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

RaimaRadio 1.44


Posted by Mihai Asmanow on 29 September 2007 - 21:47 · no comments & 946 views
RaimaRadio allows you to listen to and record radio stations from around the world. While listening to your favorite radio station you can record it anytime you want. Browse through the radio stations or just select a random station and enjoy Internet radio! You have total control over your radio stations allowing you to add or delete a station anytime you want. Need to play a station from another application then just enable global hotkeys and control it anytime. If you need to listen to or record a station at a certain time then you can. Just schedule it, sit back and relax. It will also show album art and station logos where available. It's totally free so give it a try and download it today.

Key Features:

* Listen to and record multiple stations simultaneously
* Create a schedule for automatic recording
* Show album art for each song
* Save tag information to music files
* Ability to add more stations
* Use WinAmp audio plugins
* Access frequently used stations from the toolbar
* Play random station
* Play your recorded files
* Information Panel
* Cover Art Panel
* Limit Recording Size
* Check for new stations online
* Recording Options

What's new:

* Language support - German, Spanish, French, Polish, Dutch, Czech
* Now uses Windows Task Scheduler to schedule radio stations - so no need to have RaimaRadio running in the background
* Limit size of recorded files per station and now for all streams
* Split delay for recordings
* Volume setting now saved
* ASX files now try to connect using the first URL but can be changed to use the last one
* Limited TV support(A few channels shown externally in WMP - very much experimental)

Link: Home Page
http://www.raimasoftware.com/

Download: RaimaRadio 1.44 freeware
http://www.raimasoftware.com/downloads/raimaradio_setup.exe

 

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13499
Yabba-Dabba-Copyright

p2pnet news view | P2P:- The Flintstones has been a favorite of children and adults for almost a half century. It’s a shame they’re being used and abused by international corporations and police departments.

It’s more than just a shame. It’s a disgrace and possibly illegal.

Six months ago I asked:

Does PC World and/or Harry McCracken have permission from the copyright holder to publish a screenshot of The Flintstones?

I posed the question in the comments area of the PC World article ‘BitTorrent’s New Downloads: Legit But Lame’, written by PC World’s Harry McCracken, an article that included a screenshot from Mr. McCracken’s BitTorrent DRM-infested download of a Flintstones episode.

There was, and still, is no mention in the article that the picture is being used with the permission of the copyright owner (presumably it’s AOL Time Warner, Hanna-Barbera, Cartoon Network, or all of them).

I also asked my question on PC World’s message boards and was told by a moderator that she’d find out from the publisher and Mr. McCracken if permission was given and would let me know.

Six months later I’m still waiting for an answer from the PC World moderator.
A UK police department (perhaps one of many UK police departments) uses an on-board computer that scans and reads number plates on any unsuspecting vehicle that crosses its path. For the country with the most public and private CCTV cameras in the world it’s not surprising.

But what’s shocking is the apparent illegal use of a pirated recording of Fred Flintstone’s signature trademarked phrase, ‘Yabba-Dabba-Doo!’, to alert The Fuzz of a suspect vehicle.

The spycam was highlighted in an episode of the Beeb’s ‘Traffic Cops’ in May, 2006. During the program no attempt was made to bleep it out, and no mention by the cops or the narrator was made assuring the viewers (all TV license holders) that the cops had permission to use Fred’s voice or even that the BBC had permission to air it.

The credits for the program made no mention if any Flintstones trademarks or copyrighted materials were used by permission of the owner.

I scooted over to the BBC’s POV (Point of View) message boards and posted this message:

Watching this past week’s episode of Traffic Cops, they introduced a new computer system which can read license plates and identifies the owner, as well as any traffic or insurance violations.

BUT! What the hell is Fred Flintstone doing in the system?

The ‘fine’, ‘law-abiding’ cops use an (apparently) illegal pirated recording of Fred Flintstone’s voice in their on-board computer system to alert them of a suspect vehicle.

‘Yabba-Dabba-Doo’ is a trademark of Hanna-Barbera/Cartoon Network, as well as the voice of Fred Flintstone is copyright protected. I believe that using Fred’s voice and the trademark slogan without permission from the copyright owner is a serious violation of international copyright laws.

As well, the BBC should have been aware of this fact and bleeped the the sound of Fred’s voice and any any mention of him or his trademark slogan.

If the cops do have permission to use the recording, it should have been made clear in the program. If they (as well as the BBC) do not have permission and pay royalties to Hanna-Barbera/Cartoon Network, they are infringing on the rights of the copyright owners and should have to pay huge fines. The cops should not be allowed to continue breaking international copyright laws. And the BBC should have known better.

Yabba-Dabba-Doo? Rather, Yabba-Dabba-BOOOOOOO!

After I posted at POV, I received 50 responses - many of them nasty - and none which offered a satisfactory answer. I wasn’t expecting POV host Terry Wogan to jump into the fray with the answer, but I did expect a moderator or the show’s producer to offer an explanation as they often do, either on the POV message board or on the POV television program.

That was in June, 2006. And I’m still waiting for an answer.

Whether or not I’m a longtime paid subscriber to both PC World and the BBC (which I am), and whether or not I’d receive even a small professional courtesy from these international corporations wasn’t the point.

The only point is this:

Do these companies (and cops) have permission from the copyright and trademark owners of Fred Flintstone and ‘Yabba-Dabba-Doo’ to use these images and recordings, or are they just the same as many pirates who just steal what they want, regardless of who owns it?

The makers of the cops’ computer clearly benefit, as do the BBC and PC World, and no mention at all has ever been stated or implied that the rights owners have ever given their permission.

Irrespective of one’s personal or professional views on filesharing and ‘product pirating’, it’s clear from the BBC’s and PC World’s disregard for their paid viewers and subscribers questions that they have even less regard for content ownership in general, preferring instead to steal what they want for their own financial benefits.

I’ve waited long enough for answers from PC World and the BBC. And since they refuse to answer the questions it can only be assumed that what they’ve done (and are still doing) - including the cops in ‘Traffic Cops’ - must be illegal. Otherwise I’m sure I’d have received a reply within a reasonable amount of time.

Companies such as PC World and the BBC claim filesharers are pirates, ’stealing’ so-called copyrighted materials.

But filesharers make no financial or professional gains from their hobby.

On the other hand the BBC, PC World, and other huge corporations (oh, let’s not forget that wonderful, law-abiding UK police department!) just do whatever the hell they want (earning huge profits as well), at the same time jumping on the ‘Filesharers Are Killing Us’ and ‘P2P Funds Terrorism’ band wagons, sending out threatening letters to single moms, pre-teens, and corpses demanding payment for lost income, and the endless, mindless, baseless press releases claiming the same ridiculous allegations as facts.

I don’t expect to ever hear from the BBC or PC World about the Flintstone cover-up, but just in case any of them read this, they know where they can send a reply.

 

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13491
Viralg’s latest p2p plan ….

p2pnet news | P2P:- “VIRALG: End of illegal peer to peer file sharing.”


Wow! Quite a claim, and it came back in 2005 when, “A company in Finland says it’s come up with a virtual algorithm ‘guaranteed’ to block p2p file sharing,” as p2pnet posted.

Viralg said it had a p2p ‘blocker’ able to, ‘wipe out even the most professional swappers’.

Yeh? But neither Benedek Toth nor Ed Felten were impressed.

And as we also pointed out in something just as true today as it was then, Viralg was merely promising to block online file sharing which isn’t, of course, the real problem. That, “lies with the pro criminal counterfeiters and duplicators who use physical CDs and DVDs, not file sharing, to wreak havoc with the entertainment industry”.

Well, it seems Viralg has come up with a new way to try to cash in on p2p.

Here’s what Torrentfreak over in The Netherlands has to say about this new development >>>

Recently we reported that anti-piracy company Viralg is selling the patents to its technology on eBay for $1,000,000. Most people didn’t think it was value for money but Viralg have been in touch and they have a new idea - selling the patents to P2P’ers to help prevent some future anti-P2P technology.

When we reported on the sale of Viralg’s anti-p2p patents, not many people got excited by the offer.

However, after we published the article, Viralg responded to an email we sent earlier. It appears that they believe that the value of the sale doesnt necessarily lie in the technology.

This section from the eBay auction gives a clue:

3. If your business is involved in developing and/or selling a P2P program, you can make it better and avoid any problems that this technology can give to your network.

A brief email from Viralg suggests that they feel that a ‘p2p related community’ might want to buy the patents - but why would p2p’ers want them?

Here are some details from the Canadian patent:

1. A method for limiting the use of unauthorized digital content in a content-sharing network in which digital content is distributed as files, wherein each file comprises content information and is associated with characteristic information and verification information, the method comprising:

(a) determining a first file whose content information is copyrighted;

(b) repeatedly distributing a second file in the content-sharing network, wherein the second file is associated with characteristic information and verification information that match the characteristic information and verification information, respectively, of said first file, and wherein the second file comprises content information that does not match the content information of the first file.

It seems Viralg feel their patent gives them the monopoly on a particular type of file corruption and that if these patents were bought by a pro-p2p outfit, they could get legal protection if anyone ever tried to use this technique against them.

Viralg told us: ‘Let say at some P2P related community buy those patent applications after that no body can’t mess with hash codes.’

Maybe one million p2p’ers will put $1 each for these papers?

Ok. Maybe not.

SlashdotSlashdot it! Add to Technorati Favorites



Also See:
p2pnet - ‘Guaranteed’ anti-file sharing, April 18, 2005
impressed - Viralg anti-p2p: Part II, April 19, 2005
Torrentfreak - Anti-Piracy Company Wants to Sell Patents to Protect P2P, September 27, 2007

 

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13524
Demonoid mystery partly solved

p2pnet news | Freedom:- The Demonoid controversy can now be at least partly cleared up.

Demonoid is the author of not merely of its own discontent, but also its own disconnect.

Yesterday, “Is Demonoid back? Or isn’t it?” - we asked.

Because the site has been going up and down like a yo-yo with Canadians unable to access it, and the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America) cast in the role of principal villain under two scenarios:

1) By some means or another, it’d compelled Netelligent, Demonoid’s ISP, to block Canadian users

Or

2) The CRIA leaned on the people who run the site, somehow convincing them it was in their best interests to block Canadian users.

We can now confirm the second option is the correct one.

“Neither Netelligent nor any of our upstream providers have received any communications from [the] CRIA or any lawyer representing [the] CRIA,” company spokesman Billy Krassakopoulos told p2pnet.

He went on:

The decision to block access to Canadian visitors was made entirely by Demonoid.

As for reinstatement of the site, this decision is entirely up to Demonoid.

Now the questions remain:

Exactly who threatened Demonoid, what form did the threat take and, most important of all, why is the site still down?

Although Demonoid may be hosted in Canada presumably, the people who run it live outside the country.

So why are they listening to the CRIA in the first place?

Says a post on this site:

We received a letter from a lawyer represeting the CRIA, they were threatening with legal action and We need to start blocking Canadian traffic because of this.

If you reside in Canada, that is the reason you are being redirected to this message. Thanks for your understanding, and sorry for any inconvenience.

http://www.demonoiders.com/, which yesterday was listing various proxies Canadians might use to be able to access the service, was showing ‘Standby Mode’ when we checked at 12:20 pm Pacific.
Did the CRIA instruct the admins to take that down as well?

Meanwhile, what’s Netelligent’s policy on shut-downs?

In Canada, “a person doesn’t authorize infringement merely by authorizing the use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright,” says Krassakopoulos, adding:

There has to be a relationship or degree of control between the alleged authorizer and the persons who committed the copyright infringement.

Once we are made aware of a violation of copyright infringement on our network the first step we take is to validate that claim. If we believe it to be a valid claim then we inform the offending customer about the complaint and request that the material be removed within a timely fashion.

Definitely stay tuned.

 

Use OpenDNS to speed up block phishing sites, speed up your internet connection and more! Best of all its FREE

Most of you probably already know about OpenDNS, but for those of you that don't its a wonderful (and free!) tool that blocking phishing sites, automatically corrects typos such as ".og" or ".cm" and can help make your connection more reliable.

A list of features is located here:
http://www.opendns.com/features/overview/

If you want to find out how to use OpenDNS then look here:

https://www.opendns.com/start

 

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13534
RIAA vs Jammie Thomas: Day 1

p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Years back, then MPAA boss Jack Valenti, now deceased, developed the theme that studio workers were being thrown into the streets by their thousands because of staggering financial losses caused by piracy.

It wasn’t true then, and isn’t true now, but it looked good in the media and was reported as fact.

Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG know a good thing when they see it so they picked the line up and their various spin organisations, such as their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), have been using it ever since as part of disingenuous claims that ‘pirates’ are wreaking terrible havoc within the multi-billion-dollar corporate music industry.

Today marks Day 2 of a trial in which the Big 4 will try to convince a Duluth Minnesota, civil jury that as Tereastarr, Jammie Thomas, a 30-year-old mother of two, is guilty of using Sharman Networks’ Kazaa P2P file application - itself on the wrong end of a file sharing lawsuit - to illegally distribute 1,702 copyrighted music files online, with Holme Roberts & Owen lawyer Richard Gabriel leading the way for the labels.

The trial, the first in which an RIAA victim confronts the labels in an open court of law, is expected to run until Thursday at the least and will define how the sue ‘em all campaign will proceed.

And from the off, Jennifer Pariser, head of litigation for Sony BMG, claimed file sharing is a “tremendous problem affecting the music industry” causing, “several billions of dollars of harm” to the labels, says Ars Technica.

Keeping an open mind

On the jury is a high school English teacher from Kanabec County who has a master’s degree and is a musician, says the Duluth News Tribune, going oni:

He wore his hair over his ears and a black T-shirt with white lettering that read: ‘Got Democracy?’

The man said he has read a lot about the issue of music pirating in Rolling Stone magazine. He said his students also like to write about the issue. ‘It’s a good, controversial topic for students to write about,’ he said while being questioned as a prospective juror.”

Most of his students probably sided with those who download music,” he said, adding, “I know it’s a very debatable topic with lots of issues.”

“He said his view goes back and forth, but he could keep an open mind and follow the law that the judge said must be followed,” says the story.

Lack of technical knowledge

One of the reasons the RIAA cases have progressed as far as they have is because most of the judges hearing them had little or no technical knowledge, and no feeling for how the the Net works.

This meant they’ve been unable to sort fact from RIAA fiction and now, “Jurors’ understanding, or lack thereof, of the technology behind the alleged misdeed might make the difference in the case’s outcome,” says Wired’s David Kravets, going on:

“Some of the 12 panelists told the judge during jury selection that they lacked basic computer knowledge. Some said they had never been on the internet or don’t use it now. None admitted to using a file-sharing network.”

But, “Five said they had a digital music player and two said they copied a compact disc,” suggesting they probably have more technical knowledge and than may first appear.

And Thomas’s computer hard drive will figure prominently

It was replaced in 2005 after Virgin Records, Capitol Records, Sony BMG, Arista Records, Interscope Records, Warner Bros Records and UMG Recordings, say they let her know they believed she was illegally distributing their copyrighted files.

But Brian Toder, who’s representing Thomas, says the hard drive was replaced before she knew she was being targeted by the labels.

Meanwhile, “I never downloaded anything, Thomas states, says the Duluth News Tribune.
“I have CDs of everything I listen to.”

Massive job loss

What’s it all about?

The Big 4 saying file sharing is playing a major part in the serious decline of the traditional corporate music business, failing to acknowledge they’ve created a whole new consumer class of hundreds of millions of music lovers who, because of the lawsuits, bad product and over-charging, now go out of their way to avoid buying Big 4 product.

The labels say people who share music with each other are criminal and thieves although with sharing, nothing has been stolen, no money has been exchanged and no one has been deprived of something they used to own.
EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany) and Warner Music (US) say files shared equals sales lost but as I posted yesterday, the assertion has been, “shot down in a number of authoritative studies, the most quoted being The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis from Koleman Strumpf, professor of business economics at the University of Kansas Business School and Felix Oberholzer of the Harvard University Business School.”

The labels also claim file sharing contributes to massive job loss and ravages the US economy.

Nonetheless, and despite Pariser’s statements, a new Fair Use study states unequivocally:

With more than $4.5 trillion in revenue generated by fair use dependent industries in 2006, a 31% increase since 2002, fair use industries are directly responsible for more than 18% of U.S. economic growth and nearly 11 million American jobs.

In fact, nearly one out of every eight American jobs is in an industry that benefits from current limitations on copyright.

‘Usually, they settle’Meanwhile, “No other case has gone to trial,” concludes Kravets in his Wired story, adding:

“Usually, they settle. In some instances the cases are dismissed for various reasons, including lack of evidence or the alleged pirate is deceased.”

However, I seriously wonder about that and IMHO, it’s more likely most cases haven’t, in fact, been ’settled’. Rather, they’re still pending, still awaiting some kind of resolution, and as I also wrote yesterday:

“In August last year when the number of people who’d received subpoenas had reached 8,400, only 1,700 had been frightened into paying up under the RIAA’s extortionate settlement scheme, admitted spokesman Jonathan Lamy, and it’s unlikely that the proportions are very different today, especially given that more and more people are standing up to the Big 4 and their hired legal guns.”

More to come, so stay tuned ….

Jon Newton - p2pnet



RIAA anti-P2P campaign a real money pit, according to testimony

By Eric Bangeman | Published: October 02, 2007 - 11:40PM CT

Duluth, Minnesota — During an occasionally testy cross examination, a Sony executive said what many observers have suspected for a long time. The RIAA's four-year-old lawsuit campaign is costing the music industry millions of dollars and is a big money-loser for the record labels. The revelation came during the first day of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, the first file-sharing case to go to trial (it was formerly known as Virgin v. Thomas, but the sole Virgin Records track was stricken from the complaint, making Capitol Records the lead plaintiff).
Related Stories

* First RIAA trial gets under way with jury selection, opening statements
* Study: file-sharing leads to "chart churn," helps indie acts
* File-sharing on the docket: groundbreaking RIAA case goes to trial Tuesday
* RIAA spends thousands to obtain $300 judgment

After a relatively calm morning session, proceedings resumed after lunch. After RIAA lead counsel Richard Gabriel finished his direct examination, Thomas' attorney David Toder began his attempts to undermine the labels' case. He focused on apparent inconsistencies from the testimony of Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's the head of litigation. Toder also got Pariser to admit that IP addresses and screenshots "don't identify human beings."

Pariser also said she had no idea why Virgin Records dropped its part of the case. "The RIAA and the plaintiffs have the same lawyer and coordinate the lawsuits," Toder noted. "You don't know why they bailed on the case?" Pariser said she had enough trouble keeping track of Sony's litigation, let alone what the other companies are doing. Perhaps—and this is just a guess—it's the money.
Lawsuits are punitive, not business

One of the biggest bombshells from the cross-examination was Pariser's admission that the RIAA's legal campaign isn't making the labels any money, and that, furthermore, the industry has no idea of the actual damages it suffers due to file-sharing.

The admission came during questioning over the amount of damages the RIAA is seeking in the case. Toder asked Pariser how much Sony was suing the defendant for, and she replied that the amount was for the jury to decide and that the labels weren't suing for actual damages. As is the case with the other file-sharing lawsuits, the record industry is only seeking the punitive damages available via the Copyright Act, which can range from $750 to $150,000 per song. "What are your actual damages?" asked Toder.

"We haven't stopped to calculate the amount of damages we've suffered due to downloading, but that's not what's at issue here," replied Pariser, who was reminded by Judge Michael Davis to answer the questions actually asked by Toder, not hypotheticals.

Toder then pressed the Sony executive on the question of how many people actually downloaded music from the defendant. "We don't know," she replied. "I can't identify any other entities aside from what SafeNet reported, but I know that many others did... that's the way the system works."

Toder then raised the question of the RIAA targeting the wrong people in its lawsuits. "How many dead people have you sued?" he asked, a question that was blocked after Gabriel objected. Toder then took a different tack, asking Pariser if she recognized the names of Gertrude Walton, Sarah Ward, Cindy Chan, and Paul Wilke—all innocent victims of the RIAA's driftnet tactics.

The next line of questioning was how many suits the RIAA has filed so far. Pariser estimated the number at a "few thousand." "More like 20,000," suggested Toder. "That's probably an overstatement," Pariser replied. She then made perhaps the most startling comment of the day. Saying that the record labels have spent "millions" on the lawsuits, she then said that "we've lost money on this program."

The RIAA's settlement amounts are typically in the neighborhood of $3,000-$4,000 for those who settle once they receive a letter from the music industry. On the other side of the balance sheet is the amount of money paid to SafeNet (formerly MediaSentry) to conduct its investigations, and the cash spent on the RIAA's legal team and on local counsel to help with the various cases. As Pariser admitted under oath today, the entire campaign is a money pit.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-music-industry-exec-p2p-litigation-is-a-money-pit.html

 

SMAC is a powerful, yet easy to use MAC Address Changer (Spoofer) for Windows VISTA, 2003, XP, and 2000 systems, regardless of whether the network card manufacturers allow this option or not. SMAC is developed by Certified Professionals (CISSP, CISA, MCSE)
http://www.klcconsulting.net/smac/#Download



SMAC customers include companies such as Intel, HP, Boeing, Cisco, Siemens, CSC, Berkeley Lab, Sandia National Lab, Boingo Wireless, ABB, etc. Just to name a few... There has been 500,000+ SMAC downloads.



WE PROUDLY PRESENT SMAC 2.0!

New Features in SMAC 2.0:

*

Automatically Activate new MAC Address right after changing it
*

Show the manufacturer of the MAC Address
*

Randomly Generate any New MAC Address or based on a selected manufacturer
*

Pre-load MAC Addresses List and choose the new MAC address from the list (Professional)
*

"IPConfig" button - click to show network adapter (IPConfig) info to confirm changes
*

User-friendly GUI and easy-to-follow User Guide
*

Many NEW Features based on SMAC user feedback

Try it out!

SMAC customers include major organizations such as Intel, HP, Boeing, Cisco, Siemens, CSC, Berkeley Lab, Sandia National Lab, Boingo Wireless, SPI Dynamics, ABB, etc. Just to name a few... There has been 500,000+ SMAC downloads.

SMAC is a powerful, yet an easy-to-use and intuitive Windows MAC Address Modifying Utility (MAC Address spoofing) which allows users to change MAC address for almost any Network Interface Cards (NIC) on the Windows VISTA, XP, 2003, and 2000 systems, regardless of whether the manufacturers allow this option or not.

SMAC does not change the hardware burned-in MAC addresses. SMAC changes the "software based" MAC addresses, and the new MAC addresses you change will sustain from reboots.

SMAC helps people to protect their privacy by hiding their real MAC Addresses in the widely available wifi Wireless Network. SMAC also helps Network and IT Security professionals to troubleshoot network problems, test Intrusion Detection / Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS,) test Incident Response plans, build high-availability solutions, recover (MAC Address based) software licenses, and etc...

SMAC is the first Windows MAC Address Modifying Utility (since 2002), and it is developed base on the extensive research of KLC Consulting, Inc. SMAC is continuous updated with the latest trend in the networking and security, as well as valuable customers' wishes and feedbacks.

SMAC is created and maintained by Certified Information Systems Security Professionals (CISSP), Certified Information Systems Auditors (CISA), and Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers (MCSE), and professional software engineers. With combined efforts, SMAC is well designed to be an user-friendly tool for both the technical and non-technical users.

We are a proud leader in the Windows MAC Address Modification Utility Research. We have 500,000+ SMAC downloads from satisfied users all over the world, and we have received tremendous feedbacks from many IT professionals and Security experts about our input to the community. Yet, we don't just stop here. We strive to improve our products to bring the next generation of technologies to our customers.

SMAC is a MUST-HAVE TOOL for IT, Security, Networking professionals, online gamers, and everyone who needs a MAC Addresses Changer.

SMAC 2.0 Features:

Version Compare FREE Download!

*

Automatically Activate new MAC Address right after changing it (you have the option to manually activate)
*

Show the manufacturer of the MAC Address
*

Show All or "Only Active" network adapters
*

Randomly Generate any New MAC Address or based on a selected manufacturer
*

Pre-load MAC Addresses List and choose the new MAC address from the list (Professional Edition)
*

"IPConfig" button - click to show network adapter (IPConfig) info to confirm changes
*

User-friendly GUI and easy-to-follow User Guide
*

Change MAC Address in 3 clicks:
o

Select a network adapter
o

Click "Random" to generate a MAC Address to spoof
o

Click "Update MAC" to change and activate new MAC Address
*

Protect your personal privacy by hiding the real MAC Address of your Network Adapters
*

Easy, intuitive, and user-friendly GUI for viewing and changing MAC addresses
*

Display detailed information of all available adapters, or ONLY the active network adapters
*

Displays the following information of your Network Interface Card (NIC)

o Device ID

o Active Status

o NIC description

o NIC Manufacturer

o Spoofed status (Yes/No)

o IP Address

o Active MAC addresses

o Spoofed MAC Address

o NIC Hardware ID

o NIC Configuration ID

*

View and select the 10 Most Recently Used (MRU) MAC Addresses directly from the MRU list to spoof
*

Generate comprehensive reports on Network Adapter details (Professional Edition only)
*

Built-in logging capability allows users to track MAC address change activities (Professional Edition has the option to turn-on or turn-off this option)
*

Remove spoofed MAC Address to restore original MAC Address


Benefits and Applications of spoofing MAC address:

*

Protect Personal and Individual Privacy. Many organizations track wired or wireless network users via their MAC Addresses... In addition, there are more and more Wi-Fi Wireless connections available these days, and wireless network use MAC Addresses to communicate. Wireless network security and privacy is all about MAC Addresses!
*

Perform Security Vulnerability Testing, Penetration Testing on MAC Address based Authentication and Authorization Systems, i.e. Wireless Access Points. (Disclaimer: Authorization to perform these tests must be obtained from the system owner(s).)
*

Build "TRUE" Stand-by (offline) systems with the EXACT same ComputerName, IP, and MAC ADDRESSES as the Primary Systems. If Stand-by systems should be put online, NO arp table refresh is necessary, which eliminates extra downtime.
*

Some online Game Players (Gamers) require changing the MAC addresses to fix IP problems for some reason...
*

Build High-Availability solutions. For example, some firewalls that run on multi-port NIC's (i.e. quad port NIC) require the same MAC address for every port.
*

Troubleshoot Network problems. Arp Tables, Routering, Switching, ...
*

Troubleshoot system problems
*

Test network management tools
*

Test incident response procedures on simulated network problems
*

Test Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), whether they are Host and Network Based IDS.
*

If for whatever reason you need to keep the same MAC address as your old NIC, but your old NIC failed...
*

Some software can ONLY be installed and run on the systems with pre-defined MAC address in the license file. If you need to install one of these software to another system with a different Network Interface Card (NIC) because your NIC is broken, SMAC will come handy. However, you are responsible to comply with the software vendor's licensing agreement.
*

Some Cable Modem ISP's assign IP addresses base on the PC's MAC addresses. For whatever reason, if you need to swap 2 PC's regularly to connect to the cable modem, it would be a lot easier to change the MAC addresses rather than to change Network Interface Card (NIC). (You need to check with your ISP and make sure you are not violating any service agreements.)
*

Over 500,000 downloads by users from major corporations and from around the world, making SMAC the most stable and popular Windows MAC Address Modifying utility.
http://www.klcconsulting.net/smac/

 

Study: file-sharing leads to "chart churn," helps indie acts

By John Timmer | Published: October 02, 2007 - 10:40PM CT

Tracking if and how P2P file-sharing has altered the music business is a difficult challenge. The advent of the MP3 era has enabled illicit online file-swapping, but it also enabled the portable music players that have changed how music is listened to. Ambiguous study results and hyperbole from opposing camps on the issue haven't helped make much sense of these changes, either. A study that appears in the latest issue of Management Science attempts to bring some clarity to the issue. It uses some clever methodology not only to gauge the impact of file sharing, but it also attempts to provide a detailed glimpse into the changing music business.
Related Stories

* RIAA sues Santangelo children
* Court says neutral party must examine hard drive in file-sharing case
* Son of file-sharing defendant fights back against RIAA
* Federal judge: Making files available for download = distribution

The study drew much of its data from the Billboard Top 100 list of albums. Although record companies typically release over 30,000 albums per year, most sell under 1,000 copies; a disproportionate amount of music profits come from those rare albums that become popular. Researchers tracked the survival of albums that appeared on the Top 100 in terms of the total weeks they spent on the list, obtaining data from seven different time periods.

Those time periods were sliced two ways. The first was before and after what the authors viewed as a critical period in the music business. They suggest that 1998 to mid-2000 saw several major events that had the potential to change the dynamics of album sales. These included the introduction of the MP3 format and the rise of Napster, as well as the passage of the DMCA. The first year after that period (2001) was also the first year that saw a drop in total album shipments. General measures of the music economy, such as superstar status and marketing by one of the "big four" labels, were included for all time periods.

The post-MP3 period also includes data on file-sharing gleaned from WinMX, which the authors claim was one of the top three file-sharing services during this time. File-sharing data was also obtained for one additional point: after June 2003, when the RIAA announced it was going to shift its focus from suing the service providers to going after individual file-sharers. Data suggests that sharing dropped by as much as 80 percent after that announcement, so this period acts to partially isolate the role of piracy from the other changes that occurred during this time period.

The data on the general music economy support the view that the primary factor influencing music sales is the burden that listeners face in terms of simply finding music to buy. Factors that raise an album's public prominence therefore increase its chart survival. These factors include access to the publicity machines of major labels, a high-placed debut on the charts, and past chart success from the artist.

Consistent with the idea that P2P sharing lowers the "cost" of finding new music, the data suggests that music buyers now have shortened attention spans, so the amount of churn on the charts has gone up dramatically since 2001. Most albums spend a reduced amount of time on the charts, and those that debut at a low ranking tend to drop off much faster than they before. The effect isn't uniform, however; albums that debut high on the charts still have longer survival times, and female solo artists seem oddly immune to the changes.

The authors say that their data link this trend directly to sharing. They conclude, "We find that, although sharing does not hurt the survival of top-ranked albums, it does have a negative impact on low-ranked albums. These results point to increased risk from rapid information sharing for all but the 'cream of the crop'."

But the rapid turnover on the Top 100 has had an unexpected side effect: more albums from the independent labels appear on the charts, and those that appear survive longer than they had before. Releases from indie labels are still at a disadvantage compared to those from the majors, but the gap between them appears to have narrowed. Those who predicted that file-sharing would help popularize more obscure titles appear to have been on to something. The report suggests that this may provide an additional, cynical motive for the majors to combat file sharing: song swapping reduces the majors' influence in the music market in a way that has nothing to do with lost sales.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-study-finds-new-music-dynamics-post-napster.html

 

RIAA ’sue ‘em all’ war losing money

p2pnet news | RIAA News:- It’ll be news to the mainstream media and others unfamiliar with corporate music industry practices of inventing facts and statistics to suit the occasion, but Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG have no idea how much money, if any, they’re losing to file sharing.

The admission came from Sony BMG’s Jennifer Pariser.

Moreover, continues Ars Technica, she owned up to something else followers of Big 4 efforts to pummel their customers into submission have known for some time: that the sue ‘em all campaign is in fact a bizarre form of loss-leader.

Designed to ultimately drive people into the waiting arms of the Big 4, it isn’t saving them money, it’s costing them, says Pariser, quoted in the story.

The revelations are certain to seriously unsettle the RIAA’s case that the BIG 4 are being: ‘devastated’ (their word) by file sharers; losing billions of dollars; and, are being forced to lay off workers in their droves because of people who share music with with each other.

They came during a trial when for the first time, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and its minions are being forced to pony up with accurate information instead of unsupported generalisations and claims, something they’ve been getting away with since the sue ‘em all marketing project was launched in 2003.

Focus of the trial is Jammie Thomas, a 30-year-old Minnesota First Nations mother of two who’s accused of illegally distributing copyrighted music online.

She works for the Department of Natural Resources of the Mille Lacs Band.

She’s an Ojibwe and we haven’t been able to discover whether or not she lives on a reservation. But if she does, it might raise interesting possibilities given that North American Indian bands claim full nation status and it’s not inconceivable that the RIAA and its lawyers might at some point find themselves facing a complex jurisdictional problem as they try to railroad a victim who, to all intents and purposes, might live in what amounts to a foreign country.

Fanciful? Probably, but then so is the entire RIAA case.

Meanwhile, Thomas’ is the first file sharing case to go to trial.

As Ars Technica points out, it started out as as Virgin v Thomas, “but the sole Virgin Records track was stricken from the complaint, making Capitol Records the lead plaintiff”.

The story goes on:

After a relatively calm morning session, proceedings resumed after lunch. After RIAA lead counsel Richard Gabriel finished his direct examination, Thomas’ attorney David [sic - his name is Brian] Toder began his attempts to undermine the labels’ case. He focused on apparent inconsistencies from the testimony of Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG’s the head of litigation. Toder also got Pariser to admit that IP addresses and screenshots “don’t identify human beings.”

Toder talso asked her how many people had actually downloaded music from the defendant but, “We don’t know,” she admitted.

“I can’t identify any other entities aside from what SafeNet reported, but I know that many others did… that’s the way the system works.”

Ars Technica adds:

Toder then raised the question of the RIAA targeting the wrong people in its lawsuits. “How many dead people have you sued?” he asked, a question that was blocked after Gabriel objected. Toder then took a different tack, asking Pariser if she recognized the names of Gertrude Walton, Sarah Ward, Cindy Chan, and Paul Wilke - all innocent victims of the RIAA’s driftnet tactics.

The next line of questioning was how many suits the RIAA has filed so far. Pariser estimated the number at a “few thousand.” “More like 20,000,” suggested Toder. “That’s probably an overstatement,” Pariser replied. She then made perhaps the most startling comment of the day. Saying that the record labels have spent “millions” on the lawsuits, she then said that “we’ve lost money on this program.”

We’ve yet to learn how Toder will deal with discredited RIAA ‘expert’ Dr Doug Jacobson (upper right), due to testify today.

His evidence in another case involving 57-year-old home health aide Maried Lindor, who doesn’t know one end of a computer from the other but who’s also alleged by the RIAA to be a massive illegal distributor of corporate product, was described by Lindor’s lawyere, Ray Beckerman, as “junk science”.

Toder’s toughest opponent will be fellow lawyer Cary Sherman, a brilliant sophist who for years has been leading the way for RIAA dissemblers.

He’s also slated to give evidence.

Stay tuned.

SlashdotSlashdot it! Add to Technorati Favorites

Also See:
Ars Technica - RIAA anti-P2P campaign a real money pit, according to testimony, October 3, 2007
discredited RIAA ‘expert’ - Lindor vs the RIAA: round I0, May 17, 2007
massive illegal distributor - Marie Lindor, RIAA copyright crook, Sewptember 14, 2007
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13540

 

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13536
Teddy boy John Lennon

p2pnet news | Music:- If you’re from the UK and you remember the 50s, you’ll know what a ted is. If not, here’s the Wikipedia on the subject:

Clothing consisted of long drape jackets, usually in dark shades, sometimes with velvet trim collar and pocket flaps, high-waisted ‘drainpipe’ trousers, chunky brogues and later large crepe-soled shoes, often suede (sometimes nicknamed brothel creepers).”

It doesn’t mention the hair style, but the pic on the right provides a good example.

It’s a photo of John Lennon with one of his mates, Nigel Walley, and it’s, “Described by the BBC as a ‘world exclusive’, this elusive photograph will feature in this evening’s edition of Inside Out (BBC1, 7.30pm),” says Paddy Shennan in the Liverpool Echo, going on:

To help mark this summer’s 50th anniversary of the first meeting between John and Paul McCartney at the Woolton village fete on July 6, 1957, BBC1’s Inside Out programme initially began looking for more photos from that history-changing day, in the hope of adding to the one of the Quarrymen on stage which has been reproduced around the world on a regular basis.

They didn’t find any, but they did unearth an extremely rare picture taken in the city centre the following spring of John and childhood friend Nigel, a tea chest bass player in the group between 1956 and 1957 and their manager until some time in 1958 (after this photo was taken).

In the programme, viewers will see a stunned Nigel, who was nearly nine months younger than the late Beatle, being shown the photo for the first time since the early 1960s.

“Mr Walley said he gave the photo to his brother, who he believes it was stolen from his school desk,” says the BBC, adding:

“Goodness knows where it got to since then,” said Mr Walley, who now lives in Clacton, Essex.

“It’s very emotional for me seeing this photo again after all these years. John was a very good friend of mine.

“One thing I know John would have loved, was seeing this photograph. It’s something I’ll always treasure now.”

SlashdotSlashdot it! Add to Technorati Favorites

Also See:
Liverpool Echo - Teenage teds without a care in the world …, October 3, 2007
BBC - Lennon photo found after 50 years, October 3, 2007

 

INQ Guide to free anti-virus software

Windows for Doughnuts Free anti-virus

By Liam Proven: Wednesday, 03 October 2007, 5:25 PM

THIS IS ONE of the most critical components of the setup of any PC today. A machine doesn't need to be on the Web to be at risk; there are decades-old viruses that can still spread by disk transfer, and new ones that can infect USB thumbdrives.

Direct infection across local-area networks is also a common problem; someone takes a laptop outside the company LAN, picks up something nasty in an Internet Café, later on reconnects in the office and the bug is on the rampage.

Companies such as Symantec and McAfee make good money selling anti-virus solutions, both to big businesses and to home users. If you buy a new PC from one of the big vendors, it's quite likely to come with some kind of anti-virus preloaded, but all too often, it's only a trial or demonstration version, and after a month or three it will stop working. Generally, the program still runs but it no longer gets updated definitions.

A common misconception is that an anti-virus program will protect against spyware too. Most do not. We'll look at anti-spyware in a later article.

But my old copy of Norton works fine
A common trap to fall into is to just keep renewing the updates subscription for a commercial program. In a word: don't. Get a new version.

New types of virus appear constantly, as today, they're big business: collections of infected, remotely-controlled computers are used for sending spam and for organizing "distributed denial of service" attacks, where business sites such as online betting shops are held to ransom. It's not a lucrative business on a per-PC basis, but today, one of the biggest supercomputers in the world is a "botnet" - a team of millions of compromised PCs, remotely controlled from illegal websites and chatrooms. With such resources at their disposal, crooks can make a good profit. If you can send several million spams a day, even a success rate of 0.01% can make a lot of money from hapless idiots who think that a pill can make them taller or a bodypart grow bigger.

The snag is that an out-of-date anti-virus program, even with the latest definitions, can't catch the new viruses that later versions have been rewritten to spot and remove. Obsolete anti-virus is worse than none, because it imbues you with a false sense of security. Users think they're protected - the past-it program may be giving their PC a clean bill of health - but actually, they could be infested.

Many of the leading commercial anti-virus tools can be upgraded over the counter for half the cost of buying that years' new update, but why bother, when you can get protection for free?

When choosing a free anti-virus program, there are some important things to watch out for. The essential features of a full anti-virus program are real-time monitor and some kind of virus removal procedure. Several companies offer free scanners, but a scanner alone is not enough. For one thing, while it's useful to be able to scan your computer as a check, a simple scanner doesn't sit in the background and monitor file activity on your PC, so it won't notice if you receive an infected file by email or instant message, or insert an infected disk. This is called real-time monitoring and it's a must-have.

Secondly, some free programs will tell you that you've caught something nasty, but they lack any ability to remove what they've found. There are three main ways to treat an infected file: simply delete it, the easiest and safest; or to quarantine it, move it into a protected safe storage area where it can do no harm, for later inspection or salvage; or finally disinfection, which attempts to remove the virus from a document or program and leave you with a safe, usable file. This last is the hardest to do successfully, and whereas it can sometimes work, it's safer and better to bin the dodgy doc and get a clean copy from elsewhere - like your backups. You do keep backups, don't you?

There's no harm in having a scanner, but it can only be a second line of defence, to be used to verify that your main program is telling the truth and that you really are clean.

Czech this out
For some reason, the Czechs dominate the world of free antivirus. Both the best-known program, AVG Free from Grisoft, and the highly-regarded runner-up, Avast Home from Alwil, are from the Czech Republic. In the country next door is Avira in Germany with its free AntiVir.

All have the same snag: they're only free for non-commercial use. For home, personal or nonprofit users, they're a bargain, but business users must pay a modest fee or look elsewhere. Avast has, if anything, the best reputation, but has the slight snag that the free download only works for a couple of months. To use it for longer, you must register with a valid email address, and re-register annually.

Along with their free firewalls, both PC Tools and Comodo also offer a free antivirus program. Both cover the essentials and the websites don't mention any riders about business use.

The only big open-source offering in anti-virus is ClamWin, the Windows version of ClamAV, the popular Linux scanner used on many email servers. It's kosher for use in corporate environments, but it doesn't do real-time monitoring, as this isn't a problem on Linux.

An example of the hazards of spyware is VCatch, a rather ineffective free antivirus program with a nasty payload. Avoid. µ

L'Inqs
AVG Free 7.5 from Grisoft
Avast Home from Alwil
PC Tools Free Antivirus
Comodo Free Antivirus - note, still in beta test.
Avira AntiVi

For belt-and-braces security, here are some decent scanners to check that you really are clean.
ClamWin
BitDefender Free (Download here.)

Online scanners. These run inside Internet Explorer, so need no download or installation.
McAfee FreeScan
Panda ActiveScan

LINK

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/03/free-anti-virus-programs-tested

 

Defendant's counsel hammers away at piracy picture painted by RIAA

By Eric Bangeman | Published: October 03, 2007 - 01:51PM CT

During the second morning of the Capitol v. Thomas trial, a clearer view of the two sides' legal strategy emerged. The RIAA, led by their counsel Richard Gabriel, is attempting to craft a carefully-constructed picture of the defendant as a KaZaA user whose "copying and distributing" music over the P2P network has harmed the record industry. The RIAA's counsel also hopes to paint a picture of the defendant as a habitual music thief who not only shares music, but also steals plenty of it herself. To that end, the RIAA is arguing that the music found on her computer during a forensic inspection was obtained illegally, by copying the music directly from another hard drive. In other words, she's guilty coming and going.
Related Stories

* RIAA anti-P2P campaign a real money pit, according to testimony
* First RIAA trial gets under way with jury selection, opening statements
* Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing"
* File-sharing on the docket: groundbreaking RIAA case goes to trial Tuesday

In contrast, the defendant's counsel, David Toder, has tried to plant the seeds of doubt about the real identity of the person detected using KaZaA by Media Sentry on the night of February 21, 2005. How can anyone be certain she was sharing the files? During the morning's session, he also attacked the RIAA's expert witness, Iowa State University computer science professor Doug Jacobson.

Professor Doug Jacobson conducted the forensic inspection of Thomas' hard drive, a drive which had been replaced under extended warranty by Best Buy about two weeks after the alleged infringement was noted by Media Sentry (but before the RIAA came calling). During its opening statements, the plaintiffs alluded to the possibility that the drive had been replaced in an attempt to wipe out any evidence of copyright infringement, but testimony from Ryan Maki, a Geek Squad "deputy of counterintelligence" (read: supervisor) resplendent in a Geek Squad sweater and sporting a law-enforcement-looking badge on his belt, confirmed Thomas' tale of hardware woes necessitating a replacement. It would appear that she had her drive swapped for a legitimate reason.
How fast can you rip?

This still leaves the question of the music found on Thomas' new hard drive. During Gabriel's direct examination of Jacobson, the investigator noted how close together the timestamps of the songs in Thomas' My Music folder were. "It is my opinion that the music files on the defendant's hard drive were placed there from another hard drive," affirmed Jacobson, attempting to account for the nature of the time stamps.

Once cross-examination began, Toder started asking Jacobson about things such as MAC address spoofing, cracking, P2P pollution, and multipeer contamination, intimating that one of those things could have been in play when Media Sentry detected the shared folder at the IP address in question. He then questioned Jacobson about his assertion that the music currently on Thomas' computer had to have come from a hard drive and announced that he wanted to demonstrate to the jury that it was possible to rip CDs as quickly as the timestamps from the forensic examination showed (the timestamps were approximately 15-20 seconds apart with a longer 30- to 45-second gap between CDs).

The RIAA's Gabriel objected, and the jury was led out as the attorneys discussed whether the demonstration should go forth. Judge Michael Davis gave his assent to the demonstration, and, after the jury filed back into the courtroom, Thomas ripped two CDs, timing it on her cell phone. When the first CD was done, she announced the time as 2:36.18. Gabriel immediately objected saying that they timed it at over four minutes. The apparently-amused judge said that the jurors could figure out the time for themselves. The second CD ripped in 2:17.71 according to the defendant's timing (I timed the second demonstration in 2:18.97). Gabriel again objected, saying that he had it at three-and-a-half minutes.

With the results in hand, Toder got Jacobson to admit that, despite whatever differences in hardware and software (e.g., WMP 11 versus WMP 10), the results of the test indicated that it was possible that the music was legitimately ripped from CD. "Is it still your testimony that the music on the defendant's computer was copied from a hard drive?" asked Toder.

"Given new versions of software, you could rip this fast," conceded Jacobson.
Thomas "a good music customer"

Aside from Jacobson and Maki, the only other two defendants called by the plaintiffs were Kevin Hebemeier, Thomas' ex-boyfriend, and Eric Stanley, a computer forensics expert originally retained by the defense. Stanley's testimony was very brief, but he did note that he was originally told that the hard drive was replaced in January or February of 2004, not March 2005 as it actually was.

It's unclear why the plaintiffs called Hebemeier, as he really didn't do much to help their case. He confirmed the defense's timeline of events—that there was a real hardware problem over a month before Thomas got a letter from Charter Communications. He recalled telling Thomas after the letter arrived that "there's nothing there because the hard drive was wiped out and replaced" and confirmed that she used the e-mail address tereastarr@hotmail.com.

Under cross-examination, Hebemeier said he never saw Thomas using KaZaA and that he never saw any evidence of its presence when he used her PC. He also said that he had witnessed her ripping CDs and had talked to her on the phone while she was in the process of ripping. He also said that she owned at least a "couple hundred" CDs.

During his cross-examination of Geek Squad member Ryan Maki, Toder was able to use Best Buy's sales history of Toder to show that she was an avid music fan that bought a lot of music from the store, both before and after February 2005. "Best Buy's records show that she bought hundreds of CDs before February 2005, did she not?" asked Toder.

"There are quite a few CDs and DVDs purchased," replied Maki. "She's a good customer."

The plaintiffs hope to wrap up their case this afternoon by calling another three or four witnesses consisting of record company executives and RIAA president Cary Sherman. So far, their case appears to be strong: they've shown that Thomas uses the "tereastarr" handle extensively (the KaZaA user identified by Media Sentry was "tereastarr@KaZaA"), that the IP address flagged by Media Sentry was assigned to her account at the time, and that only one MAC address was interfacing with the cable modem during the months before and after the alleged infringement. Where the RIAA's case seems to be running aground is in its attempt to paint her as a pirate. The defense appears to have successfully countered allegations that she was into large-scale piracy, instead showing that she's a devoted music fan who owns hundreds of CDs.

Of course, it will be up to the jury to make the final call. They seem to be following the proceedings with interest, although I've detected a couple cases of eyes glazing over when the testimony gets technical.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...s-away-at-piracy-picture-painted-by-riaa.html

 

I WILL NOT BE POSTING THIS SITE OR THIS THREAD ANY MORE.
SOMEONE CLOSE IT
IRELAND