Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv

[Father Jape]

Pa preporuči neki!

[Professor]

Evo npr. http://scenefz.net/ rumunski treker. Samo treba da se seeduje 48 sati ili do odnosa 1, šta nastupi prvo što bi rekli u servisu automobila.

[Albedo 0]

jel treba tu neki kurac da se namješta sa fiksnom IP adresom, čeprkanjem po torent programu i slično


na karagargi sve to traže, ja ništa nisam mogao da pokrenem, iako sam slijedio uputstva


ne mogu da seedujem ništa na karagargi (na sreću, imam neki bonus pa me to drži), a pirat te automatski pretvara u seedera


kako stoje s tim ti Rumuni?

[Professor]

Mislim da ne treba ništa posebno da se podešava. Skineš torent fajl, otvoriš ga u programu i teraš.

[Albedo 0]

odlično, će da probamo, hvala!


EDIT: pa daj invite, profo, ne možemo bez invite-a da se udenemo
daj Japeu za početak, pa ćemoposlije mi da se raskusuramo

[Professor]

Nisam znao da mora invite. Ja sam se regularno registrovao. Sad ću bacim pogled.

[Albedo 0]

obično to tako ide, ili je ranije mogla registracija pa više ne, ili u nekom periodu u godini može, dok inače mora invite

[Professor]

Evo ovako, malo sam proučio situaciju i nije blistava . Imam 814 tih nekih njihovih seedpointa a invite košta 500. Dakle, imam jedan invite pa vi vidite kome da šaljem. Inače se poeni zarađuju tako što seedovanje 1 torenta 24 sata donosi 1 poen. Sad vidim da je bila otvorena registracije prošle godine oko Nove Godine pa obratite pažnju krajem meseca, možda bude opet.

[Father Jape]

Daj Bati, njemu je hitnije!

[Professor]

OK, nek' da bata mejl na PM pa šaljem.

[Albedo 0]

pa imam ja karagarga nalog, džaba i tu da se uvaljujem, možda krajem mjeseca, što reče profa

daj mu ga, Jape!

[Father Jape]

Ma mene mrzi da se bakćem sad sa svime time! Ne treba mi trenutno u životu prajvat treker.

[Albedo 0]

aman bre, pa ne moraš da skineš niti jedan film, samo se registruj

eventualno 1 da skineš i seeduješ ga 48 sati

poslije ne moraš mjesecima da uđeš na sajt, eventualno jednom mjesečno da bi vidjeli da je aktivan nalog

nije to toliko zahtjevno, lažu dušmani!

[Albedo 0]

eo mac čita topik, da njemu ponudimo kad se Jape izmotava!

[Albedo 0]

Sagitaši, dajem vam 24h da uzmete što vam se nudi, a onda ću da orobim Profesora za invite!

[Barbarin]

Lol ala pravite halabuku oko privatnih trakera. Ja sam od početka na njima, a ima jedno lako rešenje za seedovanje samo ne gasiš kom godinama i to je to. Ne brišeš čim pogledaš, i tako.
Ako neko oće da proba jedan sveopšti, znači ima sve nek mi pošalje mail. Medju zatvorenim trakerima ima dosta specijalizovanih, pa tako ima samo sa serijama samo sa filmovima samo sa hd filmovima sa igricama sa muzikom...

[Albedo 0]

ma to je zato što je Jape sumnjičav, kao da mu nudim ulogu u gej rnićpo, a ne treker

a koji ti je taj sveopšti, ako možemo mi smrtnici da čujemo ime

[mac]

eo mac čita topik, da njemu ponudimo kad se Jape izmotava!

Ne mogu ja da držim kompjuter uključen ceo dan, i da mi klijent okupira vezu kad hoću da se igram, ili gledam neki video. Nije to za mene.

[Barbarin]

iptorrents.com

Ne smeta torent pri gledanju i igranju ako je sve uredu sa kompom i konekcijom. Nije da je neko non stop nakačen na tvoj komp pa da skida, zato što mi imamo male brzine i svi se kače na ove sa velikim brzinama ili na seedbox koji je veoma popularan medju torentima.

[Albedo 0]

ama to Barbarin prećeruje, pa ja sam za 4 mjeseca na karagargi skinuo manje od 3 gigabajta

da sam skinuo 33 giga morao bih da držim komp upaljen čitav dan, ali većinu stvari nalazim izvan privatnih trekera (+ valjda ne mora 48h u cugu da se radi, to je besmisleno)

samo ono što nema niđe skidam s karagarge

tako Jape traži Bauhaus a neće da se registruje, a tamo možda ima eto neka mu profa provjeri

kao što neko reče, postoje i specijalizovani trekeri za muziku, normalno da ih nećeš upotrebljavati za nešto što je dostupno i na piratu

skidaš umjereno i igrice neće trpiti

no, baš me briga, ako vi nećete ima ko hoće!

[Barbarin]

Ja na ovom što sam naveo imam 1.4 tb uplouda (jedan deo je sa seedboxom) a skinuo sam 688gb

[Professor]

Može i da se ograniči upload ako treba za nešto drugo. Otkud oni znaju koji net ima neko. Plus Rumuni imaju opasan net, veliki upload pa se oni namire međusobno, neće da nam zamere . Bitno da se siduje. I uopšte ne mora da bude komp non stop uključen. 48 sati je otprilike 4-5 dana normalnog rada a toliko može da se izdrži da se ne obriše što se skine. Ja sam se navikao pa i na javnim trekerima ispoštujem i sidujem do 1/1 kadgod mogu

Sent from my Tesla_Tablet_785 using Tapatalk

[Albedo 0]

Barbarine, pa ti si brate semi-pro!




eto, i profa potvrdio da ne mora biti komp stalno uključen, ubrojaće oni 48h u nekoliko dana

[tomat]

čekajte, crkavao je pajrat bej i ranije, pa je vaskrsavao. nisam ispratio baš ovo poslednje gašenje, ali kontam da će to ubrzo biti rešeno.

ili ne?

[Albedo 0]

možda i hoće, mada je osnivač PB izjavio da ako se on pita - neće

na sreću se ne pita mnogo, ali oni koji se sada pitaju imaju dvije dileme, da li će dopasti zatvora kao i osnivač, i da li i dalje mogu nešto da zarade od održavanja sajta

stare hakerske etike zasigurno neće biti, nego će pare odlučiti

mada ni ovaj kikes nije loš, ima neke opcije koje nisam nalazio na PB, npr da pronađe sve ripove istog filma preko imdb koda

[tomat]

nije li taj osnivač odavno digao ruke od pajret beja? mislim, više nije ineteresna strana.

evo izvješće sa ruske televizije

http://rt.com/news/213387-pirate-bay-party-chairman/

[Ghoul]

IsoHunt unofficially resurrects The Pirate Bay



Torrent site isoHunt appears to have unofficially resurrected The Pirate Bay at oldpiratebay.org. At first glance, The Old Pirate Bay seems to be just a commemorative site for The Pirate Bay, which went down this week after police raided its data center in Sweden. Upon further inspection, however, it turns out the site is serving new content.

Various mirror sites of The Pirate Bay have sprung up since the site's disappearance, but this one is different. Some alternatives simply provide a copy of The Pirate Bay with no new content (many proxy sites have been doing this for years). Others, like thepiratebay.cr, go further and even provide fake content as if it was new and even attempt to charge users.

The Old Pirate Bay, on the other hand, doesn't claim to be a resurrection of the site, even though based on searches we conducted and files we tested, that's exactly what it has managed to achieve. This is much more than just a working archive of The Pirate Bay; it has a functioning search engine, all the old listings, and working magnet links. New content is being readily uploaded and downloaded.

Here is isoHunt's explanation for the launch of The Old Pirate Bay:

As you probably know the beloved Pirate Bay website is gone for now. It'll be missed. It'll be remembered as the pilgrim of freedom and possibilities on the web. It's a symbol of liberty for a generation of internet users.

In its honor we are making the oldpiratebay.org search. We, the isohunt.to team, copied the database of Pirate Bay in order to save it for generations of users. Nothing will be forgotten. Keep on believing, keep on sharing.
isoHunt may just be the best group to bring back The Pirate Bay, at least in some form. Launched in 2003 at isohunt.com, it quickly grew to become the third most popular torrent files index and repository by 2008.

After years of legal battles over allegations of copyright infringing activity, isoHunt settled with the MPAA, agreeing to a $110 million reimbursement for damages and the site's closure, which followed on October 21, 2013. It wasn't long before isohunt.to, the isoHunt of today, became the de facto replacement of the original site.

Given its roots, it really should be no surprise that isohunt.to decided to launch oldpiratebay.org. Unless The Pirate Bay returns at some point, this appears to be the best alternative, for now.

http://venturebeat.com/2014/12/12/isohunt-unofficially-resurrects-the-pirate-bay/

[Ghoul]

Pirate Bay Shutdown Has Had Virtually No Effect on Digital Piracy Levels

DECEMBER 13, 2014 | 11:11AM PT
Todd Spangler
NY Digital Editor
@xpangler

The Pirate Bay was deep-sixed this week in its home port of Stockholm, Sweden, after cops raided a data center hosting the world's most famous piracy organization. But its absence appears to have put hardly a dent in global piracy activity over the last four days.

On Monday, Dec. 8, a total of 101.5 million Internet addresses worldwide were engaged in torrent downloads of relevant titles tracked by anti-piracy firm Excipio (including movies, TV shows, music, videogames, software and other digital media). On Dec. 9, Swedish law-enforcement authorities — acting on a complaint from an anti-piracy group based in the country — descended on a Web-hosting facility used by Pirate Bay and confiscated its servers and other equipment.

The result: The total number of IP addresses engaged in peer-to-peer downloads of content tracked by Excipio dropped slightly from 99.0 million on Dec. 9 to 95.0 million and 95.6 million the following two days, before bouncing back to 100.2 million on Friday, Dec. 12. That's roughly in line with the daily average of 99.9 million since Nov. 1, according to Excipio.

While the Pirate Bay had attracted millions of users, pirates are still pillaging Hollywood content using any one of dozens of other sites or services.

For the six days ended Dec. 11, the top five pirated moves were 20th Century Fox's "The Maze Runner" (with 491,798 average daily piracy users per day), Marvel's "Guardians of the Galaxy" (470,182), "Lucy" (405,258), Sony Pictures' "Fury" (290,494) and Paramount Entertainment's "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" (265,581), per Excipio.

On the TV front, over the Dec. 6-11 period, pirates swarmed over AMC's "The Walking Dead" (717,190 average peers per day), followed by CW's "The Flash" (576,093), CW's "Arrow" (518,816), FX's "Sons of Anarchy" (427,167), Showtime Network's "Homeland" (413,620) and CBS' "The Big Bang Theory" (412,729).

The Pirate Bay, founded in Sweden in 2003, has been the target of multiple lawsuits, criminal prosecutions and police raids over the years.

Since the Swedish-hosted site of the Pirate Bay was unplugged from its website with the domain suffix .se, other sites have claimed to have picked up its mantle. But some of those are malware-laced fake sites, and others are opportunistic placeholders that do not replicate the original piracy haven.

In a blog this week by one of the piracy organization's founders, Peter Sunde (who goes by the online pseudonym "Brokep") wrote that the Pirate Bay had "no soul left" and that he didn't care if the site had been shut down. "It feels good that it might have closed down forever, just a real shame the way it did that," Sunde wrote.

http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/pirate-bay-shutdown-has-had-virtually-no-effect-on-digital-piracy-levels-1201378756/

[Albedo 0]

sat otkucava!

http://thepiratebay.se/

[Ugly MF]

haha, ptica fenix, hehe vaskrsava, hehe

[taurus-jor]

Govna su se izlila iz piratskog zaliva... bezveze.

https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-wont-make-a-full-comeback-staff-revolt-150127/


Pirate Bay Won't Make A Full Comeback, Staff Revolt

    By Ernesto
    on January 27, 2015

According to insiders The Pirate Bay will slim down its operations for the planned comeback. The new version of the site is expected to operate without former admins and moderators, who have responded furiously to the decision. Many key staffers have left the ship to launch their own TPB.

pirate bayJudging from all the teasers on the Pirate Bay homepage the notorious torrent site is preparing to relaunch this weekend.

Those in control of the domain have yet to make an official announcement but several sources inform TF that the site won't make a full comeback.

Instead, The Pirate Bay is expected to launch a trimmed down version without room for the dozens of moderators and admins who looked after the site over the past decade.

This lighter version of The Pirate Bay will be easier to operate but the plan has also upset many former staffers. This includes people who have been with the site for over a decade, removing fake torrents and other types of spam.

Several admins and moderators have responded to the news with anger and are now openly distancing themselves from the thepiratebay.se site that was their home for years.

"I wish I had better news to come with. The launch that is about to take place on February 1 is not us," says WTC-SWE, one of the lead admins of The Pirate Bay.

"It was until some dickhead decided to take TPB crew out of the picture. He thinks a site can be run without any staff at all and at the same time keeping up with fakes, internal issues etc," he adds.

What stings them the most is that many dedicated individuals, who put countless hours into keeping the site functioning, now appear to be being pushed aside on a whim.

"Personally I won't accept this neither will any of the crew that's been active for almost 10-11 years. As an admin and human, I won't stand aside and accept this kind of behavior. This is the worst scenario that could happen," WTC-SWE says.

"You don't treat people like horseshit," he adds.

The staff, now in open revolt, have closed the official #thepiratebay IRC channel on EFnet to the public. They won't offer support anymore for a site that they have no 'control' over, but warn people who do want to visit it to be cautious of malware.

Instead, the TPB former crew members are now preparing to launch their own version of the site. This spin-off will be operated from a new domain and will have several long-time mods and admins on board.

WTC-SWE says that they are in possession of a TPB backup which will be used to revive the old site in full. The full staff of moderators and admins remains under his wings and will start over at a home.

"It's only a matter of time. I will need to blast the whole coding and clean up all the mess. The real TPB will be back with proper staff and all," WTC-SWE says.

Thus far, the people running the official thepiratebay.se domain have remained quiet. In a few days, when the count-down completes, we are likely to know more about their vision for the site's future.

To be continued...

[Meho Krljic]

Koliko su današnji propisi o intelektualnoj svojini problematični vrlo se dobro vidi na primeru softverskih patenata - tu se već dugo vodi polemika između onih koji smatraju da je legitimno patentirati algoritam jer je to tehnologija koja obavlja posao kao i bilo koja druga i onih koji smatraju da je apsurdno omogućavati da se patentiraju algoritmi jer su to puki matematički iskazi a to ne bi trebalo da bude patentibilno. No, stvari sad postaju još apsurdnije jer su se pojavile firme koje imaju algoritme koji pišu patentne zahteve i neki od njih su već odobreni  Naravno, u pitanju je strategija sačmare - algoritam brljavi po tekstu, zamenjuje reči sinonimima i radi razne permutacija i od toga napravi  gomilu tekstova koji se svi podnesu na odobrenje pa ako prođu prođu, no, implikacije su svejedno zastrašujuće:


Two new 'startups' that could upend intellectual property laws

Two new startups relying on relatively similar technology have recently presented business models that could necessitate revisions to our intellectual property laws.
The first is Qentis, a "company" that is claiming (satirically, it appears) that its computers are in the process of generating essentially every possible combinations of words, preemptively copyrighting all creative text. The second is Cloem, a company that provides software (not satirically, it appears) to linguistically manipulate a seed set of a client's patent claims by, for example, substituting in synonyms or reordering steps in a process, thereby generating tens of thousands of potentially patentable inventions.
With respect to Qentis and the copyright laws, aspiring authors need not worry much about being accused of copyright infringement. The Copyright Office has already announced that it "will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author." Further, later creators cannot be held liable for copyright infringement if they independently created their own content. Conversely, it remains conceivable that Qentis could, if it subsequently but independently generated the Harry Potter series, compete with author J.K. Rowling in selling the books.
To date, however, decisions allowing parallel commercial exploitation of copyrighted works have involved subsequent works of authorship that were themselves copyrightable. It remains to be seen whether courts will prevent owners of works generated by brute computational force (and therefore not copyrightable) from piggybacking on the success of identical works first made popular by others.
With respect to Cloem and the patent laws, however, the situation is murkier. There is reason to believe that at least some of its computer-conceived inventions could be patentable and, indeed, patents have already been granted on inventions designed wholly or in part by software.
Interestingly, of a sample of patents we reviewed that were conceived wholly or in part by computers, none appear to have been individually sold to a private buyer, but given that many patents are never successfully monetized, our limited set of data points does not necessarily suggest that the market has issued its own de facto negative opinion about the patentability of computer-conceived inventions.
If Cloem's claims are patentable, it is unclear who would be qualify as an inventor. The patent statutes define "inventor" as an "individual" — not a computer. When multiple people work together, all that is required to be a joint inventor is that that person contributed to the conception of an important or necessary component of the claimed invention in a manner that required more than just the exercise of ordinary skill. The original inventors of the seed claims or its drafters would seem more likely than anyone else to be named as joint inventors. Cloem's software engineers, on the other hand, are less likely to be considered co-inventors. The patent laws require that each inventor must contribute some element of the invention, as an inventor may use "the services, ideas, and aid of others in the process of perfecting his invention without losing his right to a patent." A software engineer who simply wrote general-purpose claim-generating code seemingly would have contributed merely a tool used by others rather than an important or necessary element of the claimed invention.
Inventorship questions such as these are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other potential uses for Cloem's claims, such as defensive prior art, that we have not touched upon here. A more comprehensive study of these uses and the novel legal questions they raise will be detailed in a forthcoming law journal article. But with respect to patentability, the policy underlying current patent law might suggest that treating Cloem's claims as patentable could be appropriate.
Why would the Patent Office not grant patents on computer-generated claims if they are useful, novel, non-obvious, and supported by a clear, enabling written description — just like any other patented claims? Allowing such patents would reward not only those that perform the manual labor of identifying useful inventions amidst the heap of computer-generated claims but also companies such as Cloem that develop and improve computerized invention software itself.
Cloem's software arguably accelerates inventive activity, and that acceleration is, in and of itself, the type of innovation that society should desire to — and already does — reward with patents.

[Barbarin]

patentirali su semenku patentiraće i brojke

[Meho Krljic]

Ohrabrujuće vesti:
FCC Passes Strongest Net Neutrality Rules In America's History

The open internet finally got the protection it deserves from profit-hungry cable companies. The FCC just approved the strongest set of net neutrality rules in this country's history, punctuating a years-long battle for this future of the internet. However, the war's not yet over.

The new rules largely resemble the open internet rules that Obama laid out three months ago. They forbid paid prioritization—the practice that enables cable companies to create internet "fast lanes"—as well as throttling. The new rules do not allow internet service providers to block websites and give the FCC authority to intervene when big cable companies don't act in the public interest.

In a nutshell, this plan lets the FCC regulate the internet as a public utility, much like telephones. The plan does not give the government the power to set the price of internet service.

This is all fantastic news, and it's news we've been waiting years to hear. However, the next battle for the future of the internet will happen in America's courtrooms and possibly in Congress as well. Several cable companies have already expressed intentions to sue the FCC over the rules, and those cases could drag out for years. These court cases are particularly dangerous. In 2011, a Verizon lawsuit led to a judge overruling the FCC's old net neutrality rules.

But for now, these are the rules that internet experts agree are the best way to preserve net neutrality. This is the outcome that America deserves.

[Meho Krljic]

Kimu Doktomu ne daju da diše:



Under U.S. Pressure, PayPal Nukes Mega For Encrypting Files

After coming under intense pressure PayPal has closed the account of cloud-storage service Mega. According to the company, SOPA proponent Senator Patrick Leahy personally pressured Visa and Mastercard who in turn called on PayPal to terminate the account. Bizarrely, Mega's encryption is being cited as a key problem.


During September 2014, the Digital Citizens Alliance and Netnames teamed up to publish a brand new report. Titled 'Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions,' it offered insight into the finances of some of the world's most popular cyberlocker sites. The report had its issues, however. While many of the sites covered might at best be considered dubious, the inclusion of Mega.co.nz – the most scrutinized file-hosting startup in history – was a real head scratcher. Mega conforms with all relevant laws and responds quickly whenever content owners need something removed. By any standard the company lives up to the requirements of the DMCA.
"We consider the report grossly untrue and highly defamatory of Mega," Mega CEO Graham Gaylard told TF at the time. But now, just five months on, Mega's inclusion in the report has come back to bite the company in a big way.
Speaking via email with TorrentFreak this morning, Gaylard highlighted the company's latest battle, one which has seen the company become unable to process payments from customers. It's all connected with the NetNames report and has even seen the direct involvement of a U.S. politician.


According to Mega, following the publication of the report last September, SOPA and PIPA proponent Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont, Chair Senate Judiciary Committee) put Visa and MasterCard under pressure to stop providing payment services to the 'rogue' companies listed in the NetNames report.
Following Leahy's intervention, Visa and MasterCard then pressured PayPal to cease providing payment processing services to MEGA. As a result, Mega is no longer able to process payments.
"It is very disappointing to say the least. PayPal has been under huge pressure," Gaylard told TF.
The company did not go without a fight, however.
"MEGA provided extensive statistics and other evidence showing that MEGA's business is legitimate and legally compliant. After discussions that appeared to satisfy PayPal's queries, MEGA authorised PayPal to share that material with Visa and MasterCard. Eventually PayPal made a non-negotiable decision to immediately terminate services to MEGA," the company explains.


What makes the situation more unusual is that PayPal reportedly apologized to Mega for its withdrawal while acknowledging that company's business is indeed legitimate.
However, PayPal also advised that Mega's unique selling point – it's end-to-end-encryption – was a key concern for the processor.
"MEGA has demonstrated that it is as compliant with its legal obligations as USA cloud storage services operated by Google, Microsoft, Apple, Dropbox, Box, Spideroak etc, but PayPal has advised that MEGA's 'unique encryption model' presents an insurmountable difficulty," Mega explains.
As of now, Mega is unable to process payments but is working on finding a replacement. In the meantime the company is waiving all storage limits and will not suspend any accounts for non-payment. All accounts have had their subscriptions extended by two months, free of charge.
Mega indicates that it will ride out the storm and will not bow to pressure nor compromise the privacy of its users.
"MEGA supplies cloud storage services to more than 15 million registered customers in more than 200 countries. MEGA will not compromise its end-to-end user controlled encryption model and is proud to not be part of the USA business network that discriminates against legitimate international businesses," the company concludes.

[Meho Krljic]

Evo kako se vremena menjaju a sa njima i paradigme. Godinama unazad, kada se govorilo o softverskoj pirateriji i intelektualnoj svojini, korišćene su tzv. "automobilske analogije", od kojih je najpoznatija ona "you wouldn't download a car". Industrija je imala, jelte, dobru nameru da nas poduči kako je intelektualna svojina naprosto svojina kao svaka druga i da to što se njome lako manipuliše i lako se duplicira ne treba da bude signal da je u redu kršiti zakone i uzimati nešto tuđe, jelte. Automobil je u ovim analogijama bio paradigma "prave" svojine, materijalni, fizički predmet kojim se ne može tako lako manipulisati i koji se transparentno kupuje, prodaje i preprodaje i nikom ne pada na pamet da ga duplicira, da po njemu čačka i daunlouduje ga, onako kako ljudi rade sa softverom (igrama, filmovima, muzikom, stripovima).

Deceniju kasnije, ups, proizvođači automobila u SAD su u velikoj kampanji da automobili budu tretirani kao intelektualna svojina (barem softver koji je u njih ugrađen) kako bi došli pod zaštitu DMCA i druge legislative koja povremeno zbilja drakonskim merama štiti tu svojinu ne samo od dupliciranja već i od ikakvog neovlašćenog manipulisanja njom (DMCA je zakon koji eksplicitno zabranjuje i kriminalizuje inače benigne manipulacije kodom, ako one potencijalno mogu da dovedu do toga da neko negde prekrši zakon). Dakle, "you wouldn't download a car" se pretvorilo u "Ako ste stekli naviku da čačkate po sopstvenim kolima, modifikujete ih, dotežete, menjate sklopove, budžite delove i generalno se ponašate kao i svaki automobilski entuzijast u istoriji entuzijazma, spremite se da vas posete naši advokati". I to je zastrašujuće jer ako smo prihvatili da ne posedujemo više svoju muziku, igre i filmove onda kada su prešli na internet, sad treba da se naviknemo i na to da ne posedujemo svoja kola. Ja doduše zbilja i nema mauto, pa čak ni vozačku dozvolu, pa na ovo sve gledam iz, jelte, sociološke radoznalosti. U svakom slučaju, prirodno je bilo očekivati da će krupni kapital replicirati strategije iz drugih domena industrije, kako bi gušio konkurenciju i veštački vezivao mušterije isključivo za svoje servise koji ne moraju biti ni najbolji ni najjeftiniji.



Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars

Automakers are supporting provisions in copyright law that could prohibit home mechanics and car enthusiasts from repairing and modifying their own vehicles.

In comments filed with a federal agency that will determine whether tinkering with a car constitutes a copyright violation, OEMs and their main lobbying organization say cars have become too complex and dangerous for consumers and third parties to handle.

Allowing them to continue to fix their cars has become "legally problematic," according to a written statement from the Auto Alliance, the main lobbying arm of automakers.

The dispute arises from a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that no one thought could apply to vehicles when it was signed into law in 1998. But now, in an era where cars are rolling computing platforms, the U.S. Copyright Office is examining whether provisions of the law that protect intellectual property should prohibit people from modifying and tuning their cars.

Every three years, the office holds hearings on whether certain activities should be exempt from the DMCA's section 1201, which governs technological measures that protect copyrighted work. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for individual rights in the digital world, has asked the office to ensure that enthusiasts can continue working on cars by providing exemptions that would give them the right to access necessary car components.

Interested parties have until the end of the month to file comments on the proposed rule making, and a final decision is expected by mid-year.

In comments submitted so far, automakers have expressed concern that allowing outsiders to access electronic control units that run critical vehicle functions like steering, throttle inputs and braking "leads to an imbalance by which the negative consequences far outweigh any suggested benefits," according to the Alliance of Global Automakers. In the worst cases, the organizations said an exemption for enthusiasts "leads to disastrous consequences."

Complex Software, Increased Risk

Industry concerns are mounting that modifying these ECUs and the software coding that runs them could lead to vulnerabilities in vehicle safety and cyber security. Imagine an amateur makes a coding mistake that causes brakes to fail and a car crash ensues. Furthermore, automakers say these modifications could render cars non-compliant with environmental laws that regulate emissions.

But exemptions from the DMCA don't give third parties the right to infringe upon existing copyrights. Nor does an exemption mean consumers don't have to abide by other laws and rules that govern vehicles passed by the National Highway Traffic Administration, Environmental Protection Agency or U.S. Patent and Trade Office.

"It's not a new thing to be able to repair and modify cars," said Kit Walsh, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's actually a new thing to keep people from doing it. There are these specialized agencies that govern what vehicles can lawfully be used for on the road, and they have not seen fit to stop them from repairing cars."

Aftermarket suppliers and home enthusiasts have been modifying ECUs for years without dire consequences. By tweaking the ECU codes, a process sometimes known as "chipping," they've boosted horsepower, improved fuel efficiency, established performance limits for teen drivers and enhanced countless other features. These innovations have contributed to a "decades-old tradition of mechanical curiosity and self-reliance," according to the EFF.

Those innovations could be curbed precisely at a time that automakers believe personalization of vehicles is emerging as a significant trend. Software is allowing for all sorts of technology, such as 4G LTE wireless connections, and motorists can use this software to choose from an increasing array of infotainment options. But the car companies, paradoxically, want to be the ones doing the personalizing.

The EFF thinks the industry's desire to block exemptions has more to do with profits than safety. As software becomes easier to update, automakers could sell these performance upgrades on an a la carte basis. Because a favorable ruling would strengthen their control of the software, the car companies could potentially force consumers to only have their vehicles fixed at their dealerships or preferred repair shops.

Last September, Ford took steps toward consolidating such control, filing a lawsuit against Autel US Inc., a diagnostic-equipment manufacturer based in Huntington, New York. Ford alleges the company unlawfully copied trade secrets and accessed on-board computer systems that relay technical information on diagnostic codes and repair data. The EFF says consumers should have the right to have their cars fixed by independent mechanics.

Jennifer Dukarski, an intellectual property and technology attorney from Michigan firm Butzel Long, said there's an additional reason automakers are getting more aggressive in the copyright realm. Court rulings in recent years have eroded their patent protections, so they're searching for alternate ways to protect investments in research and development.

"With a limited scope of protection," she said, "they're saying, 'OK, if I can't protect this via patent, how am I going to lock everything down? What's my next-best tool?' And I think using copyright law, it is kind of the only protection outside the idea of trade secrets. The problem is you're in a situation with a host of competing interests, and those are how much freedom will you let car owners have? What's the relationship with the information in this car you bought?"

Another question central to balancing the competing interests in the proposed exemptions: Once customers purchase a device, must they only use it specifically as the manufacturer intended or can they modify it for their own particular needs?



GM: Telematics Industry Threatened

For their part, manufacturers say they're more concerned about potential losses than new revenue streams. Tinkering with the ECUs can void a car owner's warranty, but automakers remain concerned with their liability if third parties make changes that could result in physical or financial harm. They noted unsavory mechanics could easily manipulate odometers, and make cars appear to have fewer miles on them than they actually do, a problem for unsuspecting used-car buyers.

Granting exemptions would "deliberately weaken" protections put in place to ensure safe operation and regulatory mandates, General Motors said. Without such protection, the company said it would re-evaluate its entire electronic architecture. It could take the draconian step of removing telematics units, which control many real-time safety and infotainment features, from cars entirely.

Exemptions "would offer a serious, and potentially fatal, blow to the future of automotive telematics," GM wrote in its comments. "Absent this protection, vehicle manufacturers, including GM, may be forced to consider reducing offerings or withdrawing these systems from the market."

The Copyright Office has granted exemptions to the law in the past, and will consider 27 different exemption requests in its current deliberations. Most of the proposed exemptions have nothing to do with the automotive, covering copyright issues on everything from medical devices to eBooks to smart televisions.

"What's interesting is this is a unique situation," Dukarski said. "A lot of those exceptions are simple and straightforward. These ones, you've got some oddball nuances about reverse engineering, and it depends on how you're looking at things. ... "You have to question, 'How secure does it need to be? Does it affect a safety system?' You are dealing with a much more nuanced issue, and the results are tangible."


Automakers: We Know Our Cars Better

Manufacturers and their lobbyists have submitted comments on six of the 27 proposals. The specific topics cover: unlocking mobile connectivity devices, unlocking consumer machines, jailbreaking all-purpose mobile computing devices, vehicle software diagnosis repair and modification, and software security and safety research.

If there's a recurring theme in the comments beyond their assertions of ownership, it's that they say they know the intricacies of these ever-more-complicated software systems better than consumers and third parties. The Association of Global Automakers says the manufacturers and their suppliers "best understand the interdependence of automotive systems and are in the best position to know whether a modification, regardless of how slight, would disrupt another system."

Comments from equipment manufacturer John Deere took a more condescending tone toward independent and amateur mechanics, noting that circumventing protected technology should be "against public policy because individual vehicle owners do not have the technological resources to provide safe, reliable and lawful software for repair, diagnosis or some dubious 'aftermarket personalization, modification or other improvement' that is not directed toward repair or diagnosis of the vehicle."

Yet manufacturers have sometimes failed to find flaws in their own products or understand the relationships between various systems. In Congressional hearings devoted to uncovering why General Motors took no action for a decade in fixing a deadly defect in ignition switches, lawmakers noted the company failed to understand the connection between the ignition switch moving to the "accessory" position and airbag non-deployments. At latest count, at least 84 motorists have been killed in accidents caused by the defect.

Perhaps as troubling, auto-industry leaders failed in recent years to recognize countless cyber-security vulnerabilities in vehicles. It wasn't until outside researchers conducted high-profile and sometimes embarrassing demonstrations of how cars can be hacked before automakers took steps to address cyber threats. Without an exemption, this sort of research could be illegal.

In that respect, cyber-security security researchers might enhance vehicle safety more than the occasional amateur error may cause harm. All the more reason, Walsh said, that automakers and independents should be considered on equal footing.

"It's just a myth that the manufacturers are the only people who can make improvements," he said. "That's why maintaining that choice is really important."

[Father Jape]

Dobro, ionako uskoro nećemo ni voziti ta kola, pa što bismo ih onda posedovali?

[Meho Krljic]

Ja ih, kako rekoh, ne vozim (niti posedujem) ni sad, ali po inerciji uskoro nećemo posedovati ni svoje stanove, odeću, kompjutere itd. 

[tomat]

interesantan članak o ranim danima i razvoju muzičke internet piraterije

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/27/the-man-who-broke-the-music-business?mbid=social_facebook

[Meho Krljic]

The Pirate Bay's new logo sends a loud message to the authorities trying to shut it down

[Meho Krljic]

Stiv Albini ne menja ploču i i dalje širi slobodarske ideje. Problem je što je muzička industrija i, uopšte muzički posao ikakvog nivoa, od korporativnog do garažnog i sobnog, u ruševinama pa nisam siguran koliko su njegova mišljenja relevantna. Ali da se čuje i veteran buntovnog diskursa u popularnoj muzici, nekadašnji "najbešnji čovek u rokenrolu":


Steve Albini: The music industry is a parasite... and copyright is dead



Sa istog sajta jedan optimistički pogled na budućnost muzičke industrije:



How to revolutionise the music business: Rip it up and start again 

[Meho Krljic]

Kraj posedovanja neće biti onako radostan kako se Prudon nadao 



Sony Music CEO confirms launch of Apple's music streaming service tomorrow

Sony Music CEO Doug Morris said in an interview on stage today that Apple will announce its new music streaming service tomorrow at its World Wide Developers Conference.
While observers have long expected Apple to unveil such a service at WWDC, Morris's remarks come from someone whose partnership would be essential to allowing such a service to be launched.
"It's happening tomorrow," Morris said during an interview at Midem in Cannes that primarily focused on his storied career in the music industry.
A highlight of that career was a 37-year partnership with iconic producer Jimmy Iovine, who now is running Apple's music services after the company paid $3 billion to acquire Beats. Underscoring Iovine's role in the music industry, Morris said he still talks to him twice everyday by phone. Morris said the move by Apple to bring in Iovine was a brilliant one.
Apple has watched in recent years as the digital music download business it pioneered more than a decade ago has slumped and consumers shifted to streaming music. Rumored details about the new Apple Music service have been floating around for months now. The service is expected to be priced around the industry standard of $9.99 per month and include lots of curation by popular DJs and musicians to help consumers discover new music.
While Morris didn't reveal any details about Apple's pricing, he emphasized several times that he much prefers paid streaming services to ad-supported ones from a financial perspective. What's more, he was clearly enthusiastic about the Apple launch, and said he expected it to represent a kind of "tipping point" that would accelerate the shift to streaming.
"What does Apple bring to this?" Morris said. "Well, they've got $178 billion dollars in the bank. And they have 800 million credit cards in iTunes. Spotify has never really advertised because it's never been profitable. My guess is that Apple will promote this like crazy and I think that will have a halo effect on the streaming business.
"A rising tide will lift all boats," he added. "It's the beginning of an amazing moment for our industry."

[Meho Krljic]

Ovi britanci ko da žive u prethodnoj deceniji. CD-ovi? Šta?


  UK's Legalization of CD Ripping is Unlawful, Court Rules 

Several music industry organizations in the UK have won a judicial review which renders the Government's decision to allow copying for personal use unlawful. According to the High Court, there's insufficient evidence to prove that the legislation doesn't hurt musicians and the industry at large.
 
Late last year the UK Government legalized copying for private use, a practice which many citizens already believed to be legal.

However, until last October, anyone who transferred music from a purchased CD to an MP3 player was committing an offense.

The change was "in the best interest" of consumers, the Government reasoned, but several music industry organizations disagreed.

In November the Musicians' Union (MU), the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors (BASCA) and UK Music applied for a judicial review of the new legislation.

While the groups are not against private copying exceptions, they disagreed with the Government's conclusion that the change would cause no financial harm to the music industry.

Instead of keeping copies free, they suggested that a tax should be applied to blank media including blank CDs, hard drives, memory sticks and other blank media. This money would then be shared among rightsholders, a mechanism already operating in other European countries.

Today the High Court largely agreed with the music industry groups. The Government's conclusion that copyright holders will not suffer any significant harm was based on inadequate evidence, Mr Justice Green ruled.

"In conclusion, the decision to introduce section 28B [private copying] in the absence of a compensation mechanism is unlawful," the Judge writes.

The Judge didn't agree with all claims from the music groups. For example, he rejected the allegation that the Government had unlawfully predetermined the outcome of the private copying consultation.

Nonetheless, the application for a judicial review succeeded meaning that the private copying exceptions are now deemed unlawful. As a result, the Government will likely have to amend the legislation, which took roughly half a decade to implement.

The UK music groups are happy with the outcome and are eager to discuss possible changes with lawmakers.

"The High Court agreed with us that Government acted unlawfully. It is vitally important that fairness for songwriters, composers and performers is written into the law," UK Music CEO Jo Dipple commented on the ruling.

"Changes to copyright law that affect such a vital part of the creative economy, which supports one in twelve jobs, must only be introduced if there is a robust evidential basis for doing so," Dipple added.

The High Court scheduled a new hearing next month to decide what action should be taken in response to the judgment, including whether the private copying exceptions should be scrapped from law.

[Meho Krljic]

A tek ove budale   

IMAX's absurd attempt to censor Ars [Updated]

Last week, Ars published a story about the newest version of SteamVR, a virtual reality system made by Valve Software. The piece includes interviews with game designers praising the new system as well as writer Sam Machkovech's own experience using SteamVR at Valve's office in Bellevue, Washington.

For VR enthusiasts, it was all good news—but the article got some surprising pushback.

On June 16, Ars Technica was contacted by IMAX Corporation. The company said our story required a retraction because it included a brief reference to IMAX—included without IMAX's permission. "Any unauthorized use of our trademark is expressly forbidden," IMAX's Deputy General Counsel G. Mary Ruby wrote in a letter (PDF).


The letter is surprising in several ways. First of all, the article isn't about IMAX. The single reference to IMAX in the story is a quote from Alex Schwartz, a game designer interviewed by Machkovech. Schwartz predicted that SteamVR could take off with consumers despite the fact that the room-sized system takes up a lot of space. "It's like saying, 'I have an IMAX theater in my house,'" he told Machkovech. "It's so much better that we can get away with a cumbersome setup."

In other words—Schwartz thinks SteamVR is awesome, and to express its awesomeness, he compared it to IMAX, another thing he clearly thinks is awesome. His quote was made part of the story's headline.

Apparently IMAX didn't appreciate the compliment, though. In her letter, Ruby apparently sees Schwartz's statement as something of an insult to IMAX. She writes:

We believe that your incorrect reference to IMAX when describing this product is misleading to readers as we do not believe that it is possible for a virtual reality system to replicate the experience of an IMAX theater, which is provided by cutting edge projection and sound technology on screens up to 35.72 metres. We request that all future articles regarding this "room-scale" virtual reality system make no reference to our registered trademark.

Really... where to begin?
No retraction
First of all, this isn't a story about IMAX, and it contains just one (nice!) reference to IMAX. The statement wasn't Ars' speech at all, but one that an Ars writer chose out of many possible interview quotes. But that's all a bit of an aside, because the important point is that despite Ruby's fantastical interpretation of what a trademark means, we're actually allowed to say whatever we want about IMAX. I can say IMAX screens look like SteamVR, or that they look like my 47" Vizio TV, or that they remind me of purple bunnies. We can review IMAX directly, we can compare it to other products, we can love it, we can hate it—all without IMAX's permission.

The standard in trademark law is to determine whether there's infringement by detecting whether there would be a "likelihood of confusion" between two products. But again, we're very far away from that test here. That standard would only apply if we were selling movie tickets; there are no consumers who confuse reading an article about virtual reality with going to the movies.

MAX's letter is part of a disturbing trend in which some companies believe that owning a trademark actually allows them to control any speech about their product. Too many examples abound already of trademark owners that believe they're entitled to control how movies and TV shows portray their brand. IMAX has taken that to the next level here, believing it is entitled to literally silence someone speaking to a journalist because the name of a corporation happened to slip out of his mouth.


As a side note, IMAX's own licensing practices have muddied their brand over the years far more than any Ars Technica article could. For years now, people have been noticing that IMAX means very different things in different theaters. Consumers keep getting charged IMAX-sized prices for disappointingly small IMAX screens, some of which aren't even 25 percent of the size of the big IMAX screens that first set the standard. IMAX has watered down its own product, necessitating the "up to 35.72 meters" language used in its letter to Ars.

In case it isn't obvious at this point, we're declining to make the asked-for retraction. I wanted to call Machkovech to badger him for an on-the-record interview for this story because he's a fun guy to badger, but he was busy covering E3 events. So instead, he sent me a cagily worded e-mail. Going forward, Machkovech "plans to never patronize a branded, large-format theater again."

Update: IMAX has apologized for the letter.

[Meho Krljic]

Digitalizacija i automatizacija će potpuno uništiti stare navike & prakse, vodeći nas ka ultimativnom paklu ultimativnvne meritokratije. Već znamo da je muzička industrija kroz ove procese uspela da dovede situaciju do toga da većina autora muzike koji svoj rad na raspolaganje stavljaju putem raznih striming servisa od njih nikada ne vidi dovoljno zarade čak ni da im proizvodnja tog muzičkog materijala bude pokrivena. Sad će nešto slično dočekati i samopublikujuće autore knjiga, sa Amazonovom najavom da će od Jula autori biti plaćani ne po tome šta je sve od njihovog materijala daunloudovano nego koliko je strana actually pročitano.

Meni kao starijem čoveku koji mnoge stvari kupi da ih ima u kolekciji/ da ih nekome ostavi u amanet/ da potpomogne tvorce iako ih, realistično neće zaista pročitati, barem ne cele, ovo je do gađenja užasna ideja. Nekom drugom verovatno nije i insistiraće da je ona samo mera nečijeg "stvarnog" kvaliteta... Neka nam istorija svima sudi. Naravno, ovo se za sada odnosi na pretplatnički, all you can eat sistem na kindleu, da ne bude zabune, ali devastacija koju su Spotify, Pandora i drugi slični servisi naneli muzičkoj industriji treba da nas upozorava kako će se  i ovo završiti.



What If Authors Were Paid Every Time Someone Turned a Page?

When I recently learned of Amazon's new plan to pay someauthors for each page that a Kindle user reads, I remembered an editor who looked at my one of my book proposals and said something along the lines of, "It feels like you've only got 20,000 words of material. You need at least 80,000 words for a book. Can you pad it?"
This was when books were printed on paper and sold in stores. My editor explained that readers wanted to feel like they got some heft, both physical and intellectual, for their money, and no one wanted a scrawny featherweight of book. Big thoughts were heavy and thick tomes telegraphed just how much work went into writing a book—and reading it. I'm slightly embarrassed to report that one of my early books included a fat appendix just so its thickness would stand out on the shelf.

ADVERTISING

Tablets, such as the Kindle, have started to change that system. Not only did they make it possible to read 50 Shades of Grey on the subway with no one the wiser, but the same is true of reading something thick and important, such as War and Peace.


Soon, the maker of the Kindle is going to flip the formula used for reimbursing some of the authors who depend on it for sales. Instead of paying theseauthors by the book, Amazon will soon start paying authors based on how many pages are read—not how many pages are downloaded, but how many pages are displayed on the screen long enough to be parsed. So much for the old publishing-industry cliche that it doesn't matter how many people read your book, only how many buy it.
For the many authors who publish directly through Amazon, the new model could warp the priorities of writing: A system with per-page payouts is a system that rewards cliffhangers and mysteries across all genres. It rewards anything that keeps people hooked, even if that means putting less of an emphasis on nuance and complexity.
Currently, to pay the authors who publish through Amazon directly, the company sets aside a pool of cash each month—this month it is $3 million—and divides it among the authors. In the past, Amazon measured the number of "borrows," or downloads, and computed each author's share of the pool accordingly. In February, one "borrow" of one of my books was worth $1.38. That's not a bad amount for a short book, but it's much less than the royalties that a big book might earn.


Starting in July, Amazon will divvy up the pool based on how many pages are read. This per-page model applies to books published through Amazon that are read as part of the Kindle Unlimited and the Kindle Online Lending Library programs. Amazon offers a few different Netflix-like subscriptions to its various collections of books. Access to the "Lending Library" is a perk of Amazon Prime membership (which costs $99 per year), and the Kindle Unlimited service costs $9.99 per month. Both programs claim to offer access to more than 800,000 titles.
While many larger publishers' offerings are included in these programs, the details of those deals have not been made public. Their authors may or may not be paid by the page. Amazon's announcement only says that the new formula applies to Kindle Select books that are self-published and distributed through Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing program.
Amazon's letter to writers who publish through its Kindle Select program explained that the formula was changing because of a concern "that paying the same for all books regardless of length may not provide a strong enough alignment between the interests of authors and readers." Amazon is being clever: While the authors of big, long, and important books felt that they were shortchanged by a pay-by-the-borrow formula, they probably didn't expect that Amazon would take their proposal a step further. Instead of paying the most ambitious, long-winded authors for each page written, Amazon will pay them for each page read.
Can the system be gamed? Authors won't be able to rely on that old high-school trick of using a bigger font, because there's a new standardized metric, the Kindle Edition Normalized Page Count (KENPC), which kicks off at the "Start Reading Location." However, the strategy of adding illustrations as filler could pay off. As the documentation notes, "Non-text elements within books including images, charts and graphs will count toward a book's KENPC."
"We think this is a solid step forward," a spokesperson for Amazon told me in an email. "Our goal, as always, is to build a service that rewards authors for their valuable work, attracts more readers, and encourages them to read more and more often."
Short books have different economics in the digital era. Delivering data is so cheap that there's no threshold that must be met to cover the costs of shipping and stocking. Paying someone to walk down a warehouse aisle or unpack a book and put it on the shelf—a big reason why the rule of thumb of an80,000-word minimum evolved—is no longer a concern.
Many journalists have flocked to the form, hoping that they can entice the public to pay for reporting. The New York Times gives away two books each month to everyone who buys a top-tier subscription, and some websites, such as Longreads, publish stories the length of a short book.  (I have experimented in the past few years with writing to the new normal myself, publishing one book with fewer than 10,000 words and another with 99 chapters of several hundred words each.)

There are some advantages for authors. For one thing, short books are quicker to write. My book about cheating on the SAT took me only about two months to research, write, and edit. So, if I sold it for 99 cents to lure the impulse buyers, I could still break even on my time.
But not everyone is pleased. One latter-day Medici posted a review of my book on Amazon complaining that even 99 cents was too expensive for what was just a "blog post." I've often wondered if he was writing that comment in a Starbucks, sipping a $6 cup of coffee that took two minutes to prepare.
The new funding mechanism introduces some important new motivations for writers. Suddenly, there's no reward for producing a big book that no one reads. Many people have joked, for instance, that no one could have read the roughly 700 pages of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century,because it was so dense and written for insiders. It was the kind of best seller that people bought because it looked good on the coffee table. For writers who play Amazon's game, these big, kitchen-sink projects will become even less sustainable unless people start truly reading every page.
But there may not be many rewards for the people who are writing short either. If I work hard to be pithy and crisp in order to keep the reader's skittish attention, there will be fewer pages to read, and less money to be earned. Writing concisely is an art that takes a lot of time and careful editing. As Blaise Pascal said, "I made this [letter] very long, because I did not have the leisure to make it shorter."
The sweet spot in this formula, then, must be books full of cliffhangers that keep people flipping the pages. The answer is now to pack a book with ticking time-bombs, unexplained plans, and lots of secrets to be revealed later. What did she whisper? Hold on, let's jump to a different thread halfway around the globe! (Of course, there's a fine line between books with needless suspense and books that are simply engaging—the latter will probably sell well in any marketplace.)

As I worked hard to make my short books shorter, I may have shattered the effect that some readers crave, the chance to lose themselves in another world. One of my former editors read one of my short books and told me that he didn't have time to relax. "Instead of a leisurely stroll through a book I felt like I was on a bit of a forced march," he said. The staccato recitation of facts wasn't a nice way to spend a lazy afternoon.
Writers have always had to follow the whims of the market. Amazon's move is exciting in many ways, especially for those who can deliver the page-turners that the new formula honors. But it will also push aside some writing styles that don't fit into this modern, ultra-metered system. It's easy for writers to feel powerless as the one dominant company shifts gears on short notice—and, ultimately, it seems like they are.
 

[Ghoul]

jupi!

PIRATE BAY FOUNDERS ACQUITTED IN CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT CASE
BY ANDY ON JULY 10, 2015 C: 42
BREAKING
Four key Pirate Bay figures have a little something to celebrate this morning. After standing accused of committing criminal copyright infringement and abusing electronic communications, yesterday a Belgian court acquitted Gottfrid Svartholm, Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundström.

tpb-logoThere can be little doubt that The Pirate Bay is the most infamous torrent site of all time. Its attitude towards copyright and related laws has landed the site and its operators in endless legal trouble for more than a decade, conflict that continues today.

Following the convictions of The Pirate Bay Four – co-founders Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij, former site spokesman Peter Sunde, and site financier Carl Lundström – most legal matters involving the site have been connected to local ISP blocking injunctions. Nevertheless, a separate legal process against the men themselves has persisted in Belgium.

Unusually, the case was based in criminal law, with Svartholm, Neij, Sunde and Lundström all standing accused of a range of crimes including criminal copyright infringement and abuse of electronic communications. However, the case itself has always experienced problems.

All four defendants deny having had anything to do with the site since its reported sale to a Seychelles-based company called Reservella in 2006. That has proven problematic, since the period in which the four allegedly committed the crimes detailed in the Belgian case spans September 2011 and November 2013.

Having failed to connect the quartet with the site's operations during that period, the case has now fallen apart. Yesterday a judge at the Mechelse Court ruled that it could not be proven that the four were involved in the site during the period in question.

Indeed, for at least a year of that period, Svartholm was in jail in Sweden while connecting Lundström to the site a decade after his last involvement (which was purely financial) has always been somewhat ridiculous.

In the end, even the site's anti-piracy adversaries in the case agreed with the decision.

"Technically speaking, we agree with the court," said Olivier Maeterlinck, director of the Belgian Entertainment Association (BEA).

[Meho Krljic]

'Happy Birthday' Hits Sour Notes When It Comes To Song's Free Use

The Guinness Book of World Records calls "Happy Birthday to You" the most recognized song in the English language. But you'll rarely ever hear it on TV or in a movie.
Instead, you usually hear something that sounds sort oflike the song, but not quite. In Disney's The Emperor's New Groove, for example, the characters sing: "Happy, happy birthday from all of us to you, we wish it was our birthday so we could party, too."
An episode of Community starts with the words "to you" being sung, followed by cheers and: "That was weird, how come we only sang the last two words? What happened to the 'happy birthday' part?"
Well, what did happen to the "happy birthday" part?
It turns out the publisher Warner/Chappell Music owns the copyright to the "Happy Birthday" song. That means that every time anyone wants to use the song, he must pay a licensing fee, sometimes as high as six figures.
But how did Warner/Chappell get the rights?
"This is where it gets complicated," says filmmaker Jennifer Nelson, laughing.
Very complicated.
Nelson is working on a documentary about the song. She paid for the rights to use it, and she's suing Warner/Chappell to get her money back, arguing it's part of the public domain — free for anyone to use.
The core of her case depends on the song's long, convoluted history and when it was copyrighted.
"In 1893," Nelson explains, "the Hill sisters, Mildred and Patty Hill, they were kindergarten teachers, and they wrote music for their students. And there was a song called 'Good Morning to All' and the melody from that song evolved and the lyrics kind of changed to 'Happy Birthday to You.' "
The Hill sisters, from Kentucky, wrote and got the copyright to the song's melody back then, more than 100 years ago.
After this, Nelson says, the song's publisher, the Summy Co., "copyrighted 'Good Morning to All,' and then later, sometime in the '20s, the 'Happy Birthday to You' lyrics were added to the melody, and Summy copyrighted that."
Summy later became part of a new company, and in the 1980s, Warner/Chappell bought that company — and the rights to the song — for $25 million. Since then, according to some estimates, Warner/Chappell has been collecting approximately $2 million a year in licensing fees.
In her lawsuit, Nelson challenges Warner/Chappell's claim to the copyright.
"You know, we don't feel that [the song] should belong to anybody at this point," she says. "It's over 100 years old, and it should be for the people."


Nelson and her lawyer, Randall S. Newman, argue that the copyright for the song — that's the tune and the lyrics — expired by 1921.
Warner/Chappell sees it differently. The company says the copyright that counts is one obtained in 1935, for arrangements of the song. If that's true, "Happy Birthday to You" will eventually go into the public domain — but not for 15 more years, in 2030.
Warner/Chappell did not respond to NPR's requests for comment.
If the company wins the suit, it can keep collecting licensing fees until the copyright expires. If Nelson and her lawyers win, the song will be in the public domain.
"I think it's going to set a precedent for this song and other songs that may be claimed to be under copyright, which aren't," says Newman.
As for Nelson, she jokes that if her lawsuit succeeds, "People will be so sick of the 'Happy Birthday to You' song, because everybody will get to use it, finally."
She hopes for a decision by the end of this summer.

[Meho Krljic]

Neil Young says his music is too good for streaming services

Neil Young's been touting the merits of high-resolution audio for some time now, and he's had enough of streaming services' quality. The singer is pulling his music from those subscription-based libraries, a move fellow artist Prince made just days ago (Prince's tunes are still available on Tidal, of course). "I don't feel right allowing this to be sold to my fans," Young said. If you really need your fix of "My My, Hey Hey," he'd probably suggest you try Pono. He may rethink the decision when and if sound quality improves, but for now, he'd rather his music not be compromised by "the worst quality in the history of broadcasting or any other form of distribution." I wonder what his thoughts are on Tidal's lossless tier.

[Meho Krljic]

Ripping Movies For Personal Use Is Illegal Again In The UK

It is once again illegal to copy movies and music for personal use in the UK.
A new law introduced in October 2014 meant that it was briefly legal for users to transfer films they had bought into their home library and onto their mobile devices.
That law has now been overturned in the high court following a legal challenge from the British Academy Songwriters, Composers and Authors (BASCA).
The new ruling means that it is illegal to make copies of a film that has been paid for, even if they're for personal use.
The same law applies to ripping CDs in order to copy the music to a user's digital music library.
While the law apply to both films and music, the change is largely a result of lobbying from the music industry, in a bid to protect royalty payments for recording artists.
The CEO of lobbying group UK Music, Jo Dipple, praised the ruling commenting:


"Last month, the High Court agreed with us that Government acted unlawfully when it introduced an exception to copyright for private copying without fair compensation. We therefore welcome the Courts decision today to quash the existing regulations.
"It is vitally important that fairness for songwriters, composers and performers is written into the law.  My members' music defines this country.  It is only right that Government gives us the standard of legislation our music deserves. We want to work with Government so this can be achieved."
Despite the new legal implications, it's unlikely that any cases involving making copies of movies or music for personal use will be pursued.
Prosecuting all the people who make copies of films they've paid for is considered to be completely unworkable, making it far more likely authorities will turn a blind eye as they have in the past.

[Meho Krljic]

Napada se s leđa, dok ne gledamo.
An Undead SOPA Is Hiding Inside an Extremely Boring Case About Invisible Braces

The most controversial parts of SOPA, an anti-piracy bill defeated in 2012 after a massive public outcry, may end up becoming de facto law after all, depending on the outcome in an obscure case that is working its way through the legal system without anyone noticing.
Next week, the US Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. International Trade Commission, a case that could give an obscure federal agency the power to force ISPs to block websites. In January, The Verge reported that this very legal strategy is already being considered by the Motion Picture Association of America, as evidenced by a leaked document from the WikiLeaks Sony dump.
"SOPA as originally introduced included a provision allowing the Department of Justice to obtain court orders requiring ISPs to block their customers from accessing foreign websites deemed to be pirate sites," said Charles Duan, director of the Patent Reform Project at Public Knowledge. "The MPAA memo [published by WikiLeaks] suggests that the MPAA would seek to obtain the same sorts of orders against ISPs, simply using the International Trade Commission rather than the DOJ."
At first glance, ClearCorrect v. ITC looks pretty banal. It's a case about a 3D printing model file for invisible braces. ClearCorrect, an Invisalign competitor, had a subsidiary in Pakistan create 3D models of braces, which it then sent from Pakistan to the US over the internet. ClearCorrect then 3D-printed the braces in its Texas offices, a move that might infringe Invisalign patents. (The validity of the patents is being disputed in both court and at the US Patent & Trademark Office.)



Align Technologies, the parent company of Invisalign, declined to embark on the long and costly journey of suing ClearCorrect in federal court. Instead, the company went to the International Trade Commission (ITC), a federal agency that deals with imports that allegedly infringe intellectual property rights, such as shipments of fake Louis Vuitton shoes or knock-off pharmaceuticals.
Bizarrely, no physical goods came over the US border in this case. Rather, the digital file was transported over the internet. Last year, the ITC determined that it had the legal authority, under a tariff law from 1930, to stop the transmission of infringing digital files.
The ITC has the power to issue an "exclusion order" that directs US Customs and Border Protection to seize the goods. It also has a cease-and-desist power that can be directed at third parties. Violating the cease and desist order can result in a penalty of "$100,000 or twice the domestic value of the articles," whichever is greater.
Multiple legal issues are at play, but the one that organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, EFF, and Public Knowledge are most concerned with is the question of whether the word "articles" in Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 can include digital files.
Public Knowledge and EFF argue that digital files are most certainly not "articles." Obviously the drafters of the Tariff Act of 1930 didn't give much thought to whether the ITC could or should regulate the internet. Given that no one in 1930 said, "Digital files aren't articles," Public Knowledge and EFF has to cite back to things like a 1887 Supreme Court decision discussing telegrams.
But for the ITC, MPAA, and RIAA, the fact that the Tariff Act was drafted "at a time when internet downloads were not in existence" means that the definition of "articles" can be construed broadly using pre-1930s dictionary definitions. The MPAA and RIAA argue in their amicus brief, "Nothing in the statute or legislative history suggests that Congress intended to circumscribe copyright protection under Section 337 to apply only to physical copies of copyrighted works."



All this goes to show how novel the idea of using 337 to go after digital transmissions is. No one really knows how this would play out in the future, since it's never been done before—but if ClearCorrect loses at the Federal Circuit, it's "hard to see [how it] wouldn't open the door to lots of cases involving digital data," according to Duan. "The ITC has already become an incredibly popular forum for intellectual property owners, given its speed and powerful remedies, and I imagine that those with cases involving digital downloads would want to partake in that forum."
The leaked MPAA memo from 2014 advises, "eeking a site-blocking order in the ITC would appear to offer a number of advantages over federal court litigation, at least at first blush." Because the ITC is an agency, not a federal court, it has different procedural rules that could greatly benefit rights-holders.
"A party defending a case [at the ITC] is under a lot of pressure," said Duan.
The remedies offered by the ITC, like the cease-and-desists, can be issued without considering many of the factors that make it harder to get injunctions and temporary restraining orders from a federal court. Most importantly, the ITC is fast.
"The process is designed to be streamlined, and complex patent cases are generally decided in about a year and a half (compared to multi-year litigation in district courts)," Duan added.
Depending on how this case is decided, it could spawn an entirely new genre of copyright legal action, possibly aimed at ISPs or even companies that use data centers overseas. How any of this fits into the current legal landscape is an open question. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for example, offers safe harbor to ISPs and third party sites that comply with a number of requirements, including, in some situations, notice-and-takedown. "An ITC exclusion order would seem to contradict this, as it could potentially require ISPs to monitor content and 'exclude' it if it were subject to an order," said Vera Ranieri, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
ITC authority over ISPs could have serious consequences, according to Ranieri. "Suppose someone makes a fair use of a work, how does that interplay with the ITC's exclusion order? How could a service provider, practically, distinguish between those fair uses and infringing uses?"
The MPAA did not respond when asked for comment.
The Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in ClearCorrect on August 11.