*HOT* Tech News And Downloads, I Would Read This Thread And Post Any Good Info

DRM-crippled text ---

p2pnet.net news:- While I don't normally link to SlashDot stories, this one linking to an essay that documents why DRM causes copyright infringement is important.

Everyone should understand one thing, if nothing else: the only reason this debate over DRM as it applies to electronic text is still going on is simply because our opponents have what amounts to a quasi-religious and sometimes downright hysterical blind faith in the magic powers of DRM.

I've been saying this from the beginning, but I want to ensure those who don't yet believe the obvious can read the explanation from more people.

DRM is incapable of stopping copyright infringement (in order to work it would need to violate the laws of physics), and only lowers the quality of the legal versions (deliberate defects in the encoding to reduce interoperability), and attacks the property rights of owners of information technology.

Media consumers are given the choice between paying money for a lower quality product, or paying nothing for a higher quality product that largely only costs 'guilt' since the changes of getting caught are small.

If the quality of the legal and illegal were at least the same, then people wanting to do the right thing (which is the majority) would choose to pay for their content.

Russell McOrmond - p2pnet contributing editor
[McOrmond is an independent author (software and non-software) who uses modern business models and licensing (Free/Libre and Open Source Software, Creative Commons). He's also the CLUE policy coordinator.]

[Below are three quotes from There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch on Jim Baen's Universe. He's talking chiefly about electronic text, but many of his points apply equally well to DRMd 'product' in general - Ed]:

Pirates rob bullion ships, they don't rob grain ships. Electronic copyright infringement is something that can only become an "economic epidemic" under certain conditions. Any one of the following:

1) The product they want—electronic texts—are hard to find, and thus valuable.
2) The products they want are high-priced, so there's a fair amount of money to be saved by stealing them.
3) The legal products come with so many added-on nuisances that the illegal version is better to begin with.

Those are the three conditions that will create widespread electronic copyright infringement, especially in combination. Why? Because they're the same three general conditions that create all large-scale smuggling enterprises. And . . . Guess what? It's precisely those three conditions that DRM creates in the first place. So far from being an impediment to so-called "online piracy," it's DRM itself that keeps fueling it and driving it forward.

And ------

A DRM-crippled text is a royal pain in the ass for legitimate customers. First of all, because you have to have the right software (and often hardware) to use Product A as opposed to Product B—since the publishing and software industries can't agree on a common standard. And, secondly, because you have absolutely no guarantee that next year those same industries won't make the software you purchased from them obsolete and thereby make the books you bought unreadable.

Can we say "eight-track tape?" "Beta-Max?" "Vinyl LPs?"

The buying public, by now, has long and bitter memories of the way the entertainment industries have shafted them over and over again, by introducing one technology, forcing everyone to adopt it—and then scrapping that technology in favor of yet another.

It's no wonder the reading public had so stubbornly resisted electronic reading. As I said above, they are not morons. Contrast the ridiculous demands that the publishing industry tries to place on their electronic text customers to the joys and splendors of buying a paper book:

You do not need an "end user license." Nope. Just buy the book with legal currency and you own it outright.

You do not need to buy separate software or hardware to read it. Nope. The only "software" you need is a pair of functioning eyes and a knowledge of the language the book is written in. Thazzit.

You now own a product that you can do any damn thing you want with. You can lend it to a friend, donate it to a library, use it for a doorstop or to swat a fly.

And ------

Don't bother pirating my books, you pipsqueaks. I automatically put all of them up for free online about three months after the paperback edition comes out anyway. Because I know perfectly well that I'm generating far more sales from the wonderful—and dirt cheap—promotional value than I'm losing to so-called "pirates."

Slashdot Slashdot it!

Also See:
Ars Technica - IRS goes after eBay, wants info on seller earnings, February 25, 2007
Financial Times - Treasury aims to collect $2bn in extra taxes, February 19, 2007
http://p2pnet.net/story/11440

 

Windows Genuine Advantage's newest setting: "you might be a pirate"

2/26/2007 12:39:37 PM, by Ken Fisher

Windows Genuine Advantage is an anti-piracy tool loathed by many, tolerated by some, and even appreciated by others. How you feel about it may depend in part on whether or not you've been caught in its snares: the "authentic software" validation tool is known to have falsely identified thousands of "pirated" Vista installs.

As Microsoft steps up its war against piracy, the company has decided to slightly nuance Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA). Rather than identify users as either in the clear or not, the company has added a third classification for users who set off some, but not all of WGA's undisclosed piracy-detection functionality. Users will now find that Windows XP installs are labeled as genuine, non-genuine or "not sure."

While Microsoft has not responded to requests for comment, it's quite obvious what is going on here: Microsoft has added "not sure" as a way of cutting down on the number of false positives associated with WGA. As many as one in five PCs were failing WGA checks, but this new setting should both reduce this and give Microsoft the chance to investigate further the kinds of things that are landing folks in the "not sure" category.

Although the Windows Genuine Advantage Notification tool is "optional," Microsoft is in the process of pushing out the tool as a "critical" and thus automatic update (affectionately dubbed WGA Notifications 1.7 KB905474). The update has been known about for over a month, but users are just now seeing it show up as a critical update to Windows XP.

WGA has stirred controversy in recent months as the software was revealed to phone home to Microsoft, raising no shortage of privacy concerns. As I have argued, the move from a one-time authenticity check to constant monitoring (which is what WGA represents) is driven by Microsoft's modular OS plans, exemplified by Anytime Upgrade on Windows Vista. Post-installation exploits will become increasingly common as Microsoft and other companies turn to selling modular add-ons online, and Microsoft apparently feels as though WGA is one of the best ways to secure that business. Last week Steve Ballmer made it quite clear that Microsoft expects WGA to generate more sales for Microsoft, especially in developing nations.

WGA isn't likely to ever make many friends, but the company knows that it will earn fewer enemies if the tool doesn't accuse the wrong people of piracy. In the meantime, if you received a "not sure" rating from WGA, I'd love to hear from you.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070226-8922.html

 

Virgin's Branson announces an "iTunes for games"

2/26/2007 11:00:57 AM, by Nate Anderson

Virgin Chairman Sir Richard Branson is not known for the gift of understatement. So when he announces a new platform for online video game delivery, he does it in typical Branson style, saying that it will "do for PC games what iTunes has done for music." Also, it will replicate Second Life.

The new service is a partnership between Virgin Games and Game Domain International, and it will be known as A World of My Own (AWOMO). As a title, this has nothing on "GameFly," for instance, but it does indicate that the service will be more than a simple game launcher; it will be an entire virtual world as well. The apparent idea is that gamers can hang out, stroll around, and then step into the various games they want to play—but all of this will come later. In its first phase, AWOMO will simply offer games, and it promises to do so in record time. Game Domain International claims to have developed a streaming technology that enables gameplay to begin within minutes rather than requiring a lengthy, hours-long download.

They want to do to GameFly (a games-by-mail rental service) what iTunes and MovieLink are trying to do to Netflix: make the process even simpler by offering direct Internet access to the games in question. GameTap already offers such a service, though, so AWOMO will offer extras like tournaments with prizes ranging from a visit to Richard Branson's private island to a trip to the moon (seriously). They're also promising "mega cash prize gaming tournaments."

In its second phase, AWOMO will unveil a virtual reality island with "shops, clubs, restaurants, apartments to rent and beach houses for sale. Cinemas, music venues, sports and even a motor racing circuit are there for the asking." What this has to do with playing PC games is not clear, but the company wants to use the island to generate revenue from advertisers.

Roger Bennett, who used to head the Entertainment & Leisure Software Publishers Association, called the new service "the most unique technology that can bring the most potential value to the industry." Gamers will have a chance to check out the claim for themselves when the service launches in the third quarter of this year.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070226-8921.html

 

XP_CD-DVD-Fix.exe - Restore CD/DVD Drives to Explorer
© Doug Knox -

Usage: Download XP_CD-DVD-Fix.zip and save this file to your hard drive. Navigate to where you saved it and double click the file to extract the contents. Locate the EXE file you extracted and double click it. A confirmation dialog will appear when the script is done. You may need to reboot for the change to take effect.

This utility is only intended for Windows® XP. You may need Administrator level access to use this utility. If you do not have Administrator level access, the program will say it is finished, but will not have made any changes.

Based on CDGONE.REG
download
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/XP_CD-DVD-Fix.zip

Note: CDGone removes the UpperFilters and LowerFilters. It also removes 4 other portions of the registry.

 

OpenOffice.org For Windows 2.2.0 RC2
Feb 26, 2007 - 12:52 PM - by Digital Dave
For the Open Office folks in the house.

OpenOffice.org is the open source project through which Sun Microsystems is releasing the technology for the popular StarOffice productivity suite. It is an international office suite that will run on all major platforms and provide access to all functionality and data through open-component based APIs and an XML-based file format.

majorgeeks.com

OpenOffice.org For Windows 2.2.0 RC2
Author: OpenOffice.org
Date: 2007-02-26
Size: 96.8 Mb
License: Freeware
Requires: Win All

OpenOffice.org is the open source project through which Sun Microsystems is releasing the technology for the popular StarOffice productivity suite. It is an international office suite that will run on all major platforms and provide access to all functionality and data through open-component based APIs and an XML-based file format. It establishes the necessary facilities to make this open source technology available to the developer community.

download here,Size: 96.8 Mb
http://www.majorgeeks.com/OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html

 

Dell reaches out to Linux users with OS-free laptop

2/26/2007 12:52:57 PM, by Nate Anderson

Trying to turn its troubled ship around, Dell sought guidance last week from end users on the company's new IdeaStorm site ("Where Your Ideas Reign"). Judging from the thousands of responses so far, users want penguin power but they loathe "craplets." Dell is listening, and has already announced plans to offer more machines without operating systems, along with a plan to reduce the amount of pre-installed software on its other systems.

85,000 users have already gone to the trouble of creating an account and voting for the "pre-installed Linux" option, and another 55,000 have asked for "pre-installed OpenOffice." In a blog post on Friday, Linux Software Architect Matt Domsch announced that Dell is expanding its n-Series (no operating system) product line to include Latitude notebooks.

In a separate statement, the company explained why it would not be offering pre-installed Linux: customers want too many variants. "There is no single customer preference for a distribution of Linux," said Dell. "We don't want to pick one distribution and alienate users with a preference for another."

One of the other top suggestions on the IdeaStorm site is the removal of the extra software that Dell installs on most of its computers as a way of earning extra revenue. This software goes unused by most power users and simply clutters up the system with "craplets." Dell has pledged to make it easier for customers to opt-out of most installed software in the future.

Dell doesn't promise that this will be free, however. When Managing Editor Eric Bangeman sat down for a roundtable discussion with Michael Dell at CES this year, one topic of discussion was paying for the privilege of getting a crapware-free PC.

Dell has seen the bright light that is "Web 2.0" in recent months and has expanded their customer feedback tools to include a corporate blog and the new IdeaStorm site. They are also at pains to keep users informed about how their ideas are being implemented inside Dell, which seems like a great strategy for any company to adopt. The danger is that feedback comes only from the most vocal fans/critics, and a company can sometimes be led to think that such opinions represent mainstream opinion.

Dell's current moves are smart, though, because they simply expand customer options. Those who want to install Linux are free to do so, but Windows users can continue to receive preinstalled copies of their OS. Those who value time more than money can pay for a craplet-free experience, and those who don't mind a few uninstallation routines can save a few bucks. Sounds good to us.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070226-8923.html

 

Sony chops price on Blu-ray player

2/26/2007 1:46:08 PM, by Nate Anderson

Sony has announced its plans to slash the price of high definition, according the Associated Press. At a New York press conference, Sony talked up its forthcoming BDP-S300 Blu-ray player. The big selling point? Its $599 price.

The move is clearly a reaction to the lower cost of HD DVD players, which are already available for less than the new Blu-ray machine. Still, $599 is far more palatable than the $1,000 price tag of Sony's current flagship player, the BDP-S1.

In addition to the lower price, the unit comes in a smaller form factor, and it can play CDs. It's also the same price as Sony's PS3, which includes a Blu-ray drive and can be had for $499 or $599. For customers who have no interest in shooting aliens, though, Blu-ray just got far more affordable.

Perhaps the HD DVD/Blu-ray format war will have one positive result after all—more quickly driving down the cost of next-generation players in general. The HD DVD consortium has been stressing the format's lower manufacturing costs for some time, and there's a good chance that a manufacturer will attempt to undercut Sony even further before the BDP-S300 launches this summer.

Whatever format wins the battle for your wallet, this is good news for next-gen movie buffs.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070226-8925.html

 

Symantec unleashes Norton 360


By Joris Evers
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: February 26, 2007, 8:43 AM PST
Tell us what you think about this storyTalkBack E-mail this story to a friendE-mail View this story formatted for printingPrint Add to your del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg this storyDigg this

Symantec, the world's largest PC antivirus maker, on Monday unleashed Norton 360, the company's latest salvo in the battle for consumer security dollars.

Norton 360 is Symantec's new flagship consumer security product, unseating its Norton Internet Security suite. First announced a year ago under the Genesis code name, Norton 360 includes a host of technologies, many from Symantec's current security, PC optimization and backup products. Yet Symantec said it didn't just cobble together existing wares for Norton 360; many of the features are brand-new. (CNET Review: Norton 360.)
OneCare

"It is all-in-one security for the mainstream PC user who wants a product that is going to take care of things for them," said Tom Powledge, director of product management at Symantec. "We didn't want to make it a big old kitchen sink. We're not playing the feature game. We want to make the features right for every customer."

Norton 360 is designed to compete with the latest products from McAfee as well as security newcomer Microsoft, which shipped Windows Live OneCare last May. Following Microsoft's lead, all of the latest security products combine basic antivirus, antispyware and firewall technologies with backup features and several tune-up tools for Windows PCs--features Symantec and McAfee traditionally charged extra for.

Microsoft's entry into the market has heightened competition for consumers' security dollars. In 2005, the worldwide market for consumer antivirus software reached $1.95 billion, up 17 percent year over year, according to research from Gartner. Symantec dominated the space, taking a 70 percent piece of the pie.

Norton 360 is part of Symantec's broader vision for the next generation of online security, coined Security 2.0. The company sees a major role for itself in restoring consumers' trust in online commerce. As such, Norton 360 includes technologies to protect online transactions in addition to techniques to block traditional threats from malicious software.

Norton 360 is now available for purchase through the Symantec online store and is slated to be on store shelves in March. The suggested retail price is $79.99 for use on up to three PCs and including one year of updates, which is $10 more than Norton Internet Security.

Symantec plans to offer Norton Internet Security users an upgrade deal to Norton 360 and will ship the new product through PC partners and other bundling deals.
http://news.com.com/2100-7355_3-6162139.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news


link to Norton 360 xp and vista $69.00
http://www.symantec.com/norton360/

 

Universal Viewer (ATViewer) 1.5.9.0
Author: Alexey Torgashin
Date: 2007-02-26
Size: 676 Kb
License: Freeware
Requires: Win All


Universal Viewer (ATViewer) is an advanced file viewer with wide range of formats supported. Implemented view modes and corresponding file formats are:

Text/Binary/Hex/Unicode: all files, with unlimited file size (even 4Gb+ sizes are allowed);
RTF/UTF-8: RTF and UTF-8 encoded texts;
Image: all general graphics formats: BMP JPG GIF PNG TGA TIFF etc;
Multimedia: all formats supported by MS Window Media Player: AVI MPG WMV MP3 MIDI etc;
Internet: all formats supported by MS Internet Explorer: HTML XML DOC XLS etc;
Plugins: all formats supported by Total Commander Lister plugins.
The Viewer is fully Unicode compatible and can be integrated into Windows Explorer's context menu, so there is no problem to call it from anywhere in Explorer: right-click on a file and select "Universal Viewer" item. It can also be integrated into file managers that can pass to Viewer filenames via the command-line: in this case filename should be passed as first optional command parameter (don't forget to double-quote name containing spaces).

DOWNLOAD HERE
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download5422.html

 

ASUS PC Probe 2.24.10
Author: ASUS
Date: 2007-02-26
Size: 4.1 Mb
License: Freeware

The ASUS PC Probe is a simple utility that monitors vital information in the computer such as fan rototations, voltages and temperature. Additionally, it gives system information such as hard disk space, memory usage, CPU type and processor speed. After installation, the application resides in the taskbar and provides audio warning through the PC speakers if certain thresholds such as temperature and voltage have been exceeded. If your system is overclocked, remember to raise the appropriate warning limits or face frequent warning pop-ups.

DOWNLOAD HERE
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3301.html

 

did we just start loosing any future wars WITH blue screen of death........


Windows For Warships Nearly Ready
Posted by Hemos on Monday February 26, @11:19AM
from the like-windows-for-workgroups-with-guns dept.
Microsoft
mattaw writes "The Register is carrying the sanest and balanced article on Windows deployment in UK warships that I have read to date in the public domain. As an ex-naval bod myself we have long considered that this is potentially a REAL problem. The main issues are the huge amount of unrelated code that is imported with the kernel and the need for incredibly fast response times."


Windows for Warships nears frontline service

The real blue screen of death
Page: 1 2 3 Next >
By Lewis Page → More by this author
Published Monday 26th February 2007 12:15 GMT

Analysis Everyone knows the differences between Windows and other operating systems. Steve Jobs has recently spent colossal sums telling us that most malware is written for Windows; also that using Windows is no fun and, even worse, seems to involve wearing a tie.

Those acquainted with the more foam-lipped Linux fanciers will also be familiar with the position that Windows use is morally corrupt, indicative of sexual perversion, and causes cancer.

A lot of customers keep buying from Microsoft, however. One may want to deploy a particular kind of hardware, perhaps used only by a few organisations. It may well be that you can only get the associated software from the hardware maker, and the vendor in question doesn't provide anything other than Windows-based machines.

One type of hardware where this is happening more and more is warships.

This shift has already been heavily criticised. Nonetheless, BAE Systems subsidiary Insyte, the UK's sole provider of warship command systems, has decided to standardise on Win2k (this was during the company's former incarnation as AMS).

Type 45 Destroyer

The Type 45 destroyers now being launched will run Windows for Warships: and that's not all. The attack submarine Torbay has been retrofitted with Microsoft-based command systems, and as time goes by the rest of the British submarine fleet will get the same treatment, including the Vanguard class (V class). The V boats carry the UK's nuclear weapons and are armed with Trident ICBMs, tipped with multiple H-bomb warheads.

All this raises a number of worrying issues. First up is basic reliability and usability. Most of us have stared in helpless despair at the dreaded blue screen; how much worse would you feel if that wasn't just your desktop gone but your combat display, and it really was the screen of death?

Surely we can't have our jolly tars let down by possibly untrustworthy, difficult to use kit such as Windows? Especially when you reflect that cost is not an issue. When you're buying destroyers at £1bn per hull, the price difference between 26 PCs and the same number of Sun workstations barely shows up.
Big step forward

All that may be so. However, the sad fact is that Windows will probably be a big step forward for the Royal Navy (RN). Anyone who has spent time in an RN warship is entirely accustomed to seeing equipment on which he may depend for his life occasionally throw a double six for no good reason. Windows may be unreliable, but it's hard to imagine it being as failure-prone as the kit which is out there already.

Again, Windows platforms may be troublesome to maintain, but most civilian sysadmins simply wouldn't believe the resources the navy can throw at problems. A present-day Type 42 destroyer carries at least four people who have absolutely nothing else to do but care for the ship's command system. As of just a few years ago, this was still a pair of antique 24-bit, 1MHz machines each with about 25KB of RAM.

Two of the seagoing sysadmins will be senior technicians with at least five years' expensive general training and months of courses specifically tailored for the kit they are minding now. Their assistants will be less skilled, but still useful. They can take care of drudgery – minor bumf, safety checks, making tea – freeing the real techs for serious work. And the on-board team would seldom be expected to cope with anything as complex as a software update. That would be done in harbour by more advanced specialists, probably including vendor reps. Nor do the combat sysadmins get lumbered with general IT desktop support; there are other people to do that, also lavishly trained. If any organisation can keep Windows functional, it's Her Majesty's navy.

There may also be perfectly valid criticisms to be made regarding Windows useability. When triggering missile decoys with seconds to spare, one doesn't need a superfluous pop-up box saying "Do you want to use soft kill?" with "Confirm" and "Cancel" buttons. But this kind of thing isn't going to faze you if you're used to entering instruction sets such as "PE L5414.10N L00335.67E R6000 TMDA [INJECT]" from memory without backspace or delete. During combat, mind. The one group of users to whom Windows 2000 might look pretty marvellous are RN warfare operators.

In fact, the navy is easily impressed by almost any modern technology. As another example, the RN is only today getting used to the avant-garde notion of display screens which can be read with the lights on. Her Majesty's warships still have a lot of crazy old circular-sweep CRTs – essentially, modified 1940s-style radar scopes – whose image is so dim they can only be used in darkness. On the bridge during daylight you often need a hood or blackout curtains just to check the radar.

Many of these aged displays have refresh rates measured in deciseconds, not milliseconds. To this very day, RN navigators typically have to track the ship's position in pencil on a paper chart. There is normally no moving-map display of the sort found in every merchant ship – or even minicab. The results of this luddism are often expensive and embarrassing.

TO READ THE TOTAL STORY PLEASE GO HERE,THERE ARE TWO MORE PAGES

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/26/windows_boxes_at_sea/

 

UPDATE
Paint.NET 3.01
Author: Rick Brewster
Date: 2007-02-26
Size: 5.3 Mb
License: Freeware
Requires: Win XP/Vista

Paint.NET is free image editing and photo manipulation software designed to be used on computers that run Windows. It supports layers, unlimited undo, special effects, and a wide variety of useful and powerful tools.

It started development as an undergraduate college senior design project mentored by Microsoft, and is currently being maintained by some of the alumni that originally worked on it. Originally intended as a free replacement for the MS Paint software that comes with Windows, it has grown into a powerful yet simple tool for photo and image editing.

The programming language used to create Paint.NET is C#, with a small amount of C++ for installation and shell-integration related functionality.

Change log:

* Fixed: Crash when trying to save a palette with a blank name
* Fixed: Changing an image's DPI resolution did not set its "dirty" flag (you would not be asked to save changes)
* Fixed: Error messages at startup were covered by the splash screen
* Fixed: Crash when a modal dialog was open (such as an effect) when the user tried to logoff/restart/shutdown Windows, and they chose to save their images
* Mitigated some CPU usage issues when the app was minimized and a complex selection was active


download here
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4548.html

 

The REAL online pirates

p2pnet.net news view:- It's getting really confusing with all those online scalp hunters, bent on getting rich from entertainment and software cartel efforts to corral their customers whom they call 'thieves' and 'criminals,' running around loose.

Holland's Torrentfreak attempts to sort some of the better-known villains - that's the scalp-hunters, not the 'consumers' they're trying to nail.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Corporate Enemies of Filesharers

If they aren't shutting down your favourite torrent site and sending you infringement notices they're filling your network with fakes, sueing you and invading your privacy. So who are the enemies of P2P and what are they doing to ruin your file-sharing experience? If you share files, it's time to meet your nemesis.

The idea here is to give an overview of anti-p2p activity. This is by no means an exhaustive report but the aim is to give a summary of some of the companies developing a new industry - one dedicated to disrupting the activities of file-sharers.

Founded in 2001, Antipiratbyrån (APB) is a Swedish non-governmental anti-piracy group, its members consisting of representatives from dozens of Swedish media companies. APB rose to infamy in March 2005 when the police conducted an anti-piracy raid against Swedish ISP Bahnhof, only to be presented with evidence that APB themselves had hired someone to plant copyright material. APB are well known (and most hated) for their activities in working to put ThePirateBay BitTorrent tracker offline.

Audible Magic tout themselves as a leading provider of content protection and management solutions. Of interest to file-sharers is their 'Copysense' identification technology, which identifies media by matching an electronic 'fingerprint' unique of the particular content, to that of a 'fingerprint' stored in their claimed 5 million-strong registered database. It is being widely reported that Google will be employing Audible Magic's technology to screen videos submitted to YouTube.

Silicon Valley based BayTSP trumpets its ability to identify and track infringing content on the internet and take it down. They do a lot of tracking of content distributed via the BitTorrent protocol and regularly send out copyright infringement notices (link PDF) to users via their ISP, ordering the content to be taken down. BayTSP also claim to be able to track first uploaders of copyright works on the BitTorrent and eDonkey networks via their 'First Source' technology. It is unclear how this system operates but it is believed to be relatively primitive - BayTSP searches for filenames (in torrents or ed2k links) which imply infringing content and then download the content to confirm that is indeed the case. The user's ISP would then be contacted with a takedown demand in the usual way . The quality of the methods used by BayTSP appear suspect in certain situations.

The Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN has claimed the scalps of many small torrent sites in the Netherlands. They can be quite aggressive in their war on Piracy. One of the most used tactics is to track down the owner of the site, and send a letter stating that they face several years in prison if they don't stop serving torrents, and expose the users. Up until now, BREIN has not yet taken action to the bigger torrent sites in The Netherlands. Last January, BREIN won a lawsuit, and the Dutch ISP 'KPN' was forced to hand over the name and address of the dutchtorrent.org admin.

The British Phonographic Industry or BPI claims to have pursued hundreds, if not thousands of UK file-sharers accused of uploading copyright material. Previously, BPI General Counsel Geoff Taylor said that the BPI had no desire to drag people through the courts. The number of people who have actually settled with the BPI (i.e paid a 'fine') is unclear. What is clear is that not everyone who receives a complaint from the BPI actually settles and so far, no-one has ever appeared in a UK court to answer such a complaint. It appears that threats from the BPI to P2P’ers have a somewhat empty quality about them.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry or IFPI throws its net wide, targeting users of many networks including BitTorrent, eDonkey, DirectConnect, Gnutella, Limewire and SoulSeek. After carrying out what was claimed to be the largest ever worldwide legal action against filesharers in 2005 - effectively doubling the number of people being sued to over 4,000 - 2006 saw its biggest assault yet, with the IFPI targetting a further 8000 with enforcement actions.

Macrovision, as far as p2p is concerned, is a company trying to keep DVDRips off file-sharing networks. It claims that its anti-piracy solution called Ripguard can recover 97% of all revenue lost due to DVD ripping piracy. In reality Ripguard is easily defeated.

While Macrovision is failing to keep DVDRips off P2P networks, the Dolby subsidiary Cinea is using watermarks to track the source of DVD Screeners uploaded to the internet. The CineFence system from Philips does something similar, except it tracks the source of a camcorded movie back to the theater it was filmed in.

If filling file-sharing networks with unwanted junk is your thing then Media Defender Inc takes some beating. Purchased by ArtistDirect in 2005, they are currently working with labels such as Suretone Records to spam file-sharing networks with partial videos and music in an attempt to generate traffic to their website. Additionally, they were embarrassed recently when their involvement in operating fake MPAA torrents was revealed.

MediaSentry is a company offering similar services to BayTSP. Where BayTSP is used a lot by the likes of the MPAA, MediaSentry is popular with the RIAA. Monitoring file-sharing networks for infringements of their clients media, they identify and trace IP addresses they claim are engaged in such activity. MediaSentry's effectiveness has been called into question, notably in Foundation v. UPC Nederland link.

The MPAA is a well known anti-piracy lobbying organization, that protects the rights of its members, the 'big six' movie studios. February 2006, the MPAA announced lawsuits (PDF) against Torrentspy, Torrentbox and Isohunt, three of the most popular BitTorrent search engines. The MPAA was also involved in the raid on The Pirate Bay this May. They even sent a letter (PDF) to Sweden's State Secretary this March in which they kindly requested that The Pirate Bay be taken down. In 2005 the MPAA successfully shut down Lokitorrent, Btefnet, and Elitetorrents. But the MPAA does not have a clean slate either. They violated the linkware license of the 'Forest Blog' blogging engine.

File-sharers tend to have long memories and even if an anti-piracy company decides to change strategy, it can be difficult to shake off a tarnished image. French anti-piracy group Retspan and its subsidiary PeerFactor became known in 2004 after reports it was giving file-sharers financial incentives to spread fake files, a claim it later denied. Even though Peerfactor tried to 'go straight' in 2006 with a uTorrent deal, it's the original connection with Retspan which prevails in the mind of many sharers. For in 2004 it was Retspan who dared to take on the now-legendary Suprnova, trying to get it shut down by reporting it to the FBI and by sending threats to sites hosting Suprnova mirrors.

The RIAA protects the rights of a large group of record labels and distributors. The RIAA seems to use law suits merely as threats, a way to 'bully' people (dead or alive) into paying their exorbitant fines. Most of their victims do not have the money to fight back. They often offer people a chance to settle for $3000 or $4000, leaving them broke, but avoiding a real case. This trick seems to work well for the RIAA, they easily collect money without having to prove (they have no clue) that the defendant is actually someone who engaged in peer to peer file sharing of copyrighted music without authorization.

Finnish Venture Cup winner ViralG burst onto the scene in 2005 with a claim that it could end 99% of all file-sharing. It uses technology that enables it to exploit poor hashing technology employed by the likes of the moribund Kazaa but appears unable to do a thing about files found on other networks, including the mighty BitTorrent.

ViralG - like many anti-p2p companies - seem to make wild claims about the effectiveness of their systems. Ask anyone who visits a search engine such as mininova and they will tell you: to a greater or lesser extent, the anti-p2p companies have failed. Miserably.

And finally, I wanted to end this article on a lighter note and happily I can do so with the inclusion of the one, the only - Web Sheriff!!, the company that shot to fame via the publication of its copyright complaints made to ThePirateBay, or more accurately, the comedy value of the responses. Well worth a read. White Stripes/Web Sheriff.

Torrentfreak - The Netherlands

Slashdot Slashdot it!

Also See:
Dow Jones/Associated Press - SEC sues company for hacking systems to get news releases, February 26, 2007
http://p2pnet.net/story/11459

 

The real cost of Vista...long but informative...so I will just Link...

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

 

RIAA times out in p2p case

p2pnet.net news:- In the latest installment of the Debbie Foster versus Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG saga, the Big 4's RIAA has finally run out of time to explain why it hasn't yet turned over its lawyers' billing records for the case.

Foster prevailed against the RIAA and as part of her victory, she was awarded attorneys' fees of $55,000 several months back.

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) was asked for its fee documents almost exactly a year ago.

It now has until March 1 to to respond to the motion Foster's attorney made last week to compel the RIAA to turn over all of its lawyers' billing records on the case, says Recording Industry vs The People. If it fails to come through this time, Foster could by default be awarded every penny she's asking for.

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), "acted in bad faith in bringing the lawsuit against Debbie Foster," said Marilyn D. Barringer-Thomson, representing her.

The so-called 'trade' organization dropped the case, but Foster refused to do the same and became the "prevailing party" under the Copyright Act, meaning she was entitled to attorneys' fees.

Ironically, although the RIAA has so far sued some 20,000 American men, women and children, and although the initials are short for Recording Industry Association of America, only one of the Big 4, Warner, can be said to be American, and even it is headed up by a Canadian.

The other members of the Big 4 Organized Music cartel are EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany).

The multi-billion-dollar Big 4 claim they're being ruined by their own former customers such as Foster whom they call "criminals" and "thieves," accusing them of the non-existent crime of file sharing and saying the lawsuits are successful, forcing people away from the independent online services and p2p networks from which the vast majority of online music lovers get their fixes.

P2p research firm Big Champagne watches what's happening and tracks events in the peer-to-peer world.

"We have observed no decreases in file sharing activity," its ceo, Eric Garland, told p2pnet recently, continuing, "On the contrary, the aggressive growth in popularity of BitTorrent clients (and increases in gnutella users by way of Limewire et al) demonstrate very much the opposite.

"While proportionally the growth rate in file sharing of film and television (and other multimedia) now exceeds that of popular music, we have observed no net decline in music, and music remains the most popular entertainment on P2P networks.

"There are nearly ten million people using only the most popular networks at any given time (to say nothing of private, invitation only, small group sharing etc.) and there are - very conservatively speaking - more than a billion files a month. The IFPI and RIAA project the volume of downloads to be far greater than that (estimates approaching 3 billion/month), but we do not know the basis of these projections."

Slashdot Slashdot it!

Also See:
prevailed against the RIAA - RIAA balks in Foster case, February 23, 2007
Recording Industry vs The People - Judge Gives RIAA Until Thursday March 1st to Respond to Motion, February 27, 2007
http://p2pnet.net/story/11460

 

Dear all,

DVDFab products 3.0.8.5 Beta is out (02/27/2007):

DVDFab Platinum 3.0.8.5 Beta:
http://www.dvdfab.com/DVDFabPlatinum3085Beta.exe

DVDFab Gold 3.0.8.5 Beta:
http://www.dvdfab.com/DVDFabGold3085Beta.exe

DVDFab Decrypter 3.0.8.5 Beta:
http://www.dvdfab.com/DVDFabDecrypter3085Beta.exe

What's New:

3.0.8.5 Beta (02/27/2007):

- New: Added audio/subpicture preselection feature.
- New: You can let DVDFab preselect specific language of audio/subpicuture.
Ideal for "Main Movie", "Customize" and "Merge".
- New: Updated language files.
- Fix: Some extra content will be removed in "Full Disc" mode, when copying
some copy-protected DVDs, like "Cinderella III" and "Open Season".
- Fix: Preview problem on Windows Vista.
- Fix: A problem that more than 6 sources cannot be opened, now the limit is 64.
- Fix: A problem that LPCM audio cannot be converted in "DVD to Mobile".
- Fix: Several minor problems.

Best Regards,
Fengtao

 

HOT READ,HOT READ,HOT READ,HOT READ,HOT READ,HOT READ,

AND ITS ABOUT TIME THIS CRAP IS ENDING.......


Digital Fair Use bill introduced to US House (sans teeth)

2/27/2007 1:52:06 PM, by Ken Fisher

U.S. Representatives Rick Boucher (D-VA) and John Doolittle (R-CA) today announced the Freedom And Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007 (FAIR USE Act). The bill's aim is to help put an end to the madness circulating around the general imbalance that has befallen copyright in recent years.

"Historically, the nation's copyright laws have reflected a carefully calibrated balanced between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of the users of copyrighted material. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the public's right to fair use," Representative Boucher said in a statement. "The FAIR USE Act will assure that consumers who purchase digital media can enjoy a broad range of uses of the media for their own convenience in a way which does not infringe the copyright in the work," Boucher added.

But can the FAIR USE Act deliver? A cursory investigation suggests that the bill won't make much of a dent in the DMCA. In its present form, the FAIR USE Act is effectively a watered-down version of Boucher's DMCRA, which was strongly opposed by the content industry and failed to gain traction in the 108th and 109th Congresses. The DMCRA would have made any "fair use" of digital goods legal, regardless of anti-circumvention laws. The FAIR USE Act does not provide this, as it was a major sticking point with the content industry.

If passed, the FAIR USE Act will amend the DMCA to codify recent exceptions granted to the anti-circumvention rules by the Register of Copyrights, which include some allowances for obsolete technologies and cell phone unlocking. Current exemptions allow the circumvention of anti-copying technology for: 1) the educational library of a university's media studies department; 2) using computer software that requires the original disks or hardware in order to run; 3) dongle-protected computer programs, if the the dongle no longer functions and a replacement cannot be found; 4) protected e-books, in order to use screen-reader software; 5) cell phone firmware that ties a phone to a specific wireless network; and 6) DRM software included on audio CDs, but only when such software creates security vulnerabilities on personal computers.

Yet again, the bill does not appear to deliver on what most observers want: clear protection for making personal use copies of encrypted materials. There is no allowance for consumers to make backups of DVDs, to strip encryption from music purchased online so that it can be played anywhere, or to generally do any of the things that the DMCA made illegal in one fell swoop.

The bill does seek to place limits on statutory damages stemming from infringement, including contributory infringement, inducement of infringement, vicarious liability or other indirect infringement. In doing so, the bill will seek to codify the law regarding inducement and contributory infringement to ease fears among technology companies stemming from the fallout of MGM v Grokster.

According to Boucher's office, the bill's supporters include the Consumer Electronics Association, the American Library Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, the Special Libraries Association, the Home Recording Rights Coalition, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and others.

Ars Technica will have in-depth analysis of the bill in the coming days.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070227-8934.html

 

Is "Making Available" Copyright Infringement?
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday February 27, @03:30PM
from the RIAA-theory dept.
The Courts Music
NewYorkCountryLawyer updates us now that the legal issue — is it copyright infringement merely to "make available" a copyrighted work? — has been argued by the attorneys in Elektra v. Barker (on January 26). Whichever way the ruling goes it will have a large impact across the Internet. Appeal seems likely either way. No ruling has issued yet but "a friend" has made the 58-page transcript "available" (PDF here).
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/27/1917218&from=rss




Is 'Making Available' Copyright Infringement?
January 22, 2007

By Ray Beckerman

In 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America began a massive litigation campaign on behalf of the four major record companies against end users of peer-to-peer file-sharing programs, alleging widespread infringement of their sound recording copyrights. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000-25,000 suits have been brought to date, with hundreds of new complaints filed monthly.

While at first blush this battle might appear to be a simple fight between record companies and some alleged music file-sharers, it is actually much more significant because the litigation campaign rests upon a legal argument about the Copyright Act that, if accepted, would represent a major expansion of the present boundaries of U.S. copyright law. This theory could have an enormous impact on the Internet as we know it.

The argument is that even if a defendant has never copied or distributed a file illegally, the fact that he or she possesses a computer with a shared-files folder on it that contains copyrighted files "made available" over an Internet connection, this in and of itself constitutes infringement of the "distribution" rights of the sound recording copyright holder under Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act.

A motion to dismiss in the case, Elektra v. Barker, 05 CV 7340, scheduled to be argued Jan. 26 in the Southern District of New York, might represent either the death knell of this theory or the enthronement of it as a binding rule of law.

RIAA Research Behind Claims
The roots of the "making available" issue lie not in the RIAA lawyers' draftsmanship skills but in the limited investigation upon which the lawsuits are predicated. The RIAA's research begins and ends with its investigator, Tom Mizzone, who works for "antipiracy" company MediaSentry. Armed with proprietary software, Mizzone uses a pretextual P2P file-sharing account on Kazaa, Gnutella, iMesh, LimeWire and other P2P software providers to locate shared-file folders that contain recordings whose copyrights are owned by the Big Four.

Mizzone takes a screenshot, downloads a few of the songs and, through another proprietary process, determines the dynamic IP address assigned to the screenshot. Then the RIAA, armed with a court order, goes to the Internet service provider to get the name and address of the owner of the Internet-access account to which the dynamic IP address had been assigned at the time the screenshot was taken.

The RIAA then closes its investigation and simply sues the owner of the account identified by the ISP.

In its complaints, which are virtually identical in all 20,000-plus cases, it alleges, in conclusory terms, that the defendant is using an "online digital distribution system" to "download, distribute and/or make available for distribution" plaintiffs' recordings.

Since it does not know of any downloads or distributions, the RIAA can allege none except in conclusory terms. The one thing plaintiffs can allege with specificity is, in essence, "Here is a list of songs that someone with your Internet account was making available at a certain time and date."

The Players, the Arguments
The defendant in Barker is a Bronx nursing student. She moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing chiefly that the complaint failed with respect to "downloading" and "distributing" because it does not allege any specific acts of downloading or distributing. (The motion cites Marvullo v. Gruner & Jahr, 105 F.Supp.2d 225, 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); DiMaggio v. International Sports Ltd., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13468 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Brought to Life Music, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1967 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Lindsay v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel R.M.S. Titanic, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15837(S.D.N.Y. 1999); and Stampone v. Stahl, 2005 WL 1694073 (D.N.J. 2005).)

In addition, the motion argues that merely "making available," without actual dissemination, is not a copyright infringement. (Barker cites Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16165 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 434 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 8.11[A], at 8-124); and In re Napster, Inc., 377 F.Supp.2d 796, 802 (N.D.Cal. 2005).)

The RIAA, in opposition, argues that "making available" would indeed constitute a violation of plaintiffs' right to "distribute" granted by 17 USC 106(3), relying chiefly upon the decision of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 118 F.3d 199 (1997), in which a chain of libraries had distributed a number of concededly unauthorized copies of the subject work to its various branches and included them in card catalogs, but kept no circulation records, thus making it impossible for plaintiff to prove actual dissemination.

In reply, Barker distinguished Hotaling as being limited to its unusual set of facts.

Upon learning of the RIAA's argument that merely "making available" is in and of itself a copyright infringement, several organizations sought, and were granted, leave to file amicus curiae briefs in support of Barker's motion.

The Computer & Communications Industry Assn. and U.S. Internet Industry Assn. filed a joint amicus brief arguing that the "distribution" right set forth in the Copyright Act is a specific, defined term and that the RIAA's proposed expansion would, if adopted by the court, "sweep into the reach of copyright law many activities not now covered by copyright law," making the boundaries of the distribution right "indeterminate and unpredictable, creating chilling effects on members of amici and virtually every other participant on the Internet."

As an example, they argued: "Companies routinely include in their Web pages hyperlinks that enable persons to navigate easily to other sites throughout the Web by use of browser software. Indeed, the Web is a collection of hyperlinks. Even though the use of hyperlinks makes content located elsewhere available to a Web user, it does not constitute a distribution of that content under section 106(3)."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation also submitted an amicus brief in support of Barker's motion, emphasizing an entirely different argument. EFF essentially assumed, for purposes of argument, that the complaint had adequately alleged Internet transmissions, and it argued that the "distribution right," as opposed to other rights under the Copyright Act, can never be implicated by mere ephemeral transmissions but relates solely to the dissemination of physical, tangible, material "copies" and "phonorecords." Picking up on the question raised by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Agee v. Paramount, 59 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 1995) -- whether "disseminations must always be in physical form to constitute 'distributions' " -- EFF argued in the affirmative based primarily on the language of 17 U.S.C. 106(3), its legislative history and the reasoning of Agee.

The MPAA came into the picture with an amicus brief supporting the RIAA.

And the U.S. Department of Justice weighed in, submitting a "Statement of Interest," in which it confined itself to rebutting EFF's argument. DOJ specifically disclaimed having any "interest" in the RIAA's "making available" argument, pointing out that it had never prosecuted anyone under the copyright laws for "making available."

Barker filed additional papers, one responding to the EFF's amicus brief, one responding to the DOJ's statement of interest, each pointing out that it was not necessary to reach the "ephemeral transmission vs. tangible physical object" issue because the RIAA had not pleaded any instances even of "ephemeral transmissions" with sufficient specificity to satisfy normal copyright infringement pleading standards.

Ready for Argument
The motion is fully briefed and is scheduled for oral argument this week before Judge Kenneth Karas.

I am not aware of any other cases attacking the sufficiency of the RIAA's complaint in which all of the principally affected industries and interests have weighed in as amicus curiae. It is indeed unusual for a case at the district court level to receive this level of attention, thus accentuating the importance of the issues at stake.

While Elektra v. Barker would appear to be just a procedural pleading standards case, it is more than that because the RIAA does not actually possess more information to allege, so there is no possibility of curing the problem by repleading. Nor has it asked for leave to replead if defendant's motion is granted.

Since the RIAA uses a single, standard complaint in all of its litigations, the decision could affect huge numbers of litigants. As the CCIA and USIIA persuasively argue, there is almost no scenario under which the court's holding would not have far-reaching consequence to the technology and Internet world, regardless of which way the motion is decided.

And if the RIAA loses and the case is dismissed, it will no doubt appeal. The issues -- including possibly a revisiting of Agee in the context of Internet transmissions -- would then come before the 2nd Circuit, or possibly up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

About the author: Ray Beckerman is a member of Vandenberg & Feliu in New York and the author of the blog The Recording Industry vs. The People, which tracks file-sharing litigation. He is one of the attorneys representing defendant Tenise Barker in Elektra v. Barker.
http://www.hollywoodreporteresq.com/thresq/spotlight/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003535810

 

Three-year-old JavaScript Bug Continues to Plague IE7


By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews
February 27, 2007, 3:37 PM

Last Friday, Polish researcher Michal Zalewski reported discovering an interesting little JavaScript trick that keeps a user stuck on a Web page even though he's trying to navigate somewhere else. His discovery involves the simple use of a JavaScript event to make it appear as though a browser is displaying any particular URL, when it's not.

When the exploit works, the onunload() event triggers the execution of JavaScript code the moment the user exits a Web page - which is how this JavaScript event is designed to work. But from there, the exploit would write information to the Web page without changing the contents of the address bar, potentially enabling a phisher to drop genuine-looking contents into a page to fool the user into thinking he's on a legitimate site.

Of course, the code itself would need to be attached to a page whose authenticity can't be questioned even though the event code hasn't been run yet. That's a tricky maneuver unless the HTML framework is being run by an e-mail client whose JavaScript interpreter is enabled.

In BetaNews tests of Zalewski's test page in IE7 on multiple Windows machines, including two XP-based systems and one Vista-based Virtual PC-driven environment, the test page failed to spoof a Web site effectively when the user attempts to exit the page by clicking on a link in IE7's Links toolbar or Favorites list. While the user is still stuck on the test page, the address bar continues to read the test page's address.

However, when an address is typed manually into the IE7 address bar, the user remains stuck on the Web page while the address bar continues to read what the user typed. If the user tries clicking Links or Favorites again, the page remains stuck, and the address bar continues to show what the user typed. Apparently, when IE7 allows JavaScript to process the onunload() event, it does not change the contents of the address bar - it continues to show whatever it did before.

Screenshot of Zalewski 'onunload' event test page in IE7 / Vista That's not BetaNews! No, it's Michal Zalewski's trap, which appears to have effectively snarled Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista.

Conceivably, rather than keeping the user stuck on the test page, embedded code in a working exploit could direct the user to several false locations under the auspices of a legitimate site. But to cajole a user into believing the legitimacy of a document that directs him to type an address directly into the address bar rather than click a link is a tall order, which is probably why security firms such as Secunia are rating the vulnerability level of this bug as "less critical."

BetaNews tests of Firefox version 2.0.0.2 (the recently patched edition) in both Windows XP and Vista showed its behavior somewhat different - perhaps a little awkward, but still preventing exploitability. When running the same, unmodified JavaScript code that traps the IE7 user, instead of displaying the content of the test page, Firefox clears the page and leaves it blank. Meanwhile, its address bar reads the legitimate address of the site the user chooses, whether he types it into the address bar manually or clicks on his Links toolbar or Bookmarks pane.

Sometimes the Firefox browser window does remain stuck on the blank page and sometimes it does not. Exactly why this behavior only happens occasionally has not yet been determined.

So while the trick can't be used to spoof an address for a Firefox user, it could conceivably be used as a nuisance ploy - a dull one, but a nuisance nonetheless. Yesterday, Mozilla acknowledged the event handler bug, stating it had already been fixed in version 2.0.0.2, posted earlier this week.

Our research turned up instances of security researchers having discovered essentially the same problem with the onunload() event in Firefox as far back as July 2004, in Opera as far back as May 2004, and in Internet Explorer as far back as July 2004.

In BetaNews tests, additions and modifications to the JavaScript code that traps the IE7 browser user on the same page - for instance, trying to make it open another window - cause Firefox to stop execution of the code altogether, returning the browser to its normal behavior. In that instance, Mozilla's claimed fix appears to be effective.

There's nothing in the JavaScript code itself that makes IE7 and Firefox change its behavior in order to leave the address bar unchanged or leave the contents of the page blank. Also, it's very important to note here that JavaScript code running in IE7, even when triggered by the onunload() event, continues to run under the same restrictions as all other JavaScript code. So if JavaScript has no access to the file system normally, nothing triggered by this little trick will give it access automatically. Third-party firewalls continue to disable JavaScript code from manipulating cookies, by forcing the .cookie property to be changed to the .ignore property, as ZoneAlarm continued to do in BetaNews tests.

With more time, we may study the possibility that third-party popup blockers exacerbate the problem for Firefox, and may be responsible for the "blank page" occasions where Zalewski's trap does not appear 100% fixed.

Thus it would be inaccurate to state that this trick gives malicious users open access to remote users' data, as many blogs reported this afternoon, although the trick can be used to effectively mask JavaScript code from being run in an obviously detectable fashion by the user.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Threeyearold_JavaScript_Bug_Continues_to_Plague_IE7/1172607530

 

Smart malware turns your email into spam

Security experts are warning of a Trojan horse that can automatically attach spam to emails, instant messages and bulletin board postings.

Symantec researcher Eric Chien said that the malware uses a Windows layered service provider component to watch network traffic and alter outgoing messages and posts.

"Message board spam is nothing new," Chien explained on the company's security response blog. "But what is different about this message board spam is that the spam text is integrated into legitimate messages posted by real users. "

The attack begins when a user follows a link posted on a spam message or posting promising a 'funny video'. The user is then tricked into downloading an executable that installs the Trojan, formally known as Trojan.Mespam.

The malware will attach the spam greeting to message board postings as well as instant messages sent from AIM, Yahoo Messenger, GTalk and ICQ.

Chien said that emails sent from most popular webmail services, including Google Mail, Hotmail and Yahoo Mail, will also be injected with spam code.

The researcher recommends users to avoid clicking on unrelated links in forum postings, emails and instant messages, and to avoid executing any unsolicited files from a suspicious source.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2184282/smart-malware-injects-spam