razmjeni, onda je skidanje s neta način da kupac izigra prodavača. u svijetu omeđenom horizontom robe, to je posve okej. nije "nepravedno", uzevši u obzir da me je on inicijalno htio 'prevariti', htio mi prodati robu.
u jednom širem smislu, onaj tko trguje, istovremeno je 'prevarant'.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 01-02-2012, 17:31:05
a ti tvrdiš da su već kompenzovani i da ne treba da nas bude briga ako nisu jer smo ispali pametniji.

+

Sa ovim mi je teško da se složim. Naravno da je nadigravanje u temelju tržišta i tržišne razmene. Ali kada jedna strana zapravo istupi iz razmene, to nije više nadigravanje nego izlazak iz igre.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 01-02-2012, 19:14:15
Većina nezavisnih pank etiketa je prestala da radi CDove i vratila se na vinil.

Quote from: Perin on 04-02-2012, 20:03:32
Pa, meni je sve linkove koje sam imao u Jdownloaderu kategorisao kao ILEGAL.

Quote
Now that the SOPA and PIPA fights have died down, and Hollywood prepares their next salvo against internet freedom with ACTA and PCIP, it's worth pausing to consider how the war on piracy could actually be won.
It can't, is the short answer, and one these companies do not want to hear as they put their fingers in their ears and start yelling. As technology continues to evolve, the battle between pirates and copyright holders is going to escalate, and pirates are always, always going to be one step ahead. To be clear, this is in no way meant to be a "pro-piracy" piece, it is merely attempting to show the inescapable realities of piracy that media companies refuse to acknowledge.
What's clear is that legislation is not the answer. Piracy is already illegal in the US, and most places around the world, yet it persists underground, but more often in plain sight. Short of passing a law that allows the actual blacklisting of websites like China and Iran, there is no legislative solution.  That's what SOPA and PIPA were attempting to do, but it so obviously trampled on the First Amendment, it was laughed out of existence as the entire internet protested it (http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/01/18/the-day-sopa-made-the-internet-go-dark/). The only other thing you could get the internet to agree on was if they tried to institute a ban on cat pictures.
So, what to do? Go the other direction. Realize piracy is a service problem. Right now, from the browser window in which I'm writing this article, it is possible to download and start watching a movie for free in a few swift clicks.
(This is all purely theoretical of course)
1. Move mouse to click on Pirate Bay bookmark
2. Type in "The Hangover 2″ (awful movie, but a new release for the sake of the example)
3. Click on result with highest seeds
4. Click download torrent
5. Auto open uTorrent
6. Wait ten minutes to download
7. Play movie, own it forever


It's not moral, it's not right, but it's there and it's easy and there's no one to stop you from doing it, and never will be. If after ten years and millions of dollars in legal fees they finally manage to kill the Pirate Bay, there are hundreds of other torrent sites that exist, and more will spring up. If they ban torrents altogether, the internet will invent something new.
Piracy is not raiding and plundering Best Buys and FYEs, smashing the windows and running out with the loot. It's like being placed in a store full of every DVD in existence. There are no employees, no security guards, and when you take a copy of movie, another one materializes in its place, so you're not actually taking anything. If you were in such a store, you'd only have your base moral convictions to keep you from cloning every movie in sight. And anyone who knows how to get to this store isn't going to let their conscience stop them, especially when there is no tangible "loss" to even feel bad about.
It's not a physical product that's being taken. There's nothing going missing, which is generally the hallmark of any good theft. The movie and music industries' claim that each download is a lost sale is absurd. I might take every movie in that fictional store if I was able to, but would I have spent $3 million to legally buy every single DVD? No, I'd probably have picked my two favorite movies and gone home. So yes, there are losses, but they are miniscule compared to what the companies actually claim they're losing.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Finsertcoin%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F02%2Fmovie-list.jpg&hash=6d4671c9ffcef7ed160fa06a2163d26512590668) This does not translate to 60 lost DVD sales (and not my collection, FYI). The seven step, ten minute download process (which will be about ten seconds when US internet speeds catch up with the rest of the world) is the real enemy the studios should be trying to tackle. Right now, the industry is still stuck in the past, and is crawling oh-so-slowly into the future. They still believe people are going to want to buy DVDs or Blu-rays in five years, and that a movie ticket is well worth $15. Netflix (http://www.forbes.com/companies/netflix/) is the closest thing they have to an advocate, but the studios are trying to drive them out of business as they see them as a threat, not a solution. It's mind boggling.
The primary problem movie studios have to realize is that everything they charge for is massively overpriced. The fact that movie ticket prices keep going up is astonishing. How can they possibly think charging $10-15 per ticket for a new feature is going to increase the amount of people coming to theaters rather than renting the movie later or downloading it online for free? Rather than lower prices, they double down, saying that gimmicks like 3D and IMAX are worth adding another $5 to your ticket.
They have failed to realize that people want things to be easy. Physically going to the movies is hard enough without paying way too much for the privilege. Going to a store and buying a DVD instead of renting or downloading is generally an impractical thing to do unless you A) really love a particular movie or B) are an avid film buff or collector.
I saw an image on reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/p3cmp/how_hollywood_could_kill_movie_piracy_if_they/) the other day that had a concept for an online movie distribution tool that would be the movie industry's greatest ally if they were to even consider it. Here it is:

More or less, it's Steam (the online PC  game distribution client) for movies. It allows you to rent or download your favorite films with ease, build a library and watch cross devices and share with your friends. The service would effectively allow you to beat the seven step piracy process easily.
1. Open "Movie Steam"
2. Search for The Hangover 2
3. Click button to rent for $2 for 24 hours
4. Play movie.

They win by three steps! And as an added bonus, you no longer have to feel guilty for doing something illegal.
To some degree, this is what Netflix streaming is, though you don't have the ability to actually own the movies you want, and there's a very limited selection. In terms of buying new films, studios are so far behind the times it's laughable. Most often they want you to buy the $30 Blu-ray so you can get the "Ultraviolet" copy as well that plays on a few digital devices. Please, how about I'll give you $10 for the new Harry Potter, and I'll watch it whenever and wherever I want? This is a negotiation where at any time, your customer could just go download the damn movie for free, and they're doing you a favor by even considering picking it up legally. And you have the nerve to think it's on YOUR terms? That's not how negotiation works. It may not be right, but it's reality, and they have to face it.
Yet movie companies threaten to put Netflix out of business by charging them huge amounts of money to have access to their content. Netflix is in the forefront of the war on piracy, and the studios don't even seem to understand it. It's incredible.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Finsertcoin%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F02%2Fnetflix.jpg&hash=b6297a6df8da243d9e69ed76cb5418525295d4da) Not your enemy, not your slave. "Movie Steam" would have its share of practical problems. It would be hard to get companies to agree to all use one service, and I sure as hell wouldn't want "Sony (http://www.forbes.com/companies/sony/) Steam," "Universal Steam," and "Paramount Steam" all cluttering up my computer. It would also be hard for companies to agree to set prices this low, when they're used to charging $15-30 for physical products. It would be almost impossible for them to not agree to some sort of ridiculous DRM, and god forbid if you ever wanted to share a movie with a friend.
It would also effectively kill off services like Netflix and Redbox (and of course finally put Blockbuster out of its misery) as well as hurt every retail store that sells DVDs. You could argue however, that DVDs will be gone completely within the decade, and retailers are going to have to brace themselves for that anyway. There's always the crowd that circles around me when I bring this up to say "but people will always want physical media," but there is just no possible way this is the case in 20, 10 or even maybe even five more years.
But with a distribution service like this, at least they'd be trying. At least they'd be going in the right direction. Trying to pass laws that stifle the freedom of the internet and piss off the entire population of a country is a terrible, terrible route to go. The millions of dollars they spent lobbying trying to get bills like SOPA and PIPA passed could have gone into R&D for new distribution arms like the one above.
And here's something no one has stopped to consider: Maybe making movies is too damn expensive. Or rather, far more expensive than it needs to be.
After SOPA and PIPA, Hollywood now looks like a dinosaur, and as out of touch as someone trying to kill the radio or home video cassettes. Venture capital firms are actually now actively looking to fund companies (http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html) with the aim of dismantling the industry, as the current model of movie making seems outdated. The internet is producing a talented crop of filmmakers working on shoestring budgets, hungry to get themselves noticed.
Perhaps A-list actors do not need multi-multi-million dollar salaries when there are thousands of hardworking amateurs trying to get noticed. Perhaps not every graphic novel and board game needs $100M or $200M thrown at it in order to become a feature film when there are hundreds of creative, original screenplays that get tossed in the trash. Perhaps you don't need to spend an additional $100M marketing a movie when everyone is fast-forwarding through commercials and has AdBlock on their browsers.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Finsertcoin%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F02%2Fbattleship.jpg&hash=1bd61204fd1a2ef6b296c62fd34e883d87aa056f) Would we really be worse off if no one spent $200M to make this? The industry is crawling toward these sorts of realizations, and they're suffering for it. Yes, it's true that nothing will ever kill piracy. But it's equally true that nothing will ever kill the movie, music or video game industries either. Projects with bloated budgets and massively overpaid talent might start to fade away, but that can only be a good thing creatively for all the industries. To threaten us with the idea that pop culture is going to disappear entirely because of piracy is just moronic.
I believe in paying money for products that earn it. I do not believe in a pricing and distribution model that still thinks it's 1998. And I really don't believe in censoring the internet so that studio and label executives can add a few more millions onto their already enormous money pile.
Treat your customers with respect , and they'll do the same to you. And that is how you fight piracy.

Quote
It's pretty safe to say that the one group of people that seem to be both overlooked and at the same time the vulnerable in the "war on piracy" are comedians. These entertainers need to create original content in order to stay relevant, and that content is a product of weeks of research and creative writing. When a comic takes the stage, what you are watching is the combined effort weeks of research, memorization, and delivery. If that person is lucky the work on that particular set will be usable for few months of live tours, and then possibly a DVD release.
I follow more than a few comics across the various social networks, and every once in a while I see a burst of frustration when someone records their work on the first night of a new set and immediately uploads it to YouTube. Not only does it expose the performance to the rest of the world, but it does so in the quality of the average cell phone being held at a night club. When the one hour comedy set finally does get released to DVD, the production company releases it for $20 due to the expenses, like those that go in to securing the content to minimize further piracy. The end result of those security efforts can be seen on most piracy websites only hours after a DVD has been released, and now the comedy set is free to anyone who knows how to get it.
It's a tough scenario to be put in, and there's not any real solution so long as you plan to continue releasing content in teh traditional means. If you really want to combat piracy, make the content just as easy to get, and don't include any of the digital rights management nonsense. At least, that's what the pirates say is necessary to keep most people from doing the deed. It's a fairly significant gamble, but comedian Louis C.K. stepped up to call the bluff.
In an extended note (https://buy.louisck.net/purchase) earlier this week Louis C.K. described his intent to release a comedy set that he had only just recorded, that had never been released on DVD. For $5, you would be able to stream the show two times, and download it three times. The show was made available in HD or SD (based on user preference), and the file was completely free of any digital rights management (DRM). The show would either sell or it would be quickly uploaded to every piracy site in the world and nobody would pay for it.
This was a fairly significant gamble for Louis C.K., but one that sent a clear message calling out those who continue to justify piracy by saying that it is easier to get online in the format of their choosing. The second part of this gamble is testing exactly how much profit can be made from online sales versus DVD sales. This set, Live at the Beacon Theater, isn't available in stores. The only place you can buy this comedy set is from his website (https://buy.louisck.net/purchase), and there is no option to purchase a DVD.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geek.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2FUntitled.png&hash=f414142272cbf341a9884f9412bbbab245f643c6) (http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/comedian-louis-c-k-confronts-piracy-head-on-with-a-digital-experiment-20111214/untitled-10/)
It did not take long for Louis C.K. to see results.  In a new statement (https://buy.louisck.net/statement) he released only four days later, C.K. explains that the video he sold cost him about $170,000 to make. The cost of making this video was largely offset by the tickets sold at the two sets he did at the Beacon, but for all intents and purposes he paid for the video to be produces out of his pocket. He further explains that the content in this show was exclusive, he had never used any of it in previous sets, or on his TV series.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geek.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2FScreen-Shot-2011-12-14-at-1.46.31-PM1-426x440.png&hash=cd1f8d221e684ea4e6c6c5ce8f9ca2bd5bf25a3c)He continued to explain that he spent an additional $32,000 on having the website built to handle the load of customers downloading the movie or streaming it. Every effort was made to make the buying and watching experience as simple as possible. Not counting his time editing the video and testing the site, this gamble was already costing him over $200,000. Within 12 hours of the site going live on December 10th, over 50,000 copies had been sold, allowing him to break even on the costs so far. Under 72 hours later, the site had seen over 130,000 purchases.
He noticed that this was still less than he would have made from a deal with a distribution company but this method helps the fans by giving them a more usable, more available file. Louis C.K. clearly feels that this was already a success, and more sales are coming in every minute. One thought from his statement that stuck with me was "You never have to join anything, and you never have to hear from us again."
The experiment was successful, but it remains to be seen whether or not this will have any actual impact on the industry. Even if more comedians take the same route as Louis C.K., there's no real incentive for this to be implemented anywhere else. As he said, if he had left all of this to a production company he'd have made more money, spent less time, and wouldn't have had to think about it twice. The content would have been pirated, and the circle would have continued.
This was a significant proof of concept, in my opinion, that the process of releasing content without all of the mess in between can work, but it's not likely to change how things work anytime soon.

Quote
Ok. I'll be the first to admit that I've taken the long way around in going through my series of posts exploring the economics of goods when scarcity is removed (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061026/102329.shtml). What I had thought would be a series of 5 or 6 posts, turned into something much longer -- but each week people came up with new questions or discussions or objections, and so I tried to spend some time digging down on various pieces of the economics at hand. However, what I haven't done is tie it all together in one single spot. In the last couple of weeks there's been tremendous confusion among people from Scott Adams (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070419/014033.shtml) to CNN (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070419/180305.shtml) to various others (http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/CommentView.aspx?guid=5b77c81e-f25e-4b26-9040-a414cdd137c8#commentstart) that have made it abundantly clear that the one thing I've failed to do is put the whole concept together in a single place. That's resulted in people being confused about what I'm actually saying -- where they only pick up a tiny piece of the argument or confuse it with the arguments made by others. So, while I still think it was important to go through the details, now is as good a time as any to pull the whole theory together (with some links back to the previous articles in the series).

First off, and this is key, none of what I put forth is about defending unauthorized downloads (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061129/010043.shtml). I don't download unauthorized content (never have) and I certainly don't suggest you do either. You may very well end up in a lawsuit and you may very well end up having to pay a lot of money. It's just not a good idea. This whole series is from the other perspective -- from that of the content creator and hopefully explaining why they should encourage people to get their content for free. That's because of two important, but simple points:

   
• If done correctly, you can increase your market-size greatly.
• If you don't, someone else will do it correctly, and your existing business model will be in serious trouble

If that first point is explained clearly, then hopefully the second point becomes self-evident. However, many people immediately ask, how is it possible that giving away a product can guarantee that you've increased your market size? The first thing to understand is that we're never suggesting people just give away content and then hope and pray that some secondary market will grant them money. Giving stuff away for free needs to be part of a complete business model that recognizes the economic realities. We'll get to more details on that in a second.

From a high-level perspective, though, the reason that giving non-scarce products away for free will increase your market size goes back to the same Thomas Jefferson quote (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061026/102329.shtml) that we kicked the series off with:
>If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

   
• Redefine the market based on the benefits
• Break the benefits down into scarce and infinite components.
• Set the infinite components free, syndicate them, make them easy to get -- all to increase the value of the scarce components
• Charge for the scarce components that are tied to infinite components

   
• Redefine the market: The benefit is musical enjoyment
• Break the benefits down (not a complete list...): Infinite components: the music itself. Scarce components: access to the musicians, concert tickets, merchandise, creation of new songs, CDs, private concerts, backstage passes, time, anyone's attention, etc. etc. etc.
• Set the infinite components free: Put them on websites, file sharing networks, BitTorrent, social network sites wherever you can, while promoting the free songs and getting more publicity for the band itself -- all of which increases the value for the final step
• Charge for the scarce components: Concert tickets are more valuable. Access to the band is more valuable. Getting the band to write a special song (sponsorship?) is more valuable. Merchandise is more valuable.

   
• Economics Of Abundance Getting Some Well Deserved Attention (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061026/102329.shtml)
  
• The Importance Of Zero In Destroying The Scarcity Myth Of Economics (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061025/014811.shtml)
  
• The Economics Of Abundance Is Not A Moral Issue (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061115/020157.shtml)
  
• A Lack Of Scarcity Has (Almost) Nothing To Do With Piracy (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061129/010043.shtml)
  
• A Lack Of Scarcity Feeds The Long Tail By Increasing The Pie (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061206/011155.shtml)
  
• Why The Lack Of Scarcity In Economics Is Getting More Important Now (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061213/234018.shtml)
  
• History Repeats Itself: How The RIAA Is Like 17th Century French Button-Makers (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070110/004225.shtml)
  
• Infinity Is Your Friend In Economics (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070118/013310.shtml)
  
• Step One To Embracing A Lack Of Scarcity: Recognize What Market You're Really In (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070125/004949.shtml)
  
• Why I Hope The RIAA Succeeds (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070201/004218.shtml)
  
• Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml)
  
• Perhaps It's Not The Entertainment Industry's Business Model That's Outdated (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070222/002451.shtml)
  
• An Economic Explanation For Why DRM Cannot Open Up New Business Model Opportunities (http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20070301/005837)
  
• Recognizing That Just About Any Product Is A Bundle Of Scarce And Non-Scarce Goods (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070315/013313.shtml)
  
• Scarcity Isn't As Scarce As You Might Think (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070322/024237.shtml)
  

Quote from: Thomas JeffersonIf nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

Quote from: shrike on 06-02-2012, 12:10:37
Poznati javni tracker Btjunkie prestao s radom

http://btjunkie.org/goodbye.html?do=upload (http://btjunkie.org/goodbye.html?do=upload)

Quote from: Mark on 06-02-2012, 18:37:05
BTJUNKIE
2005-2012
RIP

Quote from: Харвестер on 06-02-2012, 19:13:21
ПајретБеј и ИСОХант се и даље одлично држе, а изгледа и да се ФајлСерв зомбификовао! :!:

Quote
Izvor: B92
Jedan od najtiražnijih svetskih pisaca Paulo Koeljo stao je na stranu web sajta Pirate Bay, protiv kojeg američka filmska i muzička industrija vodi višegodišnju borbu za zabranu, rečima ,,što više ljudi 'skine' knjigu, to bolje".

Koeljo se pridružio programu na sajtu Pirate Bay, u kojem poziva sve čitaoce da skinu njegov opus besplatno. Čim je Koeljo na ovaj način podržao internet pirateriju, čitaoci i posetioci Pirate Bay sajta su ga prozvali vizionarom i uzorom za čovečanstvo.

Koeljo je nešto ranije na svom blogu kritikovao američke predloge antipiratskih zakona rekavši da su oni loši, kako za internet generaciju , tako i za same autore.

,,Šta ja mislim o tome? Kao autor, trebalo bi da branim intelektualno vlasništvo , ali ja to ne želim. Pirati celog sveta ujedinite se i piratizujte sve što sam ikada napisao!", rekao je Koeljo.

On smatra da su vremena kada je svaka ideja imala svojeg vlasnika zauvek prošla. Kako on navodi, svi pisci recikliraju četiri teme: ljubav između dvoje ljudi, ljubavni trougao, borba za moć i priča o putovanju. Svi pisci žele da se čita ono što su napisali, bilo da je reč o članku u novinama, blogu, pamfletu ili grafitu na zidu.

,, Neki ljudi će reći: vi ste dovoljno bogati, pa možete sebi dopustiti da se vaše knjige distribuiraju besplatno. Istina je. Ja sam bogat. Ali, da li me je želja za bogatstvom potaknula da pišem? Ne. Porodica i učitelji su mi rekli kako nema budućnosti u pisanju. Počeo sam da pišem i nastavljam s pisanjem jer me ono ispunjava, daje smisao mojem životu. Da se sve vrti oko novca odavno bih prestao da pišem, bar bih se na taj način poštedeo redovno negativnih recenzija", objašnjava on.

Danas, kako Koeljo piše, putem stranice "Pirate Coelho" daje linkove na sve svoje knjige koje se nalaze na internetu. I pored toga, prodaja njegovih knjiga i dalje raste - skoro 140 miliona prodatih primeraka širom sveta.

Ipak, Vrhovni sud Švedske odlučio je da neće razmatrati žalbe osnivača sajta Pirate Bay na zatvorske i novčane kazne koje im je izrekao Apelacioni sud pre godinu dana. Tada je sud osudio Fredrika Neija, Petera Sundea i Karla Lundstroma na po deset, osam i četiri meseci zatvora i naložio im da zajedno plate kaznu od 6,7 miliona dolara.

Quote
Posted on February 7, 2012 by labovit (http://blog.deepfield.net/author/labovit/)   On January 18, 2012 global file sharing traffic collapsed. In a series of coordinate raids, US and New Zealand authorities seized thousands of MegaUpload servers and arrested its founder (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577172010520529848.html) (at his own birthday party, no less).
As the largest file sharing service on the Internet, MegaUpload downloads represented 30-40% of all file sharing. In the space of an hour, Internet traffic globally plummeted by an astounding 2-3%. Press releases (http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/justice-department-charges-leaders-of-megaupload-with-widespread-online-copyright-infringement) heralded a major blow to the theft of intellectual property.
So what happened to Internet file sharing traffic after the MegaUpload arrests?
Today we're publishing the results of three month research effort that provides some of the clues. More details are available in our NANOG presentation (http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog54/abstracts.php?pt=MTkwNCZuYW5vZzU0&nm=nanog54) and earlier academic paper (http://www.monkey.org/~labovit/cv.html#papers).
First, some definitions. As the New York Times observed (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/technology/antipiracy-case-sends-shivers-through-some-legitimate-storage-sites.html), "file sharing sites" (particularly those focused on distribution of copyright infringing content) can be difficult to distinguish from the dozens of legitimate sites helping enterprises and consumers share internal documents, homework, and the like.
The web sites for copyright protected and legal file sharing look nearly identical with similar graphics, sales messaging, and perhaps ironically (or cynically), DMCA policies and warnings against illegal file sharing. The only exception was MegaUpload which made little effort to disguise its true business focus (in retrospect, possibly a mistake).
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogdeepfield.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F02%2Fman_on_a_ledge.png%3Fw%3D300&hash=6317a2d0a590bfed3843eced64429c00939bf1d0) (http://blogdeepfield.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/man_on_a_ledge.png)
But if you spend a few minutes searching to download (http://www.google.com/search?q=download+man+on+a+ledge) the latest Hollywood movie release (or movies not even released yet), patterns quickly emerge. File sharing search sites like FilesTube (http://www.filestube.com/), RapidManiac (http://www.rapidmaniac.com/), and Filesbay (http://www.filesbay.net/) link to many dozens of file sharing providers, but generally not, say, DropBox nor Box.net. (In the above example, I searched for "Man on a Ledge" — which you should not download from FilesTube if for no other reason than it's a terrible movie).
In our study, we were particularly interested in the infrastructure behind file sharing, i.e. the hosting / colo facilities, payment partners, etc. The conventional wisdom is that file sharing is distributed across huge swaths of the Internet — basically everywhere.
No.
In fact, though there are hundreds of file sharing sites, an extremely small number of colo-location providers (six of them) provide infrastructure to these sites that generate more than 80% of all Internet file sharing traffic. Like other niche industries, file sharing has evolved with a specialized ecosystem / cyber supply chain.
The below graph shows the Internet's file sharing topology in the early hours of January 18, 2012. The links represent North America Internet file sharing traffic where the width of each link is proportional to the traffic volume. Green indicates traffic to the file sharing sites and red is traffic to the hosting or colo-location provider. Note that the different file sharing sites share much of the same Internet infrastructure and hosting companies (namely LeaseWeb, NForce, Carpathia, Choopa, and Softlayer).
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogdeepfield.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F02%2Ffilesharing_jan181.png%3Fw%3D1024%26amp%3Bh%3D903&hash=e72e4c99c606053d83be645bf876d337c85bd2d7) (http://blogdeepfield.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/filesharing_jan181.png)
On January 18, MegaVideo was clearly the king with 34% of all file sharing traffic. In turn, most MegaVideo servers leveraged US based servers in Carpathia Hosting (http://www.carpathia.com/) with some traffic going to Leaseweb (http://www.leaseweb.com/en) servers in the Netherlands and other European providers / facilities. According to the indictment, the gigantic MegaUpload sprawled over more than 1000 servers and 25 petabytes of data in Carpathia facilities (with another 700 MegaUpload servers in Leaseweb hosting centers).
The next graphic shows Internet file sharing traffic topology several hours later on January 19, 2012. Overall, a significant re-allocation of Internet file sharing traffic. MegaVideo is gone. Sites like PutLocker (http://www.putlocker.com/) have gained significant marketshare.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogdeepfield.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F02%2Ffilesharing_jan192.png%3Fw%3D1024%26amp%3Bh%3D765&hash=3c65c00dff9de0cb7906fbfbf27f211479dc356c) (http://blogdeepfield.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/filesharing_jan192.png)
The main impact of the MegaUpload takedown?
Well, file sharing has not gone away. It did not even decrease much in North America.
Mainly, file sharing became staggeringly less efficient. Instead of terabytes of North America MegaUpload traffic going to US servers, most file sharing traffic now comes from Europe over far more expensive transatlantic links.
- Craig
labovit@deepfield.net
   

Quote
       

   
   
   
• 219
  inShare 

   
• By Joe Mullin (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/author/joe-mullin/)
• Email Author (ryansingel+joemullin@gmail.com)
• February 8, 2012 | 
• 9:50 am | 
• Categories: Copyrights and Patents (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/category/copyrights-and-patents/)
•   | Edit (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/wp-admin/post.php?post=37316&action=edit)

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fthreatlevel%2F2012%2F02%2Fthe-internet-f1.jpg&hash=453f32a87705f862b11656a022ee9f63de673ca9) (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/02/the-internet-f1.jpg) The mother of all patent troll trials unfolds in Texas where Google, Amazon and Adobe are fighting a patent claiming ownership over online video, image rotation and search auto-complete. We explain and start a series. TYLER, Texas — The city of Tyler, Texas, is better known as the nation's "rose capital" than as a hotspot of the technology industry. It's a quiet, conservative city of about 100,000, full of wide streets and big trucks.
This week, though, Tyler is the site of a remarkable battle over the history of the World Wide Web — a trial that could affect the future of e-commerce. The federal courthouse downtown is packed to the brim with dozens of lawyers, representing the world's biggest internet companies, including Yahoo, Amazon, Google and YouTube.
A succession of pioneers of the early web — including the web's father, Tim Berners-Lee himself — have flown in from around the world to denounce two software patents they believe threaten the future of web innovation. East Texas has transformed itself into something of a haven for patent suits over the past several years, but by any standard, the trial now underway is an extraordinary circus of dark suits.
How did all the trouble start?
Michael Doyle, a low-profile Chicago biologist, claims that it was actually he and two co-inventors who invented — and patented (http://www.google.com/patents?id=kKAZAAAAEBAJ) — the "interactive web" before anyone else, while they were employed by the University of California back in 1993. Doyle argues that a program he created at the UC's San Francisco campus, which allowed doctors to view embryos over the nascent World Wide Web, was the first program that allowed users to interact with images inside of a web browser window. The defendants hotly contest that, saying that it was programs like Pei-Yuan Wei's pioneering Viola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViolaWWW) that first offered this functionality.

Today, Doyle and his lawyers say he's owed royalty payments for the use of a stunning array of modern web technologies. Watching online video, having a "search suggestion" pop up in a search bar, or even rotating an image of a sweater you might want to buy on an online shopping site — all are said to infringe on the idea-space of Doyle and his company, Eolas Technologies (http://eolas.com/).
To those who follow high-profile tech litigation, the name Eolas may sound familiar. The company sued Microsoft (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/02/17688) back in 1999, winning a $521 million jury verdict (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012-5062409.html) in 2003 that shook the tech world. While that verdict was overturned on appeal, Microsoft ultimately settled rather than re-try the case. The full settlement amount wasn't disclosed, but the University of California revealed that its cut was $30.4 million (http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2007/10/10/microsofts-eolas-settlement-uc-gets-30-4m/); since an Eolas lawyer at one point described UC's take as 25 percent, minus expenses, it suggests the company got well over $100 million from that case.
The Microsoft verdict got the attention of tech community in a big way. Eolas was denounced (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139150/Opinion_Eolas_might_just_sue_every_last_lousy_company_in_creation) in some quarters as a "patent troll" — the company has never launched its own web browser, or any commercially successful technology that's well known, for that matter.
Groups that felt the impact of the patent started to take action. The W3C, the global web standards group, contacted the patent office directly, sending a letter signed by Berners-Lee warning that unless the Eolas patent was invalidated it would cause the "disruption of global web standards" and cause "substantial economic and technical damage to the operation of the World Wide Web."
But while the PTO initially rejected the Eolas patent claims in reexams, Doyle and his lawyers were dogged in insisting they had the right to some kind of patent claim. The office ultimately reversed course — a fact now being trumpeted to an East Texas jury by Eolas' lawyers.
Eolas' lawyers have actually used the struggle against the patent to bolster their claim that it's an important invention. Mike McKool, the lead lawyer for Eolas, told the jury during opening statements that tech companies have been attacking the patent ever since 1995 — when it was still three years away from issuing.
Eolas Becomes Texan to Pursue a New Suit By the time Eolas settled its case against Microsoft in 2007, the business of "patent trolling" had begun to coalesce around a few popular venues, most notably the small towns of East Texas.
While the Microsoft suit was underway, the company applied for a second patent (http://www.google.com/patents?id=-gnJAAAAEBA), which it received on Oct. 6, 2009. The same day, Eolas filed suit — in East Texas — against more than 20 big companies, including Apple, Playboy, Perot Systems, Blockbuster, Citigroup, eBay, and Frito-Lay — all for using the "interactive web."
Most of those companies settled; eight remain as defendants. In addition to the internet companies mentioned above, GoDaddy, JC Penney, Staples, and CDW Corp are in the case. In documents filed last month, Eolas lawyers said they will seek damages of more than $600 million against those eight companies, with more than half of it coming from Google and Yahoo.
By 2009, although Doyle continued to live in Chicago, Eolas had transformed itself into a Texan company, at least on paper. It incorporated in the state, and moved its headquarters — just two rooms in a small office building — to Tyler. The company moved one full-time employee, its licensing officer, to Tyler as well, and hired some part-time nursing students at the University of Texas' Tyler campus to work on a product it was beta-testing.
The tech companies in the case asked to transfer the case to California, but Judge Leonard Davis, who is overseeing the case, refused to allow it. After all, Davis reasoned (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/02/Mot.Transfer.2.pdf) (.PDF), Eolas picked six defendant companies that were based in Texas, including four — Perot Systems, Frito-Lay, JC Penney, and Rent-A-Center — that were headquartered in Plano, a Dallas suburb which is within the Eastern District of Texas. Davis also declined to let the case be divided up, saying it wouldn't promote "judicial economy."
And that's how Berners-Lee ended up testifying to an eight-person jury in East Texas on Tuesday morning, restating to some degree an argument he made in Scientific American in 2010 — that patents could be a serious threat to the future of the Web. In the Eolas case, it looks like Berners-Lee's nightmare may be about to come true.
The new Eolas suit has also put the University of California in an unprecedented and awkward situation, as a not-so-silent partner to Eolas' increasingly widespread, and controversial, business. While the UC could reap many millions from an Eolas win, it is suing the world's biggest internet companies — the same companies that recruit its students, and are enmeshed with the UC in many other ways. The plaintiff's lawyers have been referring to the patents as the "university patents" and make reference to the innovative history of the UC to make their case to the jury.
What Happens Next The Eolas trial is actually scheduled to be four back-to-back trials in Tyler. In the first, a jury will determine whether the patents are valid or not; if Eolas survives that stage, it will get to go on to sue the eight remaining defendants in three successive infringement and damages trials. The jury may get the first case by Thursday, and could have a decision before the weekend.
And if Eolas and the UC are successful, the companies gathered in Tyler this week will likely be just the beginning of a long list of targets who will end up paying Eolas millions of dollars to use the web.
 

Quote
Band members and actress-songwriter Ronee Blakley are lead plaintiffs in a suit alleging potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue from digital download sales   
The members of the musical group Sister Sledge have banded together with an Oscar-nominated actress and songwriter to file a major class action lawsuit against Warner Music Group alleging they have been cheated out of millions of dollars based on improper calculations of revenue from digital music sales.
Debra Sledge, Joan Sledge, Kathy Sledge Lightfoot, Kim Sledge Allen and Ronee Blakely filed suit in federal court in San Francisco on Thursday claiming that the music giant's method for calcluating digital music purchases as "sales" rather than "licenses" on songs such as the band's chart-topping "We Are Family" cheats artists out of money due to them under recording contracts, many of them signed decades before music was sold digitally via iTunes, Amazon, ringtones and other outlets.
"Rather than paying its recording artists and producers the percentage of net receipts it received--and continues to receive--from digital content providers for 'licenses,' Warner wrongfully treats each digital download as a 'sale' of a physical phonorecord...which are governed by much lower royalty provisions than 'licenses' in Warner's standard recording agreements."
If that claim sounds familiar, it's one of the most hotly-disputed issues in the music business. Songwriters typically make much less money when an album is "sold" than they do when their music is "licensed" (the rationale derives from the costs that used to be associated with the physical production of records). But record labels have taken the position that music sold via such digital stores as iTunes should be counted as "sales" rather than licenses.
The difference in revenue can be significant. The Sister Sledge members claim their record deal promises 25 percent of revenue from licenses but much less from sales. Blakely, who is an Oscar nominated actress (Nashville) as well as songwriter and performer, alleges that her deal with WMG grants her 50 percent of licenses, much more than the rate WMG is paying based on its calculation of sales.
Eminem's publisher brought a nearly identical claim against Universal Music Group and won a fairly important decision at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 (the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal). The 9th Circuit ruled that iTunes' contract unambiguously provided that the music was licensed. At the time, UMG downplayed the ruling as specific to Eminem's contract, but music lawyers believe more of these cases are going to be filed by legacy artists (newer contracts have specific language precluding such suits).
And now we have a full-fledged, 35-page class action lawsuit seeking to bring together many artists in one proceeding, calling Warner Music's actions "wide-spread and calculated." Hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue is at stake, the complaint alleges. It should be interesting to see which artists come forward.
Sister Sledge also claims WMG has improperly kept revenue from "reserves," which is money withheld to offset losses related to unsold records. The plaintiffs point out there's no such thing as unsold inventory in a digital universe.
The suit was filed by four firms: Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny in San Francisco, Hausfeld in Washington DC, and Kiesel Boucher Larson and Johnson & Johnson in Beverly Hills.
Email: Matthew.Belloni@thr.com
Twitter:@THRMattBelloni

QuoteThe Pirate Bay has confirmed that all torrent files being shared by more than 10 people will be deleted on February 29. The decision is causing a small panic among the site's users, but in reality little will change as all files will remain available through magnet links. The Pirate Bay crew told TorrentFreak that this is merely a "step forward in technology" and confirmed that the site is here to stay.

QuoteRESEARCHERS have created invincible file-sharing software they say cannot be shut down by governments or anti-piracy organisations. Known as Tribler (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=tribler&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tribler.org%2F&ei=v1s0T_eVCtDAmQWsx62fAg&usg=AFQjCNFnlm1VZ3JtKEpM0IGmZjHCAU_brg&sig2=M2euk-XM7mVePTQ5QsV-8w&cad=rja), its creators say the only way to take it down "is to take the internet down".

Developed by a team of researchers at Delft University of Technology (http://home.tudelft.nl/) in the Netherlands, the BitTorrent network doesn't require torrent sites to find or download content. Instead it is based on pure peer-to-peer communication, TorrentFreak (http://torrentfreak.com/tribler-makes-bittorrent-impossible-to-shut-down-120208/) reports.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/technology/tribler-file-sharing-software-cannot-be-shut-down-says-developer/story-e6frfro0-1226267578432#ixzz1mI8sY8ER (http://www.news.com.au/technology/tribler-file-sharing-software-cannot-be-shut-down-says-developer/story-e6frfro0-1226267578432#ixzz1mI8sY8ER)

Quote from: Steva Lazin Ljuštikin on 14-02-2012, 15:51:52
Bogme, torrenti baš zamiru...

Quote from: Ghoul on 14-02-2012, 16:06:21

Quote from: Steva Lazin Ljuštikin on 14-02-2012, 15:51:52
Bogme, torrenti baš zamiru...

koješta.

evo anđa se skida ko neda arnerić!

Quote from: Ghoul on 14-02-2012, 16:06:21
koješta.

evo anđa se skida ko neda arnerić!

Quote from: Ghoul on 14-02-2012, 16:06:21

Quote from: Steva Lazin Ljuštikin on 14-02-2012, 15:51:52
Bogme, torrenti baš zamiru...

koješta.

evo anđa se skida ko neda arnerić!

Quote from: Ghoul on 14-02-2012, 20:17:23
jeste, al traži ti pare da bi dobio pasvord i to raspakovao!  :cry:

Quote from: SVAROG on 14-02-2012, 20:56:38

Quote from: Ghoul on 14-02-2012, 20:17:23
jeste, al traži ti pare da bi dobio pasvord i to raspakovao!  :cry:

Dal je neko ocekivo nesto mufte od Andje, maaaaajke vam, eeeeej???

Quote from: Джон Рейнольдс on 14-02-2012, 22:38:09
Ако постоји скринер, појавиће се ових дана.

Quoterip lnu

Quote from: Melkor on 16-02-2012, 18:21:22
A sta si skidao odatle? Ja sam se svojevremeno registrovao ali nisam makao dalje posto sam sve nalazio sto preko torenta sto shareova ili cak mirca. U svakom slucaju, potrazi clanak koji sam postovao (nisam kod kuce a ne secam se gde sam ga nasao), mislim da su ljudi u komentarima davali alternativu.

Quote from: niko on 16-02-2012, 18:37:19
pa dokle više? :x
rapidshare ograničio brzinu za free users na 30kb/s

Quote from: niko on 16-02-2012, 18:37:19
pa dokle više? :x
rapidshare ograničio brzinu za free users na 30kb/s

QuoteRapidshare disabled the ability to resume downloads that were stopped for free users and also limited the average download speed to 30 kb/s.
Because of the way they are doing this, it may look like the download is frozen!

Don't worry - it's not. It's just waiting for the next piece of the file to be transferred.

The pauses in between are added by Rapidshare in order to make the overall average speed slower for free-users.

Quote from: Харвестер on 18-02-2012, 13:47:37
Прави ли још неком Рапидшер проблеме? Мени више ниједан фајл не може да се даунлоудује  :(

Quote from: Джон Рейнольдс on 18-02-2012, 14:05:10
Па да као ја користите Ифолдер, проблеме не бисте имали.

Quote from: taurus-jor on 18-02-2012, 15:34:53
Što se Rapisharea tiče, oni razumeju samo bojkot. Ovo što rade je samo zato što smatraju da su ostali sami i najjači.

Quoteko meni (potencijalnom platiocu premijum naloga) garantuje da neće i RŠ da ugase SUTRA?

Quote from: tomat on 16-02-2012, 16:40:56
ima li ko kakvu alternativu ovome, pomagajte!

Quote from: chovekoid on 18-02-2012, 23:04:01

Quote from: tomat on 16-02-2012, 16:40:56
ima li ko kakvu alternativu ovome, pomagajte!

Probaj Букфи (http://en.bookfi.org) ruske braće, ima svašta.
Najlepše od svega -- direktni linkovi ka knjigama.  :)

Quote from: chovekoid on 18-02-2012, 23:04:01

Quote from: tomat on 16-02-2012, 16:40:56
ima li ko kakvu alternativu ovome, pomagajte!

Probaj Букфи (http://en.bookfi.org) ruske braće, ima svašta.
Najlepše od svega -- direktni linkovi ka knjigama.  :)

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 01-02-2012, 17:31:05... Naravno da je nadigravanje u temelju tržišta i tržišne razmene. Ali kada jedna strana zapravo istupi iz razmene, to nije više nadigravanje nego izlazak iz igre.

Quote from: Father Jape on 19-02-2012, 20:11:23
Čisto da se raspitam, sad kad nema btjunkieja, sta koristite za torrente?

Quote from: Father Jape on 19-02-2012, 20:11:23
Čisto da se raspitam, sad kad nema btjunkieja, sta koristite za torrente?

Quote from: Cruellahttp://torrentz.eu/ (http://torrentz.eu/)   :)

QuoteOpasne pravne posledice ACTA

Vesna Rakić-Vodinelić  | 19/02/2012



Problematični međunarodni sporazum ACTA pristigao je u javnost Srbije gotovo istovremeno sa predlogom za ispitivanje ustavnosti Zakona o elektronskim komunikacijama i Zakona o Vojnobezbednosnoj i Vojno-obaveštajnoj agenciji – pre nešto više od godinu dana. Dok Ustavni sud o predlogu još uvek ćuti, celim svetom se šire protesti zbog potpisivanja i bliskog stupanja na snagu ACTA.

Šta je ACTA? Kakve mogu biti njegove posledice na naš svakodnevni cyber život?

ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – Trgovinski sporazum protiv falsifikovanja) u formalnom smislu reči jeste multilateralni međunarodni sporazum, iz čije preambule proizlazi da je namenjen suzbijanju pojačane trgovine falsifikovanim i piratskim dobrima i time, zaštiti titulara (nosilaca) intelektualne svojine. Njime se, navodno, nastoji uobličiti međunarodni pravni okvir za zaštitu intelektualne svojine. Valja naglasiti da je međunarodni pravni okvir sa istom namenom već postavljen. U okviru Svetske trgovinske organizacije (STO) usvojen je TRIPS (Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights – Sporazum o trgovinskim aspektima prava intelektualne svojine). Ovaj sporazum je rezultat pregovora i uobličenja teksta iz 1994. godine. Dostupan je na srpskom jeziku. Iako su pravna rešenja TRIPS-a daleko manje upitna od onih koja sadrži ACTA, on je bio izložen snažnim kritikama, koje su uglavnom poticale iz nerazvijenih zemalja i ticale se izvesnih mera zaštite međunarodne trgovine vezane za intelektualna prava na medikamentima, naročito onim za ublažavanje posledica AIDS-a. TRIPS je obavezan za sve članice Svetske trgovinske organizacije. Na svetskom nivou, u okviru Svetske organizacije za intelektualnu svojinu (SOIS), zaključen je niz međunarodnih sporazuma, od kojih je najznačajniji Sporazum o autorskom pravu (Copyright Treaty). U okviru EU, 2004. godine, usvojena je Direktiva o zaštiti prava intelektualne svojine 2004/48 (usvojili su je Evropski parlament i Evropski savet).

Od samog početka pregovora o zaključenju ACTA, ovaj sporazum su pratile brojne neuobičajene činjenice. Najpre, o ACTA je pregovarano van međunarodnih institucija kao što su UN, STO ili SOIS. Neformalni pregovori su započeli između SAD i Japana 2006. godine, da bi se kasnije proširili na najveće i ekonomski najmoćnije države sveta. Pregovorima su se pridružili i predstavnici EU tokom 2006 i 2007. Službeni pregovori započinju 2007. godine, a neke zemlje koje su bile uključene u preliminarne razgovore, napuštaju ih. Pregovori i sadržina verzija ACTA su bili proglašeni tajnom. Ne samo administracija Džorža Buša, već i Baraka Obame, odbile su da pregovarane verzije ACTA učine javnim, iako je bilo pokušaja, sa pozivom na američki zakon o pristupu informacijama od javnog značaja i iako su neki članovi Kongresa tražili skidanje oznake poverljivosti. Jednu od verzija (ne današnju tj. konačnu) prvi je obelodanio Wikileaks 2008. godine. Otkad je obelodanjen, uprkos naknadnim ublažavanjima teksta, ACTA je naišao na snažan otpor ne samo u opštoj javnosti, već i u značajnim međunarodnim centrima pravničke zajednice.

ACTA se sastoji iz šest glava: (1) uvodne odredbe i opšti pojmovi; (2) pravni okvir za zaštitu prava intelektualne svojine; (3) prakse pravne zaštite; (4) međunarodna saradnja; (5) institucionalna pravila i (6) završne odredbe. U formalnom smislu, radi se o odredbama koje su uobičajene u multilateralnim međunarodnim sporazumima: one nameću državama koje potpišu i ratifikuju ACTA, obavezu prilagođavanja njihovog unutrašnjeg prava odredbama tog sporazuma.

Bez obzira što su namere redaktora izražene u preambuli legitimne (zaštita autorskih prava i drugih prava intelektualne svojine, suzbijanje falsifikovanja intelektualnih dobara i sprečavanje piraterije) pravni metodi koje sadrže ACTA su agresivni i protivni brojnim međunarodnim i regionalnim dokumentima o ljudskim pravima. Ljudska prava koja se u ACTA najviše ugrožavaju jesu: pravo na privatnost, sloboda izražavanja, pravo na lečenje (pristup medikamentima) i pravo na pravično odlučivanje (suđenje). Evo nekoliko primera:

 
1. Na osnovu čl. 27. st. 4. ACTA država može naložiti provajderu da hitno otkrije titularu (nosiocu) prava intelektualne svojine, informacije o korisniku za kojeg se tvrdi da svoj nalog kod datog provajdera koristi za povredu prava intelektualne svojine. Kako se ispravno primećuje u mišljenju stručnjaka za pravo intelektualne svojine, ACTA ne pravi razliku između korisnika za koje postoji osnovana sumnja da povređuju pravo intelektualne svojine i drugih korisnika. Dovoljno je da nosilac prava tvdi da je određeni korisnik njegovo pravo povredio. U ovom pogledu, naglašava se, ACTA ide znatno dalje od TRIPS-a, koji ovakvu obavezu provajdera propisuje samo za one korisnike za koje je dokazano da vređaju pravo intelektualne svojine. Na ovaj način se uspostavlja pretpostavka da je svaki korisnik istovremeno i prekršilac. Iako je u ovoj odredbi propisano da država potpisnica može (ne mora) dati nalog provajderu, i iako se određuje da države potpisnice treba da vode računa o slobodi izražavanja, privatnosti i pravu na pravično odlučivanje, u navedenom mišljenju se podvlači da ACTA ne sadrži specifična pravila o očuvanju i zaštiti ljudskih prava, te je neizvesno kako bi ona uopšte mogla biti zaštićena pri ovako formulisanim odredbama, za razliku od Direktive EU 2004/48, koja zaštitu ljudskih prava uglavnom obezbeđuje.

2. ACTA, pored građanskopravne zaštite, nameće državama potpisnicama obavezu krivičnopravne zaštite, tj. kriminalizaciju povreda prava intelektualne svojine u čl. 23, što odstupa od EU standarda, jer Direktiva EU 2004/48 uopšte ne predviđa kriminalizaciju. Pored toga ACTA ne obezbeđuje pravično suđenje i zaštitu procesnih prava okrivljenih. Iako se državama potpisnicama nameće obaveza kriminalizacije, u ACTA se ne pravi razlika između kopiranja koje je korisnik izvršio za sopstvenu upotrebu i onog za nezakonito sticanje profita, budući da se pojam komercijalne upotrebe intelektualnog dobra neodređeno i široko definiše.

3. U čl. 12 ACTA nisu sadržane uobičajene procesne garantije za tuženog (navodnog prekršioca prava intelektualne svojine), zato što se privremene mere oduzimanja i zaplene njegovih dobara, za koje se tvrdi da su rezultat povrede prava intelektualne svojine, mogu izreći, a da se tuženom i ne pruži prilika da se izjasni (inaudita altera parte).

4. Državni organi koji kontrolišu granicu, na osnovu ACTA mogu uživati ovlašćenja koja inače, sme da ima samo sud: prema nekim tumačenjima granični službenici carine mogu da narede pregled lap topa ili IPad-a i njihovo oduzimanje na osnovu obične sumnje da sadrže falsifikovana intelektualna dobra (snimke muzike, filma i sl.) koji bi navodno bili namenjeni komercijalnoj, a ne, kao što uobičajeno jesu, ličnoj upotrebi (na primer, čl. 16).

5. U Evropskom parlamentu je naglašavano da se ACTA odnosi i na generične medikamente (lekove sa generičnim imenom), iako se ne radi o falsifikovanim lekovima, nego i o onim za koje je isteklo vreme zaštite ili se iz razloga unutrašnjeg prava, stavljaju u promet pod generičnim imenom. Zaplena i uništavanje takvih lekova kao falsifikovanih sprečiće pristup lečenju naročito u nerazvijenim zemljama.

 
Kratko rečeno, ACTA traže od država potpisnica takve promene njihovih unutrašnjih pravnih poredaka koje mogu dovesti do ograničenja ljudskih prava, pre svih privatnosti, slobode izražavanja i pravičnog suđenja i odlučivanja, koja su nelegitimna i neproporcionalna, kao i suprotna međunarodnim standardima. Ono što bitno razlikuje ACTA od ostalih međunarodnih sporazuma za zaštitu prava intelektualne svojine je upravo agresivna neproporcionalnost. Da su u pitanju opasnosti masivnih terorističkih akata (stvarnih i neposredno predstojećih, a ne fingiranih), opasnosti teških ratnih razaranja i gubitaka ljudskih života, ovolika neproporcionalnost bi se možda i mogla braniti. Ovde se, međutim, radi o korporativnim interesima prekomerne zaštite očekivanog profita, što nije u srazmeri sa štetom koja će nastupiti usled teškog i nelegitimnog ograničenja ljudskih prava.

Upravo ove opasnosti, učinile su neke države veoma uzdržanim prema potpisivanju ACTA. Iako je Evropski parlament u martu 2010. godine doneo Rezoluciju kojom poziva da pregovori o ACTA budu javni i zatražio da zaštita intelektualne svojine bude propisana na način koji neće biti u protivrečnosti sa pravom EU i koji neće sprečavati inovacije i tržišnu utakmicu, ili ugroziti zaštitu podataka o ličnosti, EU je ipak potpisala ACTA. To su učinile i 22 države članice, dok su neke među njima, kao Nemačka, Holandija, Češka, Slovačka i Slovenija, za sada odustale od pristupanja ACTA. U nekim slučajevima, ova uzdržanost je bila posledica masovnih protesta, u drugim, posledica mišljenja eksperata za pravo intelektualne svojine o odredbama ACTA koje su u suprotnosti sa pravom EU i evropskim standardima uživanja i zaštite ljudskih prava.

Srbija je, naročito u novijem zakonodavstvu pokazala da ima sklonosti ka zadiranju u privatni život svojih građana, konkretno – u zakonima pomenutim na početku ovog teksta – Zakonu o elektronskim komunikacijama i Zakonu o Vojnobezbednosnoj i Vojno-obaveštajnoj agenciji. Ne treba sumnjati da će organi ove države kad-tad početi da se pozivaju na ACTA kao na standard EU, iako se iz mišljenja evropskih stručnjaka jasno može zaključiti koje su odredbe ACTA u suprotnosti sa pravom EU i ljudskim pravima zaštićenim Evropskom konvencijom. Umesto tog neosvešćenog pozivanja, Ustavni sud bi trebalo da radi svoj posao povodom predloga za ispitivanje ustavnosti zakona, koji su podneli Poverenik za informacije od javnog značaja i Zaštitnik građana. A, vlasti Srbije ne bi trebalo ni da se približe ACTA: njegova autoritarna privlačna snaga i prekomerna zaštita korporativnih profita, za nju su prosto neodoljivi. Na svu sreću ACTA je otvorena za potpisivanje do 31. marta 2012. godine, i to samo za one države koje su pregovarale, kao i za članice STO (što Srbija još uvek nije). Ali, gotovo ništa je ne sprečava da svoje zakonodavstvo ,,prilagodi" unapred, ako do izbora obezbedi skupštinsku većinu, a i posle izbora.

Ako im smeta gužva na internetu, zašto za početak ne bi ,,zatvorili" pristup sajtovima koji osporavaju sudski utvrđene ratne zločine, kao što su genocid, kršenje humanitarnog prava, pravila i običaja rata. Jer, to je evropski standard. Na primer, Direktiva EU o borbi protiv rasizma i ksenofobije iz 2007, Konvencija Saveta Evrope o internet kriminalu iz 2001. godine sa dodatnim protokolom, koju je, zajedno sa protokolom, Srbija ratifikovala i Ministarstvo pravde se time po medijima ponosilo. I toliko – tj. samo se hvalisalo, a ništa nije učinilo.

 
Peščanik.net, 19.02.2012.

QuoteBibliotik has shutdown all operations. We are no longer able to assume the risks involved. The staff would like to apologize for the sudden (but necessary) decision and thank everyone that participated and made bibliotik such a great place for so long. We love you guys!

Quote from: Son of Man on 28-02-2012, 15:09:26
I još nešto, skino sam onaj kao "The whole Pirate Bay magnet archive", pa me zanima oće li služiti čemu to i kako, jer ja ni ne znam o tim magnet linkovima? Može neko da pojasni ?

Quote
Piratebay database

For those wanting some help: The file contained in the RAR is a text document. In it contains formatted data from TPB. If you want it in a semi readable format you will have to do something to it - like import it in to excel as a delimited file (Google "how to import comma delimited file in to excel") except use "|" (without quotations) as the delimiter.

Otherwise you could just open up this file in wordpad/gedit/whatever and search for what you want. The format imformation is being store is as stated in the description: TPBID|TorrentName|SizeInBytes|Seeders|Leachers|MagnetLinkHash

What you do is take the MagnetLinkHash and place after: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:

IF MagnetLinkHash is 123456789123456789 then what you do is this:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:123456789123456789

Then you go to your torrent client, somehow tell it to open a new torrent file (URL) and past magnet:?xt=urn:btih:123456789123456789 in to it.

  The document – 'The SD x264 TV Releasing Standards 2012′ – is extremely detailed and covers all sorts of technical issues, but the main controversy stems from the adoption of the x264 codec.
"x264 has become the most advanced video codec over the past few years. Compared to Xvid, it is able to provide higher quality and compression at greater SD resolutions," the rule document begins.
"This standard aims to bring quality control back to SD releases. There are many standalone players/streamers such as TviX, Popcorn Hour, WDTV HD Media Player, Boxee, Xtreamer, PS3, XBOX 360, iPad, & HDTVs that can playback H264 and AAC encapsulated in MP4," the doc adds.
From February 22nd and earlier in some cases, release groups including ASAP, BAJSKORV, C4TV, D2V, DiVERGE, FTP, KYR, LMAO, LOL, MOMENTUM, SYS, TLA and YesTV began releasing TV shows in the new format. Out went Xvid and avi, in came x264 and MP4.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 04-03-2012, 09:18:28
Da, sjajan tekst. I to na pravom sajtu  :lol:

QuoteOperacija "Crni Mart"
   By Aleksandar Blagojević On 4 March, 2012

  Zvanično saopštenje Piratske partije u vezi sa globalnom akcijom ,,Crni Mart".
  Operacija ,,Crni Mart" je započeta od strane Anonymousa kojoj su se kasnije pridružile i druge grupacije.  ,,Crni Mart" je zamišljen kao bojkot potrošnje u zadnjem mesecu prvog kvartala 2012.  godine, zbog toga što korporacije tada svode račune i ideja je da im se pošalje jasna poruka šta potrošači misle o njima.  Više o ,,Crnom Martu" može se pročitati ovde (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?anno=2&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=sr&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://abraxas365dokumentarci.blogspot.com/2012/02/anonymous-serbia-operation-black-march.html&usg=ALkJrhjjCYjvC8EsZQCbppCfFqnwRxBoVQ) .

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infobarrel.com%2Fmedia%2Fimage%2F74260.jpeg&hash=dac04b74e8a4ab195fe38997b7ca090f9805feca)

  Piratska partija ne podržava ovu akciju direktno iz nekoliko razloga.  Prvo, neke verzije ,,Crnog Marta" pozivaju na bojkot svih vidova potrošnje, uključujući i download i deljenje fajlova.  Pirati nikad neće podržati bojkot deljenja fajlova i razmene informacija.  Zatim, u javnosti ovakav bojkot lako može da se protumači kao bojkot umetnika i stvaralaca iako je on zapravo bojkot protiv posrednika i korporacija.  Na kraju, i najvažnije, sam ,,Crni Mart" je usmeren na pogrešnu stranu.  Korporacije će uvek biti na suprotnoj strani od potrošača zbog toga što su im interesi suprotni, to je zakon tržišta.  Iz tog razloga nijedan pritisak na korporacije neće doneti željene rezultate.  Pritisak treba da se usmeri na regulativne i zakonodavne organe a ,,Crni Mart" to ne čini.  Ukoliko bojkot bude globalno uspešan, korporacije će izvršiti pritisak upravo na ove organe i efekat će biti potpuno suprotan od željenog.
  Pirati podržavaju ideje iza ,,Crnog Marta" i zalažu se za kupovinu proizvoda direktno od autora, ali ne tokom jednog meseca u godini nego uvek kada je to moguće.  To je jedini način da se velike korporacije izbace iz igre, autorima pokaže da mogu da zarađuju i bez njih i da smo na njihovoj strani, kao i da se sve to uradi sa minimalnim ekonomskim gubicima za privredu u celini.
I da, priključite se svojoj lokalnoj piratskoj partiji jer ona sistematski radi na uspostavljanju mehanizma koji čuvaju autore – u međuvremenu vidite kako to drugari u španiji rade (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?anno=2&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=sr&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://piratskapartija.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/umetnici-i-haktivisti-sabotiraju-spanski-zakon-protiv-piraterije/&usg=ALkJrhgAQ5pq_FEwLlFJDKQnQYcJE8sZsw) .

Quotepa su kao oštećene firme navedene Microsoft, Electronic Arts i DreamWorks

Quote from: Lord Kufer on 04-03-2012, 14:31:39
Jel neko ovde turio ovaj link http://free-books.us.to/ (http://free-books.us.to/) 
Nije greda da ponovim. To je isto velika biblioteka, valjda ruska.

QuoteNedugo pošto je internet zajednica na kratko odahnula na najavu odbacivanja cenzorskih zakona pod skraćenicama SOPA i PIPA, američki Kongres je najavio usvajanje CISPA-e, predloga zakona koji bi mogao da ima još pogubniji uticaj na privatnost i slobodu izražavanja na internetu ukoliko bude usvojen

CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) dozvoljava kompanijama da sakupljaju informacije o ljudi i predaju ih američkoj vladi u ime cyber bezbednosti.

Glavni problem sa ovim zakonom je navode stručnjaci da daje veoma široka ovlašćenja kompanijama i vladinim monitorima u cenzurisanju onoga što ljudi pišu i govore.

Po navodima sajta za odbranu digitalnih prava Electronic Frontier Foundation, to znači da će kompanije kao što su Google, Facebook ili Twitter "moći da presreću vašu elektronsku poštu i tekstualne poruke, šalju kopije jedni drugima i vladama i modifikuju te komunikacije ili onemoguće ih da dođu do namenjenog recipijenta".

Portparol američkog Centra za demokratiju i tehnologiju kaže da je najveći problem to što CISPA daje suviše široka ovlašćenja u smislu koji će tip informacija vlada biti u mogućnosti da prima. To će prema saopštenju ove organizacije kreirati ogromnu rupu u svim postojećim zakonima o privatnosti i može se iskoristiti kao zadnja vrata za prisluškivanja svih vrsta.

Kendal Burman  iz Electronic Frontier Foundation kaže da CISPA koristi tako sveobuhvatan jezik koji će dati kompanijama i vladama nova ovlašćenja da nadgledaju i cenzurišu komunikacije zbog kršenja autorskih prava.

Osim toga, CISPA trenutno ne navodi koje će sve agencije imati pravo da traže te podtake, ali je jasno da će primarni recipijenti biti Nacionalna bezbednosna agencija i DOD Cybercommand. Zanimljivo je i da u predlogu zakona stoji da će se podaci koristiti u svrhu cyber bezbednosti, "ali i druge svrhe po potrebi". Isto tako, ne predviđa se postojanje nikakave kontrole nad tim ko će sve u tom procesu imati uvid u informacije, kako će se koristiti i kako će se sprečiti zloupotreba.

Taj zakon takođe može biti iskorićen kao možno oružje protiv whistleblower sajtova poput WikiLeaksa.

Do sada CISPA je dobila podršku preko 100 od 435 članova Predstavničkog doma i na dobrom je putu da se ubrzo nađe na Obaminom stolu u iščekivanju završnog potpisa koji će joj podariti život. To će po svemu sudeći ozvaničiti smrt interneta kakvog smo ga do sada poznavali.

Burman upozorava da bi CISPA već sledećeg meseca mogla biti stavljena na glasanje, zbog čega je neophodno ponovo ovu temu otvoriti u javnosti, kako bi se stvorila kritična masa koja će ovaj opasni predlog zakona srušiti dok ne postane prekasno.
 
"Ako postoji jedna lekcija koju smo naučili na slučajevima SOPA i PIPA, onda je to ta da kad Kongres pokuša da donosi zakone koji će pogoditi internet korisnike, internet zajednica obraća pažnju", kazala je Burman.

Kongres je izglasavanje SIPA-e, kao i PIPA-e obustavio do daljnjeg nakon što su protiv tih zakona organizovani masovni protesti korisnika interneta koji su u njima videli pretnju svojoj privatnosti, slobodi i pravu na informisanje. Slični protesti širom sveta organizovani su i protiv ACTA-e, međunarodnog trgovinskog sporazuma o zaštiti protiv krađe intelektualnog vlasništva, kojeg je usvojila 31. zemlja, uključujući i SAD i 22 zemlje Evropske unije, ali ga nijedna još nije ratifikovala.

Quote from: lilit_depp on 22-04-2012, 17:33:21
pa da ne čekam duže od 5 min kad nešto hoću da gledam.
(jasno mi je kako ovo zvuči xrofl )

Quote from: Lord Kufer on 04-03-2012, 14:31:39
Jel neko ovde turio ovaj link http://free-books.us.to/ (http://free-books.us.to/) 
Nije greda da ponovim. To je isto velika biblioteka, valjda ruska.

Quote from: lilit_depp on 16-05-2012, 01:42:04
nadam se da je pad warez-bb.org prolaznog karaktera, jer ako nije, to će značiti kraj sveta.  :cry:

Quotebalkanknjiga.com

Quote from: tomat on 20-05-2012, 16:34:57
kako sad to funkcioniše, mislim nijedna knjiga se zapravo ne nalazi na samom sajtu, već su tu linkovi na fajl hosting sajtove. je l ima tu elemenata krivičnog dela? mogu li tako i torent trekere da pozatvaraju?

Quote
Clan 187.

(1)     Kaznice se za privredni prestup novcanom kaznom privredno drustvo, odnosno preduzece ili dr. pravno lice koje:

1)       neovlasceno objavi, zabelezi, umnozi ili javno saopsti na bilo koji nacin, u celini ili delimicno autorsko delo, interpretaciju, fonogram, videogram, emisiju ili bazu podataka, ili stavi u promet ili da u zakup ili u komercijalne svrhe drzi neovlasceno umnozene ili neovlasceno stavljene u promet primerke autorskog dela, interpretacije, fonograma, videograma, emisije ili baze podataka (cl. 16, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 114, 124, 129, 134 i 138)

Quote from: nickname on 20-05-2012, 19:20:27
Kasniš zakk :D

Quote
Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and his co-defendants scored a significant victory on Tuesday when a New Zealand judge ordered the United States government to hand over evidence the defense will need to prepare for an upcoming extradition hearing. He rejected the government's argument that the defendants should make do with the information about its case the government itself chose to introduce in court.
The judge's comments in the 81-page decision, which was provided to Ars Technica by Dotcom attorney Ira Rothken, suggest that he is conscious of Dotcom's trying circumstances and the unusual nature of the case against him. "Actions by and on behalf of the requesting State have deprived Mr. Dotcom and his associates of access to records and information," wrote Judge David Harvey, alluding to the fact that dozens of hard drives (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/kim-dotcom-lawyer-blasts-us-governments-pattern-of-delay/) were taken from the Dotcom mansion during the January raid and have not been returned. Dotcom, Judge Harvey wrote, "does not have access to information which may assist him in preparation for trial."
Harvey described the case as "more complex than many. The United States is attempting to utilise concepts from the civil copyright context as a basis for the application of criminal copyright liability," he wrote. That "necessitates a consideration of principles such as the dual use of technology and what they be described as significant non-infringing uses."
Rothken said that Judge Harvey's discussion of these issues is a good omen for his client. "It's our view that there's no such thing as a criminal Grokster," he told us, referring to the landmark Supreme Court decision (http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2005/06/5042-2/) that established copyright liability for inducing copyright infringement by others. In civil cases like Grokster, defendants faced only financial penalties, not jail time. Some legal scholars have expressed skepticism (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/is-megaupload-a-lot-less-guilty-than-you-think/) that inducing others to infringe copyrights can be the basis for criminal copyright liability.
An extradition hearing is intended to be much quicker and simpler than a criminal trial, but Judge Harvey must still determine whether the US government has a plausible case for Dotcom's guilt. With a trove of documents furnished by the United States, the Dotcom legal team will be better positioned to argue that it doesn't.
In a separate ruling, Judge Harvey allowed Dotcom to return home to his mansion. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10809245) He had been barred from the mansion because it was not suitable for the electronic monitoring system he was ordered to wear. He and his family were forced to move to another house nearby. But Judge Harvey has concluded Dotcom is not a flight risk and freed him from electronic monitoring requirements, allowing him to return home.

Quote
Posted on: May 24th, 2012 by Mark Waid 88 Comments (http://markwaid.com/digital/marketing-through-piracy/#comments)  (Actually, I loathe the use of the word "piracy" in the context of filesharing, but a good headline is supposed to be short and punchy, so.)
It came as no surprise to me that, about 24 hours after we posted the first installment of INSUFFERABLE over at Thrillbent (http://www.thrillbent.com/), the pages had been downloaded, zipped into a .cbr or .cbz file, and uploaded to various torrent and filesharing sites. The only thing that startled me was that it took 24 hours. Sure enough, installments two and three were similarly webripped, converted and uploaded with increasing speed. By week three, they were available for download around the world within hours. Taken straight from the Thrillbent site.
THIS IS A GOOD THING.
I am not being the least bit sarcastic when I say that I WAS OVER THE MOON ABOUT THIS.
Your mileage may vary but, me, I'm okay with torrenters and "pirates" sharing INSUFFERABLE. Not just because, what the hell, it's free anyway, Mr. Cynic...my hand to God, even if we were charging for it, I'd still be happy because the exposure and promotion is worth more to me at this point than dollars and cents. But more than that...more than that...after having been hip-deep in the research for the past three years, I have seen zero conclusive evidence that, on the whole, "piracy" removes more money from the system than it adds to it. Are there readers who would be buying my print comics who download them for free instead? Sure. Are there, conversely, potential readers who download one of my print comics, sample it, and then become a paying customer if they have access to ensuing print copies? Absolutely, and I've personally sold books to hundreds of them at store signings and conventions. Do the latter outweigh the former? (a) I don't care, because I can't stop the former, and (b) I believe, if you build up enough of a loyal fanbase, that potential exists; certainly, every meaningful* study undertaken on how piracy affects CD sales, DVD sales, etc. shows repeatedly that "pirated" content of quality material can actually act as an effective marketing tool and lead to increased sales. (*meaningful = not bought and paid for by the MPAA or the RIAA. Listening to them talk about piracy is like getting your cancer statistics from Big Tobacco or nutrition info from McDonalds.)
I could be wrong about this. I don't think I am, but I don't know everything. So, that said, let's put my personal feelings away. Let's set aside the hypothesis that, on the whole, torrenting is as much a plus as a minus. Leave that out of the equation. Ignore EVERYTHING in the previous paragraph after the word "cents." Let's just look at the facts.
FACT: Within hours of INSUFFERABLE installments being posted, they're torrented.
FACT:  There is no force on Earth that I can use to stop that from happening.
FACT: Being angry about it or trying to prevent it is like standing on the beach and trying to push back the incoming tide by yelling at it.
So why be mad, I decided? Why not turn file-sharing into a tool I can use and control more directly rather than yell at the ocean?
As you may have noticed, effective with yesterday's installment four and retroactive back to Week One, we elected to make pirating INSUFFERABLE easy. No longer do uploaders have to go to the trouble of downloading the screen images and packing them into a file they can then share. Now you can read the installments online, as you have been...OR you can download them as PDFs and as .cbz files that you can read offline, upload, share, whatever. The links are right there underneath the comics themselves. That's right, my pirating friends, I did the work FOR you. I didn't muck with the comic itself, I didn't DRM the images, I didn't add anything to the downloadables that made them different in any way from what we give you online...
...EXCEPT for a stylishly designed credits-and-copyright page at the end that says "if you liked this, visit Thrillbent.com for more free comics!"
I can't control the internet. I couldn't count on uploaders not to "simply" unpack the Installment Four file I provided, excise the referral page, repack the file and upload that.
Except they didn't. Judging by what I've seen around the web, the digital file that's most in circulation is the one I myself provided...the path of least resistance...which means that thousands upon thousands of new readers who might otherwise not have thought to go to the source are now exposed to the Thrillbent link and have been pointed right towards the site and have been invited to join the community.
This doesn't have to become a standard Thrillbent procedure; as other creators come aboard, I'll let them decide for themselves whether or not they want to follow suit. But for now, this is a marketing model that works for me on a technical and ethical level. If you're with me, I appreciate your support. If you think that all I'm doing is validating thievery and devaluing comics and, in general, contributing to the breakdown of civil society, I look forward to your enraged responses.
   

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 05-06-2012, 15:27:30
Hvala, mada je zaista pitanje koliko se šta može promeniti i u koju stranu... Daleko od toga da mislim da treba da se vratimo na vinil - pa čak ni nemam gramofon!!! - ali šta je rešenje?

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 18-06-2012, 12:04:10
Ovi Etiopljani su urnebes. Korišćenje VoIP usluga u ovoj zemlji je od pre mesec dana kažnjivo sa 15 godina zatvora. Očigledno da se zaštiti monopol lokalnog telefonskog operatera.  :roll: :roll:

Ethiopian Government Bans Skype, Google Talk And All Other VoIP Services (http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/14/ethiopian-government-bans-skype-google-talk-and-all-other-voip-services/) 

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 14-06-2012, 11:04:57
Dakle, ovaj klasterfak između Oatmeala i FunnyJunka je... urnebesan.

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter (http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter)

A evo i male analize:

http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2012/06/articles/attorney/funnyjunk-v-the-oatmeal/ (http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2012/06/articles/attorney/funnyjunk-v-the-oatmeal/)

Quote"You may recall from last week the news item concerning FunnyJunk's extortion ... er ... threat of defamation lawsuit against The Oatmeal highlighting a fairly pervasive problem of rehosting content — in this case web comics. Instead of expediting a payment of $20,000 to FunnyJunk, Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal decided to crowd source the money (with 8 days left he has only garnered 900% of his goal) and donate it to charity after sending a picture of it to FunnyJunk. Charles Carreon (the man who has FunnyJunk) has made statements of Inman saying 'I really did not expect that he would marshal an army of people who would besiege my website and send me a string of obscene emails.' In an interview Carreon says 'So someone takes one of my letters and takes it apart. That doesn't mean you can just declare netwar, that doesn't mean you can encourage people to hack my website, to brute force my WordPress installation so I have to change my password. You can't encourage people to violate my trademark and violate my twitter name and associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery. And if that's where the world is going I will fight with every ounce of force in this 5'11 180 pound frame against it. I've got the energy, and I've got the time.' Well it appears that Carreon has filed suit over these matters alleging 'trademark infringement and incitement to cyber-vandalism.' Speaking of douchebaggery, Charles Carreon curiously fails to mention that he first incited all of his users to harass The Oatmeal anyway they can which they dutifully did. One last juicy detail is that Carreon is also suing the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society to which Inman's crowd sourced money is going. Luckily, Inman's lawyer appears to be fully competent and able to address Carreon's complaints."

Quote

Monday June 18, 2012

Nearly 15 years of debate over digital copyright reform will come to an end today as Bill C-11, the fourth legislative attempt at Canadian copyright reform, passes in the House of Commons. Although the bill must still receive Senate approval, that is likely to be a formality that could happen very quickly. Many participants in the copyright debate view the bill with great disappointment (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/17/bill-c-11-copyright-modernization-act-canada_n_1603837.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics), pointing to the government's decision to adopt restrictive digital lock rules as a signal that their views were ignored. There is no sugar-coating the loss on digital locks. While other countries (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/content/view/6344/125/) have been willing to stand up to U.S. pressure and adopt a more flexible approach, the government, led by Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore on the issue, was unwilling to compromise despite near-universal criticism of its approach. It appears that once Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the call (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/content/view/5008/125/) for a DMCA-style approach in early May 2010, the digital lock issue was lost. The government heard that the bill will hurt IP enforcement (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/content/view/6538/125/), restrict access for the blind (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/content/view/6512/135/), disadvantage Canadian creators, and harm consumer rights. It received tens of thousands of comments (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/content/view/6509/125/) from Canadians opposed to the approach and ran a full consultation in which digital locks were the leading concern. The NDP, Liberals, and Green Party proposed balanced amendments to the digital lock rules that were consistent with international requirements and would have maintained protection for companies that use them, but all were rejected. Yet with an eye to the Trans Pacific Partnership as well as pressure from the U.S. government (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/content/view/5986/135/) and U.S. backed lobby groups (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/content/view/6542/125/), seemingly no amount of evidence or public pressure would shift its approach. The net result is incredibly disappointing with even Conservative MPs assuring constituents that digital lock enforcement against individuals is unlikely (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/content/view/6089/125/) (there are no statutory damages for non-commercial circumvention). Despite the loss on digital locks, however, the passage of Bill C-11 features some important wins for Canadians who spoke out on copyright. I delivered a talk at NXNE (http://nxne.com/interactive/schedule/) last week in Toronto in which I made the case that the "Canadian copyfight" had resulted in dramatic changes to Canadian copyright. While not everyone (https://twitter.com/klashton27/status/213672461168939011) was convinced (https://twitter.com/CynthiaLynch/status/213672577346973697) (others (http://blaynehaggart.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/lessons-from-canadas-decade-of-copyright-reform-or-the-limits-to-grassroots-protest-movements/) have expressed similar skepticism), I think the evidence speaks for itself. Since the Conservatives took power in 2006, there were effectively four bills: the Pre-Bill C-61 bill that was to have been introduced by Jim Prentice in December 2007 but was delayed following public pressure (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5763/125/), Bill C-61 introduced in June 2008, and Bill C-32/C-11, which was introduced in June 2010 (and later reintroduced in September 2011). The contents of December 2007 bill was never released, but documents obtained under the Access to Information Act (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,111/) provide a good sense of what it contained (a call was even scheduled (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,112/) on the planned day of introduction between Prentice and U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins to assure the U.S. that digital locks were the key issue and would not be altered).  This chart highlights many of the key issues and their progression over the years as the public became increasingly vocal on copyright:     Issue [/t] Pre-Bill C-61 (2007) [/q][/t][/t] Bill C-61 (2008) Bill C-11 (2012) Fair Dealing Expansion [/t] No No Yes (education, parody, satire) Format Shifting [/t] No Limited (only photographs, book, newspaper, periodical, or videocassette) Yes (technology neutral, no limit on number of copies, includes network storage, and no reference to contractual overrides) Time Shifting [/t] No Limited (no network PVRs, Internet communications) Yes (C-61 limitations removed) Backup Copies [/t] No No Yes User Generated Content Exception [/t] No No Yes Statutory Damages Cap [/t] No Limited ($500 cap for downloading) Yes (Max of $5000 for all non-commercial infringement) Enabler enforcement provision [/t] No No Yes Internet Publicly Available Materials Exception for Education [/t] Yes Yes Yes Public Performance in Schools[/t] No No Yes Technology Neutral Display Exception in Schools [/t] No No Yes Limited Distance Learning Exception [/t] Yes Yes Yes Limited Digital Inter-Library Loans [/t] Yes Yes Yes Notice-and-Notice [/t] Yes Yes Yes Notice-and-Takedown [/t] No No No Three Strikes//Website Blocking [/t] No No No Internet Location Tool Provider Safe Harbour [/t] Yes Yes Yes Broadcaster Ephemeral Change [/t] No No Yes Expanded Private Copying Levy [/t] No No No Commissioned Photograph Change [/t] Yes Yes Yes Alternate Format Reproduction [/t] No No Yes The first five issues - fair dealing, time shifting, format shifting, backup copies, and user generated content - are all user-focused reforms. None were the source of serious interest from the major lobby groups (even education groups were initially more interested in an Internet exception than fair dealing reform). None were included as part of the pre-Bill C-61 approach and just two appeared in limited form in Bill C-61 itself. Yet as the public became increasingly engaged on copyright, the government shifted its approach and added these provisions in an effort to address their concerns. The importance of these provisions should not underestimated. For example, the non-commercial user generated content provision contains broad protections for individuals and websites that host the content. The next two issues on the chart - statutory damages and enforcement - were not part of the 2007 bill either. The goverment eventually arrived a trade-off that most Canadians would make: a tougher provision to target sites that facilitate infringement (the law already allows rights holders to do this) in return for a full cap on liability for non-commercial infringement. This applies not only to individuals (likely bringing to an end the prospect of file sharing lawsuits in Canada) but to any non-commercial entity including educational institutions and libraries (who may adopt more aggressive interpretations of the law with less risk of liability). The success of individual Canadians is also found in what did not make its way into the bill. Despite some other countries caving to pressure on increase Internet provider liability by adopting notice-and-takedown, three strikes, or website blocking, all those measures were rejected by the Canadian government. The pressure for website blocking during the SOPA debates was particularly intense but it generated tens of thousands of emails (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6509/125/) earlier this year that seemingly put a stop to the prospect for their inclusion in the bill. Instead, C-11 kept the more balanced notice-and-notice system with the benefits of effectiveness and preservation of free speech and subscriber privacy. Similarly, efforts to expand the private copying levy were rejected, replaced by the backup copy and format shifting provisions that allow Canadians to make personal copies with no additional fees or liability. These are all issues that respond to public voices on copyright. The government gradually did more for education as well. The exception for publicly available materials on the Internet was there from the beginning, but the expansion of fair dealing and the new exceptions for display (which could prove very valuable) and public performance (which should save significant money in licence fees) which only arrived in 2010 are useful. The digital lock rules and the restrictive distance learning provisions (with destruction of lessons) hurt, but the education provisions unquestionably improved since 2007. This is not to suggest that the changes are due solely to Canadians speaking out on copyright. They clearly are not: the broadcaster reforms reflect the strength of that lobby and the retention of notice-and-notice certainly owes much to the influence of Canada's telecom companies. Moreover, the identity of the government ministers makes an enormous difference, with former Industry Minister Tony Clement clearly focusing on the importance of a technology-neutral, forward looking approach that led to important changes in Bill C-32. Yet it can be argued that the two most important forces shaping the evolution of Canadian copyright policy since the Conservatives took power in 2006 have been U.S. pressure on digital locks matched against public pressure for greater flexibility and balance. The U.S. pressure was relentless, particularly in the aftermath of Canada caving (http://www.thestar.com/business/article/223795--behind-scenes-action-led-to-camcording-bill) on an anti-camcording provision that sent the message that high level pressure worked. The result were digital lock rules mandated at the very highest level in the Canadian government. Public engagement on copyright continuously grew in strength - from the Bulte battle (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1086/125/) in 2006 to the Facebook activism (http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/286164) in 2007 to the immediate response to the 2008 bill to the 2009 copyright consultation to the 2010 response to Bill C-32. While many dismissed the role of digital activism on copyright, the reality is that it had a huge impact on the shape of Canadian copyright. The public voice influenced not only the contents of the bill, but the debate as well with digital locks the dominant topic of House of Commons debate (http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=5682358) and media coverage (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/17/bill-c-11-copyright-modernization-act-canada_n_1603837.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics) until the very end. Bill C-11 remains a "flawed but fixable" bill (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5080/125/) that the government refused to fix, but that it is a significantly better bill than seemed possible a few years ago owes much to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians that spoke out on copyright.

Quote
   by Emily White      A few days before my internship at All Songs Considered started, Bob Boilen posted an article titled "I Just Deleted All My Music (http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2012/05/28/153862651/i-just-deleted-all-my-music-pt-1)" on this blog. The post is about entrusting his huge personal music library to the cloud. Though this seemed like a bold step to many people who responded to the article, to me, it didn't seem so bold at all. I never went through the transition from physical to digital. I'm almost 21, and since I first began to love music I've been spoiled by the Internet.
I am an avid music listener, concertgoer, and college radio DJ. My world is music-centric. I've only bought 15 CDs in my lifetime. Yet, my entire iTunes library exceeds 11,000 songs.
I wish I could say I miss album packaging and liner notes and rue the decline in album sales the digital world has caused. But the truth is, I've never supported physical music as a consumer. As monumental a role as musicians and albums have played in my life, I've never invested money in them aside from concert tickets and T-shirts.
But I didn't illegally download (most) of my songs. A few are, admittedly, from a stint in the 5th grade with the file-sharing program Kazaa. Some are from my family (http://www.npr.org/2012/06/05/154152434/remembering-mom-and-dads-record-collection). I've swapped hundreds of mix CDs with friends. My senior prom date took my iPod home once and returned it to me with 15 gigs of Big Star (http://www.npr.org/artists/15190811/big-star), The Velvet Underground (http://www.npr.org/artists/100863084/the-velvet-underground) and Yo La Tengo (http://www.npr.org/artists/15223290/yo-la-tengo) (I owe him one).
During my first semester at college, my music library more than tripled. I spent hours sitting on the floor of my college radio station (http://www.wvau.org/), ripping music onto my laptop. The walls were lined with hundreds of albums sent by promo companies and labels to our station over the years.
All of those CDs are gone. My station's library is completely digital now, and so is my listening experience.
If my laptop died and my hard-drive disappeared tomorrow, I would certainly mourn the loss of my 100-plus playlists, particularly the archives of all of my college radio shows. But I'd also be able to rebuild my "library" fairly easily. If I wanted to listen to something I didn't already have in my patchwork collection, I could stream it on Spotify.
As I've grown up, I've come to realize the gravity of what file-sharing means to the musicians I love. I can't support them with concert tickets and T-shirts alone. But I honestly don't think my peers and I will ever pay for albums. I do think we will pay for convenience.
What I want is one massive Spotify-like catalog of music that will sync to my phone and various home entertainment devices. With this new universal database, everyone would have convenient access to everything that has ever been recorded, and performance royalties would be distributed based on play counts (hopefully with more money going back to the artist (http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/09/how-much-does-a-band-earn-from-each-music-platform-uniform-notion-shares-the-numbers.html) than the present model). All I require is the ability to listen to what I want, when I want and how I want it. Is that too much to ask?
Emily White is this summer's All Songs Considered intern. She is a senior at American University in Washington, D.C. and the general manager of WVAU 

Quote
Recently Emily White, an intern at NPR All Songs Considered and GM of what appears to be her college radio station, wrote a post on the NPR blog (http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2012/06/16/154863819/i-never-owned-any-music-to-begin-with) in which she acknowledged that while she had 11,000 songs in her music library, she's only paid for 15 CDs in her life. Our intention is not to embarrass or shame her. We believe young people like Emily White who are fully engaged in the music scene are the artist's biggest allies. We also believe–for reasons we'll get into–that she has been been badly misinformed by the Free Culture movement. We only ask the opportunity to present a countervailing viewpoint.
Emily:
My intention here is not to shame you or embarrass you. I believe you are already on the side of musicians and artists and you are just grappling with how to do the right thing. I applaud your courage in admitting you do not pay for music, and that you do not want to but you are grappling with the moral implications. I just think that you have been presented with some false choices by what sounds a lot like what we hear from the "Free Culture" adherents.
I must disagree with the underlying premise of what you have written. Fairly compensating musicians is not a problem that is up to governments and large corporations to solve. It is not up to them to make it "convenient" so you don't behave unethically. (Besides–is it really that inconvenient to download a song from iTunes into your iPhone? Is it that hard to type in your password? I think millions would disagree.)
Rather, fairness for musicians is a problem that requires each of us to individually look at our own actions, values and choices and try to anticipate the consequences of our choices. I would suggest to you that, like so many other policies in our society, it is up to us individually to put pressure on our governments and private corporations to act ethically and fairly when it comes to artists rights. Not the other way around. We cannot wait for these entities to act in the myriad little transactions that make up an ethical life. I'd suggest to you that, as a 21-year old adult who wants to work in the music business, it is especially important for you to come to grips with these very personal ethical issues.
I've been teaching college students about the economics of the music business at the University of Georgia for the last two years. Unfortunately for artists, most of them share your attitude about purchasing music. There is a disconnect between their personal behavior and a greater social injustice that is occurring. You seem to have internalized that ripping 11,000 tracks in your iPod compared to your purchase of 15 CDs in your lifetime feels pretty disproportionate. You also seem to recognize that you are not just ripping off the record labels but you are directly ripping off the artist and songwriters whose music you "don't buy". It doesn't really matter that you didn't take these tracks from a file-sharing site. That may seem like a neat dodge, but I'd suggest to you that from the artist's point of view, it's kind of irrelevant.
Now, my students typically justify their own disproportionate choices in one of two ways. I'm not trying to set up a "strawman", but I do have a lot of  anecdotal experience with this.
"It's OK not to pay for music because record companies rip off artists and do not pay artists anything." In the vast majority of cases, this is not true. There have been some highly publicized abuses by record labels. But most record contracts specify royalties and advances to artists. Advances are important to understand–a prepayment of unearned royalties. Not a debt, more like a bet. The artist only has to "repay" (or "recoup") the advance from record sales. If there are no or insufficient record sales, the advance is written off by the record company. So it's false to say that record companies don't pay artists. Most of the time they not only pay artists, but they make bets on artists.  And it should go without saying that the bets will get smaller and fewer the more unrecouped advances are paid by labels.
Secondly, by law the record label must pay songwriters (who may also be artists) something called a "mechanical royalty" for sales of CDs or downloads of the song. This is paid regardless of whether a record is recouped or not. The rate is predetermined, and the license is compulsory. Meaning that the file sharing sites could get the same license if they wanted to, at least for the songs. They don't. They don't wanna pay artists.
Also, you must consider the fact that the vast majority of artists are releasing albums independently and there is not a "real" record company. Usually just an imprint owned by the artist. In the vast majority of cases you are taking money directly from the artist. How does one know which labels are artist owned? It's not always clear. But even in the case of corporate record labels, shouldn't they be rewarded for the bets they make that provides you with recordings you enjoy? It's not like the money goes into a giant bonfire in the middle of the woods while satanic priests conduct black masses and animal sacrifices. Usually some of that money flows back to artists, engineers and people like you who graduate from college and get jobs in the industry. And record labels also give your college radio stations all those CDs you play.
Artists can make money on the road (or its variant "Artists are rich"). The average income of a musician that files taxes is something like 35k a year w/o benefits. The vast majority of artists do not make significant money on the road. Until recently, most touring activity was a money losing operation. The idea was the artists would make up the loss through recorded music sales. This has been reversed by the financial logic of file-sharing and streaming. You now tour to support making albums if you are very, very lucky. Otherwise, you pay for making albums out of your own pocket. Only the very top tier of musicians make ANY money on the road. And only the 1% of the 1% makes significant money on the road. (For now.)
Over the last 12 years I've watched revenue flowing to artists collapse.

Recorded music revenue is down 64% since 1999.
Per capita spending on music is 47% lower than it was in 1973!!
The number of professional musicians has fallen 25% since 2000.
Of the 75,000 albums released in 2010 only 2,000 sold more than 5,000 copies. Only 1,000 sold more than 10,000 copies. Without going into details, 10,000 albums is about the point where independent artists begin to go into the black on professional album production, marketing and promotion.

On a personal level, I have witnessed the impoverishment of many critically acclaimed but marginally commercial artists. In particular, two dear friends: Mark Linkous (Sparklehorse) and Vic Chesnutt. Both of these artists, despite growing global popularity, saw their total  incomes fall in the last decade. There is no other explanation except for the fact that "fans" made the unethical choice to take their music without compensating these artists.
Shortly before Christmas 2009, Vic took his life. He was my neighbor, and I was there as they put him in the ambulance. On March 6th, 2010, Mark Linkous shot himself in the heart. Anybody who knew either of these musicians will tell you that the pair suffered depression. They will also tell you their situation was worsened by their financial situation. Vic was deeply in debt to hospitals and, at the time, was publicly complaining about losing his home. Mark was living in abject squalor in his remote studio in the Smokey Mountains without adequate access to the mental health care he so desperately needed.
I present these two stories to you not because I'm pointing fingers or want to shame you. I just want to illustrate that "small" personal decisions have very real consequences, particularly when millions of people make the decision not to compensate artists they supposedly "love". And it is up to us individually to examine the consequences of our actions. It is not up to governments or corporations to make us choose to behave ethically. We have to do that ourselves.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now, having said all that, I also deeply empathize with your generation. You have grown up in a time when technological and commercial interests are attempting to change our principles and morality. Rather than using our morality and principles to guide us through technological change, there are those asking us to change our morality and principles to fit the technological change–if a machine can do something, it ought to be done. Although it is the premise of every "machines gone wild" story since Jules Verne or Fritz Lang, this is exactly backwards. Sadly, I see the effects of this thinking with many of my students.
These technological and commercial interests have largely exerted this pressure through the Free Culture movement, which is funded by a handful of large tech corporations and their foundations (http://www.ibiblio.org/cccr/docs/990B-2008.pdf) in the US, Canada, Europe and other countries.* Your letter clearly shows that you sense that something is deeply wrong, but you don't put your finger on it. I want to commend you for doing this. I also want to enlist you in the fight to correct this outrage. Let me try to to show you exactly what is wrong. What it is you can't put your finger on.
The fundamental shift in principals and morality is about who gets to control and exploit the work of an artist. The accepted norm for hudreds of years of western civilization is the artist exclusively has the right to exploit and control his/her work for a period of time. (Since the works that are are almost invariably the subject of these discussions are popular culture of one type or another, the duration of the copyright term is pretty much irrelevant for an ethical discussion.) By allowing the artist to treat his/her work as actual property, the artist can decide how to monetize his or her work. This system has worked very well for fans and artists. Now we are being asked to undo this not because we think this is a bad or unfair way to compensate artists but simply because it is technologically possible for corporations or individuals to exploit artists work without their permission on a massive scale and globally. We are being asked to continue to let these companies violate the law without being punished or prosecuted. We are being asked to change our morality and principals to match what I think are immoral and unethical business models.
Who are these companies? They are sites like The Pirate Bay, or Kim Dotcom and Megaupload. They are "legitimate" companies like Google that serve ads to these sites through AdChoices and Doubleclick (http://www.popuppirates.com/). They are companies like Grooveshark that operate streaming sites without permission from artists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2011/dec/12/grooveshark-music-site) and over the objections of the artist, much less payment of royalties lawfully set by the artist. They are the venture capitalists that raise money for these sites. They are the hardware makers that sell racks of servers to these companies. And so on and  so on.
What the corporate backed Free Culture movement is asking us to do is analogous to changing our morality and principles to allow the equivalent of looting. Say there is a neighborhood in your local big city. Let's call it The 'Net. In this neighborhood there are record stores. Because of some antiquated laws, The 'Net was never assigned a police force. So in this neighborhood people simply loot all the products from the shelves of the record store. People know it's wrong, but they do it because they know they will rarely be punished for doing so. What the commercial Free Culture movement (see the "hybrid economy") is saying is that instead of putting a police force in this neighborhood we should simply change our values and morality to accept this behavior. We should change our morality and ethics to accept looting because it is simply possible to get away with it.  And nothing says freedom like getting away with it, right?
But it's worse than that. It turns out that Verizon, AT&T, Charter etc etc are charging a toll to get into this neighborhood to get the free stuff. Further, companies like Google are selling maps (search results) that tell you where the stuff is that you want to loot. Companies like Megavideo are charging for a high speed looting service (premium accounts for faster downloads). Google is also selling ads in this neighborhood and sharing the revenue with everyone except the people who make the stuff being looted. Further, in order to loot you need to have a $1,000 dollar laptop, a $500 dollar iPhone or $400 Samsumg tablet. It turns out the supposedly "free" stuff really isn't free (http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/06/13/not-free-not-easy-not-trivial-the-warehousing-and-delivery-of-digital-goods/). In fact it's an expensive way to get "free" music. (Like most claimed "disruptive innovations"it turns out expensive subsidies exist elsewhere (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1628049,00.asp).) Companies are actually making money from this looting activity. These companies only make money if you change your principles and morality! And none of that money goes to the artists!
And believe it or not this is where the problem with Spotify starts. The internet is full of stories from artists detailing just how little they receive from Spotify. I shan't repeat them here. They are epic. Spotify does not exist in a vacuum. The reason they can get away with paying so little to artists is because the alternative is The 'Net where people have already purchased all the gear they need to loot those songs for free. Now while something like Spotify may be a solution for how to compensate artists fairly in the future, it is not a fair system now. As long as the consumer makes the unethical choice to support the looters, Spotify will not have to compensate artists fairly. There is simply no market pressure. Yet Spotify's CEO is the 10th richest man in the UK music industry ahead of all but one artist on his service.
++++++++++++++++++
So let's go back and look at what it would have cost you to ethically and legally support the artists.
And I'm gonna give you a break. I'm not gonna even factor in the record company share. Let's just pretend for your sake the record company isnt simply the artists imprint and  all record labels are evil and don't deserve any money. Let's just make the calculation based on exactly what the artist should make. First, the mechanical royalty to the songwriters. This is generally the artist. The royalty that is supposed to be paid by law is 9.1 cents a song for every download or copy. So that is $1,001 for all 11,000 of your songs. Now let's suppose the artist has an average 15% royalty rate. This is calculated at wholesale value. Trust me, but this comes to 10.35 cents a song or $1,138.50. So to ethically and morally "get right" with the artists you would need to pay $2,139.50.
As a college student I'm sure this seems like a staggering sum of money. And in a way, it is. At least until you consider that you probably accumulated all these songs over a period of 10 years (5th grade). Sot that's $17.82 dollars a month. Considering you are in your prime music buying years, you admit your life is "music centric" and you are a DJ, that $18 dollars a month sounds like a bargain. Certainly much much less than what I spent each month on music  during the 4 years I was a college radio DJ.
Let's look at other things you (or your parents) might pay for each month and compare.
Smart phone with data plan: $40-100 a month.
High speed internet access: $30-60 dollars a month. Wait, but you use the university network? Well, buried in your student fees or tuition you are being charged a fee on the upper end of that scale.
Tuition at American University, Washington DC (excluding fees, room and board and books): $2,086 a month.
Car insurance or Metro card?  $100 a month?
Or simply look at the  value of the web appliances you use to enjoy music:
$2,139.50 = 1 smart phone + 1 full size ipod + 1 macbook.
Why do you pay real money for this other stuff but not music?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The existential questions that your generation gets to answer are these:
Why do we value the network and hardware that delivers music but not the music itself?
Why are we willing to pay for computers, iPods, smartphones, data plans, and high speed internet access but not the music itself?
Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world but not the companies and individuals who create and sell music?
This is a bit of hyperbole to emphasize the point. But it's as if:
Networks: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!
Hardware: Giant mega corporations.Cool! have some money!
Artists: 99.9 % lower middle class.Screw you, you greedy bastards!
Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man and instead sticking it to the weirdo freak musicians!
I am genuinely stunned by this. Since you appear to love first generation Indie Rock, and as a founding member of a first generation Indie Rock band I am now legally obligated to issue this order: kids, lawn, vacate.
You are doing it wrong.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Emily, I know you are not exactly saying what I've illustrated above. You've unfortunately stumbled into the middle of a giant philosophical fight between artists and powerful commercial interests. To your benefit, it is clear you are trying to answer those existential questions posed to your generation. And in your heart, you grasp the contradiction. But I have to take issue with the following statement:
As I've grown up, I've come to realize the gravity of what file-sharing means to the musicians I love. I can't support them with concert tickets and t-shirts alone. But I honestly don't think my peers and I will ever pay for albums. I do think we will pay for convenience.
I'm sorry, but what is inconvenient about iTunes and, say, iTunes match (that let's you stream all your music to all your devices) aside from having to pay? Same with Pandora premium, MOG and a host of other legitimate services. I can't imagine that any other legal music service that is gonna be simpler than these to use. Isn't convenience already here!
Ultimately there are three "inconvenient" things that MUST happen for any legal service:
1.create an account and provide a payment method (once)
2.enter your password.
3. Pay for music.
So what you are really saying is that you won't do these three things. This is too inconvenient.  And I would guess that the most inconvenient part is....step 3.
That's fine. But then you must live with the moral and ethical choice that you are making to not pay artists. And artists won't be paid. And it won't be the fault of some far away evil corporation. You "and your peers" ultimately bear this responsibility.
You may also find that this ultimately hinders your hopes of finding a job in the music industry.  Unless you're planning on working for free.  Or unless you think Google is in the music industry–which it is not.
I also find this all this sort of sad.  Many in your generation are willing to pay a little extra to buy "fair trade" coffee that insures the workers that harvested the coffee were paid fairly.  Many in your generation will pay a little more to buy clothing and shoes from manufacturers that  certify they don't use  sweatshops.  Many in your generation pressured Apple to examine working conditions at Foxconn in China.  Your generation is largely responsible for the recent cultural changes that has given more equality to same sex couples.  On nearly every count your generation is much more ethical and fair than my generation.   Except for one thing.  Artist rights.
+++++++++++++++++++++
At the start of this I did say that I hoped to convert you to actively helping musicians and artists. That ultimately someone like you, someone so passionately involved in music is the best ally that musicians could have. Let me humbly suggest a few things:
First, you could legally buy music from artists. The best way to insure the money goes to artists? Buy it directly from their website or at their live shows. But if you can't do that, there is a wide range of services and sites that will allow you to do this conveniently. Encourage your "peers" to also do this.
Second, actively "call out" those that profit by exploiting artists without compensation. File sharing sites are supported by corporate web advertising. Call corporations out by giving specific examples. For instance, say your favorite artist is Yo La Tengo. If you search at Google "free mp3 download Yo La Tengo" you will come up with various sites that offer illegal downloads of Yo La Tengo songs. I clicked on a link to the site www.beemp3.com (http://www.beemp3.com) where I found You La Tengo's entire masterpiece album I Am Not Afraid Of You And I Will Beat Your Ass.
I also found an ad for Geico Insurance which appeared to have been serviced to the site by "Ads by Google". You won't get any response by writing a file sharing site. They already know what they are doing is wrong. However Geico might be interested in this. And technically, Google's policy is to not support piracy sites, however it seems to be rarely enforced. The best way to write any large corporation is to search for the "investor's relations" page. For some reason there is always a human being on the other end of that contact form. You could also write your Congressman and Senator and suggest they come up with some way to divert the flow of advertising money back to the artists.
And on that matter of the $2,139.50 you owe to artists? Why not donate something to a charity that helps artists. Consider this your penance. In fact I'll make a deal with you. For every dollar you personally donate I'll match it up to the $500. Here are some suggestions.
Nuci's Space.   This is Athens Georgia's home grown musician health and mental health charity.  This would be a nice place to donate money if you were a fan of Vic Chesnutt.
http://www.nuci.org/ (http://www.nuci.org/)
Music Cares. You can also donate to this charity run by the NARAS (the Grammys). http://www.grammy.org/musicares/donate (http://www.grammy.org/musicares/donate)
Health Alliance for Austin Musicians. Friends speak highly of this organization.
American Heart Association Memorial Donation. Or since you loved Big Star and Alex Chilton, why not make a donation to The American Heart Association in Alex Chilton's name? (Alex died of a heart attack) https://donate.americanheart.org/ecommerce/donation/acknowledgement_info.jsp?campaignId=&site=Heart&itemId=prod20007 (https://donate.americanheart.org/ecommerce/donation/acknowledgement_info.jsp?campaignId=&site=Heart&itemId=prod20007)
I'm open to suggestions on this.
I sincerely wish you luck in your career in the music business and hope this has been enlightening in some small way.
David Lowery

Quote
Digital technology is reinventing our whole world, in service of you and me. It's free enterprise on steroids. It's bypassing the gatekeepers and empowering each of us to invent our own civilization for ourselves, according to our own specifications.
The promise of the future is nothing short of spectacular — provided that those who lack the imagination to see the potential here don't get their way. Sadly but predictably, some of the biggest barriers to a bright future are capitalists themselves who fear the future.
A good example is the current hysteria over 3-dimensional printing. This technology has moved with incredible speed from the realm of science fiction to the real world, seemingly in a matter of months. You can get such printers today for as low as $400. These printers allow objects to be transported digitally, and literally printed into existence right before your very eyes.
It's like a miracle! It could change everything we think we know about the transport of physical objects. Rather than sending crates and boats around the world, in the future we will only send lightweight digits. The potential for bypassing monopolies and entrenched interests is spectacular
But here is what Andrew Myers reported in Wired Magazine last week:

Last winter, Thomas Valenty bought a MakerBot — an inexpensive 3-D printer that lets you quickly create plastic objects. His brother had some Imperial Guards from the tabletop game Warhammer, so Valenty decided to design a couple of his own Warhammer-style figurines: a two-legged war mecha and a tank.
He tweaked the designs for a week until he was happy. "I put a lot of work into them," he says. Then he posted the files for free downloading on Thingiverse, a site that lets you share instructions for printing 3-D objects. Soon other fans were outputting their own copies.
Until the lawyers showed up.
Games Workshop, the UK-based firm that makes Warhammer, noticed Valenty's work and sent Thingiverse a takedown notice, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Thingiverse removed the files, and Valenty suddenly became an unwilling combatant in the next digital war: the fight over copying physical objects.

There we have it. The American Chamber of Commerce — the supposed defender of free enterprise — is in a meltdown panic, determined to either crush 3-D printing in its crib or, at least, to make sure it doesn't grow past its toddler period.
In the 1940s, Joseph Schumpeter said that the capitalists would ultimately destroy capitalism by insisting that their existing profitability models perpetuate themselves in the face of change. He said that the capitalist class would eventually lose its taste for innovation and insist on government rules that brought it to an end, in the interest of protecting business elites.
An example: when music and books starting going digital, there was a outcry. How will authors and musicians survive this onslaught?
The truth is that there was no onslaught. It was a windfall for consumers that turned into the greatest boon for music and literature ever. Today we see how this is working, and not only working but there are more authors and musicians making money today than ever before. My best example: the Laissez Faire Club.
(http://lfb.org/club)
The methods could never have been anticipated in advance. Some give away their content and sell their performances. Some have found interesting new methods of distributing content behind pay walls that are affordable and convenient. Authors are starting to self publish through fantastic numbers of venues.
I've been touring museums lately, and I've begun to realize something important about the long process of technological improvement. Through our long history of improvement, every upgrade and every shift from old to new inspired panic. The biggest panic typically comes from the producers themselves who resent the way the market process destabilizes their business model.
It was said that the radio would end live performance. No one would learn music anymore. Everything would be performed one time, and recorded for all time, and that would be the end.
Of course that didn't happen. Then there was another panic when records came out, on the belief that this would destroy radio. Then tapes were next and everyone predicted doom for recorded music since music could be so easily duplicated ("Home Taping is Killing Music"). It was the same with digital music: surely this would be the death of all music!
And think back to the mass ownership of books in the 19th century. Many people predicted that these would destroy new authors because people would just buy books by old authors that were cheap and affordable. New authors would starve and no one would write anymore.
There is a pattern here. Every new technology that becomes profitable causes people to scream about the plight of existing producers. Then it turns out over time that the sector itself thrives as never before but in ways that no one really expected.
The great secret of the market economy is that it embodies a long-run tendency to dissipate profits under existing production and distribution methods. This is how competition works. This is how competition not only inspires improvement but makes it unavoidable. And this is one reason that so many capitalists hate capitalism.
The process goes like this. The new thing comes along and it earns high profits. Then the copycats come along and do the same thing cheaper and better, robbing the first producer of the monopoly status. Profits eventually fall to zero and then something even better has to come along to attract new business, earn new profits, elicit new copycats, and the whole thing starts all over again.
I've never understood why leftists complain about profits going to capitalists. In a vibrant market economy, profits are the temporary exception to the rule. They accrue only to the most innovative and efficient firms, the ones that serve the consumer best, and the gains are never permanent. As soon as the company loses its edge, entrepreneurial profit vanishes.
Under free market competition, writes Ludwig von Mises, the trajectory of existing production and distribution models is always to reduce profits to zero. For those who want to hang on to profits, there can be no rest. New and improved must be an everyday experience. There must be a ceaseless striving to serve consumers in ways that are ever more excellent.
This is why business is always running to government for protection. Kill this crazy new technology! Stop these imports! Raise the costs on the competition! Give us a patent so that we can clobber the other guys! Impose antitrust law! Protect me with a copyright! Regulate the newcomers out of existence! Give us a bailout!
Aside from this, there is a public fear of the new. Otherwise, people would not find the self-interested protests of the existing establishment to be persuasive.
Here is a striking fact about the human mind: we have great difficulty imagining solutions that have yet to present themselves. It doesn't matter how often the market resolves seemingly intractable problems, we still can't become accustomed to this reality. Our minds think in terms of existing conditions, and then we predict all kinds of doom. We too often fail to consistently expect the unexpected.
This poses a serious problem for the market economy, which is all about the ability of the system to inspire discovery of new ideas and new solutions to prevailing the problems. The problems posed by change are obvious enough; but the solutions are "crowd sourced" and emerge from places, people, and institutions that cannot be seen in advance.
Capitalism is not for wimps who don't want to improve. If you want guaranteed profits for the few rather than prosperity and abundance for the many, socialism and fascism really are better systems.
The push to stop market progress won't work in the end, of course. Technology eventually mows down its forces of resistance. The mercantilists can only delay but never finally suppress the human longing for a better life.

Quote
   Guilty until you pay to prove yourself innocent - suspected eye-patch wearing internet pirates will soon face a £20 fee if they want to appeal against copyright infringement allegations.
Those alleged rum drinkers will have 20 days to appeal.
It's all part of revised plans to uphold and enforce the Digital Economy Act in the UK, the BBC reported (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18594105). The new scheme is expected to begin in 2014.
If you're suspected of uploading or accessing illegally copied files - movies, games, music, etc. - your internet service provider will write you a letter. A serious letter with no jokes in.
You'll be told you're suspected of copyright infringement. And if you want to dispute it, you'll need to cough up £20.
Why dispute? If you receive three letters within a year, copyright owners can request details of accusations made against you - the account holder. But not your name - those kind of details will only be given after a court order is obtained. It's deliberately obtuse, so as to ensure only the "the most persistent alleged infringers" are hunted down.
Sounds like a lot of extra work for the ISPs.
Not only that, but ISPs also have to contribute to the cost of running the scheme. And they're expected to punish repeat offenders by throttling broadband speeds or by suspending accounts.
Will this affect broadband pricing?
The notion of making "suspected" - and still innocent - people pay to defend themselves has, understandably, gone down like a lead balloon with campaign group Consumer Focus.
"Copyright infringement is not to be condoned," CEO Mike O'Connor said, "but people who are innocent should not have to pay a fee to challenge accusations.
"Twenty pounds may sound like a small sum, but it could deter those living on low-incomes from challenging unfair allegations."
Tory bloke Ed Vaizey, Creative Industries Minister, said, "We must ensure our creative industries can protect their investment.
"They have the right to charge people to access their content if they wish, whether in the physical world or on the internet."   

Quote
A High Court judge has ruled that police search warrants used to seize property from Kim Dotcom were illegal.
Justice Helen Winkelmann found that the warrants used did not properly describe the offences to which they were related.
The FBI agents had been accused of underhanded behaviour by Dotcom's lawyers in the High Court after they secretly copied data from his computers and took it overseas.

---

Read the full judgment here (http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/DotCom)

---

Justice Winkelmann has also ruled it was unlawful for copies of Dotcom's computer data to be taken offshore.
Police said they were considering the judgment and were in discussions with Crown Law "to determine what further action might be required".
Police would not make any further comment on the judgement until then.
Dotcom spoke at a meeting at his local Coatesville Settlers Hall tonight, but entered through a back door and would not speak to reporters.
A spokesman for Dotcom said the internet millionaire was "pleased" with the ruling, but he would not be making any further comment on the decision as appeals are likely, TVNZ reported (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/kim-dotcom-pleased-police-search-ruled-illegal-4950160).
Justice Winkelmann ordered that no more items taken in the raids could be removed from New Zealand, and instructed the attorney-general to return clones of the hard drives held by New Zealand police.
She said the search warrants were invalid because they were general warrants which lacked specificity about the offence and the scope of the items to be searched for.
Without a valid warrant, police were trespassing and exceeded what they were lawfully authorised to do.
Justice Winkelmann said no one had addressed whether police conduct also amounted to unreasonable search and seizure, but her preliminary view was that it did.
Detective Inspector Grant Wormald said that although police were able to decide what documents and digital storage devices should be seized, they had no request from the Central Authority to proceed on that basis. His understanding was that the attorney-general would direct that the items seized would immediately be sent to the US to be examined there.
The judge said the domestic courts were the best place to determine compliance with domestic laws.

There were deficiencies in the description of the offences in the case. The warrants did not stipulate that the offences of breach of copyright and money laundering were offences under the law of the United States. They do not refer to any law that would allow the subject of the warrant to understand the offences.
This "would no doubt cause confusion to the subjects of the searches...they would likely read the warrants as  authorising a search for evidence of offences as defined by New Zealand law".
The Megaupload founder's lawyer, Paul Davison QC, said the warrant provided inadequate definition of the offence. This meant that there was an inadequate definition of what was being searched for.
"Copyright can exist in many things," Justice Winkelmann said.
Police had said they had no intention of sorting items seized in the raid from the "relevant" to the "irrelevant" and would leave that to the FBI. However, the judge said that approach was not available to them. The law stated that only applicable items in the investigation could be sent to a foreign authority.
Dotcom had earlier questioned the legality of the search warrants police used to raid his mansion in January.
Davison told the High Court at Auckland last month that police carried out a sweep of electronic equipment. He alleged 135 data storage devices were taken during the police raid.
Dotcom, 38, is on bail awaiting an extradition hearing.
US authorities say he and his three co-accused - Mathias Ortmann, Fin Batato and Bram van der Kolk - used Megaupload and its affiliated sites to knowingly make money from pirated movies and games.
Dotcom is charged with multiple copyright offences.
Megaupload's lawyer, Willie Akel, last month told Auckland High Court that two FBI analysts flew to New Zealand on March 20 and reviewed seven hard drives of information.
The analysts cloned the computers in Manukau.

Quote
By Salvador Rodriguez This post has been corrected and updated. See notes below. June 29, 2012, 4:25 p.m.   A U.S. District Court has handed Apple a victory against one of its biggest competitors in the smartphone market by blocking U.S. sales of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted Apple a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Nexus phone, which went on sale in the United States in mid-December.
This is the second Samsung Galaxy product blocked by Koh this week: On Tuesday, she granted Apple a preliminary injunction against U.S. sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer.
Koh granted the injunction after Apple argued that the Galaxy Nexus phone caused it irreparable harm due to long-term market-share loss and "losses of downstream sales," according to The Next Web (http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/06/30/apple-granted-a-preliminary-injunction-against-samsung-galaxy-nexus-sales-in-u-s/).
Reuters reporter Dan Levine described (https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/218830338707816448) the scene in the courtroom after the injunction was granted: The lawyer representing Samsung, John Quinn (http://www.latimes.com/topic/religion-belief/john-quinn-PERLL000201.topic), had a long face, and Apple's attorney Mike Jacobs was smiling.
"It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone (http://www.latimes.com/topic/services-shopping/electronic-devices/apple-iphone-PRDCES00000002.topic) and iPad (http://www.latimes.com/topic/services-shopping/electronic-devices/apple-ipad-PRDCES000000029.topic), from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging," an Apple spokeswoman said in an email. "This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas."
Neither Samsung nor Google responded to a request for comment.
[Updated, June 29, 5:20 p.m.: Google emailed a response regarding the preliminary injunction. "We're disappointed with this decision, but we believe the correct result will be reached as more evidence comes to light," the company said.]
[For the record, June 29, 5:15 p.m.: An earlier version of this post incorrectly said the Galaxy Nexus phone began selling in the U.S. in late April. In fact, it went on sale in the U.S. in mid-December through Verizon (http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/verizon-communications-ORCRP016243.topic). The Google Play store began selling it in late April.]
 

QuoteLast summer major ISPs including Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Cablevision signed off on a new plan by the RIAA and MPAA (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/115050) taking aim at copyright infringers on their networks. According to the plan, after four warnings ISPs are to begin taking "mitigation measures," which range from throttling a user connection to filtering access to websites until users acknowledge receipt of "educational material." As you might expect, that educational material's chapter on fair use rights likely won't exist.

The plan, as with most plans of this type, was hashed out privately with the government's help -- but with no consumer or independent expert insight. As a result groups like the EFF say the plan has massive problems (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/content-industry-and-isps-announce-common), like relying on the IP address as proof of guilt, placing the burden of proof on the consumer, while forcing users to pay a $35 fee if they'd like to try and protest their innocence.

While it has taken some time, it now appears that the project is poised to officially begin July 1 (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57397452-261/riaa-chief-isps-to-start-policing-copyright-by-july-1/). According to RIAA boss Cary Sherman, most of the involved ISPs are ready to implement their piracy counter-attack this weekend, though different ISPs will again take different approaches in handling "repeat offenders":  "Each ISP has to develop their infrastructure for automating the system," Sherman said. They need this "for establishing the database so they can keep track of repeat infringers, so they know that this is the first notice or the third notice. Every ISP has to do it differently depending on the architecture of its particular network. Some are nearing completion and others are a little further from completion."Granted the lion's share of pirates will simply switch to VPNs and proxies, with the end result being no real dent on piracy -- but even higher broadband rates as ISPs pass on the cost of these countermeasures to all consumers -- pirates or not.

QuoteAfter making remarks critical of the U.S. government's attempts to strengthen international copyright law, the judge at the center of MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom's extradition proceedings has stepped down from the case.

Judge David Harvey called the U.S. government "the enemy" at a conference this week. He has now made the decision to remove himself from the case, according to the New Zealand Herald.

QuoteIn a bizarre turn of fortunes, a UK judge has ordered Apple to run 'advertisements' declaring that Samsung did not copy the design of iPad.

Quote
Last week a friend came to visit me at hospital and after a couple of hours he has been arrested by the Japanese Police.

He is one of the 4 journalists (http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120717004410.htm) from SANSAI BOOKS arrested (http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120717004410.htm) for selling, through the company website, a copy of a magazine (http://www.sansaibooks.co.jp/mook/%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%E3%81%99%E3%81%94%E3%81%8F%E3%82%8F%E3%81%8B%E3%82%8A%E3%82%84%E3%81%99%E3%81%84dvd%E3%82%B3%E3%83%94%E3%83%BC-2012.html) published last year (with a free cover mounted disc) focused on how to backup/rip DVDs.

They violated Japan's Unfair Competition Prevention Law that recently has been revised to make illegal the sale of any DRM circumvention device or software.

It's interesting to note that Japanese cyber Police could arrest the Amazon Japan CEO too as the online giant is selling (http://www.amazon.co.jp/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/376-3306964-5252744?__mk_ja_JP=%83J%83%5E%83J%83i&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=dvd+%83R%83s%81%5B&x=0&y=0) a lot of magazines, books and software packages for DVD copy and ripping: exactly what put in trouble Sansai Books staff. But I bet Amazon Japan offices will not get any visit from the local police...

The Japanese entertainment industry is getting full support from politicians for laws that make SOPA looks like a liberal legislation (from this October downloading a single illegal MP3 (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120625/03200019461/japan-criminalizes-unauthorized-downloads-making-dvd-backups-maybe-watching-youtube.shtml) could land a Japanese p2p user in jail for 2 years).

Among other things this law makes illegal all the Linux distributions which come pre-installed with libdvdcss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss) like BackTrack, CrunchBang Linux, LinuxMCE, Linux Mint, PCLinuxOS, Puppy Linux 4.2.1, Recovery Is Possible, Slax, Super OS, Pardus, and XBMC Live.

Looks like the entertainment industry wants to attack Sansai Books and make it an example for everyone because it is a publishing company focused on digital backup freedom.

There is virtually no discussion among journalists and technology experts about 4 colleagues arrested. This makes me wonder how a country so advanced like Japan can progess without developing a cultural background about these issues.

Quote
When Patrick Wensink was commissioning the cover for his book, Broken Piano For President, he probably wasn't expecting a cease-and-desist letter from Jack Daniel's Properties — the owner of the Jack Daniel's trademarks.
Looking at the cover for the book (http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Piano-President-Patrick-Wensink/dp/1621050203/), it's easy to see why the Jack Daniel's people might take issue with the design. The typeface isn't exactly the same, but the border and presentation is a dead-ringer for the classic black label of that sweet, sweet Tennessee whiskey.
Usually when we write about trademark (http://mashable.com/follow/topics/trademark) disputes, one party claims that another party is using its size to "bully (http://mashable.com/2012/01/24/apple-zynga-facebook-trademark-bullies/)" to get its way.
Not this time.
In what might just be the nicest cease-and-desist letter (http://brokenpianoforpresident.com/2012/07/19/jack-daniels-lawsuit-the-full-scoop/) we've ever seen, the people at Jack Daniel's Properties not only politely explained the situation to Wensink, the company even offered to help pay for the cost of designing a new cover.
Jack Daniel's Properties isn't even forcing Wensink to take his book off the shelf. Instead, the company just wants him to change the cover when it's reprinted.
   

Even better, the publicity around this rare act of lawyerly kindness might end up helping sales for Wensink's book.
On his blog, the author says that Powell's is already sold out of the paperback, but Amazon still has some copies in stock. In his own words, "that baby's going to be a collector's item." Hey, you never know.
All we know is that if more trademark complaints were handled like this, the world might be a better place.

Quote
The United States government said today that even if the indictment of the Megaupload corporation is dismissed, it can continue its indefinite freeze on the corporation's assets while it awaits the extradition of founder Kim Dotcom and his associates.
Judge Liam O'Grady is weighing a request to dismiss the indictment (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/megaupload-claims-it-is-beyond-the-reach-of-us-criminal-law/) against Megaupload because (in Megaupload's view) the federal rules of criminal procedure provide no way to serve notice on corporations with no US address. At a hearing in Alexandria, VA, he grilled both attorneys in the case but did not issue a ruling.
O'Grady speculated, with evident sarcasm, that Congress intended to allow foreign corporations like Megaupload to "be able to violate our laws indiscriminately from an island in the South Pacific."
But Megaupload's attorney insisted that this may not be too far from the truth. Megaupload, they said, is a Hong Kong corporation with no presence in the United States. He argued it was perfectly reasonable for Megaupload to be subject to the criminal laws of Hong Kong, but not the United States.
"It's never had a US address" For its part, the government suggested that it could sidestep the mailing requirement in one of several ways. For example, it could wait for Kim Dotcom to be extradited to the United States and then mail notice to him, as Megaupload's representative, at his address in prison. Or, they suggested, the government could send notice of the indictment to Carpathia Hosting, a Virginia company that has leased hundreds of servers to the locker site.
The government also mentioned the possibility that it could use the provisions of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_legal_assistance_treaty) to send notice to Megaupload's Hong Kong address.
But Judge O'Grady seemed skeptical of these argument. He noted that the "plain language" of the law required sending notice to the company's address in the United States. "You don't have a location in the United States to mail it to," he said. "It's never had an address" in the United States.
And Megaupload pointed out that the government hadn't produced a single example in which the government had satisfied the rules of criminal procedure using one of the methods it was suggesting in this case. Most of the precedents the government has produced were in civil cases, which have different rules. And most involved serving a corporate parent via its subsidiary. That's a very different relationship than, for example, the vendor-customer relationship between Megaupload and Carpathia.
The government brought up one new example during the hearing: an instance in which a judge allowed notice to be sent via e-mail to the Columbian guerilla group FARC. But Megaupload's attorneys dismissed this example as well, pointing out that FARC was not a corporation and that the propriety of that service was never tested in court.
The government also argued that it could keep Megaupload in legal limbo indefinitely. "None of the cases impose a time limit on service," the government's attorney told the judge. Therefore, the government believes it can leave the indictment hanging over the company's head, and keep its assets frozen, indefinitely.
Not only that, but the government believes it can continue to freeze Megaupload's assets and paralyze its operations even if the judge grants the motion to dismiss. That's because in the government's view, the assets are the proceeds of criminal activity and the prosecution against founder Kim Dotcom will still be pending. The fact that the assets are in the name of Megaupload rather than its founder is of no consequence, the government claimed.
Hollywood, at least, seems nervous that Judge O'Grady might buy Megaupload's argument. In a conference call held Wednesday in advance of today's hearing, a senior vice president at the Motion Picture Association of America argued that the dismissal of the case against Megaupload would have little practical impact, since the company's principals would still be facing indictment. And he rejected Kim Dotcom's efforts to frame the case as a test of Internet freedom, describing Dotcom as a "career criminal" who had grown wealthy stealing the work of others.

Quote from: Nightflier on 30-07-2012, 12:50:02
Zna li neko šta se dešava sa Demonoidom?

Quote
STOPPING online piracy is like playing the world's largest game of Whac-A-Mole.


Hit one, countless others appear. Quickly. And the mallet is heavy and slow.
Take as an example YouTube (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/youtube/index.html?inline=nyt-org), where the Recording Industry Association of America almost rules with an iron fist, but doesn't, because of deceptions like the one involving a cat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNZUkW2UrrI).
YouTube, which is owned by Google, offers a free tool to the movie studios and television networks called Content ID. When a studio legitimately uploads a clip from a copyrighted film to YouTube, the Google tool automatically finds and blocks copies of the product.
To get around this roadblock, some YouTube users started placing copyrighted videos inside a still photo of a cat that appears to be watching an old JVC television set. The Content ID algorithm has a difficult time seeing that the video is violating any copyright rules; it just sees a cat watching TV.
Sure, it's annoying for those who want to watch the video, but it works. (Obviously, it's more than annoying for the company whose product is being pirated.)
Then there are those — possibly tens of millions of users, actually — who engage in peer-to-peer file-sharing on the sites using the BitTorrent protocol.
Earlier this year, after months of legal wrangling, authorities in a number of countries won an injunction against the Pirate Bay (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/the_pirate_bay/index.html?inline=nyt-org), probably the largest and most famous BitTorrent piracy site on the Web. The order blocked people from entering the site.
In retaliation, the Pirate Bay wrapped up the code that runs its entire Web site, and offered it as a free downloadable file for anyone to copy and install on their own servers. People began setting up hundreds of new versions of the site, and the piracy continues unabated.
Thus, whacking one big mole created hundreds of smaller ones.
Although the recording industries might believe they're winning the fight, the Pirate Bay and others are continually one step ahead. In March, a Pirate Bay collaborator, who goes by the online name Mr. Spock, announced in a blog post that the team hoped to build drones (http://thepiratebay.se/blog/210) that would float in the air and allow people to download movies and music through wireless radio transmitters.
"This way our machines will have to be shut down with aeroplanes in order to shut down the system," Mr. Spock posted on the site. "A real act of war." Some BitTorrent sites have also discussed storing servers in secure bank vaults. Message boards on the Web devoted to piracy have in the past raised the idea that the Pirate Bay has Web servers stored underwater.
"Piracy won't go away," said Ernesto Van Der Sar, editor of Torrent Freak, a site that reports on copyright and piracy news. "They've tried for years and they'll keep on trying, but it won't go away." Mr. Van Der Sar said companies should stop trying to fight piracy and start experimenting with new ways to distribute content that is inevitably going to be pirated anyway.
According to Torrent Freak, the top pirated TV shows are downloaded several million times a week. Unauthorized movies, music, e-books, software, pornography, comics, photos and video games are watched, read and listened to via these piracy sites millions of times a day.
The copyright holders believe new laws will stop this type of piracy. But many others believe any laws will just push people to find creative new ways of getting the content they want.
"There's a clearly established relationship between the legal availability of material online and copyright infringement; it's an inverse relationship," said Holmes Wilson, co-director of Fight for the Future, a nonprofit technology organization that is trying to stop new piracy laws from disrupting the Internet. "The most downloaded television shows on the Pirate Bay are the ones that are not legally available online."
The hit HBO show "Game of Thrones" is a quintessential example (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/disruptions-for-hbo-still-beholden-to-a-cable-company/) of this. The show is sometimes downloaded illegally more times each week than it is watched on cable television. But even if HBO put the shows online, the price it could charge would still pale in comparison to the money it makes through cable operators. Mr. Wilson believes that the big media companies don't really want to solve the piracy problem.
"If every TV show was offered at a fair price to everyone in the world, there would definitely be much less copyright infringement," he said. "But because of the monopoly power of the cable companies and content creators, they might actually make less money."
The way people download unauthorized content is changing. In the early days of music piracy, people transferred songs to their home or work computers. Now, with cloud-based sites, like Wuala (http://www.wuala.com/), uTorrent (http://www.utorrent.com/) and Tribler (http://www.tribler.org/trac), people stream movies and music from third-party storage facilities, often to mobile devices and TV's. Some of these cloud-based Web sites allow people to set up automatic downloads of new shows the moment they are uploaded to piracy sites. It's like piracy-on-demand. And it will be much harder to trace and to stop.
It is only going to get worse. Piracy has started to move beyond the Internet and media and into the physical world. People on the fringes of tech, often early adopters of new devices and gadgets, are now working with 3-D printers (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/disruptions-the-3-d-printing-free-for-all/) that can churn out actual physical objects. Say you need a wall hook or want to replace a bit of hardware that fell off your luggage. You can download a file and "print" these objects (http://www.thingiverse.com/) with printers that spray layers of plastic, metal or ceramics into shapes.
And people are beginning to share files that contain the schematics for physical objects on these BitTorrent sites. Although 3-D printing is still in its infancy, it is soon expected to become as pervasive as illegal music downloading was in the late 1990s.
Content owners will find themselves stuck behind ancient legal walls when trying to stop people from downloading objects online as copyright laws do not apply to standard physical objects deemed "noncreative."
In the arcade version of Whac-A-Mole, the game eventually ends — often when the player loses. In the piracy arms-race version, there doesn't seem to be a conclusion. Sooner or later, the people who still believe they can hit the moles with their slow mallets might realize that their time would be better spent playing an entirely different game.   Nick Bilton is a technology columnist for The New York Times.

QuoteWASHINGTON — Steve Wozniak, who co-founded Apple with the late Steve Jobs, predicted "horrible problems" in the coming years as cloud-based computing takes hold.
Wozniak, 61, was the star turn at the penultimate performance in Washington of "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs," monologist Mike Daisey's controversial two-hour expose of Apple's labor conditions in China.
In a post-performance dialogue with Daisey and audience members, Wozniak held forth on topics as varied as public education (he once did a stint as a school teacher) and reality TV (having appeared on "Dancing with the Stars").
But the engineering wizard behind the progenitor of today's personal computer, the Apple II, was most outspoken on the shift away from hard disks towards uploading data into remote servers, known as cloud computing.
"I really worry about everything going to the cloud," he said. "I think it's going to be horrendous. I think there are going to be a lot of horrible problems in the next five years."
He added: "With the cloud, you don't own anything. You already signed it away" through the legalistic terms of service with a cloud provider that computer users must agree to.
"I want to feel that I own things," Wozniak said. "A lot of people feel, 'Oh, everything is really on my computer,' but I say the more we transfer everything onto the web, onto the cloud, the less we're going to have control over it."
Prior to Saturday at the Woolly Mammoth theater in Washington, Daisey and Wozniak had met once before, in California after a performance of "The Agony and the Ecstasy" in its original version in February 2011.
Wozniak was moved to tears, but a year later Daisey came under fire when it emerged that sections of his one-man show dealing with the Foxconn plant in China where iPhones and iPads are assembled had been fabricated.
Public radio show "This American Life," which had broadcast portions of "The Agony and the Ecstasy," went so far as to issue a retraction. Daisey meanwhile reworked his script, albeit without toning down his powerful delivery.
On the minimalist stage Saturday, seated on plain wooden chairs, Daisey and Wozniak came across as a geek version of Tweedledum and Tweedledee in their baggy black clothes and matching beer bellies.
The bearded, fast-talking Wozniak sported running shoes and a massive wrist watch. In the theater lobby, for Saturday only, one of the very first Apple I computers ever built -- assembled in Jobs' garage -- was on display.
"Everything I designed was purely out of my head, never out of a book," recalled Wozniak, who quit Apple in 1987 after 12 years, taught fifth-graders, hit the lecture circuit and gave away some of his fortune to good causes.
Many in the audience echoed Daisey's concern about Foxconn's work force, but Wozniak said he expected labor conditions in China to evolve as the nation grows richer. He also commended Apple for its oversight of its factories.
"We know we (citizens and consumers) have a voice. We can speak (about labor conditions), but we can't act like, oh, Foxconn is bad or Apple is bad," he said.
Daisey begged to differ: "I hear what you're saying about that fact that everyone goes through an evolution, but it's not as if the evolution was natural in the sense that we are the ones who brought the jobs there."
While Apple designs its products in the United States, all its manufacturing takes place in China -- a sore point in an election year in which unemployment and a long-term exodus of manufacturing jobs overseas have been campaign issues. Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved

Quote
The site, which matched up people who wanted to loan or borrow e-books, featured an easy-to-use interface (see screenshot, below). When a match was made, the parties were sent to Amazon or BarnesAndNoble.com to complete the e-book loan.

Loaning certain Kindle books in this manner is allowed per the Amazon lending terms (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200549320) and the rights outlined by the publisher. Here's how the Amazon help page describes the arrangement:

Kindle books can be loaned to another reader for a period of 14 days. The borrower does not need to own a Kindle -- Kindle books can also be read using our free Kindle reading applications for PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, BlackBerry, and Android devices. Not all books are lendable -- it is up to the publisher or rights holder to determine which titles are eligible for lending. The lender will not be able to read the book during the loan period. Books can only be loaned once, and subscription content is not currently available for lending.

As an author (I wrote an unofficial manual to Dropbox (http://www.dropboxin30minutes.com/) for the Kindle and Nook), I don't have any problem with this type of lending service as long as it's not abused.

However, there are many publishers and independent KDP authors who did not understand loaning and lending on Amazon's Kindle platform. Others wrongly assumed that the titles appearing on LendInk were pirated. Here's how one angry KDP author reacted (http://www.kindleboards.com/index.php/topic,122241.msg1818315.html#msg1818315):

I noticed my work there and sent the site a Cease and Desist Notice, giving them 48 hours to remove my work or face prosecution. They were in breech of copyright and deserved to be shut down. Am I proud they have been shut down? Am I proud to have stood up for my legal rights as author? You betcha! If they were a legitimate site and had written consent from each and every author to display their work for free (forfeiting their royalty income as a result) then I doubt very much that the site would have suddenly disappeared overnight. I am tired of plagiarism, book piracy and cheap-*ss scum bags who won't part with a measly $2.99 or $4.99 to support authors and show respect for their hard work, not to mention the graphic artists, editors, photographers who also contributed to the birth of an author's ebook.

Although not legitimate, hundreds of C&D letters and other complaints helped kill LendInk, according to LendInk's Dale Porter (see my interview with him at the bottom of the page). Dale also posted the following explanation of what happened (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?s=6046a88548ef518bdee9637e1a78977f&p=2178186#post2178186) on several forums:

My name is Dale Porter and I am the owner of Lendink (or what's left of it). I can say without hesitation that Lendink was not a pirate site, we did not store, transfer, lend or publish any ebooks, period! All we did was attempt to provide a means for people that enjoy their ebooks to meet other like minded people and share their "lend" enabled ebooks. The lending process was completely handled on the Amazon or Barnes and Noble websites.

Lendink was operated solely by myself and operated the last couple of years with absolutely no income.

There is a lot of misinformation on the internet claiming that we hosted ebooks illegally, that Amazon did not allow us to lend ebooks, etc. Let me try to address some of those here.

>Amazon did not allow us to lend ebooks. This is a 100% true statement and the fact of the matter is, Lendink did not nor did it ever attempt to lend ebooks. All we did was put person A in touch with person B and redirected A and B back to Amazon or Barnes and Nobles where the actual lending took place.

Lendink was hosting ebooks illegally. This statement is 100% false. We never hosted any ebooks on our servers. We attempted to dispell this rumor on our FAQ page and for those that actually read the page, it usually cleared up the misunderstanding. For those that did not read the page, all I can assume is that is simply doesn't matter at this point. No amount of explaination would have satisfied the vultures looming over head.

The Lendink website is down, this is proof they were pirating ebooks. Really, this is proof that we were pirating ebooks? The fact of the matter is that our host company was so overwhelmed with hate mail and threats of lawsuits that they felt they had no choice but to suspend the site. These hatefull people did nothing but harass and threaten Lendink and our host company to the point that it just didn't make sense to keep the site online. For those of you on this site that are patting yourself on the back for bringing Lendink down, shame on you. I only hope at this point that you see the same results with your books and your writing career.

Amazon dropped Lendink as an Affiliate due to digital rights violations or new digital rights laws in California. This is 100% false. Lendink is a California based company and as such, was cut off from earning money from sales when Amazon and the State of California disagreed over the collection of State Sales Tax. Amazon cut off all of their California affiliates from earning money via their affiliate program. It was not just Lendink. This only prevented us from earning money via Amazon. It did not however stop use from matching people for book lending.

I am simply a hard working guy that was trying to provide a legit service. Let me ask you all this, if I truley intended to use Lendink as a pirate site would I keep my contact information clearly associated with the site? Would I form an LLC and run the site as a business? Would I actually take the time to file for and receive a Federal Trademark for the site? These are not the actions of a person bent on stealing other persons intellectual property. The site had been negelected the past year or so and this was due to health issues related to my service connected injuries. Working a fulltime job to pay the bills and health issues just took their toll on me and unfortunately the site suffered. My plan was to ride out the Amazon vs. California Sales Tax dispute and then pick up when I was able to make some income from the sale of books. Sadly, it appears that my American Dream has been left as road kill at the hands of misguided individuals.

I contacted Dale with some follow-up questions, and he sent the following replies:

Who was threatening lawsuits? Was it authors, publishers, Amazon, other rights holders?

Dale: "At this time, the host company is only advising that they have received hundreds of threats regarding possible lawsuits if they did not take Lendink.com down immediately. I do not know personally if it was a result of authors, publishers, Amazon or other rights holders. I have not personally been in contact with anyone other thaan the host company. I do however have a certified letter awaiting my pickup at the post office which is from a company called Noble Romance."

How many people were using the site per month before it was shut down?

Dale: "At the time the site was suspended, Lendink had 15,000+ register users. Not bad considering the site has been on auto pilot for a year or so due to my health issues."

How did you make money from the site?

Dale: "When I purchased the site, I was an Amazon Affiliate and the hopes were that I could make extra income selling books as an affiliate and then earn a little extra from advertising. Unfortunately, shortly after I purchased the site, Amazon and the State of California had a large dispute over the collection of Sales Tax and in response, Amazon cancelled all California Affiliates. This meant I could not make money from selling the books but it did not prevent me from matching people that wanted to lend their books according to the terms set forth by Amazon and Barnes and Nobles. Since that time, I have not made any income from Lendink.com. It was kept alive in the hopes that Amazon would some day open up the affiliate program to California businesses again."

What other communities/sites are offering similar matching services for loaners/borrowers of ebooks?

Dale: "I know of a few sites such as Lendle.me, the Kindle Book Club and a few others. Many of the site owners contacted me when I first purchased Lendink to wish me best of luck. We never really consider each other as compteitors or business rivals. We all enjoyed ebooks and simply wanted to provide a service to others."

Dale also offered this comment:

"The hosting company has offered to reinstate Lendink.com on the condition that I personally respond to all of the complaints individually. I have to say, I really do not know if it is worth the effort at this point. I have read the comments many of these people have posted and I don't think any form of communication will resolve the issues in their eyes. Most are only interested in getting money from me and others are only in in for the kill. They have no intentions of talking to me or working this out. So much for trying to start a business and live the American Dream."

Note: Lots of people would like to contact or help Dale. I would suggest doing so through the LendInk Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/LendInk/124974504234948), which contains additional discussion about what happened.

Quote
   By John Campbell
The police raid on the mansion of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom (http://www.3news.co.nz/Technology/KimDotcom.aspx) has been discussed for so many months and now the footage of that morning has begun to emerge.
It generally shows what was always said to have happened, but it sheds little light on why it happened.
The FBI is charging Dotcom with internet piracy on a massive scale.
He and his lawyers, both here and in America, assert no helicopters were needed to arrest him, no police officers with semi-automatic weapons with the FBI not too far in the background.
As the legal battle continues over a High Court finding that the search warrants used in the raid were invalid (http://www.3news.co.nz/Judge-Search-and-seizure-at-Dotcom-mansion-illegal/tabid/423/articleID/259456/Default.aspx), the raid itself is coming under scrutiny in the High Court.

   
• World exclusive interview with Dotcom after arrest (http://www.3news.co.nz/Kim-Dotcoms-first-TV-interview-Im-no-piracy-king/tabid/367/articleID/244830/Default.aspx)
• Take a tour through the Dotcom mansion (http://www.3news.co.nz/Campbell-Live-enters-Kim-Dotcoms-Coatesville-mansion/tabid/367/articleID/242116/Default.aspx)

An elite police office with identity suppression has given evidence in court about what happened.
Those involved are protected for their own safety in future operations unrelated to this case.
At 6.46am on January 20, the raid was underway. The helicopter carrying members of the elite special tactics group flew into the Coatesville home of Dotcom.
"Ground units, Gates are open," someone says into the radio.
Dotcom's pregnant wife their three children, some guests and about a dozen staff were also there.
All is quiet below.
Within seconds four armed members of the special tactics group ran towards the main door.
The helicopter immediately took off. The main justification for using it at all was that Doctom's security staff could have stopped police vehicles at the gates. But as the chopper flew out, ground forces were already arriving just seconds behind.
In court today Dotcom explained his experience of the officers arriving.
"First of all it was not unusual for me to hear helicopter noise, because we were expecting guests to arrive and it's usual that sometimes guests arrive early in the morning, especially if they've come from the US and are being picked up by helicopter. So the noise of the helicopter wasn't really a surprise, but then I heard pinging of stones of rocks to my bedroom window. My shields were down so I couldn't see outside what was happening. Then shortly after within a few seconds I heard heavy banging on my door."
The helicopter then circled the property and recorded the police radio conversation.
"I need two guards working, one at the gate and one roaming," it said.
"Main entry into the bedroom of the target, door's closed, slammed and had a security lock on it, we've breached it. Moved through, he's done a runner, can't find him in either the studio or bedroom."
Dotcom then told the court what he was doing at that point.
"I was on my bed, once the banging started, I pressed an alarm button that is situated right at my bed which was installed in case of an emergency. When I press that it automatically sends a signal to all security guards including Mr [Wayne] Tempero's room including SMSs to everybody informing them there is an alert. Then I stood up from the bed and made my way to the red room."
The red room is a secret emergency room inside the mansion.   Despite knowing of the room's existence, having the plans and the door to the room not being locked, it still took police 13 minutes to find Dotcom there.
"I was sitting in front of that pillar in the room and heard loud banging noises, I was scared and worried."
Meanwhile the house was being closed down, everyone present was being accounted for and contained.
"We have five Philippine females and three children," the police radio said.
By 7:10am armed officers were on the roof and Dotcom had been found and detained.
Dotcom had stayed in the red room until police found him.
"I thought I better wait for them to come to me rather than me popping out of that secret door maybe scaring someone who might shoot me. So I waited in the red room. I knew the door wasn't locked, there was a button I could have engaged to lock the door but I haven't done that. So I waited in the room upstairs for them to come. Once they came up the stairs I had my hands like this [in the air]. And then very quickly they approached me and within two seconds they were there and all over me."
He then described what the police did to him.
"I had a punch to the face, I had boots kicking me down to the floor, I had a knee into the ribs, then my hands were on the floor, one man was standing on my hand."
At 7.11am police told each other they had got Dotcom.
"For the log, Mr Dotcom has been shown the warrant to search the property, he acknowledges it."
Two helicopters had been used, dogs deployed along with four police vehicles. There were armed offenders squad and the special tactics squad.
The elite police officer who has identity suppression described to the court what weapons he was carrying.
"A gun belt which had my secondary weapon, a police issued glock pistol on the right hand side, and additional magazines on the left and my primary weapon which is a Colt CommandoM4 556 weapon."
The FBI were there and during the planning period for the raid.
CCTV footage taken from a tree near the property recorded a helicopter arriving, men and dogs. The house was surrounded.
But the officers were not dressed in full combat gear.
"We wanted to match the threat level, in this case a low threat with our dress," the elite officer says. "We made that conscious decision not to wear full tactical kit."
Dotcom's lawyer asked him if he had seen anything deliberate done to Dotcom.
"Yes there was deliberate force applied," he said.
So what was behind such a large and pointed operation?
"Primary objective: secure suspect as soon as possible to prevent destruction of evidence," the elite officer said.
But Dotcom could not have destroyed evidence because the FBI had allegedly seized the Megaupload servers before the raid.
"All of that is so invalid and really angers me because you know the FBI was already in the data centre disabling access to the data they feared we would manipulate. So primary to you arriving there was no chance for anyone to do anything with that evidence," Dotcom said.
Watch the video to see footage of the raid.

 

Quote
An update to our search algorithms
8/10/12 | 10:30:00 AM

  We aim to provide a great experience for our users and have developed over 200 signals to ensure our search algorithms deliver the best possible results. Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices (http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/) we receive for any given site. Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results. This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it's a song previewed on NPR's music website (http://www.npr.org/music/), a TV show on Hulu (http://www.hulu.com/) or new music streamed from Spotify (http://www.spotify.com/).

Since we re-booted our copyright removals over two years ago, we've been given much more data by copyright owners about infringing content online. In fact, we're now receiving and processing more copyright removal notices every day than we did in all of 2009—more than 4.3 million URLs in the last 30 days alone (http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/). We will now be using this data as a signal in our search rankings.

Only copyright holders know if something is authorized, and only courts can decide if a copyright has been infringed; Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate copyright law. So while this new signal will influence the ranking of some search results, we won't be removing any pages from search results unless we receive (http://support.google.com/bin/static.py?hl=en&ts=1114905&page=ts.cs) a valid copyright removal notice from the rights owner. And we'll continue to provide "counter-notice (http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132)" tools so that those who believe their content has been wrongly removed can get it reinstated. We'll also continue to be transparent (http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/) about copyright removals.

Posted by Amit Singhal, SVP, Engineering   

Quote
Google constantly tweaks how its search engine delivers results to people, but it's rolling out a major new change (http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2012/08/an-update-to-our-search-algorithms.html) next week: it'll start generally downranking sites that receive a high volume of copyright infringement notices from copyright holders. Google says the move is designed to "help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily" — meaning that it's trying to direct people who search for movies, TV shows, and music to sites like Hulu and Spotify, not torrent sites or data lockers like the infamous MegaUpload. It's a clear concession to the movie and music industries, who have long complained that Google facilitates piracy (http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/1/3057275/ari-emanuel-this-is-where-i-work) — and Google needs to curry favor with media companies as it tries to build an ecosystem around Google Play.
Google says it feels confident making the change because because its existing copyright infringement reporting system generates a massive amount of data about which sites are most frequently reported — the company received and processed over 4.3 million URL removal requests in the past 30 days alone, more than all of 2009 combined. Importantly, Google says the search tweaks will not remove sites from search results entirely, just rank them lower in listings. Removal of a listing will still require a formal request under the existing copyright infringement reporting system — and Google is quick to point out that those unfairly targeted can still file counter-notices to get their content reinstated into search listings.
"Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate copyright law."
Of course, Google's existing copyright system has long had its critics, who claim the system disproportionally favors big companies who abuse it to block legitimate speech. Allowing past abuse to affect future search results is far from ideal, but Google isn't planning to make judgement calls. "Only copyright holders know if something is authorized, and only courts can decide if a copyright has been infringed; Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate copyright law." What Google can do is remain transparent about copyright removals — in May the company began reporting all listing removal requests (http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/24/3041767/google-transparency-copyright-takedown-report) it's received in the past 30 days, which companies have complained, and which sites they target. The most-targeted domains? filestube.com, downloads.nl, isohunt.com, and torrenthound.com. We'll have to see where they land on search results when Google flips the switch on the new rankings next week.

Quote
One of the most famous Torrent tracking sites, Demonoid, was shut recently by Ukrainian authorities is at the receiving end of one more blow as the domain names for the site are up for grabs.  Initially thought of as being under a series of DDoS attacks, the torrent tracking site was out for a prolonged duration following which it started serving malware laden ads. Last week Ukrainian authorities got the best of Demonoid and stopped the site completely after it raided ColoCall, which was the hosting service provider for the site. The Demonoid admin is believed to be still at large.


As it stands, three Demonoid domains: Demonoid.me, Demonoid.com and Demonoid.ph are up for sale on Sedo. The time is ripe as of now for the sale of the domain names as it has caught the attention of many on and off the web. The traffic that Demonoid used to attract was huge and internet marketers would definitely want to bank on this.


Anonymous has taken a vow to avenge the closure of Demonoid and is going to revive the torrent tracker through mirror sites and by creating a group called "open-source Demonoid".
 

Quote

Many of us will accumulate vast libraries of digital books and music over the course of our lifetimes. But when we die, our collections of words and music may expire with us.
Someone who owned 10,000 hardcover books and the same number of vinyl records could bequeath them to descendants, but legal experts say passing on iTunes and Kindle libraries would be much more complicated.
And one's heirs stand to lose huge sums of money. "I find it hard to imagine a situation where a family would be OK with losing a collection of 10,000 books and songs," says Evan Carroll, co-author of "Your Digital Afterlife." "Legally dividing one account among several heirs would also be extremely difficult."
Part of the problem is that with digital content, one doesn't have the same rights as with print books and CDs. Customers own a license to use the digital files—but they don't actually own them.
Apple /quotes/zigman/68270/quotes/nls/aapl AAPL +0.09%   and Amazon.com /quotes/zigman/63011/quotes/nls/amzn AMZN +1.88%   grant "nontransferable" rights to use content, so if you buy the complete works of the Beatles on iTunes, you cannot give the White Album to your son and Abbey Road to your daughter.
According to Amazon's terms of use, "You do not acquire any ownership rights in the software or music content." Apple limits the use of digital files to Apple devices used by the account holder.
"That account is an asset and something of value," says Deirdre R. Wheatley-Liss, an estate planning attorney at Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard in Parsippany, N.J.
But can it be passed on to one's heirs?
Most digital content exists in a legal black hole. "The law is light years away from catching up with the types of assets we have in the 21st Century," says Wheatley-Liss. In recent years, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Indiana, Oklahoma and Idaho passed laws to allow executors and relatives access to email and social networking accounts of those who've died, but the regulations don't cover digital files purchased.
Apple and Amazon did not respond to requests for comment.
There are still few legal and practical ways to inherit e-books and digital music, experts say. And at least one lawyer has a plan to capitalize on what may become be a burgeoning market. David Goldman, a lawyer in Jacksonville, says he will next month launch software, DapTrust, to help estate planners create a legal trust for their clients' online accounts that hold music, e-books and movies. "With traditional estate planning and wills, there's no way to give the right to someone to access this kind of information after you're gone," he says.
Here's how it works: Goldman will sell his software for $150 directly to estate planners to store and manage digital accounts and passwords. And, while there are other online safe-deposit boxes like AssetLock and ExecutorSource that already do that, Goldman says his software contains instructions to create a legal trust for accounts. "Having access to digital content and having the legal right to use it are two totally different things," he says.
The simpler alternative is to just use your loved one's devices and accounts after they're gone—as long as you have the right passwords.
Chester Jankowski, a New York-based technology consultant, says he'd look for a way to get around the licensing code written into his 15,000 digital files. "Anyone who was tech-savvy could probably find a way to transfer those files onto their computer—without ending up in Guantanamo," he says. But experts say there should be an easier solution, and a way such content can be transferred to another's account or divided between several people."We need to reform and update intellectual-property law," says Dazza Greenwood, lecturer and researcher at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab.
Technology pros say the need for such reform is only going to become more pressing. "A significant portion of our assets is now digital," Carroll says. U.S. consumers spend nearly $30 on e-books and MP3 files every month, or $360 a year, according to e-commerce company Bango. Apple alone has sold 300 million iPods and 84 million iPads since their launches. Amazon doesn't release sales figures for the Kindle Fire, but analysts estimate it has nearly a quarter of the U.S. tablet market.

Quote
Even if we win the right to own and control our computers, a dilemma remains: what rights do owners owe users?   

Cory Doctorow: "The Coming Civil War over General-purpose Computing", Talks at Google (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI#ws)

This talk was delivered at Google in August, and for The Long Now Foundation (http://longnow.org/seminars/02012/jul/31/coming-century-war-against-your-computer/) in July 2012. A transcript of the notes follows. I gave a talk in late 2011 at 28C3 in Berlin called "The Coming War on General Purpose Computing (http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html)" In a nutshell, its hypothesis was this: • Computers and the Internet are everywhere and the world is increasingly made of them. • We used to have separate categories of device: washing machines, VCRs, phones, cars, but now we just have computers in different cases. For example, modern cars are computers we put our bodies in and Boeing 747s are flying Solaris boxes, whereas hearing aids and pacemakers are computers we put in our body. [[VCR, washing machine] [[747]] [[Hearing aid]] • This means that all of our sociopolitical problems in the future will have a computer inside them, too—and a would-be regulator saying stuff like this: "Make it so that self-driving cars can't be programmed to drag race" "Make it so that bioscale 3D printers can't make harmful organisms or restricted compounds" Which is to say: "Make me a general-purpose computer that runs all programs except for one program that freaks me out." [[Turing - 1]] But there's a problem. We don't know how to make a computer that can run all the programs we can compile except for whichever one pisses off a regulator, or disrupts a business model, or abets a criminal. The closest approximation we have for such a device is a computer with spyware on it— a computer that, if you do the wrong thing, can intercede and say, "I can't let you do that, Dave." [[Hal]] Such a a computer runs programs designed to be hidden from the owner of the device, and which the owner can't override or kill. In other words: DRM. Digital Rights Managment. [Defective by design] These computers are a bad idea for two significant reasons. First, they won't solve problems. Breaking DRM isn't hard for bad guys. The copyright wars' lesson is that DRM is always broken with near-immediacy. DRM only works if the "I can't let you do that, Dave" program stays a secret. Once the most sophisticated attackers in the world liberate that secret, it will be available to everyone else, too. [[AACS key]] Second, DRM has inherently weak security, which thereby makes overall security weaker. Certainty about what software is on your computer is fundamental to good computer security, and you can't know if your computer's software is secure unless you know what software it is running. Designing "I can't let you do that, Dave" into computers creates an enormous security vulnerability: anyone who hijacks that facility can do things to your computer that you can't find out about. Moreover, once a government thinks it has "solved" a problem with DRM—with all its inherent weaknesses—that creates a perverse incentive to make it illegal to tell people things that might undermine the DRM. [[cf felten, huang, geohot] You know, things like how the DRM works. Or "here's a flaw in the DRM which lets an attacker secretly watch through your webcam or listen through your mic." I've had a lot of feedback from various distinguished computer scientists, technologists, civil libertarians and security researchers after 28C3. Within those fields, there is a widespread consensus that, all other things being equal, computers are more secure and society is better served when owners of computers can control what software runs on them. Let's examine for a moment what that would mean. Most computers today are fitted with Trusted Platform Module. This is a secure co-processor mounted on the motherboard. The specification of TPMs are published, and an industry body certifies compliance with those specifications. To the extent that the spec is good (and the industry body is diligent), it's possible to be reasonably certain that you've got a real, functional, TPM in your computer that faithfully implements the spec. How is the TPM secure? It contains secrets: cryptographic keys. But it's also secure in that it's designed to be tamper-evident. If you try to extract the keys from a TPM, or remove the TPM from a computer and replace it with a gimmicked one, it will be very obvious to the computer's owner. One threat to TPM is that a crook (or a government, police force or other adversary) might try to compromise your computer — tamper-evidence is what lets you know when your TPM has been fiddled with. Another TPM threat-model is that a piece of malicious software will infect your computer Now, once your computer is compromised this way, you could be in great trouble. All of the sensors attached to the computer—mic, camera, accelerometer, fingerprint reader, GPS—might be switched on without your knowledge. Off goes the data to the bad guys. All the data on your computer (sensitive files, stored passwords and web history)? Off it goes to the bad guys—or erased. All the keystrokes into your computer—your passwords!—might be logged. All the peripherals attached to your computer—printers, scanners, SCADA controllers, MRI machines, 3D printers— might be covertly operated or subtly altered. Imagine if those "other peripherals" included cars or avionics. Or your optic nerve, your cochlea, the stumps of your legs. When your computer boots up, the TPM can ask the bootloader for a signed hash of itself and verify that the signature on the hash comes from a trusted party. Once you trust the bootloader to faithfully perform its duties, you can ask it to check the signatures on the operating system, which, once verified, can check the signatures on the programs that run on it. Ths ensures that you know which programs are running on your computer—and that any programs running in secret have managed the trick by leveraging a defect in the bootloader, operating system or other components, and not because a new defect has been inserted into your system to create a facility for hiding things from you. This always reminds me of Descartes: he starts off by saying that he can't tell what's true and what's not true, because he's not sure if he really exists. [descartes] He finds a way of proving that he exists, and that he can trust his senses and his faculty for reason. Having found a tiny nub of stable certainty on which to stand, he builds a scaffold of logic that he affixes to it, until he builds up an entire edifice. Likewise, a TPM is a nub of stable certainty: if it's there, it can reliably inform you about the code on your computer. [crazy] Now, you may find it weird to hear someone like me talking warmly about TPMs. After all, these are the technologies that make it possible to lock down phones, tablets, consoles and even some PCs so that they can't run software of the owner's choosing. Jailbreaking" usually means finding some way to defeat a TPM or TPM-like technology. So why on earth would I want a TPM in my computer? As with everything important, the devil is in the details. Imagine for a moment two different ways of implementing a TPM: 1. Lockdown [LOCKDOWN] Your TPM comes with a set of signing keys it trusts, and unless your bootloader is signed by a TPM-trusted party, you can't run it. Moreover, since the bootloader determines which OS launches, you don't get to control the software in your machine. 2. Certainty [CERTAINTY] You tell your TPM which signing keys you trust—say, Ubuntu, EFF, ACLU and Wikileaks—and it tells you whether the bootloaders it can find on your disk have been signed by any of those parties. It can faithfully report the signature on any other bootloaders it finds, and it lets you make up your own damn mind about whether you want to trust any or all of the above. Approximately speaking, these two scenarios correspond to the way that iOS and Android work: iOS only lets you run Apple-approved code; Android lets you tick a box to run any code you want. Critically, however, Android lacks the facility to do some crypto work on the software before boot-time and tell you whether the code you think you're about to run is actually what you're about to run. It's freedom, but not certainty. In a world where the computers we're discussing can see and hear you, where we insert our bodies into them, where they are surgically implanted into us, and where they fly our planes and drive our cars, certainty is a big deal. This is why I like the idea of a TPM, assuming it is implemented in the "certainty" mode and not the "lockdown" mode. If that's not clear, think of it this way: a "war on general-purpose computing" is what happens when the control freaks in government and industry demand the ability to remotely control your computers [1984] The defenders against that attack are also control freaks—like me—but they happen to believe that device-owners should have control over their computers [De Niro in Brazil] Both sides want control, but differ on which side should have control. Control requires knowledge. If you want to be sure that songs can only moved onto an iPod, but not off of an iPod, the iPod needs to know that the instructions being given to it by the PC (to which it is tethered) are emanating from an Apple-approved iTunes. It needs to know they're not from something that impersonates iTunes in order to get the iPod to give it access to those files. [Roach Motel] If you want to be sure that my PVR won't record the watch-once video-on-demand movie that I've just paid for, you need to be able to ensure that the tuner receiving the video will only talk to approved devices whose manufacturers have promised to honor "do-not-record" flags in the programmes. [TiVo error] If I want to be sure that you aren't watching me through my webcam, I need to know what the drivers are and whether they honor the convention that the little green activity light is always switched on when my camera is running. [Green light] If I want to be sure that you aren't capturing my passwords through my keyboard, I need to know that the OS isn't lying when it says there aren't any keyloggers on my system. Whether you want to be free—or want to enslave—you need control. And for that, you need this knowledge. That's the coming war on general purpose computing. But now I want to investigate what happens if we win it. We could face a interesting prospect. This I call the coming civil war over general purpose computing. Let's stipulate that a victory for the "freedom side" in the war on general purpose computing would result in computers that let their owners know what was running on them. Computers would faithfully report the hash and associated signatures for any bootloaders they found, control what was running on computers, and allow their owners to specify who was allowed to sign their bootloaders, operating systems, and so on. [Revolutionary war victory image] There are two arguments that we can make for this: 1. Human rights If your world is made of computers, then designing computers to override their owners' decisions has significant human rights implications. Today we worry that the Iranian government might demand import controls on computers, so that only those capable of undetectable surveillance are operable within its borders. Tomorrow we might worry about whether the British government would demand that NHS-funded cochlear implants be designed to block reception of "extremist" language, to log and report it, or both. 2. Property rights The doctrine of first sale is an important piece of consumer law. It says that once you buy something, it belongs to you, and you should have the freedom to do anything you want with it, even if that hurts the vendor's income. Opponents of DRM like the slogan, "You bought it, you own it." Property rights are an incredibly powerful argument. This goes double in America, where strong property rights enforcement is seen as the foundation of all social remedies. [private property] This goes triple for Silicon Valley, where you can't swing a cat without hitting a libertarian who believes that the major — or only — legitimate function of a state is to enforce property rights and contracts around them. Which is to say that if you want to win a nerd fight, property rights are a powerful weapon to have in your arsenal. And not just nerd fights! That's why copyfighters are so touchy about the term "Intellectual Property". This synthetic, ideologically-loaded term was popularized in the 1970s as a replacement for "regulatory monopolies" or "creators' monopolies" — because it's a lot easier to get Congress to help you police your property than it is to get them to help enforce your monopoly. [Human rights fist] Here is where the civil war part comes in. Human rights and property rights both demand that computers not be designed for remote control by governments, corporations, or other outside institutions. Both ensure that owners be allowed to specify what software they're going to run. To freely choose the nub of certainty from which they will suspend the scaffold of their computer's security. Remember that security is relative: you are secured from attacks on your ability to freely use your music if you can control your computing environment. This, however, erodes the music industry's own security to charge you some kind of rent, on a use-by-use basis, for your purchased music. If you get to choose the nub from which the scaffold will dangle, you get control and the power to secure yourself against attackers. If the the government, the RIAA or Monsanto chooses the nub, they get control and the power to secure themselves against you. In this dilemma, we know what side we fall on. We agree that at the very least, owners should be allowed to know and control their computers. But what about users? Users of computers don't always have the same interests as the owners of computers— and, increasingly, we will be users of computers that we don't own. Where you come down on conflicts between owners and users is going to be one of the most meaningful ideological questions in technology's history. There's no easy answer that I know about for guiding these decisions. [Blackstone on property] Let's start with a total pro-owner position: "property maximalism". • If it's my computer, I should have the absolute right to dictate the terms of use to anyone who wants to use it. If you don't like it, find someone else's computer to use. How would that work in practice? Through some combination of an initialization routine, tamper evidence, law, and physical control. For example, when you turn on your computer for the first time, you initialize a good secret password, possibly signed by your private key. [Random number] Without that key, no-one is allowed to change the list of trusted parties from which your computer's TPM will accept bootloaders. We could make it illegal to subvert this system for the purpose of booting an operating system that the device's owner has not approved. Such as law would make spyware really illegal, even moreso than now, and would also ban the secret installation of DRM. We could design the TPM so that if you remove it, or tamper with it, it's really obvious — give it a fragile housing, for example, which is hard to replace after the time of manufacture, so it's really obvious to a computer's owner that someone has modified the device, possibly putting it in an unknown and untrustworthy state. We could even put a lock on the case. [computer that has had its lid ripped off]  I can see a lot of benefits to this, but there downsides, too. [Self-driving car] Consider self-driving cars. There's a lot of these around already, of course, designed by Google and others. It's easy to understand, how, on the one hand, self-driving cars are an incredibly great development. We are terrible drivers, and cars kill the shit out of us. It's the number 1 cause of death in America for people aged 5-34. [Mortality chart] I've been hit by a car. I've cracked up a car. I'm willing to stipulate that humans have no business driving at all. It's also easy to understand how we might be nervous about people being able to homebrew their own car firmware. On one hand, we'd want the source to cars to be open because we'd want to subject it to wide scrutiny. On the other hand, it will be plausible to say, "Cars are safer if they use a locked bootloader that only trusts government-certified firmware". And now we're back to whether you get to decide what your computer is doing. But there are two problems with this solution: First, it won't work. As the copyright wars have shown up, firmware locks aren't very effective against dedicated attackers. People who want to spread mayhem with custom firmware will be able to just that. What's more, it's not a good security approach: if vehicular security models depend on all the other vehicles being well-behaved and the unexpected never arising, we are dead meat. Self-driving cars must be conservative in their approach to their own conduct, and liberal in their expectations of others' conduct. [Defensive driving driver's ed sign/scan] This is the same advice you get in your first day of driver's ed, and it remains good advice even if the car is driving itself. Second, it invites some pretty sticky parallels. Remember the "information superhighway"? Say we try to secure our physical roads by demanding that the state (or a state-like entity) gets to certify the firmware of the devices that cruise its lanes. How would we articulate a policy addressing the devices on our (equally vital) metaphorical roads—with comparable firmware locks for PCs, phones, tablets, and other devices? After all, the general-purpose network means that MRIs, space-ships, and air-traffic control systems share the "information superhighway" with game consoles, Arduino-linked fart machines, and dodgy voyeur cams sold by spammers from the Pearl River Delta. And consider avionics and power-station automation. [Nuclear towers] This is a much trickier one. If the FAA mandates a certain firmware for 747s, it's probably going to want those 747s designed so that it and it alone controls the signing keys for their bootloaders. Likewise, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will want the final say on the firmware for the reactor piles. This may be a problem for the same reason that a ban on modifying car firmware is: it establishes the idea that a good way to solve problems is to let "the authorities" control your software. But it may be that airplanes and nukes are already so regulated that an additional layer of regulation wouldn't leak out into other areas of daily life — nukes and planes are subject to an extraordinary amount of no-notice inspection and reporting requirements that are unique to their industries. Second, there's a bigger problem with "owner controls": what about people who use computers, but don't own them? This is not a group of people that the IT industry has a lot of sympathy for, on the whole. [Encrufted desktop] An enormous amount of energy has been devoted to stopping non-owning users from inadvertently breaking the computers they are using, downloading menu-bars, typing random crap they find on the Internet into the terminal, inserting malware-infected USB sticks, installing plugins or untrustworthy certificates, or punching holes in the network perimeter. Energy is also spent stopping users from doing deliberately bad things, too. They install keyloggers and spyware to ensnare future users, misappropriate secrets, snoop on network traffic, break their machines and disable the firewalls. There's a symmetry here. DRM and its cousins are deployed by people who believe you can't and shouldn't be trusted to set policy on the computer you own. Likewise, IT systems are deployed by computer owners who believe that computer users can't be trusted to set policy on the computers they use. As a former sysadmin and CIO, I'm not going to pretend that users aren't a challenge. But there are good reasons to treat users as having rights to set policy on computers they don't own. Let's start with the business case. When we demand freedom for owners, we do so for lots of reasons, but an important one is that computer programmers can't anticipate all the contingencies that their code might run up against — that when the computer says yes, you might need to still say no. This is the idea that owners possess local situational awareness that can't be perfectly captured by a series of nested if/then statements. It's also where communist and libertarianis principles converge: [Hayek] • Friedrich Hayek thought that expertise was a diffuse thing, and that you were more likely to find the situational awareness necessary for good decisionmaking very close to the decision itself — devolution gives better results that centralization. • Karl Marx believed in the legitimacy of workers' claims over their working environment, saying that the contribution of labor was just as important as the contibution of capital, and demanded that workers be treated as the rightful "owners" of their workplace, with the power to set policy. [Coalface] For totally opposite reasons, they both believed that the people at the coalface should be given as much power as possible. The death of mainframes was attended by an awful lot of concern over users and what they might do to the enterprise. In those days, users were even more constrained than they are today. They could only see the screens the mainframe let them see, and only undertake the operations the mainframe let them undertake. When the PC and Visicalc and Lotus 1-2-3 appeared, employees risked termination by bringing those machines into the office— or by taking home office data to use with those machines. Workers developed computing needs that couldn't be met within the constraints set by the firm and its IT department, and didn't think that the legitimacy of their needs would be recognized. The standard responses would involve some combination of the following: • Our regulatory compliance prohibits the thing that will help you do your job better. • If you do your job that way, we won't know if your results are correct. • You only think you want to do that. • It is impossible to make a computer do what you want it to do. • Corporate policy prohibits this. These may be true. But often they aren't, and even when they are, they're the kind of "truths" that we give bright young geeks millions of dollars in venture capital to falsify—even as middle-aged admin assistants get written up by HR for trying to do the same thing. The personal computer arrived in the enterprise by the back door, over the objections of IT, without the knowledge of management, at the risk of censure and termination. Then it made the companies that fought it billions. Trillions. Giving workers powerful, flexible tools was good for firms because people are generally smart and want to do their jobs well. They know stuff their bosses don't know. So, as an owner, you don't want the devices you buy to be locked, because you might want to do something the designer didn't anticipate. And employees don't want the devices they use all day locked, because they might want to do something useful that the IT dept didn't anticipate. This is the soul of Hayekism — we're smarter at the edge than we are in the middle. The business world pays a lot of lip service to Hayek's 1940s ideas about free markets. But when it comes to freedom within the companies they run, they're stuck a good 50 years earlier, mired in the ideology of Frederick Winslow Taylor and his "scientific management". In this way of seeing things, workers are just an unreliable type of machine whose movements and actions should be scripted by an all-knowing management consultant, who would work with the equally-wise company bosses to determine the one true way to do your job. It's about as "scientific" as trepanation or Myers-Briggs personality tests; it's the ideology that let Toyota cream Detroit's big three. [GM v Toyota earnings] So, letting enterprise users do the stuff they think will allow them to make more money for their companies will sometimes make their companies more money. That's the business case for user rights. It's a good one, but really I just wanted to get it out of the way so that I could get down to the real meat: Human rights. [Another Human Rights Now fist]  This may seem a little weird on its face, but bear with me. Earlier this year, I saw a talk by Hugh Herr, Director of the Biomechatronics group at The MIT Media Lab. Herr's talks are electrifying. He starts out with a bunch of slides of cool prostheses: Legs and feet, hands and arms, and even a device that uses focused magnetism to suppress activity in the brains of people with severe, untreatable depression, to amazing effect. Then he shows this slide of him climbing a mountain. He's buff, he's clinging to the rock like a gecko. And he doesn't have any legs: just these cool mountain climbing prostheses. Herr looks at the audience from where he's standing, and he says, "Oh yeah, didn't I mention it? I don't have any legs, I lost them to frostbite." He rolls up his trouser legs to show off these amazing robotic gams, and proceeds to run up and down the stage like a mountain goat. The first question anyone asked was, "How much did they cost?" He named a sum that would buy you a nice brownstone in central Manhattan or a terraced Victorian in zone one in London. The second question asked was, "Well, who will be able to afford these? To which Herr answered "Everyone. If you have to choose between a 40-year mortgage on a house and a 40-year mortgage on legs, you're going to choose legs" So it's easy to consider the possibility that there are going to be people — potentially a lot of people — who are "users" of computers that they don't own, and where those computers are part of their bodies. [Cochlear implant] Mmost of the tech world understands why you, as the owner of your cochlear implants, should be legally allowed to choose the firmware for them. After all, when you own a device that is surgically implanted in your skull, it makes a lot of sense that you have the freedom to change software vendors. Maybe the company that made your implant has the very best signal processing algorithm right now, but if a competitor patents a superior algorithm next year, should you be doomed to inferior hearing for the rest of your life? And what if the company that made your ears went bankrupt? What if sloppy or sneaky code let bad guys do bad things to your hearing? These problems can only be overcome by the unambiguous right to change the software, even if the company that made your implants is still a going concern. That will help owners. But what about users? Consider some of the following scenarios: • You are a minor child and your deeply religious parents pay for your cochlear implants, and ask for the software that makes it impossible for you to hear blasphemy. • You are broke, and a commercial company wants to sell you ad-supported implants that listen in on your conversations and insert "discussions about the brands you love". • Your government is willing to install cochlear implants, but they will archive everything you hear and review it without your knowledge or consent. Far-fetched? The Canadian border agency was just forced to abandon a plan to fill the nation's airports with hidden high-sensitivity mics that were intended to record everyone's conversations. Will the Iranian government, or Chinese government, take advantage of this if they get the chance? Speaking of Iran and China, there are plenty of human rights activists who believe that boot-locking is the start of a human rights disaster. It's no secret that high-tech companies have been happy to build "lawful intercept" back-doors into their equipment to allow for warrantless, secret access to communications. As these backdoors are now standard, the capability is still there even if your country doesn't want it. In Greece, there is no legal requirement for lawful intercept on telcoms equipment. During the 2004/5 Olympic bidding process, an unknown person or agency switched on the dormant capability, harvested an unknown quantity of private communications from the highest level, and switched it off again Surveillance in the middle of the network is nowhere near as interesting as surveillance at the edge. As the ghosts of Messrs Hayek and Marx will tell you, there's a lot of interesting stuff happening at the coal-face that never makes it back to the central office. Even "democratic" governments know this. That's why the Bavarian government was illegally installing the "bundestrojan" — literally, state-trojan — on peoples' computers, gaining access to their files and keystrokes and much else besides. So it's a safe bet that the totalitarian governments will happily take advantage of boot-locking and move the surveillance right into the box. You may not import a computer into Iran unless you limit its trust-model so that it only boots up operating systems with lawful intercept backdoors built into it. Now, with an owner-controls model, the first person to use a machine gets to initialize the list of trusted keys and then lock it with a secret or other authorization token. What this means is that the state customs authority must initialize each machine before it passes into the country. Maybe you'll be able to do something to override the trust model. But by design, such a system will be heavily tamper-evident, meaning that a secret policeman or informant can tell at a glance whether you've locked the state out of your computer. And it's not just repressive states, of course, who will be interested in this. Remember that there are four major customers for the existing censorware/spyware/lockware industry: repressive governments, large corporations, schools, and paranoid parents. [Kid-tracking software] The technical needs of helicopter mums, school systems and enterprises are convergent with those of the governments of Syria and China. They may not share ideological ends, but they have awfully similar technical means to those ends. We are very forgiving of these institutions as they pursue their ends; you can do almost anything if you're protecting shareholders or children. For example, remember the widespread indignation, from all sides, when it was revealed that some companies were requiring prospective employees to hand over their Facebook login credentials as a condition of employment? These employers argued that they needed to review your lists of friends, and what you said to them in private, before determining whether you were suitable for employment. [Urine-tests] Facebook checks are the workplace urine test of the 21st century. They're a means of ensuring that your private life doesn't have any unsavoury secrets lurking in it, secrets that might compromise your work. The nation didn't buy this. From senate hearings to newspaper editorials, the country rose up against the practice. But no one seems to mind that many employers routinely insert their own intermediate keys into their employees' devices — phones, tablets and computers. This allows them to spy on your Internet traffic, even when it is "secure", with a lock showing in the browser. It gives your employer access to any sensitive site you access on the job, from your union's message board to your bank to Gmail to your HMO or doctor's private patient repository. And, of course, to everything on your Facebook page. There's wide consensus that this is OK, because the laptop, phone and tablet your employer issues to you are not your property. They are company property. And yet, the reason employers give us these mobile devices is because there is no longer any meaningful distinction between work and home. Corporate sociologists who study the way that we use our devices find time and again that employees are not capable of maintaining strict divisions between "work" and "personal" accounts and devices. [Desktop covered in mobile devices] America is the land of the 55-hour work-week, a country where few professionals take any meaningful vacation time, and when they do get away for a day or two, take their work-issued devices with them. Even in traditional workplaces, we recognized human rights. We don't put cameras in the toilets to curtail employee theft. If your spouse came by the office on your lunch break and the two of you went into the parking lot so that she or he could tell you that the doctor says the cancer is terminal, you'd be aghast and furious to discover that your employer had been spying on you with a hidden mic. But if you used your company laptop to access Facebook on your lunchbreak, wherein your spouse conveys to you that the cancer is terminal, you're supposed to be OK with the fact that your employer has been running a man-in-the-middle attack on your machine and now knows the most intimate details of your life. There are plenty of instances in which rich and powerful people — not just workers and children and prisoners — will be users instead of owners. Every car-rental agency would love to be able to lo-jack the cars they rent to you; remember, an automobile is just a computer you put your body into. They'd love to log all the places you drive to for "marketing" purposes and analytics. There's money to be made in finagling the firmware on the rental-car's GPS to ensure that your routes always take you past certain billboards or fast-food restaurants. [burger] But in general, the poorer and younger you are, the more likely you are to be a tenant farmer in some feudal lord's computational lands. The poorer and younger you are, the more likely it'll be that your legs will cease to walk if you get behind on payments. What this means is that any thug who buys your debts from a payday lender could literally — and legally — threaten to take your legs (or eyes, or ears, or arms, or insulin, or pacemaker) away if you failed to come up with the next installment. [Slimy collection notice] Earlier, I discussed how an owner override would work. It would involve some combination of physical access-control and tamper-evidence, designed to give owners of computers the power to know and control what bootloader and OS was running on their machine. How would a user-override work? An effective user-override would have to leave the underlying computer intact, so that when the owner took it back, she could be sure that it was in the state she believed it to be in. In other words, we need to protect users from owners and owners from users. Here's one model for that: Imagine that there is a bootloader that can reliably and accurately report on the kernels and OSes it finds on the drive. This is the prerequisite for state/corporate-controlled systems, owner-controlled systems, and user-controlled systems. Now, give the bootloader the power to suspend any running OS to disk, encrypting all its threads and parking them, and the power to select another OS from the network or an external drive. [Internet cafe] Say I walk into an Internet cafe, and there's an OS running that I can verify. It has a lawful interception back-door for the police, storing all my keystrokes, files and screens in an encrypted blob which the state can decrypt. I'm an attorney, doctor, corporate executive, or merely a human who doesn't like the idea of his private stuff being available to anyone who is friends with a dirty cop. So, at this point, I give the three-finger salute with the F-keys. This drops the computer into a minimal bootloader shell, one that invites me to give the net-address of an alternative OS, or to insert my own thumb-drive and boot into an operating system there instead. [Three finger salute] The cafe owner's OS is parked and I can't see inside it. But the bootloader can assure me that it is dormant and not spying on me as my OS fires up. When it's done, all my working files are trashed, and the minimal bootloader confirms it. This keeps the computer's owner from spying on me, and keeps me from leaving malware on the computer to attack its owner. There will be technological means of subverting this, but there is a world of difference between starting from a design spec that aims to protect users from owners (and vice-versa) than one that says that users must always be vulnerable to owners' dictates. Fundamentally, this is the difference between freedom and openness — between free software and open source. Now, human rights and property rights often come into conflict with one another. For example, landlords aren't allowed to enter your home without adequate notice. In many places, hotels can't throw you out if you overstay your reservation, provided that you pay the rack-rate for the rooms — that's why you often see these posted on the back of the room-door Reposession of leased goods — cars, for example — are limited by procedures that require notice and the opportunity to rebut claims of delinquent payments. When these laws are "streamlined" to make them easier for property holders, we often see human rights abuses. Consider robo-signing eviction mills, which used fraudulent declarations to evict homeowners who were up to date on their mortgages—and even some who didn't have mortgages. The potential for abuse in a world made of computers is much greater: your car drives itself to the repo yard. Your high-rise apartment building switches off its elevators and climate systems, stranding thousands of people until a disputed license payment is settled. Sounds fanciful? This has already happened with multi-level parking garages. Back in 2006, a 314-car Robotic Parking model RPS1000 garage in Hoboken, New Jersey, took all the cars in its guts hostage, locking down the software until the garage's owners paid a licensing bill that they disputed. They had to pay it, even as they maintained that they didn't owe anything. What the hell else were they going to do? And what will you do when your dispute with a vendor means that you go blind, or deaf, or lose the ability to walk, or become suicidally depressed? [Phrenology bust] The negotiating leverage that accrues to owners over users is total and terrifying. Users will be strongly incentivized to settle quickly, rather than face the dreadful penalties that could be visited on them in the event of dispute. And when the owner of the device is the state or a state-sized corporate actor, the potential for human rights abuses skyrockets. This is not to say that owner override is an unmitigated evil. Think of smart meters that can override your thermostat at peak loads. [Smart meter] Such meters allow us to switch off coal and other dirty power sources that can be varied up at peak times. [Dirty coal] But they work best if users — homeowners who have allowed the power-company to install a smart-meter — can't override the meters. What happens when griefers, crooks, or governments trying to quell popular rebellion use this to turn heat off during a hundred year storm? Or to crank heat to maximum during a heat-wave? The HVAC in your house can hold the power of life and death over you — do we really want it designed to allow remote parties to do stuff with it even if you disagree? The question is simple. Once we create a design norm of devices that users can't override, how far will that creep? Especially risky would be the use of owner override to offer payday loan-style services to vulnerable people: Can't afford artificial eyes for your kids? We'll subsidize them if you let us redirect their focus to sponsored toys and sugar-snacks at the store. Foreclosing on owner override, however, has its own downside. It probably means that there will be poor people who will not be offered some technology at all. If I can lo-jack your legs, I can lease them to you with the confidence of my power to repo them if you default on payments. If I can't, I may not lease you legs unless you've got a lot of money to begin with. But if your legs can decide to walk to the repo-depot without your consent, you will be totally screwed the day that muggers, rapists, griefers or the secret police figure out how to hijack that facility. [TV remote, labelled "legs" "arms" etc] It gets even more complicated, too, because you are the "user" of many systems in the most transitory ways: subway turnstiles, elevators, the blood-pressure cuff at the doctor's office, public buses or airplanes. It's going to be hard to figure out how to create "user overrides" that aren't nonsensical. We can start, though, by saying a "user" is someone who is the sole user of a device for a certain amount of time. This isn't a problem I know how to solve. Unlike the War on General Purpose Computers, the Civil War over them presents a series of conundra without (to me) any obvious solutions. These problems are a way off, and they only arise if we win the war over general purpose computing first But come victory day, when we start planning the constitutional congress for a world where regulating computers is acknowledged as the wrong way to solve problems, let's not paper over the division between property rights and human rights. This is the sort of division that, while it festers, puts the most vulnerable people in our society in harm's way. Agreeing to disagree on this one isn't good enough. We need to start thinking now about the principles we'll apply when the day comes. If we don't start now, it'll be too late.

Quote
Consumer reviews are powerful because, unlike old-style advertising and marketing, they offer the illusion of truth. They purport to be testimonials of real people, even though some are bought and sold just like everything else on the commercial Internet.
Mr. Liu estimates that about one-third of all consumer reviews on the Internet are fake. Yet it is all but impossible to tell when reviews were written by the marketers or retailers (or by the authors themselves under pseudonyms), by customers  (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/technology/for-2-a-star-a-retailer-gets-5-star-reviews.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1345248106-OebYTz66Bw0DArbY8JrOhA)(who might get a deal from a merchant for giving a good score) or by a hired third-party service. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/technology/finding-fake-reviews-online.html)

QuoteTODD RUTHERFORD was 7 years old when he first understood the nature of supply and demand. He was with a bunch of other boys, one of whom showed off a copy of Playboy to giggles and intense interest. Todd bought the magazine for $5, tore out the racy pictures and resold them to his chums for a buck apiece. He made $20 before his father shut him down a few hours later.
A few years ago, Mr. Rutherford, then in his mid-30s, had another flash of illumination about how scarcity opens the door to opportunity.
He was part of the marketing department of a company that provided services to self-published writers — services that included persuading traditional media and blogs to review the books. It was uphill work. He could churn out press releases all day long, trying to be noticed, but there is only so much space for the umpteenth vampire novel or yet another self-improvement manifesto or one more homespun recollection of times gone by. There were not enough reviewers to go around.
Suddenly it hit him. Instead of trying to cajole others to review a client's work, why not cut out the middleman and write the review himself? Then it would say exactly what the client wanted — that it was a terrific book. A shattering novel. A classic memoir. Will change your life. Lyrical and gripping, Stunning and compelling. Or words to that effect.
In the fall of 2010, Mr. Rutherford started a Web site, GettingBookReviews.com (http://gettingbookreviews.com/). At first, he advertised that he would review a book for $99. But some clients wanted a chorus proclaiming their excellence. So, for $499, Mr. Rutherford would do 20 online reviews. A few people needed a whole orchestra. For $999, he would do 50.
There were immediate complaints in online forums that the service was violating the sacred arm's-length relationship between reviewer and author. But there were also orders, a lot of them. Before he knew it, he was taking in $28,000 a month.
A polite fellow with a rakish goatee and an entrepreneurial bent, Mr. Rutherford has been on the edges of publishing for most of his career. Before working for the self-publishing house, he owned a distributor of inspirational books. Before that, he was sales manager for a religious publishing house. Nothing ever quite worked out as well as he hoped. With the reviews business, though, "it was like I hit the mother lode."
Reviews by ordinary people have become an essential mechanism for selling almost anything online; they are used for resorts, dermatologists, neighborhood restaurants, high-fashion boutiques, churches, parks, astrologers and healers — not to mention products like garbage pails, tweezers, spa slippers and cases for tablet computers. In many situations, these reviews are supplanting the marketing department, the press agent, advertisements, word of mouth and the professional critique.
But not just any kind of review will do. They have to be somewhere between enthusiastic and ecstatic.
"The wheels of online commerce run on positive reviews," said Bing Liu, a data-mining expert at the University of Illinois, Chicago (http://bit.ly/3qqmFf), whose 2008 research showed that 60 percent of the millions of product reviews on Amazon are five stars and an additional 20 percent are four stars. "But almost no one wants to write five-star reviews, so many of them have to be created."
Consumer reviews are powerful because, unlike old-style advertising and marketing, they offer the illusion of truth. They purport to be testimonials of real people, even though some are bought and sold just like everything else on the commercial Internet.
Mr. Liu estimates that about one-third of all consumer reviews on the Internet are fake. Yet it is all but impossible to tell when reviews were written by the marketers or retailers (or by the authors themselves under pseudonyms), by customers  (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/technology/for-2-a-star-a-retailer-gets-5-star-reviews.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1345248106-OebYTz66Bw0DArbY8JrOhA)(who might get a deal from a merchant for giving a good score) or by a hired third-party service. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/technology/finding-fake-reviews-online.html)
The Federal Trade Commission has issued guidelines stating that all online endorsements need to make clear when there is a financial relationship, but enforcement has been minimal and there has been a lot of confusion in the blogosphere over how this affects traditional book reviews.
The tale of GettingBookReviews.com (http://gettingbookreviews.com/), which commissioned 4,531 reviews in its brief existence, is a story of a vast but hidden corner of the Internet, where Potemkin villages bursting with ardor arise overnight. At the same time, it shows how the book world is being transformed by the surging popularity of electronic self-publishing.
For decades a largely stagnant industry controlled from New York, book publishing is fragmenting and changing at high speed. Twenty percent of Amazon's top-selling e-books are self-published. They do not get to the top without adulation, lots and lots of it.
Mr. Rutherford's insight was that reviews had lost their traditional function. They were no longer there to evaluate the book or even to describe it but simply to vouch for its credibility, the way doctors put their diplomas on examination room walls. A reader hears about a book because an author is promoting it, and then checks it out on Amazon. The reader sees favorable reviews and is reassured that he is not wasting his time.
"I was creating reviews that pointed out the positive things, not the negative things," Mr. Rutherford said. "These were marketing reviews, not editorial reviews."
In essence, they were blurbs, the little puffs on the backs of books in the old days, when all books were physical objects and sold in stores. No one took blurbs very seriously, but books looked naked without them.
One of Mr. Rutherford's clients, who confidently commissioned hundreds of reviews and didn't even require them to be favorable, subsequently became a best seller. This is proof, Mr. Rutherford said, that his notion was correct. Attention, despite being contrived, draws more attention.
The system is enough to make you a little skeptical, which is where Mr. Rutherford finds himself. He is now suspicious of all online reviews — of books or anything else. "When there are 20 positive and one negative, I'm going to go with the negative," he said. "I'm jaded."
Trainloads of Books
"If there was anything the human race had a sufficiency of, a sufficiency and a surfeit, it was books," the New Yorker writer Joseph Mitchell wrote in 1964. He reflected on "the cataracts of books, the Niagaras of books, the rushing rivers of books, the oceans of books, the tons and truckloads and trainloads of books that were pouring off the presses of the world at that moment," regretting that so few would be "worth picking up and looking at, let alone reading."
Since then, the pace of production has picked up quite a bit, although it is debatable whether Mr. Mitchell, who died in 1996, would be any more impressed by the quality. There has been a boom in what used to be called vanity publishers, which can efficiently produce physical copies that look just as good as anything from the traditional New York houses. But an even bigger factor is the explosion in electronic publishing. It used to take the same time to produce a book that it does to produce a baby. Now it takes about as long as boiling an egg.
In 2006, before Amazon supercharged electronic publishing with the Kindle, 51,237 self-published titles appeared as physical books, according to the data company Bowker (http://www.bowker.com/en-US/). Last year, Bowker estimates that more than 300,000 self-published titles were issued in either print or digital form.
"I don't know how many people have a book in them trying to get out, but if they do, all the barriers are being removed," said Kelly Gallagher, vice president of Bowker Market Research. "This is a golden age of being able to make yourself more widely known."
In theory, at least, good reviews are proof that a writer is finding his or her way, establishing an audience and has something worthwhile to say. So as soon as new authors confront that imperative line on their Amazon pages — "Be the first to review this item" — the temptation is great for them to start soliciting notices, at first among those closest at hand: family, friends and acquaintances. They want to be told how great they are.
"Nearly all human beings have unrealistically positive self-regard," said Robert I. Sutton, a Stanford professor and the author of several traditionally published books on business psychology. "When people tell us we're not as great as we thought we were, we don't like it. Anything less than a five-star review is an attack."
Mr. Sutton's best-known book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Asshole-Rule-Civilized-Workplace/dp/0446698202/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345233576&sr=8-1&keywords=Sutton+Assholes), about bullies in the workplace, had 110 five-star reviews on Amazon late last week, none of which he paid for but a few of which he says he solicited. He once asked his wife to review one of his books. To his disappointment, she refused.
Mr. Rutherford's customers faced no such setbacks. Mark Husson, author of "LoveScopes: What Astrology Knows About You and the Ones You Love," wrote in an online testimonial about GettingBookReviews.com (http://gettingbookreviews.com/) that "my review was more thorough than I expected. I wanted to go back out and buy my own book." On Amazon, "LoveScopes" had 70 reviews, 65 of which were five-star.
Peter Biadasz, a writer here in Tulsa, hired GettingBookReviews when he published "Write Your First Book." As a writing coach, he knows all about how writers obsess over bad reviews. "Nobody likes to hear their baby's ugly," he said. Still, he added: "I know the flaws in my book. I know my baby's not perfect."
But it is perfect, according to all 18 reviewers on Amazon, every one of whom gave it five stars.
"For me, it came out very favorably," Mr. Biadasz acknowledged. Most books, he cautioned, will not get such uniformly glowing notices.
This is true. For example, here's a derisive notice, recently posted on Amazon: "I was utterly bored." A second reader offered this: "Mediocre." A third: "This isn't good prose."
All three were offering their opinions of "The Great Gatsby." (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Gatsby-F-Scott-Fitzgerald/dp/0743273567/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345230337&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Great+Gatsby) Quite a few reviews of the book, the F. Scott Fitzgerald classic that's among the greatest American novels of the last century, deem it somewhere between so-so and poor.
Roland Hughes, another self-published writer, has a theory about this: "Reviews for the established classics tend to come from actual readers."
A computer programmer and novelist based in Illinois, Mr. Hughes, 48, says he has spent about $20,000 on review services. "I'd like to say I view it as an education," he wrote in an e-mail. His goal, not yet accomplished, is to make that difficult leap from "being an author" to "being a recognized author."
His thriller "Infinite Exposure" (http://www.infiniteexposure.net/) had an average rating of 4.5 stars out of 5 late last week on Barnes & Noble, while another of his books, "The Minimum You Need to Know to Be an OpenVMS Application Developer," got 5 out of 5.
"Some of these review services will actually ensure your title is read by someone who likes your genre of books," he added. "The last thing you want is someone who loves Christian and romance novels reviewing a science-fiction book which has no romance and calls into account the existence of God."
Finding the Reviewers
Traditional journalism jobs may be dwindling, but the Internet offers many new possibilities for writers. As soon as the orders started pouring in, Mr. Rutherford realized that he could not produce all the reviews himself.
How little, he wondered, could he pay freelance reviewers and still satisfy the authors? He figured on $15. He advertised on Craigslist and received 75 responses within 24 hours.
Potential reviewers were told that if they felt they could not give a book a five-star review, they should say so and would still be paid half their fee, Mr. Rutherford said. As you might guess, this hardly ever happened.
Amazon and other e-commerce sites have policies against paying for reviews. But Mr. Rutherford did not spend much time worrying about that. "I was just a pure capitalist," he said. Amazon declined to comment.
Mr. Rutherford's busiest reviewer was Brittany Walters-Bearden, (http://atlargepr.com/who-we-are/) now 24, a freelancer who had just returned to the United States from a stint in South Africa. She had recently married a former professional wrestler, and the newlyweds had run out of money and were living in a hotel in Las Vegas when she saw the job posting.
Ms. Walters-Bearden had the energy of youth and an upbeat attitude. "A lot of the books were trying to prove creationism," she said. "I was like, I don't know where I stand, but they make a solid case."
For a 50-word review, she said she could find "enough information on the Internet so that I didn't need to read anything, really." For a 300-word review, she said, "I spent about 15 minutes reading the book." She wrote three of each every week as well as press releases. In a few months, she earned $12,500.
"There were books I wished I could have gone back and actually read," she said. "But I had to produce 70 pieces of content a week to pay my bills."
An E-Book Best Seller
John Locke started as a door-to-door insurance salesman, was successful enough to buy his own insurance company, and then became a real estate investor. In 2009, he turned to writing fiction. By the middle of 2011, his nine novels, most of them suspense tales starring a former C.I.A. agent, Donovan Creed, had sold more than a million e-books through Amazon, making him the first (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1576066&highlight) self-published author to achieve that distinction.
Mr. Locke, now 61, has also published a nonfiction book, "How I Sold One Million E-Books in Five Months." (http://www.amazon.com/Sold-Million-eBooks-Months-ebook/dp/B0056BMK6K/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1345234107&sr=1-1) One reason for his success was that he priced his novels at 99 cents, which encouraged readers to take a chance on someone they didn't know. Another was his willingness to try to capture readers one at a time through blogging, Twitter posts and personalized e-mail, an approach that was effective but labor-intensive.
"My first marketing goal was to get five five-star reviews," he writes. "That's it. But you know what? It took me almost two months!" In the first nine months of his publishing career, he sold only a few thousand e-books. Then, in December 2010, he suddenly caught on and sold 15,000 e-books.
One thing that made a difference is not mentioned in "How I Sold One Million E-Books." That October, Mr. Locke commissioned Mr. Rutherford to order reviews for him, becoming one of the fledging service's best customers. "I will start with 50 for $1,000, and if it works and if you feel you have enough readers available, I would be glad to order many more," he wrote in an Oct. 13 e-mail to Mr. Rutherford.  "I'm ready to roll."
Mr. Locke was secure enough in his talents to say that he did not care what the reviews said. "If someone doesn't like my book," he instructed, "they should feel free to say so." He also asked that the reviewers make their book purchases directly from Amazon, which would then show up as an "Amazon verified purchase" and increase the review's credibility.
In a phone interview from his office in Louisville, Ky., Mr. Locke confirmed the transaction. "I wouldn't hesitate to buy reviews from people that were honest," he said. Even before using GettingBookReviews.com (http://gettingbookreviews.com/), he experimented with buying attention through reviews. "I reached out every way I knew to people to try to get them to read my books."
Many of the 300 reviews he bought through GettingBookReviews were highly favorable, although it's impossible to say whether this was because the reviewers genuinely liked the books, or because of their well-developed tendency toward approval, or some combination of the two.
Mr. Locke is unwilling to say that paying for reviews made a big difference. "Reviews are the smallest piece of being successful," he said. "But it's a lot easier to buy them than cultivating an audience."
Mr. Rutherford, who says he is a little miffed that the novelist never gave him proper credit, is more definitive. "It played a role, for sure," he said. "All those reviews said to potential readers, 'You'll like it, too.' "
End of a Venture
By early 2011, things were going swimmingly. Mr. Rutherford rented a small office in Tulsa and hired two assistants, including an editor who polished his reviews for $2 each. He had plans for a multimillion-dollar review business that went far beyond just books. But the end was near.
The collapse was hastened by a young Oregon woman, Ashly Lorenzana, who gave Mr. Rutherford and GettingBookReviews.com (http://gettingbookreviews.com/) perhaps their only bad review. Ms. Lorenzana (http://www.ashlylorenzana.com/), 24, self-published some of her journal entries as an exceedingly bleak book, "Sex, Drugs & Being an Escort" (http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Drugs-Being-Escort-ebook/dp/B004C446IC/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1345574043&sr=1-1&keywords=Ashly+Lorenzana) ("I hated today," reads one representative passage. "Today was full of hate. I hate, hate, hate.") In seeking some attention for it, she checked out Kirkus, a reviewing service founded in 1933 that has branched out into self-published books. Kirkus would review "Sex" for $425, a price that made her balk.
Another issue with Kirkus was that it did not guarantee its review would be positive. Ms. Lorenzana felt she would then be in the position of having spent a bundle just so someone she did not know could insult, belittle or devalue her work. On the Internet, you can usually get someone to do that free.
"You're taking a chance by putting your writing out there — a huge chance," she said. "You want validation that it's not a joke."
When Ms. Lorenzana found GettingBookReviews.com (http://gettingbookreviews.com/), $99 seemed reasonable. But the review did not show up as quickly as she expected. She posted a long, angry accusation against Mr. Rutherford and his service on several consumer sites, saying she had received better treatment (http://www.ripoffreport.com/computer-marketing-companies/afterword-marketing/afterword-marketing-group-todd-67edd.htm) from a reviewer whom she had hired for $5. ("You could tell that the person had really spent a few minutes checking out the information about my book and getting a feel for it before just diving into writing a meaningless review.")
Mr. Rutherford refunded her fee, but his problems were just beginning. Google suspended his advertising account, saying it did not approve of ads for favorable reviews. At about the same time, Amazon took down some, though not all, of his reviews. Mr. Rutherford dropped his first name in favor of his middle name, Jason, so that people who searched for him through Google would not automatically see Ms. Lorenzana's complaints.
These days, Mr. Rutherford is selling R.V.'s in Oklahoma City and planning a comeback in that narrow zone straddling what writers want and what the marketplace considers legitimate. Bowker, the data firm, says that as many as 600,000 self-published titles could appear in 2015, and they all will be needing their share of attention.
Mr. Rutherford tried to start another service, Authors Reviewing Authors — a scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours approach. Authors preferred receiving over giving, however, and that venture failed. Now he is developing a service where, for $99, he blogs and tweets about a book — he has 33,000 Twitter followers — and solicits reviews from bloggers and regular Amazon reviewers. No money is paid to the reviewers, so Google has approved ads for the service.
He says he regrets his venture into what he called "artificially embellished reviews" but argues that the market will take care of the problem of insincere overenthusiasm. "Objective consumers who purchase a book based on positive reviews will end up posting negative reviews if the work is not good," he said.
In other words, the (real) bad reviews will then drive out the (fake) good reviews. This seems to underestimate, however, the powerful motivations that writers have to rack up good reviews — and the ways they have to manipulate them until a better system comes along.
"It's a quagmire," Mr. Rutherford conceded.
A few months ago, he self-published a guide for aspiring authors called "The Publishing Guru on Writing." (http://www.amazon.com/The-Publishing-Guru-Writing-ebook/dp/B007A4Q0US/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1345569999&sr=1-1&keywords=Publishing+Guru+on+Writing) Late last week, it had one lone review on Amazon, two sentences from someone named Kelly. "Great advice," it read, giving the book five stars and, even more important, that all-important shot of credibility. Mr. Rutherford said he had no idea who Kelly was, but added, "I'm glad she liked it."

Quote
Many businesses today find themselves locked in an arms race with competitors to see who can convert customer secrets into the most pennies. To try to win, they are building perfect digital dossiers, to use a phrase coined by Daniel Solove (http://www.amazon.com/The-Digital-Person-Technology-Information/dp/0814740375), massive data stores containing hundreds, if not thousands or tens of thousands, of facts about every member of our society. In my work (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1450006), I've argued that these databases will grow to connect every individual to at least one closely guarded secret. This might be a secret about a medical condition, family history, or personal preference. It is a secret that, if revealed, would cause more than embarrassment or shame; it would lead to serious, concrete, devastating harm. And these companies are combining their data stores, which will give rise to a single, massive database. I call this the Database of Ruin (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1450006). Once we have created this database, it is unlikely we will ever be able to tear it apart.
I have become convinced that my earlier, bleak predictions about the Database of Ruin were in fact understated, arriving before it was clear how Big Data would accelerate the problem. Consider the most famous recent example of big data's utility in invading personal privacy: Target's analytics team can determine which shoppers are pregnant (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?_r=1), and even predict their delivery dates, by detecting subtle shifts in purchasing habits. This is only one of countless similarly invasive Big Data efforts being pursued. In the absence of intervention, soon companies will know things about us that we do not even know about ourselves. This is the exciting possibility of Big Data, but for privacy, it is a recipe for disaster.
If we stick to our current path, the Database of Ruin will become an inevitable fixture of our future landscape, one that will be littered with lives ruined by the exploitation of data assembled for profit. But we can chart a different course, in various ways. I think our brightest engineers can develop innovative privacy-enhancing technologies which will enable new techniques for data analytics that minimize costs to privacy. I hope that public institutions and industry, through self-regulation, will devise ways to better balance the burdens on privacy and the benefits of Big Data. If nothing else, I anticipate that society will slowly develop new norms for engaging with the massive amount of information collected about us, creating informal rules governing when and how it is appropriate to release, collect, and use data, the way minors have learned to speak and listen carefully on social networks.
But every one of these correctives requires the same thing: time. We need to slow things down, to give our institutions, individuals, and processes the time they need to find new and better solutions. The only way we will buy this time is if companies learn to say, "no" to some of the privacy-invading innovations they're pursuing. Executives should require those who work for them to justify new invasions of privacy against a heavy burden, weighing them against not only the financial upside, but also against the potential costs to individuals, society, and the firm's reputation. Companies should do this not only as matter of good corporate social responsibility, but also because it will likely square with the government's recommendations for protecting privacy, which seem to advise caution and deliberation, under the banner of "context."
Earlier this year, Federal government officials released two privacy reports — the White House's White Paper (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf) and the FTC's Final Privacy Report (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/03/privacyframework.shtm) — that together describe a national privacy policy for the foreseeable future. Although the two reports vary on some particulars, they both point to context as a central, important, and fundamental measuring stick we should use to assess decisions that bear on personal privacy.
The FTC report offers three broad recommendations: Privacy by Design, Simplified Choice for Businesses and Consumers, and Greater Transparency. In discussing the second recommendation — a call for simplified and more transparent choice — the FTC suggests a carve out. "Companies do not need to provide choice before collecting and using consumer data for practices that are consistent with the context of the transaction or the company's relationship with the consumer, or are required or specifically authorized by law." Under this standard, it might be "consistent with the context," for a company in a direct business relationship with a customer to use that customer's information to deliver ads for its other services, but it might be inconsistent with the context — thus requiring notice and choice — to sell that information to third-party advertisers, the FTC explains.
Similarly, the White House white paper defines a "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights," which would protect, among other things, "Respect for Context." "Consumers have a right to expect that companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data," the paper explains.
These parallel pronouncements mean that companies that deal with personal information (meaning all companies, really) need to focus much more often than they have on the history of privacy practices in their industries. Although neither report defines in depth what it means by the word "context," to me the message seems to be: do not push the privacy envelope. Companies that use personal information in ways that go well beyond the practices of their competitors risk crossing the line from responsible steward to reckless abuser of consumer privacy.
The lesson is plain: compete vigorously and beat your competitors in every legitimate way, except when it comes to privacy invasion. Too many companies have learned this lesson the hard way, launching invasive new services that have triggered class action lawsuits (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6119218-7.html), Congressional inquiries (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/congress-begins-deep-packet-inspection-of-internet-providers/), and media firestorms (http://gigaom.com/2007/11/06/facebook-beacon-privacy-issues/). These companies knew that they were treading where others had feared to go. This may have felt like an exciting opportunity. It should have felt instead like perilous risk-taking, because it meant hurtling beyond the contextual borderlands defined by past practice.

QuoteNjega očekuje zatvorska kazna u trajanju od godinu dana zbog kršenja autorskih prava, prenosi agencija AP.

Godfrid Svartholm Varg uhapšen je prošle nedelje, rekao je portparol policije Kambodže. On je, zajedno sa ostalim osnivačima pomenutog sajta osuđen od strane švedskog suda na godinu dana zatvora, a naređeno im je i da plate kaznu od 30 miliona kruna (3,6 miliona dolara).

Varg se nije pojavio na poslednjem saslušanju 2010. godine, a njegov advokat tada je rekao da se Varg razboleo u Kambodži i da se neće pojaviti na suđenju.

Osnivač The Pirate Baya trenutno se nalazi u zatvoru u Kambodži i čeka na ekstradiciju Švedskoj.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 27-08-2012, 11:22:02
Šta se događa sa vašom elektronskom bibliotekom knjiga ili kolekcijom digitalne muzike ili igara, kad umrete? Za sada, svi mi koji ove stvari kupujemo legalno, to radimo pod uslovima da su prava koja imamo spram materijala (licenca za njihovo korišćenje, ne i vlasništvo nad materijalom u bilo kom obliku) netransferabilna.

Who inherits your iTunes library? (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/who-inherits-your-itunes-library-2012-08-23) Why your digital books and music may go to the grave (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/who-inherits-your-itunes-library-2012-08-23) 

Quote

Many of us will accumulate vast libraries of digital books and music over the course of our lifetimes. But when we die, our collections of words and music may expire with us.
Someone who owned 10,000 hardcover books and the same number of vinyl records could bequeath them to descendants, but legal experts say passing on iTunes and Kindle libraries would be much more complicated.
And one's heirs stand to lose huge sums of money. "I find it hard to imagine a situation where a family would be OK with losing a collection of 10,000 books and songs," says Evan Carroll, co-author of "Your Digital Afterlife." "Legally dividing one account among several heirs would also be extremely difficult."
Part of the problem is that with digital content, one doesn't have the same rights as with print books and CDs. Customers own a license to use the digital files—but they don't actually own them.
Apple /quotes/zigman/68270/quotes/nls/aapl AAPL +0.09%   and Amazon.com /quotes/zigman/63011/quotes/nls/amzn AMZN +1.88%   grant "nontransferable" rights to use content, so if you buy the complete works of the Beatles on iTunes, you cannot give the White Album to your son and Abbey Road to your daughter.
According to Amazon's terms of use, "You do not acquire any ownership rights in the software or music content." Apple limits the use of digital files to Apple devices used by the account holder.
"That account is an asset and something of value," says Deirdre R. Wheatley-Liss, an estate planning attorney at Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard in Parsippany, N.J.
But can it be passed on to one's heirs?
Most digital content exists in a legal black hole. "The law is light years away from catching up with the types of assets we have in the 21st Century," says Wheatley-Liss. In recent years, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Indiana, Oklahoma and Idaho passed laws to allow executors and relatives access to email and social networking accounts of those who've died, but the regulations don't cover digital files purchased.
Apple and Amazon did not respond to requests for comment.
There are still few legal and practical ways to inherit e-books and digital music, experts say. And at least one lawyer has a plan to capitalize on what may become be a burgeoning market. David Goldman, a lawyer in Jacksonville, says he will next month launch software, DapTrust, to help estate planners create a legal trust for their clients' online accounts that hold music, e-books and movies. "With traditional estate planning and wills, there's no way to give the right to someone to access this kind of information after you're gone," he says.
Here's how it works: Goldman will sell his software for $150 directly to estate planners to store and manage digital accounts and passwords. And, while there are other online safe-deposit boxes like AssetLock and ExecutorSource that already do that, Goldman says his software contains instructions to create a legal trust for accounts. "Having access to digital content and having the legal right to use it are two totally different things," he says.
The simpler alternative is to just use your loved one's devices and accounts after they're gone—as long as you have the right passwords.
Chester Jankowski, a New York-based technology consultant, says he'd look for a way to get around the licensing code written into his 15,000 digital files. "Anyone who was tech-savvy could probably find a way to transfer those files onto their computer—without ending up in Guantanamo," he says. But experts say there should be an easier solution, and a way such content can be transferred to another's account or divided between several people."We need to reform and update intellectual-property law," says Dazza Greenwood, lecturer and researcher at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab.
Technology pros say the need for such reform is only going to become more pressing. "A significant portion of our assets is now digital," Carroll says. U.S. consumers spend nearly $30 on e-books and MP3 files every month, or $360 a year, according to e-commerce company Bango. Apple alone has sold 300 million iPods and 84 million iPads since their launches. Amazon doesn't release sales figures for the Kindle Fire, but analysts estimate it has nearly a quarter of the U.S. tablet market.

QuoteBruce Willis, the Hollywood actor, is said to be considering legal action against Apple so he can leave his iTunes music collection to his three daughters.

The 57-year-old action star has reportedly spent thousands of dollars on digital music, which he wants to leave to daughters Rumer, 24, Scout, 20, and Tallaluh, 18.

Existing iTunes rules mean he cannot do so however, as purchased music is only "borrowed" under a license.

If Willis is able to successfully challenge the small print, it could benefit millions of frustrated iTunes users who haven't had the resources to fight the technology giant.

He is said to be considering two approaches to the digital battle. His first option would be asking his lawyers to establish a family trust to hold the downloads.

A second approach would be supporting ongoing legal tussles in other US states, where complainants are already seeking to gain more rights to their music.

With more and more people buying digital media products, the issue of ownership is becoming an increasing problem with many not realising they do not hold the rights to their books, music, films or games.

Solicitor Chris Walton told The Daily Mail: "Lots of people will be surprised on learning all those tracks and books they have bought over the years don't actually belong to them. It's only natural you would want to pass them on to a loved one.

"The law will catch up, but ideally Apple and the like will update their policies and work out the best solution for their customers."

   
• Reply (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=242453178426212353)
• Retweet (https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=242453178426212353)
• Favorite (https://twitter.com/intent/favorite?tweet_id=242453178426212353)

   
• Reply (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=242454295113527296)
• Retweet (https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=242454295113527296)
• Favorite (https://twitter.com/intent/favorite?tweet_id=242454295113527296)