FILE SHARING NEWS ARCHIVE
Tor is a proxy service that obscures users’ IP address and origin by relaying traffic through various nodes on the Tor network. This effectively anonymises internet traffic, rendering it untraceable, since the site will see the IP address of the Tor node rather than the true IP of the visitor.
Things can go wrong, though, when the node is used for some nefarious purpose. This was discovered by Alexander Janssen, who operated a Tor Node in Germany. This is the second time he’s been in trouble with local law enforcement agencies, and hopefully the last: he shut down his node for good. Officers forced entry into Janssen’s home, detained him, then searched the premises. The reason? A bomb threat had been made through the Tor Node. Janssen was released without charge.
his is an all too common situation, with nodes being seized by the police in German last year as a result of a child pornography investigation. Janssen’s earlier run-in with the heat was also a result of traffic relayed by his node. Obviously Janssen has had enough; though he’ll stay involved in the Tor project, he’s not running a node anymore.
I can’t do this anymore; my wife and I were scared to death. I’m at the end of my civil courage
ArsTechnica’s take on the story comments:
the country’s attempts to harass Tor node operators reflect an unwillingness to distinguish between a legitimate technical service and criminal behavior
We disagree. The police have to start somewhere, and the Tor node is the first thing they see. If they’re arresting the wrong people then it’s a sign of insufficient training and knowledge for those involved. To say this is harassment is misleading: both of Janssen’s encounters have been resolved, and his reputation untarnished. Incompetence? Yes. Deliberate unfairness? We don’t think so.
Recently Apple had made the decision to implement Digital Rights Management (DRM) protection on music purchased by users, effecting its Linux-running customers. The change of heart is unsurprising, and the whole-scale switch to DRM-protected tracks is not far away, we don’t think. Of course it blames the Big Four cartel for the ‘necessary change’, but it cannot have escaped customers’ notice that Apple are gradually pulling the wool over their eyes and committing daylight robbery.
The P2Pnet story quotes ipodminusitunes in say that Apple is unhappy with other media players being better than iTunes, and so have cut down the opposition’s chance by
apparently decided to stop them from working with the new range of iPods … This affects Linux users – there’s no iTunes for Linux, so popular Linux iPod management tools like gtkpod and Rhythmbox will not work with the new range of iPods.
There’s been a change, though, as some clever boffins decided to crack and generate the code contained in the tracks, enabling them to be played on any media player, again. Windows users — who will not be able play iTunes tracks on players such as Winamp — will have to wait for a solution to their Apple-based problem.
This represents another blow to Apple from the open-source community, who recently learned and published details of how to unlock the iPhone’s sim card protection. How will Apple counter this move? Stay tuned.
Prince doesn’t want filesharers using the Pirate Bay to party like it’s 1999, at least not when they’re downloading his tracks, that is. He has hired a web guru to admonish youtube, ebay and The Pirate Bay for profiting from his work in violation of the copyright that he owns.The diminutive star, formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince (or ’symbol’, or whatever publicity stunt it is that has become flavour of the moment) has hired UK-based Web Sherriff, a company specialising in ‘policing’ the internet and bring those responsible for copyright injustices to rightful justice. Top on his list is P2P file sharing community The Pirate Bay.
He also criticised youTube, saying:
In the past couple of weeks, we have removed about 2,000 infringing clips from YouTube. We get them down and the next day, there are 100 or 200 more. Their business model is built on making money off other people’s creative work,
He is also going after items sold on eBay, which include items containing Prince’s likeness — items such as mugs and pens. It is clear that Web Sheriff is aiming very high indeed.
Apparently Prince thinks that it is high time that artists began to “reclaim their art”. Prince has been ’savvy’ over protecting his own rights since he changed his name for the 28th time, recently. He and his team are “very firmly in the digital age”, and their changed focus demonstrates this. But, as zeropaid points out, these are exactly the sites, the fan base, and the types of items that help to build a brand. An artist like Prince will rely on this brand greatly — he’s not all about the music, it’s about the showman behind the tunes; and that’s not to diminish what he’s done.
Once again it appears, to us, to be a case of fighting the wrong battles entirely.
In order to simulate anything even approaching believable Artificial Intelligence (AI), millions or even billions nodes are required to simulate brain-like neural networks. One way to do this is to buy just a few very powerful, very expensive, and very rate multi-processor super computers. Another is to join lots and lots of less powerful, less expensive and less rare home computers like the one you’re sitting at now.
How to connect them these computers to form the neural network? Well the P2P filesharing network that you may (or may not) use to download your favourite things.
P2P-weblog reports that the Artificial Intelligence System (AIS) splits up complex tasks (often requiring a super computer) into many smaller, more manageable, tasks. These tasks can be processed during periods when the PC is inactive. Once the tasks have been completed they will be transferred back to the AIS project.
Ovidiu Anghelidi, the project’s leader, tells us:
We ask the public at large to volunteer for this task and donate computer time, which will allow us to build a large scale AI System. Our research findings will allow us to move to the development phase and start building a system that will scale beyond the human brain capacity.
The project’s ultimate goal, he says, is to have a system that integrates knowledge from a number of distinct disciples. This ‘knowledgeable’ AI will provide benefits to society and will, he hopes, accelerate scientific discovery across all fields.
Apple’s announcement, following in the wake of a number of further announcements by the technology giant in a similar vein, that it would offer DRM-protected music downloads from it online iTunes shop that could be transferred as ringtones to your phone, cause a stir. Not because this was a massive technological step, nor because it was a novel approach by an online vendor, but because it is actually taking away from current users something that has been done for quite some time.
Couched as a new ‘feature’ of the downloads service, users will now be required to pay an extra dollar so that Apple will allow the DRM-protected tracks to be transferred to phones. There are a number of well established software tools that have facilitated this conversion in the past, but the DRM protection will most likely halt this process.
Derek Slater of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), quoted in p2pnet.net notes the apparently unfairness of this decision:
Apple will only let you convert those tracks to ringtones if you pay another dollar, and, just as you can only move iTunes DRM restricted tracks to the iPod and not other portable players, these ringtones only work on the iPhone. If you’d rather create your own ringtone using a tool like iToner, too bad — the DRM won’t let you, and circumventing the lock could violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
And he’s got a point. It smells very much like blatant Apple profiteering (at the expense of its very loyal customer base) wrapped up in an attempt to champion ‘legitimate’ DRM protected music. The big question is why we should now pay extra for something that we’ve done before for free. Is this taking copyright laws to an even more rediculous level?
While we’ll be the first to admit that there are sound reasons to protect the copyright of certain intellectual property, there has to be a logical limit; should I start to charge for sharing with you ideas that I had this morning over breakfast? Is a ringtone really violating an artist’s IP?
Whatever the answer to these questions, Apple’s quick decision to nip this in the bud will either make it some extra money or will start to make its ‘loyal’ customer base feel very slightly jaded. How far can Apple push its fans?
P2P File Sharers are being tarred with the same brush as terrorists by the European parliament. Franco Frattini, EU security commissioner, outlined a new proposals designed to combat terrorism. In the proposals Frattini points the finger at the internet and specifically P2P filesharing for aiding and abetting the distribution of instructions for bomb-making.Few precise details on the proposals were given, but it appears the criminalisation of ’some information’ that could be used for terrorist attacks is imminent, surmises arstechnica.
While we don’t want to jump to conclusions either way without first knowing more details about the plans and the report that recommended them, we can only say that reducing the number of bombs in the world is generally A Good Thing. However, if the legislation is implemented in too broad a manner — even if the intentions are ultimately good — then lawmakers will be in danger of alienating and punishing the wrong people. Too narrow and it’s unlikely to have any effect at all.
It’s necessary, claims Frattini. Recent attempted terrorist attacks in the EU make such changes
inevitable and completely justified, he says:
The Commission thinks the time has come to change focus and devote resources to the security of the Union. The Union is at least as much a potential target of a terrorist attack as the United States
Recent foiled attacks in London and Glasgow, amongst others, underline this point. But will banning the circulation of bomb instructions on the internet in the EU really prevent terrorism? Do you fancy planning the team to enforce this law? Every great journey starts with the smallest of steps.
No, the RIAA haven’t taken their unique brand of ’sue them and see’ justice to a whole new level, nor have the ‘big four’ started to resort to Mafia-style ‘justice’ in their pursuit of righteousness. The death sentences were handed out in North Korea to young people found to be copying and distributing South Korean material. Hearings were apparently heard outside the place of arrest — for the public to enjoy — then the perpetrators were executed shortly afterwards.
While we may like to think of the RIAA’s attempts to curtail copyright infringement as draconian, we can only thank our lucky stars that their corporate reach and political clout do not enable them to partake in this kind of behaviour. The free world has a lot to be greatful for.
South Korean shows and music are popular in North Korea where Kim Jong II’s strict restrictions do not allow uncensored foreign media of any kind to be viewed by the residents there. “It is not an overstatement to say that the Kim Jong Il regime is waging war on the South Korean TV drama,” one reporter stated.
North Korea’s state organized foreign money-printing operations suggest that the regime is not so much concerned with copyright infringements of others, but more on restriction of the information flow into the country.
A class action against Bertelsmann AG (a company investing in the original Napster P2P music filesharing application) has been settled with music publishing affiliates of the Harry Fox Agency.The original Napster (not the entirely legal and above-board corporate pandering version that is currently struggling to keep its head above turbulent financial waters) was the catalyst for the start of the P2P online music sharing revolution, and subsequently the poster child of vicious and effective actions against those deemed by the music industry as perpetrating various copyright crimes. The original Napster crumbled to bankruptcy in 2001and sold its name to the now owners, and the new owners are not directly involved.
Bertelsmann will pay $130 million to the publishers in a settlement of the case filed in 2000 against companies Hummer Winblad (which invested $13 to help launch Napster), and Bertelsmann (which invested about $85 million). More than 27,000 publishers joined the class action lawsuit spearheaded by HFA. The action claimed that Bertelsmann and Hummer Winblad were liable for, at the very least, secondary copyright violations by assisting Napster in enabling file sharing over its
P2P networks.
Documents were filed in San Fransisco shortly after the agreement, and they were expected to receive court approval.
But Bertelsmann may have got off lightly: figures bantered around by individuals involved in the suit saw the investor facing charges for damages amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Bertelsmann will pay $130 million to the publishers in a settlement of the case filed in 2000 against companies Hummer Winblad (which invested $13 to help launch Napster), and Bertelsmann (which invested about $85 million). More than 27,000 publishers joined the class action lawsuit spearheaded by HFA. The action claimed that Bertelsmann and Hummer Winblad were liable for, at the very least, secondary copyright violations by assisting Napster in enabling file sharing over its
P2P networks.
Documents were filed in San Fransisco shortly after the agreement, and they were expected to receive court approval.
But Bertelsmann may have got off lightly: figures bantered around by individuals involved in the suit saw the investor facing charges for damages amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Universal’s recent decision to not renew its contract with Apple for placing its copyrighted material on iTunes for user download is followed by NBC’s decision to pull its shows from the commercial download service.
Apple today announced that iTunes will no longer be selling NBC TV shows for the Fall season. This follows numerous protracted disputes of lack of control in Apple’s pricing systems, protection against piracy, and the inability to bundle videos to increase revenue.
The grapevine have it that NBC had increased its wholesale price to Apple to more than twice its previous level for per episode. This increase would have a knock on effect on pricing to the consumer, hiking it from $1.99 to $4.99. Perhaps understandably Apple have some problems with this increase.
Apple’s contract with NBC will not be renewed when it ends in December, but Apple will will actually not be offering shows from the season starting this September.
Needless to say this is bad news for Apple (and if it signals the start of a trend for other content providers then it could well be fatal news) who relied on NBC for 30 percent of its iTunes TV show sales and three of its 10 best selling TV shows from the previous season. Downloads from ABC, CBS, FOX and the CW, along with 50+ other networks, will still be available (so we’re not shedding too many tears for Apple).
|
