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

have a Caffeinated Doughnut and coffee on me.........


Scientist Develops Caffeinated Doughnuts
Email this Story

Jan 26, 7:40 AM (ET)

DURHAM. N.C. (AP) - That cup of coffee just not getting it done anymore? How about a Buzz Donut or a Buzzed Bagel? That's what Doctor Robert Bohannon, a Durham, North Carolina, molecular scientist, has come up with. Bohannon says he's developed a way to add caffeine to baked goods, without the bitter taste of caffeine. Each piece of pastry is the equivalent of about two cups of coffee.

While the product is not on the market yet, Bohannon has approached some heavyweight companies, including Krispy Kreme, Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks about carrying it.

 

Hollywood threatens Canada

p2pnet.net News:- Using Rupert Murdoch's Twentieth Century Fox as the front, Hollywood is threatening Canada over the alleged bootlegging of movies in Canadian cinemas.

Canadians "pirate" as many as as 50% of movies which show up online, "prompting the film industry to threaten to delay the release of new titles," says the studio which, according to the CanWest News Service, claims most of the camcording goes on in Montreal cinemas, encouraged by, " bilingual releases and lax copyright laws".

"They are using Canada because they can have the movie out on the street in the Philippines and China before it even releases there," the story has the Cineplex Entertainment theatre chain's Ellis Jacob saying.

Bruce Snyder, president of Fox's domestic distribution, told Jacob about the alleged activities and said if Canada doesn't do something to curb its growing piracy problem, "Hollywood will".

The entertainment cartels have been lobbying frantically trying to get Canaidan copyright laws changed so they can go after Canadians in the same way they do Americans and people on other parts of the world.

Hollywood's MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) routinely uses national police forces to go after, on its behalf, anyone it believes is a "pirate".

It, and its brother music organization the RIAA, aka the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America), want to be able to do the same in Canada and Voilà! - "The movie industry has complained that the Canadian Copyright Act, as well as the internal policies of police forces including the RCMP, make it extremely difficult for them to crack down on movie piracy," says CanWest, going on:

"Under the act, anyone caught copying a movie without the studio's consent can face criminal charges and jailed or fined up to $25,000. Copyright holders can also take civil action against someone who has infringed on their property. owever, Jacob said convicting someone is difficult."

Canadian exhibitors, "are caught in a bind because Canadian laws do not allow for the arrest or prosecution of moviegoers with camcorders," says Reuters.

"You have to prove that the person was camcording and using it to generate revenue. It is virtually impossible to do that," he said." Unless you can assign blame to the person recording in your theatre, your law doesn't have any teeth."

The Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association acts for Hollywood in Canada and, "We're working in a legislative and enforcement vacuum, and certainly a prosecution vacuum at every level in this country," says its boss, boss Douglas Frith, according to the story, which goes on:

"In addition to working for stronger laws, the CMPDA has trained cinema employees to spot illegal camcorders," but, "local police are not responding to calls from cinema operators when pirate camera operators are spotted and detained."

Reuters also quotes Frith as declaring, "We're doing the surveillance. We have them (camcorder operators) in our crosshairs. But we require a police force to enforce the law, which is why we are pressing so hard to get camcording made a criminal offense."

The entertainment cartels have used their massive spin machines to elevate copyright infringement, a commercial matter, to the level of major crime in the US, and they're desperately striving to achieve the same thing in Canada.

In the US in late 2005, 19-year-old Curtis Salisbury was looking at up to 17 years in jail and a possible $250,000 fine for allegedly camcording a movie.

Stay tuned.

Slashdot Slashdot it!

Also See:
CanWest News Service - Studio threatens to delay films in Canada, January 24, 2007
Reuters - Hollywood studio vexed by Canadian bootleggers, January 24, 2007
17 years in jail - Star Wars 'Sith' p2p uploader, January 26, 2006
http://p2pnet.net/story/11140?PHPSESSID=39ef6c9cd571f861b8ad580887424d11

 

AACS confirms AACS hacked

p2pnet.net News:- DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) consumer control comes in many guises. But whatever it's called, it makes a mockery out of the term 'fair use' aiming, as it does, to stop people from freely using DVDs they bought and paid good money for.

Bottom line, however, DRM is a farce. Anything which can be seen or heard can, and will be, copied by one digital or analog means or another.

Now, add to that the thought that anything which can be encrypted can be decrypted, the relevance being "title keys" used to decrypt high-definition DVDs supposedly protected by the Access Content System (AACS) have indeed been hacked, confirm AACS Licensing Authority founders IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, Disney and Warner Bros.

"Both the title keys and a number of decrypted films have been posted on peer-to-peer Web sites for downloading and copying, a spokesman for the Advanced Access Content System (AACS) Licensing Authority said," according to Reuters.

"The large size of the files and the high cost of writable hi-def discs make large-scale copying of high-definition DVDs impractical, but the attacks on the new format echo the early days of illegal trafficking in music files, AACS spokesman Michael Ayers said on Thursday."

He's talking about the days when Jon Lech Johansen, aka DVD Jon, originally decoded the so-called DVD content-scrambling system, turning DeCSS loose.

Move over Jon and enter Muslix64, the creator of BackupHDDVD which has the Hollywood moguls in a similar flap, and the mainstream media, reporting by press release, screaming lamely.

"A large-scale failure of AACS could be a threat to the $24 billion DVD industry, which has started to cool and was counting on next-generation DVD sales to reinvigorate it," says Reuters, quoting AACS spokesman Michael Ayers as saying, "The security breach affects both of the high-definition DVD formats - Sony Corp's Blu-Ray and Toshiba's HD DVD."

Here's what Slyck has to say on the subject, together with a Q&A with Muslix64.

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

Interview with muslix64, Developer of BackupHDDVD
By Tom Mennecke - Slyck

The next generation of optical disc technology holds the promise to change the way we interact with and store digital media. Perhaps the most exciting change is the arrival of High Definition (HD) video, with its glorious 1920x1080 pixel resolution. It’s a quantum leap forward in terms of watching digital content, as its vast resolution reveals a quality never seen before in such fine detail.

Because of the rapid escalation of digital file-sharing – especially of video files – Hollywood has been working around the clock to protect HD content. This is especially relevant for one of its primary delivery mechanisms – HD DVD and Blu-ray discs. These next generation discs, with capacities of 30 gigabytes and 50 gigabytes respectively, have their content protected with an array of DRM (Digital Rights Management.) Both are protected with a scheme called AACS, or Advanced Access Content System. This DRM is a great leap forward compared to the weak CSS, or Content Scrambling System, that currently “protects” DVDs. Thanks to Fox, Blu-ray has an additional layer of protection, called BD+, however most discs have yet to support this protection.

Although Hollywood has constructed enough DRM architecture to rival the Pyramid of Giza, it has long been suspected that it would be only a matter of time before HD DVD and Blu-ray content protection were compromised. Convinced the golden DRM egg had been laid, it seemed that nothing could penetrate the great AACS wall. And to this day, that great wall still stands.

But why crash through the main gates of Constantinople when you can just pick the lock of a long forgotten rear entrance?

On December 26, 2006, a member of the Doom9.com forums named muslix64 introduced himself as circumventing the content protection – not the copy protection – of HD DVD. Additionally, he made available an open source program named BackupHDDDVD. At the time, this program was a command line program that bypassed the content protection – providing the individual successfully obtained the title and volume keys associated with the HD DVD. Once the individual has the keys, the AACS protection can be sidestepped, and the HD movie content can be extracted. According to muslix64, it took all of eight days to successfully circumvent HD DVD content protection.

Much of the more difficult work, such as extracting the keys, has been alleviated as the once encrypted information has proliferated online. To understand where this stunning turn of events is heading, Slyck.com spoke with muslix64, who agreed to a PM (private message) interview.

Mennecke: The mainstream media tends to have many labels for you, i.e. hacker, cracker, pirate, etc., in response to your efforts. What would you call yourself and what would you label your efforts?

Muslix64: I'm just an upset customer. My efforts can be called "fair use enforcement"!

Mennecke: What motivated you to help circumvent the content protection scheme associated with HD DVD and Blu-ray?

Muslix64: With the HD-DVD, I wasn't able to play my movie on my non-HDCP HD monitor. Not being able to play a movie that I have paid for, because some executive in Hollywood decided I cannot, made me mad...

After the HD-DVD crack, I realized that things where "unbalanced" by having just one format cracked, so I did Blu-ray too.

Mennecke: Explain how decrypting the device and volume keys are critical to your success. Could you explain the difference between the two?

Muslix64: The device keys, are the keys associated to the player. The volume key, is the key associated to the movie.

I don't care about device keys. I do care about volume keys, because by using volume keys instead of devices keys, I totally bypass the revocation system. There is no "volume key revocation". There is content revocation, but I really doubt they will ever use it. If you use device keys, they can revoke them. Having the volume key means that you can decrypt title's keys (or CPS Unit key in the case of Blu-ray) and then you can decrypt the media file without problem.

I was shocked to realize the volume key was not protected in memory!

Mennecke: Explain how a movie studio could prevent the general public from taking advantage of pirated HD movies, such as ones currently available via Usenet and BitTorrent. For example, if an individual were to download "Serenity", and play it successfully on his or her Power DVD player - and never updated the software - would it be immune from any Hollywood counterattack?

Muslix64: Yes, immune. If the movie is decrypted there is nothing you can do! Or you can use open-source player, like VideoLan, if a player like PowerDVD become more restrictive about playing decrypted movies.

Mennecke: There appears to be some confusion to the extent and specifics of your success. Explain what content protection has been compromised, and what content protection is still intact?

Muslix64: There is no easy answer but, IMHO, AACS is totally busted. The only thing I can see for now to prevent the attack I have described is to put different keys on every disc! It will cost a fortune for the manufacturing, so I'm not sure they will go that way...

People say I have not broken AACS, but players. But players are part of this system! And a system is only as strong as his weakest link. Even if players become more secure, key extraction will always be possible.

I know many people of the industry try to cover up this breach, by saying I have only poked a tiny hole in AACS, but it is more serious than that. Only the future will tell.

The AACS security layer is almost the same for both HD-DVD and Blu-ray, so they are both busted for good.

The only extra security layer is for the Blu-ray format, and it's called BD+. BD+ is not there yet, and I don't know when it will be. May be my "exploits" will speed up the adoption of BD+, we will see...

Mennecke: You've recently helped defeat Blu-ray's content protection as well. What were the similarities/differences in defeating this copy protection scheme?

Muslix64: Almost the same. I use the same known-plaintext attack for both formats. But media format and encryption are slightly different. Because I already had experience with the HD-DVD, it was really easy for Blu-ray.

Mennecke: What are your ultimate goals? Do you feel that most - if not all - of the content protect will be ultimately defeated?

Muslix64: If you can play it, you can decrypt it! There is nothing you can do about it. The only thing they can try is to slow people down.

Mennecke: To what extent do you feel you can bring your efforts to the mainstream? Do you believe Hollywood's content protect will rendered so impotent that HDDVD Backup (or a similar device) will be utilized to the same extent as DVD Decrypter or DVD Shrink?

Muslix64: Probably. There are multiple scenarios here. You can write a fully automated decrypter with stolen player keys, but they will revoke the keys.

Anyways, even if they do key revocation, the revocation process will be very slow. It would take at least one month (or more) between revoking the player and new version of movies with the revocation in stores.

The reaction time of the community will be way faster than the reaction time of the industry.

Mennecke: Explain the differences between DeCSS and your efforts.

Muslix64: I really respect the work of DVD Jon and his friends (he was not alone!) They do more than me. They had to reverse a cipher! I didn't have to reverse anything. So technically speaking, it was easier to bypass AACS than CSS.

Mennecke: To what extent is your work a community effort? Do you feel that without the community's input, we would be having this conversation today?

Muslix64: I was pretty much alone to do the HD-DVD exploit. But I receive a lot of help with the Blu-ray, thanks Janvitos!

Muslix64: My 2 programs are only "proof of concept" software. Right now, the community's contribution is vital. They will bring this software to higher level. I just tell people it was possible and I made the demonstration.

Mennecke: What PC based DVD players are currently compatible with defeated HD movies?

Muslix64: I don't want to give specific names but I can tell you they are all vulnerable [to a] different extent.

Mennecke: Let's look into the crystal ball. When would you say people will be able to decrypt, burn, and play HD movies (whether HD DVD or Blu-ray) on their stand alone player?

Muslix64: I think they are already doing it right now! I have seen post of people claiming they did that on both format...But I cannot confirm it.

Mennecke: Do you see Microsoft Vista's implementation of HDCP being an obstacle to playing compromised HD movies in high definition?

Muslix64: No. To my understanding, this limitation is enforced in the player! So if you use an open-source player, like VideoLan, there is no problem. Also, a decrypted movie [doesn’t] have this limitation if you have disabled the security flags.

Muslix64: The limitation with Vista seems more on the process and memory protection. But I cannot comment on that, I don't know Vista.

Mennecke: Do you see AACS encryption being defeated in the near future?

Muslix64: If you’re talking about AES itself (the crypto algorithm), I don't think it will be cracked anytime soon, but we never know. May be someone will find another hole, or another way to attack AACS. You cannot attack the crypto itself, you have to attack the protocol or the procedure. When will we find another way around AACS? No idea...

Mennecke: If studios begin revoking encryption keys, do you believe this will pose a significant threat to your progress or overall goals?

Muslix64: Players will become more and more secure. It will slow me down, but it won't prevent key extraction in the long term.

Mennecke: Does the defeat of HD DVD automatically mean a victory for Blu-ray in the marketplace, or will Blu-ray be just as vulnerable to the community's efforts?

Muslix64: The less secure the format, the more people will buy. I know a lot of people will disagree with that, but that's my opinion. Right now, both format are equally vulnerable. We have to wait the introduction of BD+ to see if it is really that secure...

In the long run, Blu-ray seems more secure (because of BD+) and now is more expensive. So HD-DVD wins!

Mennecke: Describe a potential Hollywood counterattack, and how the community would repulse such an offensive?

Muslix64: Making the keys unique per disc will be the perfect counterattack. So we have to start another attack by stealing player’s key and doing the whole AACS decryption. Then the community will win because they have a faster response time to the revocation than the industry.

Mennecke: Who do you feel most benefits from your work, and who stands to lose the most?

Muslix64: The consumers will benefit. I hope it will enforce fair use, not piracy. Of course pirates will use this technique, and they already did...

Studios will lose more money with mass counterfeiting than file or key exchange on the net.

Mennecke: Considering the legal problems Jon Lech Johansen endured, are you at all concerned about the repercussions of your work?

Muslix64: I'm really concern about that. So I will stay put for a while, and watch the show. When the first BD+ movie [comes] out, I will wake up!

Mennecke: Is there anything you would like to add?

Muslix64: I don't think I'm the first who did it. They are probably a lot of people who did that before me, but they keep it secret.

I was disappointed to realize, that BD+ (the other security layer of Blu-ray) was not there yet. It would have been a great challenge! AACS was not a challenge at all...

I'm not the smart guy around; they are just careless about security.

[Slyck note: One of the more important lessons muslix64 probably best exemplifies is the enormous delayed reaction of the entertainment industry. Napster was released in 1999, and to this day the music industry continues to struggle against free file-sharing. There are indications now that DRM is being considered for obsolescence. With muslix64's work, the amount of work required to keep up with the community oriented efforts may simply be impossible to maintain.]

Slashdot Slashdot it!

Also See:
Reuters - AACS confirms hacks on high-definition DVD players, January 25, 2007
enter Muslix64 - BackupHDDVD v1.00 now online, January 3, 2007
http://p2pnet.net/story/11141?PHPSESSID=9957ad115487373dc4b6a36e6081d313

 

DRIVER MAX..........DriverMax is a new program which allows you to easily reinstall all your Windows drivers.

No more searching for rare drivers on discs or on the web or inserting one installation CD after the other. Simply export all your current drivers (or just the ones that work ok) to a folder or a compressed file. After reinstalling Windows you will have everything in one place! Most of the situations when Windows is running slower are caused by faulty driver installations. Windows stores all versions of older drivers just in case you want to go back; sometimes it messes up older versions with more recent ones. The Export Wizard will only export the drivers you select by copying the needed files to a folder or a compressed ZIP file. After reinstalling Windows all drivers will be back in place in less than 5 minutes - sparing you of searching, inserting disc after disk and losing precious time. The Import Drivers wizard allows you to install all the drivers that you exported earlier. The entire operation might take up to 5-10 minutes. Just one single computer restart will be required after all drivers are reinstalled! DriverMax is able to display a complete report of all drivers (versions, release dates) installed on your system. This feature can also be very useful when you want to analyze the differences between the drivers installed on different machines.....(free).....GO THERE!
http://www.innovative-sol.com/

 

XNVIEW..........Free graphic and photo viewer and converter, really simple to use ! Supports more than 400 graphics formats ! It's free, so do not hesitate! XnView (1.82/1.70) exists for Windows, MacOS X, Linux x86, Linux ppc, FreeBSD x86, OpenBSD x86, NetBSD x86, Solaris sparc, Solaris x86, Irix mips, HP-UX, AIX.....(free).....GO THERE!
http://www.xnview.com/

 

This Web site can name that tune
Search site Midomi lets users sing, hum or whistle to find song titles from a catalog of more than 2 million tracks.
By Elinor Mills


Do you ever find yourself humming a song whose title, to your frustration, you don't know or can't remember? New search Web site Midomi is designed to actually identify that song for you in as little as 10 seconds.


go here to hum or whistle
http://www.midomi.com/


Launching in beta mode on Friday, Midomi allows people to search for a song by singing, humming or whistling a bit of the tune. The site then offers search results that include commercially recorded tracks or versions of the song recorded by others who have used the site. The technology also lets people listen to the exact section of each of the results that matched their voice sample.

People also can type in a song title or artist to get results. The system recognizes misspelled words.

Melodis, the company behind the site, has licensed 2 million digital tracks that can be purchased and has accumulated about 12,000 more from users. Users, who range from aspiring American Idol contestants to professionals, can create profiles and rate one other's performances on the ad-supported site.

The underlying speech- and sound-recognition technology, dubbed Multimodal Adaptive Recognition System, or MARS, differs from similar technologies in that it looks at a variety of factors for recognizing samples, including pitch, tempo variation, speech content and location of pauses, said Chief Executive Keyvan Mohajer, who has a Ph.D. in sound- and speech-recognition from Stanford University.

Like search giant Google, Melodis was started in a dorm room in Stanford--only the idea for Melodis came a bit later: 2004.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-6153657.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news

 

Holland joins anti-Apple DRM war

Humph!

p2pnet.net News:- Holland has joined other European and Scandinavian countries in their fight to force a giant America corporation into treating its customers fairly.

German and French consumer groups are following Norway in battle against Apple's unfair Fairplay DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) consumer control system.

Now Dutch consumer protection agency Consumentenbond is demanding an investigation into what it's calling "illegal practices" by Apple's iTunes, says The Canadian Press.

"What we want from Apple is that they remove the limitations that prevent you from playing a song you download from iTunes on any player other than an iPod," it has Consumentenbond spokesman Ewald van Kouwen saying.

In typical PR-spinbabble, Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr hoped, "European governments will encourage a competitive environment that lets innovation thrive," says CP, adding:

"Simmering European discontent with Apple's rules first boiled over in June 2006, when consumer agencies in Norway, Denmark and Sweden claimed that Apple's practices violated contract and copyright laws. French consumer lobby UFC-Que Choisir and its German counterpart Ferbraucherzentralen joined the effort late last year, along with Finland's Kuluttajavirasto.

"In August, France passed a law that giving regulators power to force Apple to license its software or hardware to rivals so they can make compatible music players and stores. Early drafts of the law would have ordered the outright removal of copy-protection software, which prevents song files from playing on devices using rival copy-protection systems. Apple complained the law was tantamount to 'state-sponsored piracy.' But in its final form it has not led to any significant change in Apple's practices in France."

Consumentenbond also plans to oppose Microsoft's use of Plays[not]ForSure DRM on Zune, "or Sony or any company that does so," adds the story.

Slashdot Slashdot it!

Also See:
Apple's unfair Fairplay - Apple Fairplay DRM 'illegal', January 25, 2007
The Canadian Press - Holland joins rebellion against Apple's rules restricting iTunes music to iPods, January 26, 2007
http://p2pnet.net/story/11143?PHPSESSID=aab18602d5c0777b1eb8ee65ba170e43

 

Interview with The Pirate Bay,

p2pnet.net News Special:- Gottfrid 'Anakata' and Peter 'Brokep' from the Pirate Bay took part in Computer Sweden's Hot Seat this week when readers asked them about their income, copyright infringement, Sealand and more.

Torrentfreak translated the interview for TPB fans outside of Sweden.

Anton asks: How many percent of those who use TPB to download copyrighted material do you think believe they have the moral right to do so?

Gottfrid: We don’t do any polls of the morals of our users, so it’s hard to say.

Peter: It’s not very interesting either. It is all about spread what you want to spread, and then it’s up to each and everyone to have their own moral values.

Gottfrid: It would only come out wrong if we tried to shove any particular set of moral down the throats of our users.

Christian S asks: How much money do the Pirate Bay make per month from ads, and what happens to that money?

Peter: I don’t know exactly how much money we get. A separate company runs all the ad sales for us. It’s enough for hardware and bandwidth. We invest quite a bit in new hardware so there’s not much left.

Gottfrid tpb anakataGottfrid: We must have a buffer to be able to handle when people steal our servers and stuff like that [laugh]. I would wish we got rich off of it, but we don’t.

Peter: What we would like to do is o hire someone full-time. But as things are now, this is still a hobby project. There are of course pros and cons to this.

Economicon asks: How much profit did the Pirate Bay make in 2006?

Peter: That is a good question. I have no idea. I think we made a lot of loss.

Gottfrid: Something like that.

CS asks: Why won’t you answer questions about your profits?

Peter: It feels like a cheap way to make us look like hipocrits. We would rather have people focusing on the issues of copyright.

Gottfrid: We are not involved in the financing part ourselves. We simply don’t have the time, the energy or the market know-how ourselves, instead we want to be able to focus on the technical stuff. In the childhood of the Pirate Bay, just before we got ourselves out of the stage where we were just a bunch of old second-hand computer gear in a closet, and needed more money than we could put in ourselves or get through donations, I was the one handling the ads. It was very stressful and didn’t work very well, with cynical ad buyers and low incomes as a result. It was really very relieving to be able to hand this part over to professionals.

CS asks: How much does your most expensive ad-package cost?

Peter: I have no idea. It’s very different depending on who and what it is. There are guys that works with this stuff full-time.

CS asks: Who are running your finances?

Peter: An external company called Random Media who are based on the British Virgin Islands. We do not run that company.

CS asks: Who is behind that company?

Peter: I don’t think we want to go there. We are not responsible for their business.

CS asks: There have been earlier claims that you had ad incomes exceeding a million crowns a week only in Sweden during 2006. Is that figure correct, exaggerated or an understatement?

Peter: The person who spilled this figure was probably fired afterwards. It was Eastpoint, an ad company selling for the Pirate Bay.

Gottfrid: He had, of course, an interest to make Eastpoint look like a company that is great at selling ads. There is a certain self interest in taking figures out of thin air.

CS asks: So that is an incorrect figure?

Gottfrid: I would the figure was correct, but it’s not.

CS asks: Many seems to sympathize with you as anti-copyright fighters. Do you think that the public opinion would change if people realized that you actually made money on what you are doing?

Peter: If it was in fact true that there were huge money involved we would have hired people and made bigger things, and we haven’t. I don’t think people are complaining on Amnesty for making money either. I don’t want to compare us to them, but the resemblance is striking.

Gottfrid: It is really completely irrelevant to the debate how awful we are as individuals. Even if my basement at home were full of kidnapped children it wouldn’t make our arguments less valid.

Christian S asks: How will you finance your court expenses with lawyers and so on if there is a trial?

Gottfrid: The state will pay our lawyers. It will be a public defender, just like in any other case.

Peter: We’re not in the US.

Mr. Groovah asks: While I am deeply respectful to how you propagate against the absurd laws that runs our all too controlled society, I wonder why you want to make the scene available to everyone? I remember the golden years with BBSes when file sharing was done by a dedicated minority with a vast interest in the scene. The losses for the developers were minimal and everyone was happy.

Peter: I was also part of the BBS movement, but personally I see it as hypocritical. Why should some but allowed to copy and others not?

Gottfrid: I agree, I also have a background in the BBS movement. It is also worth pointing out that before file sharing were so widely spread, there were hardly any debate heard about copyright and piracy. Pirate Bay, as a site, has no political aims, but one of my personal goals is that all of this will create a debate on those questions.

Andreas Ek asks: Are you as much against copy protection as you pro piracy? I believe the media businesses have themselves to blame since they haven’t done enough to stop piracy, but shouldn’t they be allowed to stop copying at all?

Peter: Absolutely not. DRM is really scary and absolutely the wrong path. You have to be free to use what you have bought. For me it is very strange to buy something that is still owned by someone else.

Gottfrid: Legal service with good quality beats file sharing any day. One can never be sure that the quality is good and it might be complicated. The legal services that do exist, for example iTunes, have become very popular despite their flaws. Financing through ads is, of course, another alternative.

Christian S asks: You had planned to launch a new, highly anticipated, site for release material only, called “The Black Pearl”. Are those plans completely canceled?

Peter: I don’t know if they are canceled. It’s something we would like to to do, but haven’t had time for. It’s just the sort of jobs we don’t have time for.

Gottfrid: There are other things that are more important, our television department, for example.

Peter: There is some code, but nothing is set. There is no active work put down on it.

Anton asks: Is it only the Pirate Bay’s servers that is still in police custody, or are other companies still waiting to get their servers back?

Gottfrid: There is a lot of stuff still in police custody. They did a total of 180 seizes of equipment, and only 40 or 50 have been canceled. Everything isn’t servers, there are also other things there. A lot of papers and memory cards and so on.

CS asks: How did the customers of PRQ react on the raid?

Gottfrid: I haven’t received any complaints at all from our customers. A couple have moved, but it has never been anything personal, only business.

Anton asks: You will probably not be able to buy the “country” Sealand. What will you do with all the money you have received in donations? Will you keep them now?

Peter: No. We will buy an island with them if we can’t buy Sealand.

Gottfrid: There are almost always islands for sale on various places in the world. I guess we’ll have to announce our independence on one of those instead. But we’ll have to deal with that after the budget is done.

Peter: The idea is that when we’re done talking to Sealand, and then I would like to point out that we are still negotiating, is that we decide on what we want to buy. Then we will get money for that island specifically.

CS asks: Wasn’t the Sealand deal more of a fun thing rather than a serious project?

Peter: It was a fun project from the start, but there are serious thoughts behind it. It will be another signal to the authorities about the absurdities of what they are doing.

CS asks: So it’s not just a PR coup to get a lot of money?

Peter: No. Of course, there is PR behind it - we’ve received a lot of attention. But this is something we think is funy and very interesting. The money will go to buying an island.

Anton asks: What operative system is the Pirate Bay running? Linux or a pirate Windows version?

Gottfrid: Slackware Linux, and we’re running Solaris on one of the computers.

Anton asks: What party would you have voted on if the Pirate Party didn’t exist?

Peter: To the best of my knowledge, nobody on the Pirate Bay voted for the Pirate Party. I am a Finnish citizen and didn’t vote at all.

Gottfrid: I will keep it to myself. It was one of the smaller parties, but not the Pirate Party and not the Swedish Democrats.

XXander asks: What will you have in your country?

Peter: First and foremost we want a place to be [laugh]. Secondly we’ll see what we’ll have their. We will try to involve others than ourselves.

Gottfrid: There have been discussions on the forum about running various forms of activities there.

Tommy Sköld asks: How do you think software companies should make their money? By forcing ads on the users, like the Pirate Bay does?

Peter: I don’t believe it’s our job to provide solutions for their problems. We’re not economists or marketers.

Gottfrid: I worked as a software developer before the Pirate Bay started. Back then we made money on adaption, consulting and installation, instead of on the software itself.

Per Erik asks: There are many attempts to spread trojans and viruses via the Pirate Bay. What are your routines against this?

Peter: We have a number of moderators that will check on complaints. We will include a new system to vote off things that should be taken off because the description is incorrect. It is important to point out that we don’t delete controversial stuff, only stuff that is described incorrectly. If someone says, “This is a virus”, it stays on the site.

Gottfrid: We have some spam filters as well, to get rid of comment spam. But that’s more like hygiene than anything else.

Per Erik asks: What responsibility do the Pirate Bay believe to have in fighting viruses?

Gottfrid: Our users have to do their own thinking. We are doing what we can, but the Pirate Bay is only the medium.

Script Girl asks: Can’t you quit your anti-copyright bullshit and just admit you’re really only in it for the money?

Peter: We can’t, because it’s not true.

Gottfrid: it would be a very bad project to be in it to make money, concidering how great the risks are. The Pirate Bay was running on a zero budget for a long time.

Peter: We also have our background in the Bureau of Piracy originally. There were ideology there. If we didn’t believe in this, we wouldn’t have done it.

Jejeetegg asks: Do you plan to start with encrypted torrents?

Gottfrid: It’s the question of a new protocol and nothing that can be done with BitTorrent today. To do this, one have to re-write the protocol from scratch to not only protect the data but also the sender. Even if you encrypt the transmission, it has to be decrypted and nothing stops the anti-piracy bureau from doing that . Therefor, anonymizing technologies are needed.

Totte Alm asks: The Pirate bay is defending file sharing with the argument that artists makes their money on live performances, and actors on ticket sales, and that home users and poor students never would buy Photoshop anyway. But, what is forgotten is that file sharing in reality strikes against the small developer.

An example: A small company have pu down a lot of time and borrowed money to develop a program that resembles Photoshop. It can’t do everything that Photoshop can do, but the price is low, say 400 to 700 SEK ($57-100). The market exists - everyone thinks that Photoshop is too expensive.

The problem for the user is: why pay 70 bucks when you can have Photoshop for free via the Pirate Bay, and Photoshop is much better?

As you can see, piracy strikes against the small developers, not the big ones. The small die and the big gets bigger. Have you ever concidered that you help big business by evaporating their competition?

Gottfrid: Again, The Pirate Bay as a unit has no opinions in any question. My personal opinion is that you’ll have to find other ways to make money than selling licenses. I have this background myself, so I am aware of the problems. One have to find ways around them instead of calling for more police and harder controlling methods.

Peter: Perhaps that market model doesn’t work anymore? One have to look at other alternatives.

LinZorzor3r asks: You became famous for your answers to media company lawyers when they sent complaints on what is distributed on the Pirate Bay. But since the raid this spring there has not been one new letter on the site. What happened? Have you lost your attitude?

Gottfrid: There hasn’t been anything new that is funny enough to answer. I feel there has to be something new to make it worth the effort.

CS asks: So there’s no other reason? Are you scared?

Gottfrid: Hardly. Very few are stupid stupid enough to send such mails to the Pirate Bay. They know what will happen when we reply.

Gottfrid: One example of a little more unusual threat was when I had a snail mail from someone complaining that a torrent had a collection of fonts that their clients owned. He claimed the fonts were copyright protected. We sent a snail mail in reply, using all the fonts he had complained about.

Lisa asks: Why is the pirate world so masculine?

Peter: It’s really sad that this is how it is portraited, but it’s not so. Just like in media in general, women aren’t as visible as men. There are very many women using the Pirate Bay and there are very many women who are members of the Bureau of Piracy. It’s only sad that they aren’t promoted enough.

Gottfrid: And of course, the computer world in general is quite masculine. The modern piracy movement comes from the computer world, and so this problem has followed.

LinZorzor3r asks: If I have understood everything correctly you never take off anything that has been distributed on the Pirate Bay, instead you point to the responsibility of the users and the decisions of authorities. Is there any line beyond which you could not accept yourselves? How would it feel, for example, to indirectly add to the spread of child pornography, even if you had the chance to stop it?

Gottfrid: If someone was stupid enough to spread child porn through the Pirate Bay that would actually be a good thing. Then everyone could check who is spreading it.

Peter: We do not censor anything. Again, it is the responsibility of the user.

Torrentfreak - The Netherlands
http://p2pnet.net/story/11144?PHPSESSID=d463f6a95a6a4df55c4c6eaf581cb96c

 

AACS hack blamed on bad player implementation

1/26/2007 9:23:30 AM, by Ken Fisher

A month after the first signs appeared online that AACS—the content protection scheme shared by HD DVD and Blu-ray—had been circumvented, the AACS Licensing Authority has verified the hack. According to a statement from the AACS LA, AACS has not been seriously compromised. Instead, the statement said, the attack is "limited to the compromise of specific implementations" and "indicate an attack on one or more players sold by AACS licensees."

The statement was firm in expressing the viewpoint that this attack is not a wholesale attack on AACS, nor does it represent a serious threat to AACS. "Instead," the statement reads, "it illustrates the need for all AACS licensees to follow the Compliance and Robustness Rules set forth in the AACS license agreements to help ensure that product implementations are not compromised."
What, AACS worry?

For its part, the backers of AACS remain bullish on the strength of the AACS protection scheme. In their view, it has not been compromised. At worst, specific players were compromised that were not designed to follow the AACS Compliance and Robustness Rules, which suggests that there would be no "hack" in play were it not for these oversights.

This is an curious accusation because, according to the AACS documentation reviewed by Ars Technica, the AACS specification does not, in fact, account for this attack vector. Furthermore, the AACS LA has repeatedly not answered my questions relating to this and other matters, now going back more than 6 months. (What can I say? I'm tenacious.)

In a previous report we explained how the current attacks against AACS are known to work, and it did appear that the weakest spot in the encryption system had been found. The source of the breach originally appeared to be a software HD DVD player running on the Windows platform (PowerDVD/WinDVD). Combing through memory dumps, Muslix64—the man who started it all—noted several recurring strings and eventually discovered that the software player had been keeping the all important volume keys in memory, unencrypted. While the AACS LA suggests that this is a design flaw, we do not believe that it is.

Given this hack, can the AACS LA truly stop it? According to the organization, "AACS LA employs both technical and legal measures to deal with attacks such as this one, and AACS LA is using all appropriate remedies at its disposal to address the attack."

We believe the AACS LA may be able to stop this particular hack. While little is truly known about how effective the key revocation system in AACS is, in theory it should be possible for the AACS LA to identify the players responsible for the breach and prevent later pressings of discs from playing back on those players until they are updated. As such, if the hole can be patched in the players, the leak of volume keys could be limited to essentially what is already on the market. That is, until another hole is found.

As to whether or not this weakness in AACS is native or is the result of poorly implemented playback design, the jury is still out.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070126-8710.html

 

my take on this...if the nuts at the nut house movie studios use a scratch resistance coating on the dvd's as thay put on eye glasses we would not need back ups...

i know it does work..a friend who makes glasses coated 5 dvd's for me..and i had no problem playing the dvd's and that was 5-years ago..


So WHAT if you copy your HD-DVD?
p2pnet.net news view:- I was just reading a short piece over at eWeek saying the AACS folks are aware of the hack to copy content on HD-DVD's.

What this basically means is that folks who were hoping to be able to back up their HD-DVD content will be unable to in the future. This is what I don't like about the greedy industry: they're way too controlling!

In this era of digital content storage, there should be nothing wrong with taking something you bought and backing up the contents. OK, it's a fact of life there will be people that take that content and distribute it, but there's no way around that. Unless of course the industry actually listened to what the consumer wants and allows high speed high quality downloads of their favorite videos!

Should we all never back up any kind of digital data ever again because the greedy industry says if we copy data, regardless of the reason, that we're a determined thief?

This madness must stop now! Allow us to do what we wish with content we purchase, so long as we aren't making a proffit, than leave us alone already! If we want to back up purchased content just as we would computer files, in order to preserve the contents, that should be our decision, not the greedy industries!

I'd love to know the **AA's answer to the question should consumers be allowed to back up content which they have paid for? I'm getting very tired of the industry telling us it's a crime to copy data regardless of intent, including backup of the data you payed for!

So what if data can be copied from an HD-DVD or CD or DVD? Let it be copied and allow consumers to back up data so they'll have it should they lose the original DVD/CD or whatever!

Monty Icenogle - p2pnet

Slashdot Slashdot it!

Also See:
hack to copy content - AACS confirms AACS hacked, January 26, 2007
http://p2pnet.net/story/11145?PHPSESSID=26e8ce2e0718774e3fb8f9c50945d63d

 

This is just my opinion but I think muslix64 should team up with SlySoft. It won't be as easy as CSS decryption, due to the know-how still being in its infancy, but as soon as SlySoft finds a way to get AnyDVD decrypting AACS then it will be a happy day for all.

The BD+ thing could spoil the party but it might not depending on how secure it really is as opposed to how secure it is on paper.

Peace

 

p2pnet movies file share top ten

For, below are the current top ten movie and TV downloads.

We hope soon to also bring you the most popular seasons and episodes.

Movies File Share Top Ten: BitTorrent, World-wide
Current simultaneous leechers as of January 27, 2007
Ranking Movie Number of Downloads
01 >>> Little Man (+ #6) 30,226
02 >>> Apocalypto (new) 17,358
03 >>> Snakes on a Plane (new) 12,700
04 >>> Rocky Balboa (new) 12,086
05 >>> Borat ... (new) 11,158
06 >>> Saw III (new) 11,054
07 >>> The Pursuit of Happyness (+ #10) 10,822
08 >>> Blood Diamond (new) 10,704
09 >>> Children of Men (new) 8,988
10 >>> Casino Royale (- #5) 8,824

Movies File Share TV Top Ten TV
World-wide, week ending January 27, 2007
Ranking Movie Number of Downloads
01 >>> Lost (+ #7) 24,344
02 >>> Prison Break (+ #5) 20,066
03 >>> 24 (+ #8) 12,722
04 >>> NCIS (new) 11,104
05 >>> South Park (new) 10,970
06 >>> Rome (new) 10,782
07 >>> Grey's Anatomy (new) 8,918
08 >>> Battlestar Galactica (- #1) 7,690
09 >>> Desperate Housewives (new) 7,018
10 >>> Heroes (- #6) 6,772

Slashdot Slashdot it!

(Saturday 27th January 2007)

 

Looks like DVDFab updated just now, here is a link to the free version.

3.0.7.0

http://www.dvdidle.com/free.htm

Enjoy!

 

thanks for all the great reporting you've been doing ireland. I especially liked the article on Mark Cuban, the Dell systems w/out an OS and how Billy Gatez plan to release Vista on us hapless lusers. His plan = FAIL.

With DRM putting a bit of coal in my sock post X-mas, i'd like to offer some advice to the computer savvy users on AD. Buy yourself an older mobo & computer system (preferably an older mobo that's still brand new in a box), get yourself a copy of Win98SE, any current distro of Linux that is 100% verified as not containing any DRM code, and a good graphics card. If you can keep your system in good order, and have a good supplier on the older HW, we can weather this storm together. Should Vista start calling home, and TCPA starts monitoring our computers for z0mg teh p1rated softwarez is on your HDD!!1! I must now format C: to continue authorization proce$$, then we can get through M$oft/Intel's evil plans. Should enough consumers get an EFFING CLUE and buy an older PC with no DRM, and stay away from DRM devices, we would forcechoke the evil M$ empire with billions of losses.
Thus, Billy Gatez and his crewe of billionaire SW geniuses will be SOL without enough sales to support further R&D into DRM. They will get a friggin clue & realize us consumers are not lambs to be messed with. Just say Hell No to DRM, TCPA, and the Wintel evil empire.

 

AnyDVD 6.1.1.4 (beta)
http://sandbox.slysoft.com/SetupAnyDVD6114.exe

6.1.1.4 2007 01 28
- Fix: With some DVDs having VOB files with zero length, fluxDVD
protection was incorrectly detected
__________________
James

SlySoft products

 

Bobby Santangelo to the RIAA:

p2pnet.net News:- New York's Santangelo family has come to symbolize the Big 4 Organized Music cartel's ongoing and relentless victimization of men, women and children not only in America, but around the world.

Warner Music (US), EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany) are trying to spin their failure to re-model their business approaches to reflect the fact they're now in the 21st digital century into "criminal" actions on the part of millions of their own customers, accusing them of being file sharing "thieves".

Warner, et al, fronted by their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) attacked Patti Santangelo, accusing her of being a major distributor of copyrighted music tracks over the Net.

However, an ordinary New York mother whose only knowledge of music tracks had hitherto been limited to the ones she regularly bought on Big 4 CDs, she wasn't going to be terrorized and with lawyer Ray Beckerman behind her, initially, then by herself and, finally, with attorney Jordan Glass, representing her, she took on the multi-billion-dollar labels, determined to haul them into court to force them to justify their actions and prove their claims in front of a jury.

The RIAA dropped their case against Patti, turning instead on Michelle, one of her five children who was 16 when she was allegedly engaged in the same non-existent "crime" of file sharing the labels had accused her mother of. Also named was Bobby, who was only 12 when he first came to the Big 4's attention.

Now through Glass, with associate Sharon Taylor, Bobby has filed official, detailed replies to the RIAA's claims, and is demanding a trial by jury.

"Good morning Jon," said Patti in an email. "We finally got to say the things in a legal document that we've been trying to say all along. I hope this gets the message across on behalf of everyone who has been supportive of what we've been trying to do. In particular, I hope the RIAA gets the message that we are not going away: we are in this for the duration. Thanks for everything - we could never have done this without p2pnet readers."

p2pnet readers have contributed more than $14,600 which has been used for disbursements.

And, "Hey Jon," said Bobby. "First I want to thank everyone for sticking by me and my family. I wouldn't have been able to do this without them. While I don't totally understand everything in the answer, I know that what we're doing is important. I think the worst part so far was trying to turn me against my friends and them against me. That makes me sad and angry. But now it's my turn to fight and, with my mom's help to stick up for teenagers everywhere, that's what I'm going to do. Thanks!"

What he's referring to above is the way RIAA "investigators" got to one of his friends, threatening him.

Meanwhile, Bobby's submission makes points such as this:

Plaintiffs had specific information that the Computer alleged to have contained the downloaded files was destroyed by fire in July, 2004, yet Plaintiffs’ make the unfounded and unsupportable allegation of continued infringement 'until in or about early 2005'.

And:

... this Defendant, and others similarly situated, to the extent that any downloading or even 'sharing' actually occurred, was not engaged in any type of activity 'for profit.' The legislative history indicates that this remedy was contemplated against businesses and 'pirates,' not children and their unsuspecting parents. Plaintiffs, instead, chose the Ray Kroc (founder of McDonald’s ) approach: 'If my competitor were drowning I'd stick a hose in his mouth and turn on the water.'

And:

Plaintiffs have crafted at least two additional and alternative forms of damages, which forms have not been offered to this Defendant, even though similarly situated. One alternative, explicated by Warner Music’s CEO, Edgar Bronfman, is for a parent to talk to his or her children: 'I explained to them [his children] what I believe is right, that the principle is that stealing music is stealing music. Frankly, right is right and wrong is wrong, particularly when a parent is talking to a child. A bright line around moral responsibility is very important. I can assure you they no longer do that.' As to what else he did to them, he responded, 'I think I’ll keep that within the family.' Plaintiffs have failed and refused to offer this Defendant the same form of damages. The other alternative, offered to large companies, was to simply erase the offending files from the hard drive. Plaintiffs have failed and refused to offer this Defendant the same form of damages.

Among other things, this refers to the Big 4's warning to corporations which says in part, "The purpose of this memorandum is to remind you of (Organization’s) policy on the use of copyrighted material on (Organization’s) computer systems and networks. Unauthorized copying, distribution and certain other use of copyrighted material is illegal and can expose you and (Organization) to severe civil and criminal liability under the copyright law. This applies to all types of copyrighted works, including music, movies, software and other literary and artistic works."

It goes on:

Employees must not make, store, transmit or make available unauthorized copies of copyrighted material using (Organization’s) computers, networks or storage media. Nor may employees use peer-to-peer file transfer services or take other actions likely to promote or lead to copyright infringement. If you have stored unauthorized copies of music, movies, software or other copyrighted works on (Organization’s) computer systems, you should delete those copies promptly.

"So, these corporate defendants, with millions and possibly billions of dollars, armed with attorneys, receive the 'punishment' of a 'warning' and the restorative action of 'deleting' the offending files," says Bobby's submission, continuing:

"In contrast, non-asseted teenagers and their unsuspecting parents have the weight of the Federal Courts of the United States of America, along with the U.S.C.A. Copyright, and cash damages, with no hopes of mounting a full and proper legal defense, put upon them. This alone cries out for redress."

Go here for the complete document.

Below is the full submission. Go here for the .pdf. Anyone following the continuing depradations of the Big 4 should take the time to read it.

===================================

Civil Action No. 06-cv-11520 (SCR)

Defendant, ROBERT SANTANGELO, JR., by his attorneys, Jordan D. Glass, P.C., for his answer to the Plaintiffs’ complaint, alleges:

1. Denies paragraph 1, sentence 3 to the end of the paragraph. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to paragraph 1, sentence 1.

2. Denies paragraphs 2, 18, 19, 20 and 21.

3. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to Plaintiffs’ statements in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 as to the actions or statements of others. Denies Plaintiffs’ allegations about Defendant contained in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.

4. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. Denies Plaintiffs’ allegations about the Defendant contained in paragraph 8.

5. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17.

6. Defendant reaffirms each and every response above in answer to paragraph 15 as if set forth fully at length herein.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant are barred by acquiescence.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant are barred by estoppel.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant are barred by estoppel by acquiescence.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

11. The alleged conduct, had it occurred, constituted fair use, as it would have been solely been for private entertainment and not for commercial use.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12. Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the pleading requirements applicable to copyright infringement. There is no liability for infringing upon the right of distribution unless copies of copyrighted works were actually disseminated to members of the public.

13. Defendant denies having disseminated any copyrighted works to members of the public.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14. Plaintiffs have engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to defraud the Courts of the United States.

a. Plaintiffs, ostensibly competitors in the recording industry, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and public policy, by litigating and settling all cases similar to this one together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in an identical manner and through common lawyers.

b. Among the acts in furtherance of this conspiracy are: (1) bringing, without investigation sufficient to establish that the allegations and factual contention therein have evidentiary support, lawsuits against persons who are not specifically known to have infringed copyrights; (2) making false and unsupported allegations that the defendants in these actions have infringed copyrights, by making the unwarranted and technologically erroneous assumption that an Internet Protocol address is a unique identifier of a computer or an individual; (3) using a corporation known as Settlement Support Center, LLC, as their agent to make extortionate threats to take criminal action and to defame defendants’ names and credit in order to force defendants to pay sums which have no relation to Plaintiffs’ actual damages, if any, and by delivering fraudulent releases to settling defendants (few of whom are represented by counsel), in that such releases do not constitute true releases of all claims, thereby misleading settling defendants into erroneously believing that they cannot be sued again; (4) commencing ex parte “John Doe” lawsuits which they have no intention of pursuing, but by means of which they are able to communicate with District Judges, Magistrate Judges, and other judicial officials on a daily basis, without providing defendants with notice or opportunity to be heard, in violation of attorneys’ ethical obligations as officers of the Courts; (5) invading the privacy of these “John Doe” defendants by then serving subpoenas on Internet Service Providers without notice to the potential defendants; (6) bringing the “John Doe” lawsuits in jurisdictions far removed from the domiciles of the “John Does,” so that they have no meaningful opportunity to be heard or to retain counsel of their own choosing; (7) withdrawing such actions upon being challenged and thereby preventing defendants from obtaining relief for having to defend them; and, (8) engaging in other unconscionable conduct.

c. On information and belief, these and other plaintiffs and the Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”) have commenced some 19,000 actions in the District Courts of the United States in the past five years, the overwhelming majority of which have resulted either in default judgments or extortionate settlements far in excess of any actual damages incurred by these Plaintiffs or other plaintiffs within and without the RIAA.

15. These actions, and the conduct underlying them, constitute misuse of Plaintiffs’ copyrights, thereby barring Plaintiffs claims.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred under the doctrine of unclean hands.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17. Upon information and belief, the alleged conduct, had it occurred, was authorized; indeed, on information and belief, Plaintiffs promoted, fostered and facilitated such conduct over the Internet and by other means.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18. The Complaint fails to join one or more individuals and entities as parties to the action whose absence precludes complete relief to those already parties, or impairs Defendant’s ability to protect his interests within the meaning of Rules 12(b)(7) and 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; therefore, this matter should be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant are also barred because Plaintiffs have failed to join the indispensable party or parties of the “online media distribution system” identified in Plaintiffs’ Complaint paragraph 18, and the person or persons or entities, also identified in paragraph 18, who or which obtained copies of the works allegedly “distributed” or “shared” by Defendant. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant are also barred because Plaintiffs have failed to join the indispensable party identified by Plaintiffs as the “neighbor and best friend” in Plaintiffs’ Complaint paragraph 3, with whom Plaintiffs claim to have made a settlement and who is known to the Plaintiffs to have been the person who loaded the allegedly offending programs onto the Santangelo Computer.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19. Defendant is not a necessary and proper party. Plaintiffs have sued the wrong person.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20. The alleged claims made by each Plaintiff against Defendant are neither well grounded in fact nor warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred under the doctrine of laches.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22. The claims alleged by each Plaintiff against Defendant are barred by the statute of limitations, 17 U.S.C. § 507 (b), which provides that no civil action may be maintained under the federal Copyright Act unless the same is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if there actually be any, as required by law.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ claims accuse Defendant of criminal acts, Defendant specifically denies that he has committed any criminal acts and asserts his Fifth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. (Plaintiff has verbally identified perjury and piracy as possible crimes committed by Defendant.)

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25. While maintaining that Defendant did not download any music, Defendant asserts that all music alleged to have been downloaded was already owned by the Defendant or immediate family members prior to the dates of any alleged downloading, and that there is no evidence to support that Defendant was involved in any downloading whatsoever.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26. On information and belief, Plaintiffs promoted downloading free music, and then Plaintiffs, once having already enticed and encouraged children and teenagers to download music for free, turned on their audience and sued them for the same behavior they had previously encouraged. Plaintiffs exhibited their ability to turn on their audience by displaying physically threatening and frightening behavior at depositions.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

27. To the extent that Plaintiffs have suffered damages, if at all, they have set their own public rate of damages at $0.99 per song, of which they do not receive the entire amount and can not claim more than their actual damages. Plaintiffs’ actual damages are claimed to be $0.70 per recording and Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act which are between 1,071 and 42,857 times the actual damages suffered. Popular music sound recording downloads [owned by the Plaintiffs] and the consumer license to use them are lawfully obtainable to the public at $0.99 per song and, of that $0.99, roughly $0.70 per song is paid by the retailer to the record label. The statutory damages sought by Plaintiffs under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1) are unconstitutionally excessive and disproportionate to any actual damages which may have been sustained, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution of the United States.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

28. Plaintiffs can not meet their burden of proof that Defendant either downloaded or “shared” files.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

29. On information and belief, Plaintiffs were in the unique and best position to stop the distribution of such files over the Internet, as they possessed the technology and money to do so, but failed and refused to do so; in fact, they lobbied Congress to set safe harbors with their collaborators and business partners, such as in the form of the Digital Millennium Act and other such laws, and are now using such laws as the platform from behind which to sue children, people who are seriously ill and whose illnesses may be exacerbated by the actions of the Plaintiffs, the elderly (and even deceased ), impoverished, and uneducated (or at least the technologically unsophisticated – for these purposes they suffer the same), targeting parties unable to defend themselves against multiple law firms with defenses requiring sophisticated technical acumen and six-figure discovery activities. On further information and belief, Plaintiffs colluded with America Online (“AOL”), in particular, in regard to the use of parental controls, both accusing parents of not setting such controls – for secondary liability purposes – and then hiding behind the fact that when parents did set such controls, that such controls effectively blocked the Plaintiffs’ agent’s (“Agent”) alleged warnings (“Warnings”) that downloading from KaZaA, iMesh, Napster, Grokster, LimeWire and others was improper or illegal (Plaintiffs’ claimed message has not been seen, so its exact contents are unknown, but is alleged to exist by Plaintiffs). So insidious is this scheme, it is akin to asking, “Will you stop beating your wife?” Plaintiffs used this Hobson’s choice in the secondary liability cases thus: if parents set the controls to block unknown “Instant Messages” (“IM”) from reaching their children (to prevent, say, child pornographers from making contact), then the Agent’s Warnings, too, would be blocked. Plaintiffs claim this “proved” a parent’s “ability or right to control” the use of the computer, allegedly establishing secondary liability. Conversely, if a parent failed to make use of such controls, then the parent would be accused of implicitly condoning the downloading. But who was in the better – indeed, best – position to work with AOL to allow such Warnings to bypass the parental controls? The parents who didn’t even know the problem existed, or the Plaintiffs, who managed to obtain law enforcement authority for its Agents to directly access potential defendants’ hard drives, bypassing any kind of parental controls (and perhaps going through firewalls and other security settings) to take “snap shots” of alleged “shared directories”? Clearly, if Plaintiffs could manage direct remote and secret access to potential defendants’ hard drives, they could manage an arrangement with AOL and law enforcement to allow these Warnings to be passed through to the nation’s unsuspecting children – that is, if they had wanted to stop the downloading and prevent these lawsuits.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

30. Plaintiffs notified only large businesses and the Federal Government that their employees and their respective families might be violating the law, but failed to make any meaningful or reasonable efforts to notify the public at large, even though they were in the best position to do so. As of this date, there are no publications available to the public at the United States Government’s Federal Citizen Information Center warning against, or offering ways for parents to protect their children against, the allegedly illegal downloading.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

31. To personally defend against the type of violation Plaintiffs allege, one needs specialized technical training not available to the average person; indeed, even the CEO of Warner Music could not – or did not takes steps to, or did not know to takes steps to, or did not know how to take steps to – prevent his own children from illegally downloading music (infra, paragraph 30). It is not a question of ignorance of the law – of which law the Plaintiffs, on information and belief, affirmatively encouraged and facilitated violation (if it is, in fact, a violation of any law); rather, it is a question of inability to know that a law is even being violated, an inability to defend against knowing of the violation without “methods assistance,” which assistance was available to Plaintiffs, but which they failed and refused to provide to consumers. Further, the type of technological defense necessary to combat such violations was not practicably available to home computer users when the alleged violations took place (and such defensive systems are still not largely available), but such technology was available to, and in use by, the Plaintiffs, large businesses, the United States Government and various state governments: one type of technology is called a “firewall” and most home computer users did not have them (or know how to use them) when the violations were alleged to have occurred, back in 2002 through 2004, importantly, when this Defendant was only 11-14 years of age. The home computing world was entirely different then, and it is impossible to consider anyone’s actions, knowledge, inactions, or access to technology from that time based upon today’s knowledge and available technology. Plaintiffs chose who they would warn (such as “big business” and the Federal Government – there was even a special notice for the White House), and once they took an action to affirmatively warn one group, they had an obligation to affirmatively warn all potential defendants similarly situated, and that, by the most basic definition, would include any computer user, whether in business, government or home. To not demand this means it would be acceptable for Plaintiffs to warn Utah, but not Missouri; African Americans, but not Latinos; males, but not females; people with incomes over $100,000.00, but not under (which Plaintiffs did do in the form of warning big business and big government but not individuals); businesses, but not individuals. The burden to do so on the Plaintiffs was low (through the Internet, ISP’s, various governmental agencies, computer manufacturers, computer superstores and distributors, on their own CD’s and self-promoting shows), and the Plaintiffs had the resources, technology and law available to them to accomplish this; the damage to the potential defendants was high (19,000 lawsuits and counting); but the Plaintiffs did nothing after taking their initial self-serving steps.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

32. Plaintiffs have crafted at least two additional and alternative forms of damages, which forms have not been offered to this Defendant, even though similarly situated. One alternative, explicated by Warner Music’s CEO, Edgar Bronfman, is for a parent to talk to his or her children: “I explained to them [his children] what I believe is right, that the principle is that stealing music is stealing music. Frankly, right is right and wrong is wrong, particularly when a parent is talking to a child. A bright line around moral responsibility is very important. I can assure you they no longer do that.” As to what else he did to them, he responded, “I think I’ll keep that within the family.” Plaintiffs have failed and refused to offer this Defendant the same form of damages. The other alternative, offered to large companies, was to simply erase the offending files from the hard drive. Plaintiffs have failed and refused to offer this Defendant the same form of damages. Exhibit A.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

33. Plaintiffs’ first demand for damages is moot and frivolous and should be dismissed as Plaintiffs have acknowledged that the Computer relevant at all times to this action, along with its hard drive, was destroyed in a fire more than 30 months’ ago, and at least five months’ prior to any Santangelo defendant having notice of any potential litigation.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

34. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant are barred due to a settlement agreement Plaintiffs reached with Sharman Networks, creators and distributors of the KaZaA software. Upon information and belief, this settlement was in the amount of $115 million. Although Plaintiffs in their Complaint do not allege which media network the Defendant used (paragraph 18), Plaintiffs have previously identified KaZaA to have been the “online media distribution system” used by the Defendant. Through Plaintiffs’ settlement with Sharman Networks, Plaintiffs elected to accept a settlement which fully compensated Plaintiffs for the injuries allegedly caused by Defendant and others. This settlement fully compensated Plaintiffs for any alleged infringement by Defendant, and therefore bars Plaintiffs from recovering any damages a second time for the same alleged infringements.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

35. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant are barred due to a settlement agreement Plaintiffs reached with the Defendant’s “neighbor and best friend,” with whom the Plaintiffs, according to their Complaint (paragraph 3), have settled by having the “neighbor and best friend” “pay[] a settlement amount” and for other relief received. Through Plaintiffs’ settlement with the “neighbor and best friend,” Plaintiffs elected to accept a settlement which fully compensated them for the damages allegedly caused by Defendant and possibly others. This settlement fully compensated Plaintiffs for any alleged infringement by Defendant, and therefore bars Plaintiffs from recovering any damages a second (or even third) time for the same alleged infringements.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

36. It is Plaintiffs’ contention that the offending programs were installed by Defendant’s “neighbor and best friend,” and there is no allegation or evidence that such was done with the knowledge or permission of the owner of the Computer, Patricia Santangelo, mother of the Defendant, and with whom the Defendant resides. The “neighbor and best friend” exceeded his authority in his use of the Computer, whether as a licensee or an invitee, and installed and used the programs for his own benefit and gain and, as such, was a trespasser. The existence of the offending programs were invisible to Patricia Santangelo; they were a trap set by the trespasser for his own benefit and gain. He gave no notice, asked no permission, and left no meaningful visible trail or warnings of his actions. That “neighbor and best friend” too, was duped by the provider, or earlier facilitated by the Plaintiffs, only supports the Defendant’s additional positions. Whether “neighbor and best friend” set such programs to “share” or “distribute,” or failed to set such programs to “not share” and “not distribute,” was and is unknown to Defendant and unknowable to his mother, Patricia Santangelo. In any event, “neighbor and best friend” caused any sharing or distribution to occur, not Defendant or Patricia Santangelo. Consequently, and for reasons separate and apart from those in the Twenty- Seventh Affirmative Defense, Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant are barred due to the settlement agreement Plaintiffs reached with the Defendant’s “neighbor and best friend,” with whom the Plaintiffs, according to their Complaint, paragraph 3, have settled by having the “neighbor and best friend” “pay[] a settlement amount” and for other relief received. Through Plaintiffs’ settlement with the “neighbor and best friend,” Plaintiffs elected to accept a settlement which fully compensated them for the damages allegedly caused by Defendant and possibly others. This settlement fully compensated Plaintiffs for any alleged infringement by Defendant, and therefore bars Plaintiffs from recovering any damages a second (or even third) time for the same alleged infringements.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

37. Plaintiffs claim they reached a settlement agreement with the “neighbor and best friend.” Plaintiffs failed to notify Defendant of such settlement to which settlement agreement Defendant (and perhaps others) was a necessary party as he had a direct interest in the structure, terms, scope, nature and outcome of the agreement, and such agreement necessarily impacted him. Since Plaintiffs failed to notify Defendant and reached such a settlement without his participation, knowledge or agreement, Plaintiffs should be barred from recovering any damages a second (or even third) time for the same alleged infringements, in particular those known to the Plaintiffs to have been caused by someone other than the Defendant (i.e.: the “neighbor and best friend”).

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

38. To the extent that any downloading occurred, if at all, it would have been the result of an agreement with some provider (which agreements, if any, were not created by Defendant, but under which Defendant impliedly and unknowingly operated). Such agreement, constituting either a fraud in the inducement or a contract, would have been voidable as to Defendant because (at minimum) the Defendant was a minor at all times relevant to the action, and is still a minor as of this date. It is undisputed that the Computer on which the alleged downloaded music resided was destroyed five months before any Santangelo defendant had any notice of any lawsuit. The Defendant, not then being in possession of any such downloaded music at the time of the lawsuit, and there being no allegations by the Plaintiffs that he remained in possession of any of such music, or that he continued to or then first started to download music onto any replacement computer (in particular, between the time of the destruction of the old computer and the time of the bringing of the lawsuit), the contract was voided by the Defendant and there were no damages to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ damages can not be based upon “listening” to music over the Internet, as, on information and belief, anyone can listen to Plaintiffs’ songs for free through AOL radio or any number of other “Internet radios,” as well as for free on various AM or FM radio music stations; the damages must be based upon some benefit to the Defendant or damage to the Plaintiffs. There is no evidence that Defendant listened to anything either than on the Internet or on CD’s already owned. Further, to the extent that the music listened to was the result of music being played on the computer from CD’s already purchased and owned by the Defendant or his family, the “listening” was part of Plaintiffs’ license and any “playing” is within the license provided by the Plaintiffs, which license, on information and belief, does not limit the mechanical or electronic device on which Plaintiffs’ CD’s can be played – only the distribution could be part of the Plaintiffs’ claim. Since there is no evidence the Defendant distributed anything, even if he had listened to music on the computer – from CD’s already owned, ownership being based upon purchases and gifts (of original CD’s) and of neither by any alleged downloading – Defendant can not be attributed with causing any damages to any Plaintiff by having not ventured outside the license of the Plaintiffs. This Defendant having obtained no benefit, and the Plaintiffs not having been damaged, the action is therefore moot and should be dismissed with prejudice.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

39. On information and belief, Plaintiffs engaged in deceptive and misleading advertising in connection with the distribution of their copyrighted works. The nature of such deceptive and misleading advertising included, but was not limited to, enticing children and others to listen to music over the Internet, which, in turn, caused unsuspecting downloads and/or was associated with claims by others of allowable free downloading.

40. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because of their deceptive and misleading advertising in connection with the distribution of their copyrighted works. Plaintiffs must not be allowed to profit from their deceptive and misleading actions.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

41. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent any persons, based on whose behavior Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendant liable, are innocent infringers.

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

Breach of Duty to Warn; Unequal Treatment Under Law

42. Defendant-counterclaim plaintiff Robert Santangelo, Jr., is an individual residing within this district.

43. On information and belief, plaintiff-counterclaim defendant Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New York.

44. On information and belief, plaintiff-counterclaim defendant Virgin Records America, Inc., is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New York.

45. On information and belief, plaintiff-counterclaim defendant UMG Recordings, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California.

46. On information and belief, plaintiff-counterclaim defendant BMG Music is a New York general partnership with its principal place of business in the State of New York.

47. On information and belief, plaintiff-counterclaim defendant Sony BMG Music Entertainment is a Delaware general partnership with its principal place of business in the State of New York.

48. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (copyright), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (copyright). The Court has jurisdiction over counterclaims under U.S.C. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 13.

49. Counterclaim defendants are, on information and belief, the copyright owners or licensees of certain sound recordings.

50. On or about November 1, 2006, counterclaim defendants commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (06-cv-11520) against counterclaim plaintiff charging him with copyright infringement.

51. Counterclaim plaintiff is accused therein of downloading and file-sharing certain computer files consisting of sound recordings allegedly owned or licensed by counterclaim defendants.

52. The acts allegedly committed by counterclaim plaintiff as set forth in the complaint therein do not constitute copyright infringement.

53. Counterclaim defendants do not allege any specific acts of downloading or file-sharing or provide any details of time and place regarding such acts as against counterclaim plaintiff.

54. There is an actual controversy between the counterclaim plaintiff and counterclaim defendants.

55. Counterclaim plaintiff reasserts each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 41 of his Answer as if set forth fully at length herein, and incorporates same by reference.

56. Plaintiffs, whether individually or through their agent, the Record Industry Association of America (“RIAA”), had a duty to warn individuals – this Defendant and those similarly situated – of the type of copyright infringement or violation they allege, just as they warned large businesses and the government. (At all times hereafter in this section on the First Counterclaim, the word “Plaintiffs” refers to the individual plaintiffs in this action and their agent, the RIAA.)

57. On information and belief, Plaintiffs actively and openly, as well as secretively and furtively, encouraged children and others to participate in seeking out, listening to, “playing” and ultimately, often unintentionally and unknowingly, downloading Plaintiffs’ copyrighted materials from the Internet.

58. Plaintiffs thereafter changed their position and determined they did not want this same group to play or download music from the Internet. Defendant and others similarly situated relied upon Plaintiffs’ representations, upon which representations they were reasonable to rely, and upon which representations they did rely to their obvious detriment.

59. To the extent that Plaintiffs were not happy with such representations in the marketplace, they were in the best position to change such notions, as they had the contacts with law enforcement, businesses, governments, OEM’s, computer manufacturers, programmers, ISPs, and all level of manufacturers and service providers. Plaintiffs then engaged in a series of notifications to the government of the United States and to large corporations, as well as, on information and belief, to certain academic institutions. The RIAA’s undated warning to large businesses, goes so far as to include a sample memo for such businesses to send to their employees. Id. Exhibit A.

TO: (Distribution list)

FROM: (Senior Officer)

SUBJECT: Policy on Use of Copyrighted Material

DATE: (Insert)

The purpose of this memorandum is to remind you of (Organization’s) policy on the use of copyrighted material on (Organization’s) computer systems and networks.

Unauthorized copying, distribution and certain other use of copyrighted material is illegal and can expose you and (Organization) to severe civil and criminal liability under the copyright law. This applies to all types of copyrighted works, including music, movies, software and other literary and artistic works.

Employees must not make, store, transmit or make available unauthorized copies of copyrighted material using (Organization’s) computers, networks or storage media. Nor may employees use peer-to-peer file transfer services or take other actions likely to promote or lead to copyright infringement. If you have stored unauthorized copies of music, movies, software or other copyrighted works on (Organization’s) computer systems, you should delete those copies promptly.

(Organization’s) complete policy on the use of copyrighted material is attached. Please note that employees are subject to disciplinary action, including possible termination, for violation of this policy. (Compliance Officer) will be organizing regular audits of (Organization’s) computers and networks to ensure compliance and, if necessary, will remove unauthorized copies if you have not done so.

Please do not hesitate to contact (Compliance Officer) if you have any questions.

60. The seven page document is signed, “Hilary B. Rosen, Chairman and CEO, RIAA,” and “Jack Valenti, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of America.”

61. Further, The Executive Office of the President (of the United States), through the Office of Management and Budget sent a memo to warn themselves and other federal employees, of the various dangers and illegalities of downloading music (as well as pornography and other things ...) and “to show the American Public” responsible Internet practices.

62. The first page of the memo, Exhibit B, states:

The purpose of this memorandum is to detail specific actions agencies must take to ensure the appropriate use of certain technologies used for file sharing across networks. These actions are based on recommended guidance developed by the CIO Council in 1999. The effective use and management of file sharing technology requires a clear policy, training of employees on the policy, and monitoring and enforcement.

Background

A type of file sharing known as Peer-to-Peer (P2P) refers to any software or system allowing individual users of the Internet to connect to each other and trade files. These systems are usually highly decentralized and are designed to facilitate connections between persons who are looking for certain types of files. While there are many appropriate uses of this technology, a number of studies show, the vast majority of files traded on P2P networks are copyrighted music files and pornography. Data also suggests P2P is a common avenue for the spread of computer viruses within IT systems.

Federal computer systems or networks (as well as those operated by contractors on the government’s behalf) must not be used for the downloading of illegal and/or unauthorized copyrighted content. It is important to ensure computer resources of the Federal government are not compromised and to demonstrate to the American public the importance of adopting ethical and responsible practices on the Internet.

[The word “Background” is bolded in original. All other emphasis added.]

63. The Defendant, and others similarly situated, received no such brochures or notices, only enticements for “free music” from computer providers, such as Gateway (which was the Santangelo computer at that time). To a teenager, advertisements for free music are not replete with notices about when “free” starts and ends and what to do next. Once “hooked,” as the companies clearly intended, with free music sites available all over the Internet, one not distinguishing itself from another, any reasonable teen would similarly behave. Gateway’s advertisements promoted the power of its CD-burner. If not for music, then for what – to a teenager?

64. Plaintiffs breached their duty to warn the public, and chose who it would warn. Once having taken the affirmative step to issue warnings to some, it then failed to warn others, in particular, the Defendant and others similarly situated.

65. The relief requested cannot be obtained in the action against counterclaim plaintiff.

66. Plaintiffs failure to adequately and meaningfully warn was the direct, legal and proximate cause of any damages which Defendant has incurred, and Defendant has been damaged therefrom, as to his reputation, legal fees and expenses, distraction from school and life activities, held up to public obloquy, used as an operative against his friends for the benefit of the Plaintiffs’ cartel and had stolen from him the one thing even this honorable Court has not the power to return: his time. But he can be compensated with money.

67. In addition to pecuniary damages, pursuant to Copyright Act § 505, defendant is entitled to be awarded his attorneys fees in defending this frivolous suit.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM

Misuse of Copyright

68. Counterclaim plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 42 through 54 of his First Counterclaim.

69. Counterclaim plaintiff reasserts each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 41 of his Answer as if set forth fully at length herein, and incorporates same by reference.

70. The counterclaim defendants are competitors in the business of recorded music.

71. The counterclaim defendants are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and public policy, by litigating and settling all cases similar to this one together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in an identical manner and through common lawyers.

72. Counterclaim plaintiff re-alleges paragraph 14, et. seque, of his Seventh Affirmative Defense.

73. Such actions represent an attempt by counterclaim defendants to secure for themselves rights far exceeding those provided by copyright laws.

74. Such acts constitute misuse of copyrights, and lead to a forfeiture of the exclusive rights granted to counterclaim defendants by those laws.

75. Counterclaim plaintiff is entitled to a judgment that counterclaim defendants have forfeited the exclusive rights, if any, which they possess in and to the sound recordings which they allege him to have infringed.

76. Counterclaim plaintiff is further entitled to costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee and such other relief as may be just.

WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment:

a. against the Plaintiffs, and each of them, dismissing their causes of action and awarding Defendant his costs, disbursements and attorneys fees if and as allowed by law;

b. awarding Defendant damages on his counterclaims inclusive of his costs, disbursements and attorneys fees if and as allowed by law; and

c. for such other, different, additional and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Dated: Valhalla, New York, 29 January 2007

S/

Sharon G. Thompson, Esq. (ST-8932)
Jordan D. Glass, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
7-11 Legion Drive, Suite M-1C
Valhalla, New York 10595
(914) 831-3087

To: Richard L. Gabriel, Esq.
Holme, Roberts & Owen, LLP
1700 Lincoln, Suite 4100
Denver, Colorado 80203-4541
(303) 866-0331
http://p2pnet.net/story/11178?PHPSESSID=e824d3038faa39f2e78c7e555767a5df

 

Sony BMG Settles FTC Rootkit Case
By Ed Oswald, BetaNews
January 30, 2007, 2:16 PM

Sony BMG has settled with the Federal Trade Commission, agreeing to reimburse consumers up to $150 for damage to the computers caused by the label's use of rootkits to prevent piracy of its discs.

The company had settled a similar case with 39 states and the state of California late last year. Like those settlements, Sony BMG admits no wrongdoing, and must provide tools to help uninstall the rootkit software. In addition, it would be required to post notices of the settlement on its Web site for two years.

"Installations of secret software that create security risks are intrusive and unlawful," said FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. "Companies must adequately disclose unexpected limitations on the customary use of their products so consumers can make informed decisions regarding whether to purchase and install that content."

In a statement, the FTC said the software "exposed consumers to significant security risks and was unreasonably difficult to uninstall." It was used to monitor listening habits and prevent discs from being copied more than a preset number of times.

Exchanges of discs with the rootkit software would be accepted through June 31, 2007, the FTC ordered.

The commission vote to accept the settlement was unanimous at 5-0, and would be open to public comment for the next 30 days. After that time, the FTC would decide whether to make the ruling final.

Sony BMG was not returning requests for comment on the decision as of press time.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Sony_BMG_Settles_FTC_Rootkit_Case/1170182186

 

New York teen sues record Industry

'Pirate' boy bites back

By Nick Farrell: Wednesday 31 January 2007, 16:15
A New York teen, dubbed a pirate by the Record Industry, is counter suing them for defamation, violating anti-trust laws, conspiring to defraud the courts and making extortionate threats.

In papers responding to a lawsuit filed by five record companies, Robert Santangelo, who was 11 when he is supposed to have downloaded music, has come out fighting. He denies sharing music using P2P technology and says it's impossible for the record companies to prove that that he did.

Robert Santangelo and his lawyer, Jordan Glass, have raised 32 defences against the music industry's charges. Amongst Robert's defence is the information that all the music that it was claimed he downloaded he already owned on shop bought CDs.

They have demanded a jury trial and filing a counterclaim against the companies for allegedly damaging the boy's reputation, distracting him from school and costing him legal fees. The record companies have engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to defraud the courts of the United States, the court documents say. Competitors in the recording industry are a cartel acting together in violation of the antitrust laws by bringing the piracy cases jointly and using the same agency "to make extortionate threats ... to force defendants to pay", our precocious teen wrote.

Santangelo's mum, Patti Santangelo, is 42-year-old suburban mother of five who also refused to pay up when the music industry accused her of being a pirate. After the case started to get messy, particularly when it became clear that Patti didn't know how to turn a computer on, let alone file share, the music lawyers dropped its case against her.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37337



more here
http://www.1010wins.com/pages/193237.php?contentType=4&contentId=298727

 

I would love to see this family stick it up the industries gee gee hole.

 

www.FamilyWatchDog.us

United States

When you visit this site you can enter your address and a map will pop up with your house as a small icon of a house. There may be red, blue and green dots surrounding your entire neighborhood. When you click on these dots a picture of a criminal will appear with his or her home address and the description of the crime he or she has committed.

The best thing is that you can show your children these pictures and see how close these people live to your home or school.

This site was developed by John Walsh from Americas Most Wanted. This is another tool we can use to help us keep our kids safe.

Please pass this on to
www.FamilyWatchDog.us

Online sexual predators act

p2pnet.net News:- If a bill introduced in the US Congress, yesterday, goes through, people such as Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch would have full access to a restricted US database of sex offenders.

Murdoch's News Corp owns MySpace, infamous as a hunting ground for sexual predators. Under the legislation, it and similar sites would be able to tap into the data base to check names and addresses against public profiles, says Associated Press.

"The legislation, aimed at giving computer network operators the knowledge and ability to remove sexual predators from their sites, would require convicted sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses and other online identifiers with federal authorities," says the story. "The information would not be released to the public."

Presumably, this is meant to make sure data held in the base aren't abused. However, MySpace and sites like it, hard-core commercial enterprises run by entrepreneurs, are hardly shining examples of probity.

Be that as it may, "Adults who misrepresent their age to a minor with the intent of sexually abusing a child could be prosecuted and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison," says AP, adding:

"The bill defines "social networking" sites in broad terms - a Web site that allows users to create public profiles and communicate with other users - and could include popular destinations like Amazon.com, which allows shoppers to make personal pages and discuss items for sale."

However, "Critics are ridiculing the latest legislative effort to combat online sexual predators, saying provisions of a law proposed Tuesday would be easy to circumvent and amounted to little more than political 'window dressing' supported by the online social networking giant MySpace.com," says The San Francisco Chronicle, going on:

"But sponsors - which include influential senators like John McCain, R-Ariz., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., - say the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007 addresses a small, but important, part of ridding social networking sites of predators:"

Meanwhile, MySpace, currently being sued by the families of five girls who were sexually assaulted by men they'd met on MySpace, says it'll donate use of its own sex offenders database to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC).

. Slashdot Slashdot it!

Also See:
Associated Press - Lawmakers Take Aim at Online Predators, January 31, 2007
The San Francisco Chronicle - Bill to curb online sexual predators criticized, January 31, 2007
five girls - MySpace in sex assault case, January 29, 2007
sex offenders - MySpace sexual offenders dbase, January 31, 2007
http://p2pnet.net/story/11185?PHPSESSID=3857bfe1734a342dfd567636039a833c