VERY,VERY HOT READS, I Would Read The News In This Thread This Thead Is To post Any Thing Ye Want About The News,,NEWS WAS MOVED,READ MY FIRST POS...

Department of Justice opens probe into online music pricing
Posted by Dan Bell on 03 March 2006 - 16:36 - Source: Reuters

DamnedIfIknow used our news submit to tell us "Colluded"? Impossible! Will be interesting to see their books, but one wonders how long it will take before the record labels get their "schills" in Congress to intervene and make their behavior legal."

This story is a good one and it always is interesting to see those that accuse others of criminal acts, thrown under the spotlight. This time around, we are going to get to follow an investigation by the Justice Department, that will investigate price fixing of online music among the labels. It is interesting to note, that subpoenas have been issued in light of the new pricing probe and it's already reported that Sony/BMG have received theirs.

One music industry source said some subpoenas may have been issued already in connection with the probe, while other labels had been tipped off that subpoenas would likely be coming in the next few days.

It appeared that Sony BMG had already received a subpoena, the second industry source said.

The major record labels are Warner Music Group, EMI Group Plc, Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group and Sony BMG, a joint venture of Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann Ag.

Executives from the labels were not available or declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the DOJ was not immediately available for comment.

<break in quote- article continues...>

In late December 2005, Warner Music Group disclosed in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing it had been subpoenaed by Spitzer in connection with an antitrust investigation into the pricing of digital music downloads. The two music industry sources on Thursday said the DOJ's probe appeared to be focused on the same issues, which included whether the labels colluded to set wholesale pricing for song downloads.

Another scandal is the last thing Sony needs and no amount of PR spin, that the music division is separate from the whole, will help the already damaged Sony image. It's the same pair of pants, the money is just in another pocket! The mere mention of being named in the probe is bad enough, if however, they or any of the labels are found guilty, it is going to get ugly. Those of you interested, may wish to visit this Reuters link to read the article in it's entirety at it's source.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13145

DOJ opens probe into online music pricing: sources

By Sue Zeidler
http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...INEMUSIC.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice has opened an investigation into online music pricing at the world's major music labels, sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

The DOJ probe closely tracks a similar investigation by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer into the pricing of digital music downloads, the sources said.

One music industry source said some subpoenas may have been issued already in connection with the probe, while other labels had been tipped off that subpoenas would likely be coming in the next few days.

It appeared that Sony BMG had already received a subpoena, the second industry source said.

The major record labels are Warner Music Group, EMI Group Plc, Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group and Sony BMG, a joint venture of Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann Ag.

Executives from the labels were not available or declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the DOJ was not immediately available for comment.

Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes music store dominates the industry, charging 99 cents for each of the vast majority of its songs, but some music labels have indicated they want to institute variable pricing. Rival online music stores include those run by music subscription service Napster, Inc.; retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and RealNetworks Inc., which makes software for playing video and music on computers.

In late December 2005, Warner Music Group disclosed in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing it had been subpoenaed by Spitzer in connection with an antitrust investigation into the pricing of digital music downloads. Continued...


The two music industry sources on Thursday said the DOJ's probe appeared to be focused on the same issues, which included whether the labels colluded to set wholesale pricing for song downloads.

The investigation also could be related to licensing renegotiations with Apple, maker of the wildly popular iPod digital music player, for its iTunes store, industry sources have said.

Last September, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs called the music industry "greedy" for considering hiking digital download prices and warned the move could drive iPod users to piracy.

Spitzer is also studying alleged pay-for-play radio promotion practices in a separate inquiry.

 

CMC reports fire at plant-assessing damage to facility
Posted by Dan Bell on 03 March 2006 - 16:14 - Source: DigiTimes

D4rk0n3 used our news submit to tell us more news from DigiTimes this morning. This fire is significant as there has been enough demand for CD recordable media, that prior to this event at CMC, there had been some talk of price increases coming soon. Considering that even though this was a smaller facility, the tightening could be worse, especially since CMC accounts for about 20% of supply of such medias. At least no one was mentioned being hurt in the blaze.

The optical disc maker said the plant, located at Yangmei, Taoyuan County, is a relatively smaller plant. Although CMC stressed that the plant's structure, equipment, and goods are fully insured, sources said CMC’s monthly capacity will be reduced by about nine million units due to the fire.

The plant accounted for 10% of CMC’s overall CD-R capacity and CMC’s CD-R discs mainly support demand from major international brands, the sources stated. Since it takes at least three months to have CD-R discs validated, second-tier makers will not be able to absorb those orders and major competitors Ritek and Prodisc Technology will be the indirect beneficiaries of the fire, the sources indicated.

Global supply of CD-R discs has been tight due to transfer of capacity from CD-R to DVD+R/-R.

With CD-R production running at full capacity now, second-tier optical disc makers have planned to raise their quotes by 3% this month, while CMC and Ritek had originally planned to keep their current price levels. However, due to the fire, CD-R prices may increase next quarter, the sources said.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13144

 

Vivendi investors 'rewarded'

p2p news / p2pnet: France's Vivendi Universal which, not so long ago, was facing a criminal charges by France's Commission des Opérations de Bourse over claims that investors were fed misleading information, is doing very nicely, these days.

Vivendi is a member of the Big Four Organized Music cartel which claims its owners are being "devastated" by file sharers.

Nonetheless, "French media group surprised investors with a larger than expected dividend yesterday and signalled it is hunting for acquisitions that will give it new digital revenue streams," says the Guardian Unlimited.

"Vivendi, whose assets include Universal Music, the Canal Plus pay TV business and France's second biggest mobile operator, SFR, announced a €2.1bn (£1,400,000,000 - $1,684,002,696) profit for 2005."

This allowed it to "reward" its "long suffering" shareholders with a €1 a share dividend," says the story. "This was two-thirds more than it paid out last year and higher than the 90 cents analysts had forecast."

Meanwhile, its long-suffering customers continue to be pursued and pilloried around the world as it and EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG, its partners in crime, try to sue them into buying even more 'product'.

The media group is focused on exploiting its music, gaming, TV and mobile assets to capitalise on the consumer shift to mobile and broadband, says the Guardian, going on:

"Boasting €2bn cashflow, Vivendi is on the lookout for acquisitions to boost earnings. As it pursues more sources of digital revenue, Mr Levy [Jean-Bernard Levy, Vivendi chairman] said the company was most likely to buy content businesses and, 'There are various opportunities in music recording and even in music publishing which we want to seize if those opportunities materialise'."

This could, "include assets that EMI and Warner Music may be forced to dispose of if their long anticipated merger comes to fruition".

And then there were three ......

Also See:
Guardian Unlimited - Vivendi makes €2bn and rewards investors, March 2, 2006

(Friday 3rd March 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/8072

 

France quashes DRM ruling,

p2p news / p2pnet: Last spring France's Paris Court of Appeals ruled DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) software is incompatible with a person's right to make copies for his/her private use and Les Films Alain Sarde and Studio Canal had one month to strip copy-protection gear - also known as CRAP (Content, Restriction, Annulment, and Protection ) - from their DVDs.

In addition, Alain Sarde and Universal Pictures Video France were ordered to financially recompense a man who'd copied David Lynch's Mulholland Drive, and French consumer rights association UFC-Que Choisir, who'd defended him.

But now, "French consumers aren't entitled to make personal copies of DVDs, even if they don't distribute them, France's highest court said today in a victory for film companies such as Vivendi Universal SA," states Bloomberg News.

"The Cour de Cassation in Paris, quashing a decision by a lower court, ruled that a consumer can't make a backup copy of David Lynch's Mulholland Drive. The purchaser, a member of the UFC Que Choisir consumer association, had argued that Vivendi's Studio Canal film-production unit didn't have the right to use a device that made it impossible to burn duplicate digital video discs."

In January, "Dominique de Villepin's government toned down a bill aimed at transposing a 2001 European Union directive on intellectual rights into French law, after consumer groups balked at articles that made file-sharing akin to counterfeiting, punishable by prison sentences of as long as three years and fines of as much as 300,000 euros ($358,000)," says Bloomberg, adding:

"The right to make personal copies can be restricted by copyright holders when duplication 'could cause an unjustified damage to the legitimate interests of authors,' today's judgment said."

Also See:
copy-protection gear - French court bans DRM, April 25, 2005
CRAP - DRM - a load of CRAP, February 25, 2006
Bloomberg News - France's Highest Court Boosts Copyright Protection on Film DVDs, March 1, 2006

(Friday 3rd March 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/8064

 

Oz parliamentary TPM report

p2p news view / p2pnet: Kim Weatherall provides a quick summary of what is an exceptionally important Australian parliamentary report on TPM provision implementation. The report includes 37 recommendations with a long list of protections. Kim points to coverage of region coding (specifically excluded as TPM), linking access controls to copyright, and exceptions when the amount of non-copyright material protected under a TPM is substantial (and modestly doesn't reference the committee's citations of her own work).

There is lots more including exceptions for fair dealing, education, and libraries. Moreover, the committee made it clear that changes in the law that facilitate greater access (such as format shifting or backup rights) should be matched by a TPM exception. As Kim concludes:

"Two arms of government have now spoken: the High Court of Australia, and a committee of the Parliament. Both have affirmed that copyright law must be balanced; that anti-circumvention laws should be matched to copyright rights, rather than overly extending them . How will the executive react?"

This report should obviously be required reading in Canada. In fact, it should be more than just read. It should be matched by a similar process (just as recently occured in the UK) that ensures that Canadian law similarly preserves the appropriate balance should we enact anti-circumvention provisions.

The copyright lobby argued that Bill C-60 did not go far enough in protecting TPMs.

It seems to me that this report from independent parliamentarians (no pro-user zealots there) confirms that the opposite is true: the bill did not do enough to provide consumers and the marketplace with adequate protections from TPMs.

Michael Geist
[Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at mgeist[at]uottawa.ca and is on-line at www.michaelgeist.ca.]

(Friday 3rd March 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/8065

 

BiTorrent's new groove

China Dan and Cohen

p2p news / p2pnet: Bram Cohen's BitTorrent has turned the corporate corner.

Cohen, who created the formerly independent p2p file sharing protocol, effectively signed up with Hollywood's MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) last November and now will, "enter a growing Internet video business," says Light Reading.

He and MPAA boss China Dan Glickman demonstrated their new togetherness in a photo op, but that hasn't stopped Glickman from trying to close down any and all sites not associated with the new, squeaky clean BitTorrent.

Quoting BT spokeswoman Lily Lin, the company is in licensing negotiations with several content owners and, "We want to aggregate video and other content and make it available in a legal and sanctioned area," BT's Ashwin Navin states.

But the company is, "vague on the types of video content it plans to sell," says Light Reading, going on:

"Because its new business will depend heavily on the trust of content owners, BitTorrent has been playing nice with Hollywood. In a show of good faith, BitTorrent promised the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) last year that it would remove copyright protected content from its P2P search engine results."

BT also wants to, "help ISPs build their own video stores," the story states, adding:

"BitTorrent will participate in a P2P video trial with the British cable ISP ntl group ltd starting in April. Under the terms, BitTorrent will aggregate the video content and provide ntl with the P2P distribution platform."

Also See:
became one - BitTorrent, Hollywood team up, November 22, 2005
Light Reading - BitTorrent to Open Video Store, March 2, 2006
squeaky clean - MPAA launches massive attack, February 24, 2006
P2P video tria - NTL, BitTorrent, CacheLogic trial, February 10, 2006

(Friday 3rd March 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/8066

 

Record labels threaten Canadians

'Wave of lawsuits'

p2p news / p2pnet: "Canadian music sales fell 4% last year, a drop that likely means the Canadian recording industry will initiate a fresh round of lawsuits against illegal file sharers this year," says Canada's Financial Post.

This implies that "rounds" of file sharing suits have already been launched against Canadians in much the same way that the Big Four record labels are in vain trying to sue American men, women and children into buying lossy, over-priced digital downloads.

This is not, however, true, although not for want of effort as Warner Music Group, EMI Group, Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group and Sony BMG continue with their scheme to turn Canada into another mini-America where what they say, goes.

When the Big Four tried to force Canadian ISPs to hand over the names of 29 clients said to have been, "illegally distributing hundreds if not thousands of music copyright files to millions of strangers," Justice Konrad von Finckenstein ruled, "No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorised the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer user(s) via a P2P service."

He also said the labels had not:

* "Made out a prima facie case (their affidavit evidence is deficient, they have not: made a causal link between P2P pseudonyms and IP addresses and they have not made out a prima facie case of infringement),
* "Established that the ISPs are the only practical source for the identity of the P2P pseudonyms; and
* "Established that the public interest for disclosure outweighs the privacy concerns in light of the age of the data."


Now, "CRIA president Graham Henderson said the lawsuits are necessary to stop falling sales in Canada," says the story.

But, "You are not going to wake up tomorrow to a wave of lawsuits," the Post has him saying, pointing out that the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America), "still needs the names of illegal file sharers to initiate the lawsuits".

His remarks can be seen as an element in the renewal of the Big Four's efforts to have Canada's copyright laws re-written to suit the labels.

It remains to be seen if the new administration will be as compliant to Big Four desires as was the former Liberal government.

In the US, the Warner, EMi, Vivendi and Sony BMG are fighting a losing battle in their bizarre sue 'em all marketing campaign.

Canada's p2pnet and major music firm Nettwerk Music are helping two American families to take on the multi-billion-dollar corporate music industry.

p2pnet has organized the Fight Goliath campign for New York mother of five Patti Henderson, and Nettwerk Music, with stars such as Sarah McLachlan, Avri Lavigne and Dido backing it, has promised to cover legal costs for a Texas family.

"We don't want to see Canadian parents and their children being terrorized like they are in the states and elsewhere," says p2pnet editor Jon Newton and, "Suing music fans isn't the solution, it’s the problem,” says Nettwerk boss Terry McBride.

Also See:
Financial Post - Drop in music sales signals that lawsuits are likely, March 2, 2006
No evidence - Keep on downloading! Cdn file sharers told , March 31, 2004
being terrorized - RIAA targets Santangelo's kids, February 16, 2006
it’s the problem - p2pnet talks to Nettwerk Music, February 14, 2006

(Friday 3rd March 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/8068

 

Broadcast flag for digital audio

p2p news / p2pnet: A special digital and satellite radio "broadcast flag" is needed to, "protect the music industry [read Warner, Music, EMI, Sony BMG and Vivendi Universal] from the threat of piracy," says US congressman Mike Ferguson.

"Ferguson's proposal would grant the Federal Communications Commission the power to enforce 'prohibitions against unauthorized copying and redistribution" for both digital over-the-air radio and digital satellite receivers'," says CNET News.

At a "breakfast roundtable with reporters on Thursday," the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), "said some sort of legislation is necessary to prevent Americans from saving high-quality music from digital broadcasts, assembling a 'personal music library' of their own, and redistributing 'recorded songs over the Internet or on removable media'," says the story, going on:

"Devices like the Sirius S50, the RIAA worries, can record satellite radio broadcasts but aren't required to include digital rights management limitations."

Satellite radio firms have, "grappled with the issue of unauthorized copying in the past, although there is little or no evidence showing that their networks have helped seed file-swapping networks or other piracy hubs," says CNET.

Also See:
CNET News - Congress raises broadcast flag for audio, March 2, 2006

(Friday 3rd March 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/8070



New radio Broadcast Flag legislation seeks to control innovation, eliminate fair use

3/3/2006 11:40:14 AM, by Ken "Caesar" Fisher

The radio broadcast flag is gaining momentum. House Representative Mike Ferguson (R-N.J.) is introducing legislation that would establish a broadcast flag for audio and also change the way in which the music industry licenses radio itself. The Audio Broadcast Flag Licensing Act of 2006, H.R. 4861, is quite a shocker. Or maybe not, depending on what brand of cynicism you like with your afternoon tea.

The bill would require all manufacturers of electronics to get approval from the FCC for any device that would enable the recording of digital radio. That approval would essentially be contingent on whether or not the device obeys DRM limitations on its capabilities. Those limitations take a page from the latest attack on fair use: the notion of "customary historic use." The idea is simple: lock down what was one permitted as a thing of the past, and make it clear that past "fair uses" of content have no bearing on future use. In short, they seek to short circuit the way law works in the United States, and to simply trash historical precedent.

Case in point: the bill in question seeks to stop not "illegal" uses, but "unauthorized" uses. The problem with this is that the two are not synonymous. Fair Use can be described as a collection of uses for which explicit authorization is not required by definition. That the entire point: you shouldn't require authorization to do things like copy part of a book, make a backup of your CDs, record a tune off of the radio, or anything else. Hence Fair Use, hence our legally defined rights to time shift and record audio. This bill not only wants to stop what is clearly illegal (say, recording and redistributing for a profit), but it also seeks to stop anything that's not authorized. And do you expect the music industry to authorize anything for free? Of course not. These are the same people who are now trying to argue that ripping CDs is not authorized, either.

The RIAA's position is simple on the surface. The ability to record digital radio, they claim, would result in stifling the industry's creativity, because the money would dry up. As we have reported before, they fear that digital radio could essentially "turn radio into download services" (without the cost) if a recording free-for-all is allowed. Of course, people can already record off of the radio, and music still sells. They maintain that with the quality that digital will bring, manufacturers will rush to produce products aimed at creating high quality music collections from radio broadcasts, and consumers will eat it up. It certainly is a possibility.

The RIAA is famous for not facing the music, so it would be superfluous to point out that their problems also stem from music being too expensive and not particularly compelling. For now, it looks like they're banking on Rep. Ferguson leading the charge in the House. For the moment, I doubt that this legislation has legs. One major challenge it faces will come from the broadcasters themselves. Many of them have already invested in equipment for digital radio, and have told members of Congress that it would be too costly to go back and add support for DRM and encryption.

They're not sure it's really necessary, either. Dan Halyburton, a senior VP at Susquehanna Radio, told a Senate committee that the threat remains to be demonstrated. Mr. Halyburton is correct, but let's not be coy here: the RIAA and MPAA have spilled Valdeez-like quantities of ink over threats that have yet to be realized to this day.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060303-6310.html

 

ABC to offer hit shows for free on the 'Net

3/3/2006 11:11:03 AM, by Nate Anderson

If you've ever wondered why you could watch "Survivor" for free on your monster high-definition television but had to pay US$1.99 for the privilege of watching it on your 20" computer screen, then today's news from ABC should scratch your itch. Disney President Bob Iger announced this week that ABC will start offering ad-supported downloads of its biggest hits beginning in March. The new service, dubbed My ABC, will bring network television's economic model to the computer screen: watch some ads, get some content.

What's in it for ABC? Advertising dollars, of course. Iger says that the advertising won't be identical to that shown on the television, which means that the network will be charging separately for the ads that accompany its downloads. The big question here is whether ABC can make enough money on the secondary advertising to make the project worth its while. Paid downloads of hit shows like "The Office", after all, are actually doing quite well at US$1.99 an episode, so ABC's move looks like an interesting experiment. The network is confident that advertising alone can still make them money, and they cite Google as an example.

"It's too early to count advertising out because there's so much new consumption in media, thanks to new technologies, than ever before, that there are actually more opportunities for advertisers," Iger said. "Just look at what Google has done, for instance."

It also stands in contrast to the strategies adopted by other networks. CBS tried to sell its wares on the Google Video Store before moving some of the content back to its own site, where it can charge a couple of bucks for the privilege of watching "Survivor" episodes for one day. NBC has been a bit more open with its content, making it available on iTunes and allowing users to watch purchased shows indefinitely for the same price.

It's not yet clear how ABC's system will work. If it allows downloads of some kind, especially downloads that can easily be transferred to portable media players, the network will no doubt have a hit on its hands. What commuter with a PSP would not want to watch episodes of "Lost" on the train ride to work? If ABC adopts a streaming solution, though, all bets are off. While it may provide more control for the network, far fewer users want to watch television on their PC when they could simply watch it on their, um, television. Still, whatever method they choose, releasing free content is a bold decision that has our support, and could someday lead to a situation in which all network content is freely available for any type of device, from televisions to computers to video iPods. Here's hoping.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060303-6309.html

 

Symantec Users, Start Your Keyloggers
Posted by CowboyNeal on Thursday March 02, @08:01PM
from the unfurling-the-welcome-mat dept.
Security The Internet
An anonymous reader writes "Script kiddies have been taking advantage of intrusion prevention features of Symantec's Norton Firewall and Norton Internet Security Suites to knock users offline in IRC channels, according to an amusing post at Washingtonpost.com. From the article: 'Turns out that if someone types "startkeylogger" or "stopkeylogger" in an IRC channel, anyone on the channel using the affected Norton products will be immediately kicked off without warning. These are commands typically issued by the Spybot worm, which spreads over IRC and peer-to-peer file-swapping networks, installing a program that records and transmits everything the victim types (known as a keylogger).' Makes you wonder what other magic keywords produce unexpected results with Symantec's software."

Malware-Speak Spooks Symantec

Symantec said Wednesday it plans to tweak the behavior of its Norton Internet Security and Norton Personal Firewall products so that they are no longer vulnerable to an annoying but otherwise harmless prank that "script kiddie" hackers have been using for the past week or so to knock users off online chat channels.

Last week, a hacker known as HM2K posted a note on his blog about a Norton security feature that could be abused on Internet relay chat (IRC) networks, simple, text-based communities that predate modern instant messaging systems. (Most IRC networks are used for the same purpose as regular instant-message networks like AOL Instant Messenger or MSN Messenger -- to facilitate real-time online communication between two or more people at once. But virus and worm writers also use IRC to update and control their networks of infected computers.)

Turns out that if someone types "startkeylogger" or "stopkeylogger" in an IRC channel, anyone on the channel using the affected Norton products will be immediately kicked off without warning. These are commands typically issued by the Spybot worm, which spreads over IRC and peer-to-peer file-swapping networks, installing a program that records and transmits everything the victim types (known as a keylogger).

Though the author said he didn't post the information so that people would abuse it, abuse it they did. It wasn't long after his posting that you could see users dropping like flies from IRC channels in some of the larger communities like Efnet and Dalnet as pranksters began typing the command all over the place, in some cases repeatedly on the same channel. According to several posters on his blog, a number of IRC channels are now filtering out those phrases.

Obviously, this isn't that big a deal; I just thought it was somewhat interesting. HM2K said he believes this particular glitch has been known to be present in Norton products for the past two years. It was designed, of course, as a feature to protect Norton users from Spybot infestations.

A Symantec spokesperson said the "startkeylogger" trick affects only a small number of its customers (read: those geeky enough to frequent IRC) and works because its Norton products "inspect the user's Internet traffic and block the secret commands that malware writers send to their malicious software that they deploy in the field. The company said it was adjusting its "security content to remove this issue which will be rolled out to customers in our next security update," which it said would be delivered automatically to customers.

Still, it said the "technique of blocking commands that are targeted at malware is a power tool that Symantec plans to continue to use." I have to wonder what other magic words (on what other communications channels) mhttp://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/keylogger_utterance_spooks_nor.htmlight trigger unexpected results for Norton users?

 

How To Punch Through Spam Filters
Posted by l33tdawg on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 12:28 AM (Reads: 546)
Source: Information Week


It was a typical first-thing activity. I'd turned my computer on, run the spam filter, and was checking through it for e-mails that shouldn't be there. As sometimes happens, there were a couple, and a couple of clicks later, McAfee SpamKiller sent them on their way to my e-mail. This is a habit that I've formed over the years because I've learned that despite the technology, false positives do exist and sometimes the e-mail that's on the kill list is important. This is made more complex because I have multiple levels of spam filters with the McAfee product somewhere in the middle. By the time my e-mail reaches me, nearly all the Spam has gone. Normally, that is a good thing. But when it contains my airline itinerary for a trip to CeBIT, it's less than optimal.

How To Punch Through Spam Filters

Tips for making sure your legitimate bulk e-mail gets through to its recipients, and doesn't end up in the garbage with the mortgage pitches and Viagra ads.

By Wayne Rash
Security Pipeline

Mar 2, 2006 02:03 PM

It was a typical first-thing activity. I'd turned my computer on, run the spam filter, and was checking through it for e-mails that shouldn't be there. As sometimes happens, there were a couple, and a couple of clicks later, McAfee SpamKiller sent them on their way to my e-mail.

This is a habit that I've formed over the years because I've learned that despite the technology, false positives do exist and sometimes the e-mail that's on the kill list is important.

This is made more complex because I have multiple levels of spam filters with the McAfee product somewhere in the middle. By the time my e-mail reaches me, nearly all the Spam has gone. Normally, that is a good thing. But when it contains my airline itinerary for a trip to CeBIT, it's less than optimal.

The difference between me and many other people is that I actually check my spam filters on a daily basis. Most people don't from what I can tell. In fact, they may never check, and important e-mails can go the way of junk very easily. But suppose you're sending out e-mails that actually need to be seen by your customers? It's a waste of money and effort if they just end up in a spam filter on their way to oblivion.

The key to preventing this, of course, is for security folks to work with their marketing department to design e-mails that will get to their intended destination, at least most of the time.

To do this, you need to educate your users on what spam filters look for, so users learn what not to put into their e-mails. Your user base also needs to know how to create customer e-mail that doesn't look like spam or maybe a phishing attack so that the customer doesn't delete the message before reading it.

http://www.informationweek.com/news...CKHSCJUMEKJVN?articleID=181500429&subSection=

First, check the formatting of the e-mails going to customers. For example, make sure the sender's name is a real e-mail address and doesn't consist entirely of numbers or special characters.

While you're at it, make sure the subject line isn't blank and that the To: line as a real e-mail address in it. Yes, you can send out e-mails with missing subject lines, and with all of the recipients on the BCC: line, but you'll probably trigger a bunch of filters along the way.

Second, check your content. This means that you will need to avoid saying things that could be taken as spam.

One e-mail I retrieved from my filters this week used the letter "X" to separate sections of the e-mail. The spam filter looks for that letter, especially when three or more of them appear in a line, and assumes it's an ad for porn.

There are also other key phrases users should avoid, such as "Read this:" in the subject line, "This message is being sent to you because…" in the body of the message or references to weight loss or medications in the message.

The specific items that can trip up email delivery can go on and on, and while neither IT folks or users can't figure all of them out, it helps to pay close attention to the most obvious.

Plus, there are some that aren't so obvious but that will flag the spam filter anyway. If users include a link in an e-mail message, it should be the same in the text of the message as is in the embedded link itself.

Some spam filters, including the one in Eudora, look for this and may send it directly to the junk file, or in any case alert the recipient that the message is a potential phishing attack. Likewise, including a link that's an IP address rather than a name can flag a message as spam because the e-mail software may decide it's deceptive.

And of course, you also have to get smarter than the email users who actually know about spam and phishing and are on the lookout for it.

The best way to accomplish this is to use an e-mail address for the sender that is both legitimate and understandable.

Then use a subject line that clearly states what the message is about without hype, exclamation points or extra words. And make sure that everything in the subject line is spelled correctly--many spammers use misspellings to get through spam filters, but aware users will frequently delete those without reading them.

Page 3: More Steps To Take

The other step you should take is to test e-mail format and content. You'll need to dedicate a few computers with different e-mail systems and spam filters to this task. Send your customer e-mail to all of them, and see which ones catch the e-mail.

You should also send e-mails through the larger ISPs, since most of them have their own spam filters running full time, and they can catch e-mail without your customers ever knowing it happened.

If there's any doubt about whether your customer e-mails are likely to get caught, it might pay to send out an e-mail to your customers that alerts them to the fact that you'll be sending out e-mail. This e-mail should be formatted plainly so that it will get through. Then you might ask that the user change the set up on their e-mail account so that your messages will always be accepted.

While testing and proper formatting are both key, users also need to make sure they don't do something stupid in your e-mails.

For example, don't ask for personal or private information by e-mail. Don't ask for credit card numbers or bank information. Don't ask for Social Security numbers or other information that could be used in identity theft.

If you ignore this and do those things anyway, maybe you should have your company's messages end up in everyone's spam filter.

«

 

FREE,FOLDER SIZE FOR WINDOWS..........Folder Size for Windows adds a new column to the Details view in Windows Explorer. The new column shows not only the size of files, but also the size of folders. It keeps track of which folders you view, and scans them in the background so you can see complete size of all files within the folder. It's very useful for cleaning up your disk. Once you get used to having that information available, a directory listing simply looks incomplete without it.....(free).....GO THERE!
http://foldersize.sourceforge.net/

 

Porn, Google and the courts
By Dawn Kawamoto
Staff Writer, CNET News.com


Norm Zada is no Hugh Hefner.

But this adult content publisher has one thing Hefner does not. A major legal win against Internet giant Google.

Last week, Zada's Perfect 10 publication won a preliminary injunction against Google for alleged copyright infringement over its use of thumbnail photos of Perfect 10 models.

Champion of copyrights is the latest hat Zada's wearing--pulled from a closet with an assortment as wide-ranging as author, money manager, former university professor and mathematician.

Zada, who authored "Winning Poker Systems" for Prentice-Hall, also has geek blood running deep through his veins.

In addition to a stint at button-down IBM as a research staff member in the early 1970s, he wrote such papers as the "Theoretical efficiency of the Edmonds-Karp algorithm for computing maximal flows."

And then there's his dad, the renowned Lotfi Zadeh, who is considered by many in the technology industry to be the "father of fuzzy logic."

CNET News.com recently spoke to Zada, who formerly went by Norman Zadeh, about his life and his company's entanglement with Google, which these days are increasingly becoming one and the same.

Q: Perfect 10 has won a major round in its copyright fight against Google, which could ultimately affect the way people search for photos and other content online. But few people know the name Norm Zada like they do Hugh Heffner. Who is Norm Zada?
Zada: I was a research staff member for IBM in their main computer science department from 1972 to 1973. I also had teaching jobs at Stanford, Columbia, UCLA and UC Irvine (from 1975 to 1982) that were either in operations research, which is applied math for business, or in the business schools. So, I am basically a very applied mathematician.

After I stopped teaching at UCLA in 1982, I started running financial competitions called the U.S. Trading Championship and the U.S. Investing Championship. Later, I ran an investing competition called Money Manager Verified Ratings. Those contests were carried by Barrons and various other financial magazines and newspapers, and people started asking me who they should invest with and so forth.

I started referring them to various money managers and decided in 1991 to start managing money myself. I've been managing money ever since, with only one losing year, in 2003.

I gave back all my clients' money in 2003 and quit. But I resurrected my money management business in 2004 to make enough money to cover all the ongoing losses in Perfect 10. I've lost over $42 million in Perfect 10 since its inception in 1996. I am still a money manager and use my earnings in money management to finance Perfect 10.

How did you make the transition from university professor to publisher of adult content?
Zada: There are a lot of reasons. I've always been a lover of women, and I've always been very supportive of women. And I felt there was something wrong with what Playboy was doing. They were recommending implants to women that didn't need implants, and I just thought that implants are a very bad thing for women. Women's bodies are beautiful naturally, and they shouldn't feel they have to augment their bodies in order to be OK. So, I thought, let me start an all-natural magazine, which doesn't allow implants. I also thought I could make money doing it and thought it would be an interesting challenge. And I had a friend who had just been turned down by Playboy, and she was very distraught. And I said to myself, what can I do to make her feel better about herself? I said, I guess I'll have to start a magazine and put her in it. That wasn't the main reason, obviously, but it was one of the factors. I wanted something that would be more respectful of women. I thought I could make money doing it, and I wanted to help my friend.
If the ultimate conclusion from all of this is you can't assert secondary liability against people who are benefiting from intellectual property...then that will be the end of motion pictures, songs and Perfect 10.

And it's kind of cool when you publish a magazine. It's enabled me to interview some of the people that I would otherwise not have ever been able to interview. I've interviewed Dion DiMucci of Dion and the Belmonts, Felix Cavaliere of the Rascals. We've interviewed Morgan Freeman, Ray Charles, Sugar Ray Leonard, Robin Williams and Sidney Pollack. We've interviewed a tremendous number of wonderful people. We have a wonderful writing crew for Perfect 10, consisting of David Black, who is our editor in chief and former executive producer of "CSI: Miami." Most of the Perfect 10 writers are outstanding.

We have tried real hard to make a wonderful, wonderful publication, and we think we're entitled to benefit from the wonderful film that we've created that nobody else has. The problem is, everyone is infringing it, including large corporations, and benefiting from our hard work.

There have been a lot of people who have not been very sympathetic with Perfect 10, but I think that if they worked really hard to create a business and they had products they were proud of, they would go nuts if people were utilizing their products to make money at their expense. And that's what's happening right now.

And what is your prediction on how the courts will ultimately rule?
Zada: I'm pretty sure we'll win on the direct infringement issue. But the problem is that many of the direct infringers are in places like Russia and China, and there's no way to track them down. As far as indirect or secondary infringement is concerned, it's too easy for people to take advantage of our material without actually copying it themselves.
CONTINUED: Can't get no respect?...
Remember, Grokster was a secondary liability case and there was a huge battle over Grokster which has not been completely resolved. If the ultimate conclusion from all of this is you can't assert secondary liability against people who are benefiting from intellectual property, if the only test is they have to copy it themselves, then that will be the end of motion pictures, songs and Perfect 10.

Has the recording industry or movie industry stepped up and offered you support on your copyrights battle, or do you feel like the actor Rodney Dangerfield and "can't get no respect" because of the content you provide?
Zada: Perfect 10 is not the perfect plaintiff in this case. It would have been much better if the motion pictures studios had sued instead of Perfect 10. Even though we have a very tasteful magazine, we are not viewed as respectfully as, obviously, the motion pictures studios.

The problem is that motion picture studios and the recording industry have been battling all their other battles like Grokster and all these other things.

I don't think they fully appreciate how critical this particular case is to their future. Napster was not a direct infringement case; it was a secondary infringement case, and they won Napster. But if we lose this case on secondary liability for linking, given the somewhat different facts and circumstances, then basically anybody, not just a search engine, can just link to sites that offer songs, link to sites that offer full-length movies and create a big, huge directory. Go to a site, click on a song; go to a site and click on a movie. It will be the end of motion pictures and songs.
In other news:

* Patent auctions may signal new lawsuits
* What's behind push for open-source ID?
* HP prepares 'infinity' campaign for Itanium servers
* News.com Extra: 20 students suspended for viewing MySpace post

Now that you have won a preliminary injunction in the case, do you think you'll get interest from the recording or movie industry to join you in the case?
Zada: We suspect one or more of them will join us in the appeal, but I don't know for sure. It's a political thing for them. I think it would be a mistake for them not to join the appeal, because the appeal would be much more sympathetically viewed by the 9th Circuit if we had major players in it besides Perfect 10. So, it's very important for us to get other major copyright holders to join in. I just don't know what the probabilities are.

Do you think Google did not act on your requests because you were not the recording industry or movie industry and, instead, a publisher of adult content?
Zada: Google may have felt that Perfect 10 was too small and no one would take us as being important.

But we did a very big win here. It is the first time I am aware of a federal judge that has said that somebody had a likelihood of success against Google for copyright infringement, and that opinion could have a dramatic impact.

And what happens if you lose in the 9th Circuit Court. Will you shut down Perfect 10?
Zada: If we do not prevail and are not able to protect our copyrighted material, I will probably stop the magazine and probably continue the Web site. We will basically give up. I put eight years of my life and millions and millions of dollars into this. People claim I'm this big litigious person. The last thing in the world I want to do is file a lawsuit.

We always try to settle lawsuits before we file them. Unfortunately, we were not able to settle this lawsuit before we filed it. We have tried to settle it later and have not been able to do so.

Lawsuits are terrible. The whole legal system is horribly backed up because there are not enough federal judges. This case could go on for years. How much energy do I have to spend the rest of my life, struggling over every detail, every piece of evidence, every deposition? I have better things to do. I hate litigation. I don't want to keep litigating, and whatever the 9th Circuit ultimately decides to do is what's going to determine whether Perfect 10 continues, or I just give up on it.
http://news.com.com/2008-1030_3-6045732.html?part=rss&tag=6045732&subj=n

 

RIAA's latest PR puff piece'

p2p news / p2pnet: "Just caught one of the RIAA's puff pieces on our local news a couple of days ago when some local people became part of the latest round of lawsuits," says a Reader's Write under our latest Napster story.

The comment post goes on, "Listening to it was just like reading one of the RIAA's press releases. 'Filesharing is illegal', 'Be safe and go to Music United dot org's website where there is a list of "legal" places to get your music", blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc.

It pissed me off enough after seeing the completely biased segment that I took the time to write and send this email to the reporter:

Subj: Regarding Tuesdays RIAA segment...
To: kwainscott@TheMilwaukeeChannel.com

Hi, Kent.

Just had to comment on this. While it's good to see some mainstream news coverage of this situation, it would be even better if you did some research on the situation instead of just pushing the RIAA's latest PR puff piece.

Could you pleae explain to me what "illegal" music is or what an "illegal" download is?? Let me rephrase that... Do you understand the difference between criminal and civil matters?? Copyriight infringement is a civil matter between the infringer and the copyright holder. These are not criminal cases before a criminal court, therefore the word "illegal" does not apply no matter how much the RIAA wants it to. Copyright infringement does not equal theft, as the industry would like everyone to believe. The Supreme court made this clear in it's decision 21 years ago when ruling on the Dowling vs. United States case.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11662

Here's some links to provide more insight as to what's REALLY happening in the world outside of RIAA dreamland...

http://www.p2pnet.net/index.php

http://www.slyck.com/

Add these to your favorites and check them daily and you will see what a travesty and a crock all this really is.

The industry feels it must destroy everything it cannot control, but this time it's too late. They missed the boat as they tried to hang on to an outdated business model and they will suffer to their grave.

If they invested even half of the money they're wasting on DRM and the extortion campaign into better product and artists, and treated their customers with respect instead of labeling them all "criminals", they wouldn't have so many problems as they do now.

I, personally, don't want anything they have to offer, even for free. The independent labels have much more to offer... better music and better artists, AND they embrace technology rather than try to fight it and destroy it.

The RIAA dinosaurs are dying, and deservedly so, because of their inabilty to adapt. The porn industry is thriving like never before despite free downloading. Why is this? Because they know how to adapt and capitalize on every piece of new technology that comes along.

I hope to see this topic again without such a biased view, but then I've come to expect it. After all, they are the one's who sign YOUR check every week too, aren't they? Not the RIAA, but the MPAA/Disney who ultimately owns your station, and who are engaged in the same despicable behavior. I'll bet Walt is turning in his grave as he sees all these children being sued by the industry he loved so much and invested his life into.

OK, my rant is over,

XXX

As expected, there was no response.

Should anyone want to copy this and use it themselves, feel free

Also See:
Napster story- Napster blames woes on Microsoft, March 3, 2006

(Saturday 4th March 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/8079

 

Apple and its C.R.A.P.

p2p news view / p2pnet: "Steve Jobs believes in his heart (or should I say admits) that all of your music should be kept somewhere on an Apple device," writes David Berlind in ZDNet, quoting Jobs from a San Jose Mercury News item.

The quote goes: "It's really the home stereo reinvented. Music is not on CDs in your cabinet. It's on your iPod,'' and Berlind continues, "So, what else is in your iPod?" - answering, "Well, for starters, it's full of Apple's proprietary CRAP. C.R.A.P., in case you missed some of my previous blogs on the topic, stands for "Cancellation, Restriction, and Punishment." I've even made a video about it. CRAP is my personal acronym for DRM (Digital Rights Management technology).

"Originally, I wanted CRAP to stand for Content Restriction, Annulment, and Protection. But Richard Stallman at the Free Software Foundation convinced me to change its meaning to "Cancellation, Restriction, and Punishment" and ZDNet's readers sided with him."

CRAP?

Yup.

To digress, as we've posted many a time, iTunes is NOT a corporate music download site. It's a (now) self-funding promo/delivery vehicle for iPod.

And given that iTunes is the ONLY successful corporate download site out there, even if it isn't a corporate download site, ergo, there's as yet no such thing as a "booming" corporate online music market, contrary to claims emanating solely from the Big Four record labels and lamescream media.

Back to Berlind, "First of all, if you want to by music by most major artists one song at a time (the way you should be able to by music) and you want it to be able to play on an iPod, then the only place you can buy that music is from Apple's iTunes Music Store (IMS)," he says. "Music sold through IMS is stuffed in an wrapper that's made out of Apple's proprietary CRAP. Currently, there are only three things that can legally cut through Apple's CRAP to playback the music: the iTunes software, an iPod, or an iTunes phone from Motorola.

"In other words, Apple is solely in charge of when and where music that's purchased through IMS can be played back. It has also refused to license its CRAP to other hi-fi companies. For the last year, I've been arguing that much the same way Apple is using its CRAP to dominate digital music and video playback in the technology market, that it will soon start to nudge the traditional hi-fi manufacturers out of the hi-fi market."

So, "it gets to decide whether or not CRAP-wrapped content will work on the gear that's sold by the traditional home entertainment companies," continues Berlind.

But, "since the home entertainment market is a growth opportunity for Apple, especially if it can kick all the traditional players out of the game, why would Apple ever let those companies play? It doesn't. And to the extent that Apple allows some iPod accessory companies (ones that aren't a threat to its master plan) to participate in the iPod ecosystem, Apple charges them an exorbitant tax. Now that Apple is competing against some of those very same companies, it gets to operate in a tax-free environment while the competitors must pay to play. The real name of Apple's CRAP is FairPlay. But how fair is that? Now that IMS has a virtual lock on the online a la carte digital music sales market, does Apple's refusal to license its technology on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (a practice that could foreclose on competition) constitute a tying violation that trust-busters should be paying attention to?"

Berlind adds that when he first wrote Apple would use CRAP to, "lock home entertainment players out of their own business," a few people wrote to him to say Apple would never do that".

David, a company that's capable of using teenaged RIAA victims in a sick iPod/iTunes advertising campaign, and which'll sue its own supporters, is easily capable of this.

Now, "Apple is going after the home entertainment market and it will use its CRAP to keep the competition at bay. This time, you didn't hear it from me. You heard it straight from the horse's mouth.

"So, HorseCRAP anyone?"

(Thanks again, Julie ; )

Also See:
ZDNet - Jobs iPod Hi-Fi: Home stereo reinvented?, March 1, 2006
CRAP? - DRM - a load of CRAP, February 25, 2006
advertising campaign - New Apple Intel ad, January 17, 2006
sue its own supporters - New Apple Asteroid trouble, September 13, 2006

(Saturday 4th March 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/8080

 

French p2p file sharing law

p2p news / p2pnet: The Big Four record labels are fighting tooth and nail to kill the French decision to make it legal to share music and movies online.

MPs, who've already voted once on the matter, will debate it again next week and if they confirm the earlier decision, turning it into law, France will become the first country to make it legal to share copyrighted music online.

"The surprise vote caused outrage among record companies and film producers, who say illegal peer-to-peer (P2P) copying costs their industries millions of euros every year," says the BBC. "It was an embarrassing defeat for the government, which had planned to introduce large fines and possible jail terms of up to three years for internet pirates.

"Seventeen year old Aziz Ridouan became so angry at the number of people already being taken to court that he started up his own pressure group.

"Today, the Audiosurfers Association has 6,000 members. It campaigns for a change in the law and helps defend those being prosecuted."

Socialist MP Patrick Bloche, who helped draft the amendment, argues, "Rather than outlawing, punishing, and paradoxically maintaining to a certain extent an illegal system. Let's make a different choice: authorising peer-to-peer downloading, but in return, putting in place a system allowing artists to be paid."

Then the Big Four, Vivendi Universal (France), EMI, (Britain), Sony BMG (Japan, Germany) and Warner Music (US) pulled their well-worn trick of mobilising contracted performers such Johnny Hallyday, "to protest, arguing that revenue from a global licence wouldn't compensate for the millions they say they risk losing through falling CD sales," says the story.

Nonetheless, "The MPs' vote in December sent the government scuttling off to redraft its bill," says the BBC. "It has since spent two months in consultations with artists, industry representatives and internet users to try to reach a compromise. More than 13,000 musicians signed a petition in favour of the global licence. A website set up to encourage a debate on P2P copying was inundated with replies."

France's latest plan still rejects global licensing, "although it agrees that private copying should be allowed," and, "The sanctions for illegal copying have been reduced considerably, with fines beginning at 38 euros (£26, about $46) ) for small-scale piracy."

Meanwhile, people in France aren't entitled to make personal copies of DVDs, even if they don't distribute them, France's highest court, the Cour de Cassation in Paris, has ruled, overturning an earlier decision by a lower court.

Also See:
make it legal - Colins 'Testify' French DRM ban, January 29, 2006
BBC - French MPs vote on digital piracy, March 3, 2006
aren't entitled - France quashes DRM ruling, March 3, 2006

(Saturday 4th March 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/8081

 

The RIAA and MPAA: Dumb

p2p news view / p2pnet: One of the problems with using a "Shock and Awe" strategy in battle is that you can never tell if it works. Imagine Mel Gibson's William Wallace in Braveheart announcing to his small army of Scotsmen, "Aye, the only reason we beat the fooken English is because we lifted our kilts and waved our genitals aroond". A blood spattered Celtic warrior turns around and replies, "Nah, fightin' for our homes and families gave us the courage to fight and defeat them".

"It was the cock-waving I tell yer!" screams Wallace.

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has favoured the cock-waving approach in its battle against its perceived enemy (its owners' customers). The plan is to sue large numbers of people and publicize the actions in the hope people will be too scared to oppose them and, after years of using this tactic it seems to be failing.

Patti Santangelo is the most recognisable person to stand up and fight the RIAA's accusations in court, and just when things seemed to be going the RIAA's way, too!

The MPAA (Motion Picture Associatioin of America) on the other hand has tried the "surgical strike" method, and has been having much more sucess. Its actions last week against a number of Torrent and Newsgroup sites have already seen a number of those targeted close shop. More will probably capitulate as the MPAA drags out the court procedings and stretches the indexing sites' legal budgets to zero.

The RIAA and MPAA have so far been reactionary in their dealings with new p2p technology. Little, if any, effort has been made by them to address the root cause of their problems - perceived loss of income.

The typical tech company approach to this kind of problem is to get a bunch of smart guys, stick them in a room with tens of millions of dollars worth of cool toys and tell them to come up with something brilliant. It works more often than not, as well. Simultaneously, company executives sit down and work out how to fight a holding action against their competitor. How long can they maintain their current profit margins? How can they reduce overheads? How much coffee to the engineers need before the "something brilliant" is ready for market?

This is NOT something the movie studios and record companies are doing. There is, however, one tried and true way of reducing costs during tough times: salary caps.

I don't know about you, but whenever I see some actor receiving a $25 million dollar payment for doing a movie I get really worried for the movie studio. Don't they know they're being decimated by file sharing? Haven't they heard that their entire industry is poised on the edge of bankruptcy? How can they possibly afford to fork out twenty five million bucks and continue saying that I am the f*cking problem to their bottom line?!?!?

Unfortunately, the entertainment industry isn't run along the lines of a free market and even "free" markets are regulated to make sure they stay free. If there weren't regulations in place, they'd be called "anarchic markets" and there'd be thriving, legal industries producing and selling everything from nuclear bombs to organs harvested from African children.

So No. You can't do whatever the hell you feel like in a free market. We came out of the trees, got civilized and made rules which can be changed as and when they need to be to ensure there's some level of fairness in the world.

Salary caps were introduced to professional sports to maintain the competetive environment, otherwise a rich team would simply buy all the best players and win every game. As you can guess, this would be pretty damned boring to the fans who'd quickly lose interest. As people stop going to games, less money comes in. When income drops to a certain level, the game goes bankrupt.

It's well worth noting as well that salary caps were partly introduced to professional sports to keep the fans happy. I imagine it would be very difficult to watch a player earing $20 million a year screw up and continue believing they were worth $20 million a year. Anger towards the player for dropping the ball, anger towards the team for overpaying someone who drops the ball, anger towards the league for crying hardship this season and putting up ticket prices...

Until the MPAA starts being proactive and sorting out the problems in their own back yard, I'm not going to feel guilty for sneaking into a game...er...downloading a movie.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a fun game to play. Pick the three things you'd most like to be enforced on the MPAA's member studios:

1. Half of all actor salaries over $10 million dollars must be given to charity.

2. No actor or director may recieve more than $20 million for their work on a film.

3. 20% of all profits over $100 million made on any movie must be used to fund projects by emerging directors.

4. All sequals must contain 90% of the "stars" that appeared in the first (sucessful) movie.

5. People or companies with a financial interests in a film must be disclosed in the credits.

6. Songs appearing in a film's "official soundtrack" must be audible for at least 20 seconds during the film.

7. Any actor nominated for an Oscar must have performed in at least one stage production during the previous year.

8. No studio executive may receive more than $5 million dollars in salary or benefits while their employer is engaged in legal action against individual file sharers.

9. All studios must give 5% of their after tax profits to an independent organization for the purposes of commercializineative Commons.
g p2p technologies.

10. Any person working for an MPAA member studio must take a short course in alternative licensing, such as the Cr

Alex H, p2pnet - Sydney, Australia
[Alex is an operations manager for an ATM (automatic teller machine) supplier and he specialises in infrastructure development and maintenance, and logistics. He’s also an[other] active member of the Shareaza community. And he's just started the Tech Loves Art blog on which you'll find previous p2pnet posts as well as other good stuff.]

(Saturday 4th March 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/80

 

Public domain database

p2p news / p2pnet: Access Copyright and Creative Commons Canada will build a free, globally searchable online database of published works that have entered the public domain and which are therefor no longer bound by copyright law.

The non-profit project will start with comprehensive registry of works and will expand to include the published works of creators from other countries,

There's currently no one place where information about the public domain is collected, say the two organizations in a statement, going on:

"The project will develop in two stages - first, a comprehensive registry of works by Canadian creators that are in the public domain will be established.

"Eventually, the reach of the registry will expand to include the published works of creators from other countries. The public domain registry will be a non-profit project and freely accessible to the public online."

The backbone will be Access Copyright's Rights Management System, the largest database of copyright information in Canada.

The Wikimedia Foundation will supply software that will allow the public to contribute information to the registry. Individuals will be able to use the registry to determine whether a published work is in the public domain and, "The registry will also link to digital versions of the work, and provide information about where a paper copy of the work can be purchased," say Access Copyright and Creative Commons Canada.

Also See:
statement - Access Copyright and Creative Commons Canada Announce Public Domain Registry, March 3, 2006

(Saturday 4th March 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/8078

 

RIAA Wants 30% in Royalties from Sirius
Michael Hoffman - March 4, 2006 11:27 AM
Print article Email article 7 comment(s) - last comment nwrigley.. on Mar 4, 2006 at 2:45 PM
Recipient E-mail Please enter a valid E-mail addressPlease enter a valid E-mail address
Sender E-mail Please enter a valid E-mail addressPlease enter a valid E-mail address
As satellite radio continues to grow in popularity, the RIAA believes it should get a 30% slice of the pie

Sirius Chief Financial Officer David Frear believes that satellite radio companies (i.e. Sirius and XM) shouldn't be obliged to have to pay higher royalties to record companies -- but the RIAA feels that it should get 30% of the revenues. Sirius and XM both already pay royalty fees to record companies so both companies are able to play copyrighted music over the radio. Both parties have until June 30, 2006, to reach an agreement, or an arbitrator will then be called in to help settle the case.

"There's been some tough talk from some of the labels," he said. Record labels haven't been happy with Sirius's new S50 radio which includes an MP3 player that allows users to record several hours of programming. The music industry insists that because of this "interactive" service, which is entitled to higher fees, satellite radio companies should have to step up and pay more.

Considering XM and Sirius have already spend billions on the infrastructure alone, high royalties like the ones proposed could cripple (contentwise and financially) either company overnight.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1094

some quotes
Quit buying and listening to their music
By kkwst2 on 3/4/2006 10:45:34 AM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't waste my time getting upset with what those idiots try to do anymore. Nothing they do should surprise you by now. And don't depend on the government to do the right thing. I would support independent labels and radio. The recording indurstry doesn't put out very much that is remotely orignal or interesting anyway.

Monopolies
By BladeVenom on 3/4/2006 12:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
It just proves the point that the RIAA should be broken up, and the music cartel charged for monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior.


Unbelievable.
By knowyourenemy on 3/4/2006 2:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
The RIAA is becoming more poor (behavior-wise) by the day.

 

Good lord where do you find all this stuff? I am impressed...

Keep it up!