Net Neutrality (and 'the people') Loses... Comcast (and 'the Corporations') Wins

A Blow To Net Neutrality: FCC Loses Appeal to Comcast
by Mike Melanson of ReadWriteWeb.com

In a battle that's been ongoing since the fall of 2007, Comcast just won the latest round against the Federal Communications Commission. A federal appeals court announced its decision this morning to grant ComCast a petition for review, vacating the order by the FCC, which imposed a "net neutrality" on the nation's largest cable company.

The decision appears to focus on the FCC's legal authority to enforce net neutrality and not on the legality of net neutrality itself.

The case began when "several subscribers to Comcast's high-speed Internet service discovered that the company was interfering with their use of peer-to-peer networking applications," the decision reads. Comcast argued that its move to block p2p file-sharing was "necessary to manage scarce network capacity", but the FCC found differently, ruling that the company had "significantly impeded consumers' ability to access the content and use the applications of their choice".

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

-----

Court: FCC had no right to sanction Comcast for P2P blocking
By Nate Anderson of arstechnica.com

The FCC's decision to sanction Comcast for its 2007 P2P blocking was overruled today by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The question before the court was whether the FCC had the legal authority to "regulate an Internet service provider's network management practice." According to a three-judge panel, "the Commission has failed to make that showing" and the FCC's order against Comcast is tossed.

When the complaints against Comcast first surfaced, they noted that the company was violating the FCC's "Internet Policy Statement" drafted in 2005. That statement provided "four freedoms" to Internet users, including freedom from traffic discrimination apart from reasonable network management. The FCC decided that Comcast's actions had not been "reasonable network management," but Comcast took to the agency to court, arguing that the FCC had no right to regulate its network management practices at all.

The Internet Policy Statement was not a rule; instead, it was a set of guidelines, and even the statement admitted that the principles weren't legally enforceable. To sanction Comcast, the FCC relied on its "ancillary" jurisdiction to implement the authority that Congress gave it—but was this kind of network management ruling really within the FCC's remit?

The court held that it wasn't, that Congress had never given the agency the authority necessary to do this, and that the entire proceeding was illegitimate. The FCC's "Order" against Comcast is therefore vacated; Comcast wins.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

-----

Could Comcast Derail the National Broadband Plan?
By Ed Oswald of PCWorld.com


President Obama has made broadband a key part of his telecommunications agenda. To get there, he has tasked the Federal Communications Commission with the responsibility to make changes to Internet regulations and promote his "National Broadband Plan," an ambitious effort to reform the industry and expand broadband access across the country.

There's an elephant in the room however, and its name is Comcast. The telecommunications company is challenging the FCC's authority on Internet regulation in court, and if successful it could seriously inhibit the agency's efforts to move its plans forward. Comcast's beef goes back to 2008, when the FCC censured the company for its bandwidth-throttling efforts against BitTorrent and others.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

-----

FCC loses Comcast's court challenge, a major setback for agency on Internet policies
via WashingtonPost.com

Comcast on Tuesday won its federal lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission in a ruling that undermines the agency's ability to regulate Internet service providers just as it unrolls a sweeping broadband agenda.

The decision also sparks pressing questions on how the agency will respond, with public interest groups advocating that the FCC attempt to move those services into a regulatory regime clearly under the agency's control.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a 3-0 decision, ruled that the FCC lacked the authority to require Comcast, the nation's biggest broadband services provider, to treat all Internet traffic equally on its network.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

-----

Comcast Can Block BitTorrent Again, Court Rules
by Ernesto of TorrentFreak.com


In 2008 Comcast was ordered to stop slowing down BitTorrent users by preventing them to share files with others. In addition, the company had to disclose all “network management” practices.

The whole Comcast debacle ignited a discussion about Net Neutrality and eventually led to the FCC’s national broadband plan which was released last month. Today, the Court of Appeals overruled FCC’s decision in the Comcast case, with three judges stating that the commission doesn’t have the authority to require IPSs to keep their network neutral.

After appealing FCC’s decision in favor of BitTorrent users, Comcast has finally got the verdict (pdf) it wanted. Although it seems unlikely that the ISP will pick up its old habit of preventing BitTorrent users to seed files, it could in theory do so.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

Practical Advice for Music Bloggers Worried About DMCA Takedown Censorship

Practical Advice for Music Bloggers Worried About DMCA Takedown Censorship
Commentary by Fred von Lohmann via EFF.org 

Let's say you are a blogger who writes about music regularly and includes links to music in your posts. How do you avoid having your blog censored off the Internet by "DMCA takedown notices" sent out by music industry lawyers (as happened last week to several blogs hosted by Blogger)?

Of course, you could get authorization from all the relevant copyright owners before you post or link to a song. Unfortunately, that's virtually impossible for many music bloggers. In some cases, it may be impossible to figure out who the copyright owners are (consider the problem of live concert bootlegs, rare B-sides, out-of-print material, defunct labels). In other cases, you might have authorization from someone, but it could end up being the wrong person (i.e., an independent promoter or member of the band who doesn't actually have all the rights to give you). And even if you get authorization from all the right people, you could still find yourself on the receiving end of a DMCA takedown from the entity that controls the copyright in another country (because your blog can be accessed from that country).

In other words, it's quite likely that many music bloggers can never be sure that a DMCA takedown notice won't arrive someday.

If one does arrive, your blog hosting service probably won't take your side. The law gives online hosting services strong incentives to comply with takedown notices—prompt responses to takedown notices are often the only reliable shield that hosting services have against copyright infringement lawsuits and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages. No matter how much your hosting service values your business, it is not likely that they will be willing to bet their business to save your blog.

While most hosting providers will let you send a "DMCA counter-notice" to contest a bogus takedown notice, sending a counter-notice can have serious consequences if you're not absolutely sure that you had all the necessary legal rights to post the songs or links in question. Sending a DMCA counter-notice is serious business, as it leaves the copyright owner with few options (other than suing) in order to keep the song down. So we recommend that bloggers research copyright law and, if in doubt, consult a qualified attorney (or contact EFF) before sending DMCA counter-notices.

The DMCA also gives hosting services strong incentives to "terminate repeat infringers." That's why most blog hosting services will delete your account (and thus your entire blog) after receiving multiple DMCA takedown notices. The industry norm seems to be a "3 strikes" policy, although the number of "strikes" can vary. This policy can be particularly unfair when a copyright owner sends multiple DMCA takedown notices all at once, or within a few days of each other — you can find your blog deleted before you even find out who was complaining or can send a DMCA counter-notice. Many hosting providers also mark every DMCA takedown notice on your "permanent record" — simply deleting the file or the link won't expunge the "strike" on your account (generally, only a DMCA counter-notice will do that). So a DMCA takedown notice received for your blog might still count as a "strike" years later (again, this is because service providers want to be able to tell a court that they were good about "terminating repeat infringers," lest they lose their shield against copyright infringement lawsuits).

Of course, you may be able to talk the copyright owner into withdrawing a DMCA notice ("your marketing department sent me an email saying this link was legit"). And there may be informal strategies that work most of the time (like deleting links after a short period of time). However, at the end of the day, it's nearly impossible to be sure you'll never receive a DMCA takedown notice.

With that in mind, here are a few practical things you can do to minimize the disruption that the DMCA process might inflict on your blog:

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

Second life?????? Please help me some one told me they was going to sue me?

This is a question I found on Yahoo Answers.... I was busting out laughing out loud:

This question comes to us from:

 
i can make your bedrock
 

QUESTION:
Second life??????please help me some one told me they was going to sue me?

I was playing the game second life and some guy told one of the owners or some one that i called him a child molester and i got banned from second life but i didnt do anything and he said he was going to talk with a friend with the FBI and track me down and sue me. can he sue me??? i didn't do anything. im only 16 and i don't want any trouble but all i want to know is if he can sue me????????

VOTED BEST ANSWER:
Give him the finger! Your fine dude dont sweat, they probably don't even have proof. Plus if i was a cop and someone came crying to me saying someone called me nasty names I would probably just laugh at him and tell him to go home cause its probably past his bedtime. Also do you think its realistic that the FBI is going to put effort into tracking down some dude who might or might not have called another dude a child molester? Probably not unless... mabye the guy actually is one i dunno.

Whats second life? An online game?


OTHER ANSWERS:

- Nah he can't sue you and the FBI doesn't care if someone is a child molester or not.

- I'm not a lawyer but I watch judge shows all day if he has no proof his case will not hold up in a court of law.

----

Yahoo Answers:  When you're tired of facts, and tired of Wikipedia, and you simply just do not want correct information, turn to Yahoo Answers.  It's the only source for the worst sources possible.

RIAA - For INTERNAL Use Only

RIAA

The RIAA is a delusional cartel consisting of four major music labels. They were created in 1952 with the sole purpose of sucking all the music and happiness out of the world.

Official Corporate Philosophy: "Look! Teenagers smiling!... Kill them"

Just The Facts

1. RIAA's methods of identifying individual users has, in some cases, led to the issuing of subpoenas to a dead grandmother, an elderly computer novice, and even those without any computers at all.

How they work

So the new Miley Cyrus album is out (yea, that wig and trench coat isn't fooling anyone, we know it was you at the Hannah Montana concert). You can barely sit still as you joyfully count the seconds away to torrent download completion and pure unadulterated teen pop magic. A few days later, you get an innocuous email along the lines of:

" Busted!!!!.... Sucker! Give us $3,000 now or we'll screw you for all you're worth!"
No, this is not spam. As of February, 2007 the RIAA began sending letters accusing internet users of sharing files. The letters go on to say that anyone not settling will have lawsuits brought against them. Typical settlements are between $3,000 and $12,000.

HOLY CRAP!... 'The Man' exists... and he has an army of lawyers!

Of course, there have been instances where these cases have been brought to court. Most of the time they're dismissed due to lack of evidence, but in the few cases they win... well it ain't pretty. In the case RIAA vs Joel Tenenbaum, the jury awarded $22,500 per song resulting in a judgment of $675,000 for the shared 30 tracks and in the case RIAA vs Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the jury awarded $80,000 per song, or $1.92 million for 24 tracks.

Stuff the RIAA considers illegal

Even if you've never discovered the internet and never shared your music files, the RIAA will find a way to screw you over. In 2008, they filed a federal lawsuit against Jeffrey Howell in Arizona,for creating "unauthorized copies" of CD tracks by ripping them to his computer - even though he may never have shared them with anyone else!

The 'logic' behind this is by ripping the songs in YOUR CD into a computer - you are transferring it into an unauthorized medium not of the artist's choosing. Everyone agrees this makes perfect sense.
The RIAA also claims that you're committing a felony just by making these files available. This is the logical equivalent of saying that by selling tickets to the Louvre, you are stealing the Mona Lisa.

If you're getting confused at all the myriad implications of these claims, Cracked has compiled a little list on all the things the RIAA considers illegal:

1. File Sharing

see above

2. MP3 Players

They are an unauthorized medium

3. Playing a CD within ear-shot

You're making music available to people who haven't payed for it

4. Whistling/Humming

Sound vibrations through air is an unauthorized medium

5. Leaving your CDs lying around

Again, making files available to unauthorized users

6. Being a teenager

The RIAA specifically targets University student and Teenagers in their law suits. Why? Because they know they don't have the financial resources to fight the case in court! Say goodbye to your college funds kids!

7. Laughing and/or Smiling

"Look at those smiling faces... you sure we got nothing on that?"

[via Cracked.com ]
DIGG this original article: http://digg.com/music/RIAA_For_INTERNAL_Use_Only

---

Also, check out:

The RIAA Are Huge Dicks. This Title Has No Joke In It.   Submitted by: Shezah

Police are Now Confiscating DJ Laptops as “Evidence’ for Illegal Parties

Police are Now Confiscating DJ Laptops as “Evidence’ for Illegal Parties-What’s next?
via Davey D of HipHopPolitics & via Joshua Emerson Smith of The San Fransisco Bay Guardian

 
I wanna make sure that every DJ reading this pays close attention and doesn’t dismiss this. Its all about setting legal precedent so police can take things a step further. This is pointed out in the article. 

Every DJ reading this needs to realize that this so-called collection of evidence will eventually start happening when the RIAA and the organizations it backs  (I.e. Music First Coalition, Sound Exchange etc) began tracking down DJs who aren’t paying licensing fees for their music, especially if they are rocking at these ‘underground’ parties. This will really happen if they manage to push John Conyers bill HR 848 and make that into law. 

For those who don’t know, HR 848 is a performance tax they want to charge radio. Play a song on the air and the artist (translation really the label using the artists as fronts) should get some money. This talk about playing songs for promotional purposes has fallen on def ears as far as the labels are concerned. Once this bill passes they will then use this argument of  ’precedent’ and  make the case that since radio is paying a performance license so should deejays and club venues. This argument of ‘precendence‘ is the same scurrilous tactic they are using now to try and pass HR 848, except they are pointing to the highly contested bill that made internet and satellite radio pay similar fees as justification. They are likely to argue that the DJ is making living off the backs of hardworking artists and that there would be no career if it wasn’t for the artist thus an artist should share in a percentage of the revenues.  Keep your eyes open..

Lastly I will remind people if you recall when the RIAA started cracking down on mixtapes being sold in open markets they were able to do something that almost every business I know of has not and can not. They been able to come along with law enforcement on those RAIDS as if they were the police themselves. I also want folks to check to see if some sort of tracking devices or software are not being added to the laptops when they are returned.
-Davey D-

 Controversial tactic of taking laptops even when DJs not charged with crime  reportedly condoned by San Francisco’s new chief of police. EEF attorney steps in to help protect DJs privacy, get computers back.
San Francisco Bay Guardian


Police seize DJs’ laptops
New police chief apparently condones policy that critics call illegal and punitive
By Joshua Emerson Smith
news@sfbg.com
 
San Francisco Police Department officers have added a controversial tactic to their aggressive raids on house parties (see “Fun under siege,” 4/22/09): they’re seizing laptop computers from DJs at the events.

While SFPD officials deny the laptop seizures is a new policy, they admit it has been condoned by Police Chief George Gascón, who took over in August and last month told the Guardian’s editorial board he wants to make the SFPD more transparent and accountable to the public (see “New coach, new approach,” 10/14/09).

“The police chief is aware that officers are being proactive in gathering evidence,” Sgt. Lyn Tomioka told the Guardian when asked about a string of laptop seizures by undercover cops over the last 10 months, most of them in cases in which the DJs weren’t even charged with a crime.
Many of the raids have occurred in SoMa, and were spearheaded by undercover officers who penetrated the parties and were followed by uniformed officers. San Francisco Entertainment Commission member Terrance Alan called the crackdown a “disappointing and dangerous trend.”
Tomioka said it’s a judgment call for officers to seize laptops as evidence of an illegal party, but Alan said the tactic is a punitive measure that proves nothing: “Taking laptops [is] not necessary to prove the underlying crime, and in many cases damages people’s ability to earn a living.”

One of the most recent raids happened on Halloween. It was about 2:30 a.m. and music was pumping out of a warehouse party on Sixth Street. The people throwing the party had hired a doorman, and attendee Eric Dunn was standing in line waiting to get in.

“We were right at the front of the line,” Dunn told the Guardian, when, he said, two plainclothes officers drove up on the sidewalk, jumped out of an unmarked car, and rushed up to the doorman. “[The officers] pretty much started demanding entry right away. The doorman was really polite. He basically told them that you have to know somebody to get into the party.”

Dunn said the officers waited until an exiting guest opened the door from the inside and then made their move. “One guy barged in, and the other guy followed. They never asked permission or received permission to enter the building,” Dunn said.

SF Chief George Gascon is allowing his officers to confiscate laptops from DJs as 'evidence'

Inside, the two undercover officers immediately shut down the event. Justin Miller, a DJ at the event, said she remembers it very clearly. “The cops at that point were telling everybody to leave the party, telling me to turn the music off. I turned the music off. Everyone was quietly leaving.”
But Miller said it didn’t stop there. One of the undercover officers approached her and asked if she had a laptop. She said she did. “I was a little confused at this point because I didn’t know what my laptop had to do with anything. I was playing CDs.” She said she pulled her computer out from underneath a table and unzipped it from a case. The officer then “grabbed it from me.”

The undercover police officer — later identified by witnesses and the evidence receipt as Larry Bertrand — instructed Miller to follow him down to the street to get a property receipt for her laptop.
At this point there were uniformed officers on the scene as well. Miller started to cry. “I begged him. I said, ‘This is my livelihood. You’re talking my laptop. This is my livelihood. I hope you realize that.’ He said, ‘This is how you’re going to learn then, I guess.’”

Miller said Bertrand (who did not return Guardian calls for comment) then told her he was “going to take it upon himself to shut down every illegal party in San Francisco.”

She said he then opened the trunk of his car, revealing several other laptops. A person at the party pointed out that one of the laptops belonged to a friend of his, and asked if he could get the property receipt for the laptop. Miller said Bertrand turned to the inquiring person and said, “You will never see this laptop again.”

She continued: “He then looked at me and said, ‘I’m going to make sure your paperwork gets so tied up that maybe you won’t see this laptop until December, January, February, who knows when.’ I felt so violated.”

Miller has been working as a DJ in the Bay Area, under the name DJ Justincredible, for more than 10 years. She says she’s never had any of her equipment confiscated by the police before. But at that party, three DJs had their laptops confiscated, even though none were charged with a crime.

Shortly after the Halloween incident, Miller and the two other DJs who were at the party contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group specializing in technology and privacy issues. Jennifer Granick, a civil liberties lawyer with EFF, said most people haven’t heard about this because few of these DJs, if any, ever get convicted of a crime.

“DJs and the police department know that sound equipment and laptops are being unlawfully seized. But the public and the courts haven’t heard much about it because every time a DJ asks for a hearing, the cops just give them their property back rather than show up and defend the practice in open court before a judge,” she said.

Sean Evans has been working as a DJ in San Francisco, under the name DJ 7, for more than 10 years. He said that over the summer he had his laptop seized by police during an after-hours party in SoMa. He was given no property receipt, and his case was dismissed. But it took him three months to get his computer back.

“To lose our sole means of income, it’s a huge setback. It puts us out of work. In this recession, we’re struggling, and we need our laptops to get by,” he said. Evans grew up in the Bay Area and he said has never had anything like this happen to him before.

Granick argued it is illegal for police to seize property without issuing citations or arrests. She also said there are serious privacy issues at stake. “If we were to find out that the police were doing something else with the laptops, like searching through them or copying the data, we would definitely go to court,” she said.

SFPD Sgt. Wilfred Williams said he could not say what was currently being done with the laptops. In general, he said, private events that emit “extraordinary amounts of sound” need permits. And if they don’t have the proper permits, he said, property can be seized as evidence, “be it the speakers, be it the laptops, be it a mixer.”

Both Tomioka and Williams say the seizures aren’t a new policy. “If you look back in time, laptops haven’t been used for music,” Williams said. “There used to be old types of equipment that was taken in the past. But now laptops are being used. So yes, today, laptops [are] being seized.”

Entertainment advocates have called on Mayor Gavin Newsom and Gascón to come forward with an explicit policy concerning these raids and seizures. The Mayor’s Office did not respond to Guardian inquiries. Critics of the policy say it’s having a chilling effect on nightlife in San Francisco.

Net Neutrality FAQ: What's in it for You

Net Neutrality FAQ: What's in it for You
by Tim Greene, Network World of PCWorld.com

The FCC has approved a notice of proposed rule making on the subject of net neutrality, and here are a few questions and answers to help shine a light on what that means.
(See "FCC takes first step toward net neutrality rules")

What exactly did the FCC do?
The FCC agreed to consider what regulations, if any, to impose on ISPs about the applications and services that they allow, ban or rate limit. The process calls for formally proposing rules and holding public hearings on them. A vote about the rules themselves will take place sometime next year.

What is net neutrality anyway?
It is the common name for creating and preserving what the FCC calls the "open Internet".

The FCC is trying to write rules that enforce six principles it says ISPs must uphold to preserve what the commission calls the "open Internet." These rules would tell ISPs to:

• allow sending and receiving all lawful content.
• allow all lawful applications and services.
• allow all lawful devices that don't harm the network.
• allow access to all network, application, service and content providers.
• ensure there is no discrimination against particular lawful content, applications, services and devices.
• reveal practices necessary network management that might limit the other five principles.

Who wants it?
A majority of the FCC, Google and other Internet-based companies, consumer advocacy groups and Internet luminaries such as Vinton Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee. They fear that without rules, ISPs will impose tiered service levels, making the top-level services so expensive as to rule out their use by innovators trying to start Internet-based businesses. They are also concerned that selectively banning certain applications such as VoIP will reduce consumer choice about how to make voice calls. There have been cases where ISPs blocked VoIP and rate-limited peer-to-peer traffic like that used for gaming and file sharing.

Who's opposed to it?
The loudest opposition comes from AT&T, Verizon and other Internet providers. They say the rules would block charging extra for premium services, the financial incentive they need to invest in network upgrades that keep traffic running smoothly. They say the rules would unfairly restrict what they call differentiating services that might justify higher rates than competitors charge. They say the consequences of net-neutrality rules would be one of two things: higher flat rates for services or paying by the byte for Internet traffic.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also has introduced a bill to block the FCC's net neutrality rules.

What does it mean to businesses?
If net neutrality prompts higher Internet access rates for all-you-can-eat ISP services, businesses would have higher ISP bills. Usage-based fees might or might not increase costs to individual businesses depending on how much they use the Internet. Businesses that rely on the Internet to provide services might face decreased demand if their customers are forced to buy more-expensive services in order to consume their products. For example, a business that sells HD video downloads over the Internet might sell less if customers have to buy premium Internet access in order to enjoy a movie.

What does it mean to carriers?
Carriers fear net neutrality will restrict their ability to make money off their networks to the point that they will slow the rate at which they invest in network improvements that boost Internet performance. They also say they buy into the principles of an open Internet and that no rules are needed.

What does it mean to residential Internet users?
Flat monthly rates that are common now would likely remain, but ISPs might charge more for them. Or they might shift over to billing for the amount customers download, forcing customers to think twice about what they use the Internet for. At the same time, they would be able to use the Internet to make phone calls without worrying that the traffic would be blocked.

The rules would have the biggest impact on what services?
Without rules, ISPs are most likely to limit bandwidth hogs – gaming, streaming video - and VoIP. Many large ISPs such as AT&T and Verizon are also voice carriers, so VoIP riding the Internet is a threat to their revenue streams. The flip side is that providers of VoIP services that rely on the Internet ought not to be hindered by the ISPs.

----

See Also: Jon Stewart on McCain's Anti-Net-Neutrality Bill

10 Geeky Laws That Should Exist, But Don’t

10 Geeky Laws That Should Exist, But Don’t
By Matt Blum of Wired's GeekDad

There are many, many laws having nothing to do with government that are useful to know because they tell you something about how the universe works. There are Newton’s laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle’s Law, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, among many. Most of these laws have been known for a long time, but it wasn’t until a mere 19 years ago that Godwin’s Law was written.

If you’ve ever been involved in a discussion on Usenet, or have been following politics in the past decade or so, you’ve probably encountered Godwin’s Law. While Godwin’s Law is, alas, as true today as it was then, it seems unfortunate that there aren’t more widely accepted axioms to help us geeks define the characteristics of our world.

To that end, then, here are 10 geeky laws (axioms) that should exist, but don’t … at least, they didn’t until now:

xkcd © Randall Munroe

1. Munroe’s Law: A person in a geeky argument who can quote xkcd to support his position automatically wins the argument. This law supersedes Godwin, so that even if the quote is about Hitler, the quoter still wins.

2. Lucas’s Law: There is no movie so beloved that a “special edition,” prequel or sequel cannot trample and forever stain its memory.

3. Tolkien and Rowling’s Law: No reasonably faithful movie adaptation of a book will ever be quite as good as the book it adapts. Thus great movie adaptations can only be made out of truly amazing books.

4. Somers and McCarthy’s Law: There is no dangerous unscientific theory so preposterous that no celebrity will espouse and advocate it.

5. Jobs’s Law: No matter how well last year’s cool tech gadget still works, it will seem utterly inadequate the moment the new version comes out.

6. Savage and Hyneman’s Law: Blowing stuff up is fun. Blowing stuff up in the name of science is AWESOME.

7. Starbucks’ and Peet’s Law: C₈H₁₀N₄O₂, better known as caffeine, is the most wonderful chemical compound known to humankind. If the field of chemistry had never identified or produced a single other useful compound, caffeine alone would be justification enough for its existence.

8. Wilbur’s Law: Bacon makes everything better.

 Photo: Shawn Zamechek

9. Comic Book Guy’s Law: There is no detail of a movie too brief or inconsequential to become the subject of an hours-long diatribe.

10. The Unified Geek Theory: At present, the President of the United States, the wealthiest person in the United States, and the most trusted newscaster in the United States are all geeks. At the same time, movies based on comic book characters are routinely taking in hundreds of millions of dollars. The only reasonable conclusion is: We’ve won!

[Thanks Wired]

November 5th: A Reminder to STEP UP! Against Content Theft in Second Life

Step UP! Make your voice heard about Content Theft

For more information on Step UP! SL please visit our blog:
http://stepupsl.wordpress.com/

You are also invited to join our Step UP! Ning Group:
http://step-up-sl.ning.com/

 November 5th – Guy Fawkes Day or Bonfire Night in the UK.

Action:
a) On this day – 
no-one uploads textures to the grid.
This should show the economic power of people acting together, without harming content creators. We want Linden Lab to see the power of the feeling about the problem of content theft – and to discuss urgently strategies for tackling it.
b) As many people as possible wear an orange ribbon as a sign of support for creators. And creators can design these – they can be lapel ribbons, they can be arm bands, they can be tee-shirts … the idea is to make the orange ribbon the theme of the day. And everyone who gets a free orange ribbon gets an information sheet – explaining what content theft is, what they can do about it etc. And they also get an information pack that they can give to their friends (which also contains an orange ribbon for their friends). Why orange? It’s been used before, but has no overwhelming association (unlike pink or red ribbons). It’s a bright, noticeable colour. It suggests explosions and colour …
And it’s an opportunity for stores and content creators to become involved too.

Celebration:
The day ends with parties. Bonfire parties. That means that all around the grid, people have parties. We’re not going to be trying to stage Big Events that maybe only 60 or 70 people can cram into. Instead we encourage every club to hold a Step Up! party. We encourage every musician to play Step UP! events. Everyone on the grid has a part to play. Everyone can take part.

ACTA - The Internet Illuminati Planning a New World Order?!

Via BoingBoing
by Cory Doctorow
Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:

• * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
  
• * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
  
• * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
  
• * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together

[FULL ARTICLE HERE]

-----

via Michael Geist
The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotations continue in a few hours as Seoul, Korea plays host to the latest round of talks. The governments have posted the meeting agenda, which unsurprisingly focuses on the issue of Internet enforcement. The United States has drafted the chapter under enormous secrecy, with selected groups granted access under strict non-disclosure agreements and other countries (including Canada) given physical, watermarked copies designed to guard against leaks.

[FULL ARTICLE HERE]

-----

Via EFF.org
Leaked ACTA Internet Provisions: Three Strikes and a Global DMCA
Commentary by Gwen Hinze
 
Negotiations on the highly controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement start in a few hours in Seoul, South Korea. This week’s closed negotiations will focus on “enforcement in the digital environment.” Negotiators will be discussing the Internet provisions drafted by the US government. No text has been officially released but as Professor Michael Geist and IDG are reporting, leaks have surfaced. The leaks confirm everything that we feared about the secret ACTA negotiations. The Internet provisions have nothing to do with addressing counterfeit products, but are all about imposing a set of copyright industry demands on the global Internet, including obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes Internet disconnection policies, and a global expansion of DMCA-style TPM laws.

[FULL ARTICLE HERE]

-----

Via Huffington Post
Transparency of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

The letter below reports the views of several groups and individuals concerning the lack of transparency of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This is something that is so obvious, it should not require comment, on a policy that is completely indefensible.

The. U.S. and 39 or more countries are negotiating a new global agreement on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and everything so far is secret from the general public. The main topics are civil and criminal rules, such as injunctions, damages and third party liability from infringements, searches of Internet transactions, border measures affecting the import or export of various consumer goods from medicines to cell phones, and a host of other issues. All 40+ countries in the negotiation have access to the proposed text. And, there are processes for just about any corporate lobbyist with ties to the Administration to see proposed texts, if they sign tough legally binding non-disclosure agreements. So why is it secret from the public?

[FULL ARTICLE HERE]

-----

Via GamePolitics
Letter to Obama Seeks ACTA Transparency

As the 6th round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations get underway in Seoul, Korea, a dispatch has been sent to President Obama expressing concern over the “lack of transparency and openness” surrounding the initiative.

The letter notes that “Unlike nearly all other multilateral and plurilateral discussions about intellectual property norms, the ACTA negotiations have been held in deep secrecy.”

While a curious mix of entities have been allowed to see ACTA documents, after signing a non-disclosure agreement, the letter states that “there were no opportunities for academic experts or the general public to review the documents,” adding that “very few” public interest or consumer groups were included as well.

[FULL ARTICLE HERE]

-----

Via Freakbits
Obama Petitioned to Reveal Secret Anti-Piracy Agreement

ACTA is a mysterious thing that no-one is really certain about. That lack of certainty is because of the lack of transparency around the negotiations. KEI wants that changed, and with an open letter-cum-petition, is calling on President Obama to stand up to his election promises, and make ACTA public.

There has been a lot of controversy over the ACTA treaty. Mostly over the the scope of the treaty (which could see iPod searches at borders for illegally downloaded music) but there has also been a fuss over the way the negotiations have been conducted. Negotiations have been conducted in secret over the past two years, and the Executive Office of the President (Office of t he US Trade Representative) has denied Freedom of Information (FOI) requests earlier this year from FEI, citing Executive Order 12958 – referring to Classified National Security Information. In January, just before the Bush Administration left office, they made similar claims to EFF FOI requests.

[FULL ARTICLE HERE]

Step UP! Make your voice heard about Content Theft

via:
Step UP!  Make sure to visit and spread this link --  http://stepupsl.wordpress.com/

Make your voice heard about Content Theft

In the wake of the wholesale theft of sims and content over the weekend, like many people we wanted to do something about it --and also about all the other content theft that we have been fighting for so long -- in the Content Creators Association and in magazines and on TV shows. Th Step Up! campaign is centred on a special day of action that everyone can become involved with, and that can empower and inform people.

Step UP! kiosks are now available on XStreet

 kiosks available on XStreet.and you should find them at tinyurl.com/ydlpely, or you can search on Step UP!  They are, of course, free.

Step UP!

Make your voice heard about Content Theft

• About Step UP!

If you want to find out more about Step UP! … CLICK

The start of Step UP!

We are aiming for a day that draws together action, education and celebration. We want a focus that empowers people – and rather than dictates to people, allows them to express their own creativity in a variety of ways. It also draws attention to the strength of feeling that there is here on the grid.
2) We need to make people feel empowered by what they do. And, because we are hardly the most time-free people on the grid – we need something that they can largely organize themselves!
So these are our thoughts: We are nominating a day as Step UP! Day – which will be  
November 5th – Guy Fawkes Day or Bonfire Night in the UK.

Action:
a) On this day – 
no-one uploads textures to the grid.
This should show the economic power of people acting together, without harming content creators. We want Linden Lab to see the power of the feeling about the problem of content theft – and to discuss urgently strategies for tackling it.
b) As many people as possible wear an orange ribbon
as a sign of support for creators. And creators can design these – they can be lapel ribbons, they can be arm bands, they can be tee-shirts … the idea is to make the orange ribbon the theme of the day. And everyone who gets a free orange ribbon gets an information sheet – explaining what content theft is, what they can do about it etc. And they also get an information pack that they can give to their friends (which also contains an orange ribbon for their friends). Why orange? It’s been used before, but has no overwhelming association (unlike pink or red ribbons). It’s a bright, noticeable colour. It suggests explosions and colour …
And it’s an opportunity for stores and content creators to become involved too.

Celebration:
The day ends with parties. Bonfire parties. That means that all around the grid, people have parties. We’re not going to be trying to stage Big Events that maybe only 60 or 70 people can cram into. Instead we encourage every club to hold a Step Up! party. We encourage every musician to play Step UP! events. Everyone on the grid has a part to play. Everyone can take part.

Education:
This is going to come in several forms.
1) Info pack
These will be given out with orange ribbons in stores and at parties.
2) Media
Audio and Visual service ads. The Press. The Blogsphere – everyone can play there part in getting out the message that we have had enoufgh, and we have chosen to Step UP! against content theft.
3) Video
Short informational films – tutorials about content theft.
On the Designing Worlds shows we’ve talked again and again about the need for a social shift – so that people see content theft as socially and morally unacceptable. So … let’s go for it!
Watch this space for more details on how you can become involved, and how you can share with us your plans for Step UP! Day.
The concept originates with a small group – Angie Mornington, Gabrielle Riel, Gwen Carillon and Saffia Widdershins. But more and more people are now becoming involved. And you can too.

by primperfect

• Related:
  
  
  
  
  • If you want to find out more about Step UP! …
  • Step UP! kiosks are now available on XStreet
  • Join the new Step UP! inworld group!
  • Step UP ribbons, information packs and kiosks now available!
  • The start of Step UP!
  • Getting Step UP! stuff
  • Step Up! Campaign
  • Step Up! Day
  
  
• Content Creators Association
  
  

Doubledown Tandino's Diggs of the Week - Australia Gaming and Net Censorship? - June 2009

Australia to Begin Filtering Online Games incl Second Life

escapistmagazine.com — Australia plans to filter internet sites offering games and online gaming content that exceed the MA15+ age rating, including downloadable and Flash games as well as sites that sell retail games online.

Australia to Ban Second Life? | Dusan Writer’s Metaverse

dusanwriter.com — According to the Inquisitr, new laws in Australia will mean that Second Life is banned on that continent. Thoughts, comments, discussions with Dusan and members of the virtual worlds.

Australia Govt to block websites offering banned games.

gamespot.com — Australian gamers are probably well aware of their country's strict games classification system, with the lack of an R18+ rating meaning any title not fitting under the MA15+ rating is automatically banned from sale down under. This means it is illegal to sell a game which has been refused classification in Australia.

Australia to Block Online Access to Games with 15+ Content

gamepolitics.com — Australia's federal government said yesterday that it plans to block access to websites which host and sell games with content edgier than what is allowable under an MA-15+ rating. The unprecedented censorship policy will apply to Australians of all ages.


Australian network filtering promises to block Online Games

massively.com — Australian Communications Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy, has promised to extend Australia's proposed network-level content filtering regime to block games, online games, downloadable games, and websites that sell or allow download of games that are deemed not to be suitable for a 15-year-old audience.


Australia: Bans, Filters and Government 2.0 Taskforce

laurelpapworth.com — with regards to online games, some are boxed (closed systems such as Grand Theft Auto), some are box and server (multiplayer such as World of Warcraft) and some are downloadable clients or simply web based clients to a hosted server (Second Life, Habbo).


Who is Responsible for Assuring Freedoms in Virtual Worlds

metanomics.net — Recent developments in a discussion regarding human rights on the web are forcing the consideration of a complex set of issues related to virtual worlds.


Net filtering and virtual worlds: reactions

metaversejournal.com — After last night’s story on the Australian Government’s internet content filtering legislation and its potential impact on virtual worlds, the response has been astounding. Today has seen the largest ever traffic on The Metaverse Journal. Like any issue, there are a few camps of thought:

** NO CLEAN FEED | Stop Internet Censorship in Australia

nocleanfeed.com — The Australian Federal Government is pushing forward with a plan to force Internet Service Providers [ISPs] to censor the Internet for all Australians. This plan will waste tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and slow down Internet access.

Rumors of Australian Second Life Censorship Seem Rumurish

nwn.blogs.com — Over the last 24 hours I've been peppered with links as here and here which seem to suggest the Australian government is imminently planning to block access to Second Life from that country. It has to do with a recent Aussie Communication Ministry proposal to filter the online distribution of computer games not rated acceptable for teen play.

Second Life Banned in Australia? Not So Fast...

gamepolitics.com — As GamePolitics reported last week, the Australian government is moving to block online access to games containing content which would exceed the country's MA-15+ rating. The proposed filtering scheme would affect online retailers selling such games as well as games played online such as MMOs.

Q and A: The Poor Man's Copyright

Poor Man's Copyright

Q: My friend and I have a bet. I say mailing myself a copy of my songs is a valid copyright. He says it's not. Who's right?

A: Start writing the check; your friend is right, and mailing yourself a copy of your songs is not valid legal protection against copyright infringement.

Although technically a "copyright" takes place the moment the songs are created, mailing your songs to yourself unopened--sometimes called a "poor man's copyright"--provides absolutely no protection in the event of a lawsuit. In fact, according to several entertainment attorneys we spoke with, if you have not registered your copyright with the US Copyright Office, no court will hear your case. So, in order to protect and enforce your copyright if someone tries to steal your songs or sue you for infringement, you must register your songs. In the Court's eyes, if you haven't bothered to register the copyright with the US Copyright Office it's just not worth their time.

Forms and information are available at the Copyright Office. (We especially like Circulars 50 and 56.)

read more | digg story

Important Virtual World Articles - March 2009

I wanted to bring attention to several important links relating to the current times and virtual worlds. I am not a journalist, so I don't go into details, but below is important virtual world news. Be sure to look for other SL journalists and bloggers to follow these stories more in depth.

Business Insider | Worlds.com CEO: We're 'Absolutely' Going To Sue Second Life And World Of Warcraft (ATVI)
Eric Krangel|Mar. 11, 2009

Kotaku | Worlds.com Targets World of Warcraft, Second Life For Patent Suit
By Michael McWhertor, 5:20 PM on Wed Mar 11 2009

Escapist Magazine | Patent Troll Ready to Sue World of Warcraft, Second Life

Andy Chalk posted on 11 Mar 2009

AvatarPlanet | History of Virtual Worlds Timeline (Under construction)

Clever Zebra | 5 Open Source Virtual Worlds Set to Duke it Out in 2009
Submitted by Nick Wilson on Wed, 03/11/2009

Tampa bay Examiner | The Hugh Hefner of the digital millennium
Erik Gordon Bainbridge | Second Life Examiner

Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits - RIAA Stops Lawsuits, But Not the Threats

Via http://www.wsj.com/
By SARAH MCBRIDE and ETHAN SMITH

After years of suing thousands of people for allegedly stealing music via the Internet, the recording industry is set to drop its legal assault as it searches for more effective ways to combat online music piracy.

The decision represents an abrupt shift of strategy for the industry, which has opened legal proceedings against about 35,000 people since 2003. Critics say the legal offensive ultimately did little to stem the tide of illegally downloaded music. And it created a public-relations disaster for the industry, whose lawsuits targeted, among others, several single mothers, a dead person and a 13-year-old girl.

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers. The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

read more digg story

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

Via http://www.torrentfreak.com/
Written by Ernesto

For years the RIAA has been filing lawsuits against thousands of individuals who allegedly shared copyrighted music. Following recent court setbacks, the lobby group has announced it will stop mass lawsuits. Instead, it will focus on cutting deals with ISPs to disconnect ‘IP-addresses’ that repeatedly share copyrighted music.

read more digg story

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

Take action!

Write to your ISP proactively and say you expect them not to compromise your privacy, security, or ability to communicate by kowtowing to RIAA attempts at intimidation.

Support non-RIAA artists in your music purchases.

Check the RIAA Radar before making any purchases!

Install the RIAA Radar Greasemonkey Script.

Lime Wire Advances its File-Sharing Software

Lime Wire advances its file-sharing software
By Jon Healey Los Angeles Times
November 11, 2008

Lime Wire LLC announced a new version of the popular LimeWire file-sharing software last week, advancing the company's vision of its software as a platform for services. Clearly, the major record companies' lawsuit hasn't stopped the company from trying to develop its business - or pushing p2p to higher levels of functionality.

One of the main upgrades in the new version - due later this year - is the addition of social-networking features. Users will be able to create their own private file-sharing networks with friends and/or family members, with greater control over what gets shared with whom.

According to p2p monitoring companies, most of what's being shared today on LimeWire is pirated songs, movies, TV shows and software. Enabling people to create private sharing groups might encourage more of them to use the software for legitimate sharing of the media they create, but it might also be seen as a way to promote anxiety-free bootlegging by those concerned about Recording Industry Association of America lawsuits and malware.

Copyright law and the Supreme Court's Grokster ruling provide limited room for file-sharing companies to maneuver - if they knowingly promote or abet piracy by their users, or profit from infringement they could have stopped, they can be held liable for it.

On the other hand, LimeWire's enormous audience is enough to prod some content owners to look past the infringements and focus on the opportunities. The company claims the software is downloaded 350,000 times daily, with more than 70 million users per month and 5 million at any given moment.

Still, Lime may be racing the clock here. Online traffic counters say downloading is giving way to streaming as the consumption model of choice. Hulu is just one of a growing roster of sophisticated, free outlets for video on demand that are building large audiences among college students and other young users who used to rely on p2p for their TV shows.

Bush Administration Moving to Block Second Life and Other Online "Games of Skill"

Doubledown's preface: I am not sure if this is a 100% legit truthful story. It may be a total internet hoax... It may be some info that was embellished into this.... Either way, whether it's fake or real, you'll read it and think to yourself, "Bush can't do that" .... well, the fucking dipshit asshole running our country CAN! He's shown he does whatever the fuck he wants.

Bush Administration Moving to Block Second Life and Other Online "Games of Skill"
Original Source: http://netfreedomforever.com/vote.php

In 2006, Congress passed the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act." The bill was vaguely written and voted on months before the '06 election.

The bill's political purpose failed-- Republicans lost control of Congress, and the bill's primary House author, Rep. Jim Leach, was defeated in his reelection bid. Unfortunately, the law lives on.
This month, the regulations that will implement the 2006 act are nearing completion at the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Department of Treasury. The rules will significantly expand the reach of U.S. government oversight, bringing new scrutiny and enforcement activity to a wide range of online activities.

Broadly speaking, there are two areas of internet activity which the government intends to regulate. The first is online sports betting-- wagering on the outcome of sports events-- which is relatively easy to identify and control. Indeed, it is already very difficult to transfer funds to an online sports betting web site.

The second area targeted by the new regulations are "games of skill"-- such as online bridge or backgammon, some types of fantasy sports, predictive markets such as InTrade, and communities involving transactional activity like Second Life. This area is far more diverse and difficult to define, identify, and control. As the Federal Reserve itself noted in April testimony, “The activities that are permissible under the various Federal and State gambling laws are not well-settled and can be subject to varying interpretations,” and that both the new law and proposed regulations "did not specify what constitutes unlawful Internet gambling."

Because it is nearly impossible to ban actual web sites, which can be easily moved around the internet, the law targets the payment processing systems (bank credit cards, PayPal, etc) that make the internet economy work. The law makes banks evaluate your personal charges and block transactions which involve activity in these two areas. As Congressman Ron Paul testified in April,

"The regulations and underlying bill also force financial institutions to act as law enforcement officers. This is another pernicious trend that has accelerated in the aftermath of the Patriot Act, the deputization of private businesses to perform intrusive enforcement and surveillance functions that the federal government is unwilling to perform on its own."
To be clear, banks to not want this new burden. They bear liability under this new regime, and as a result will be very conservative when it comes to determining what types of web sites should be blocked under the regulations. Already, the U.S. Attorney's office has extracted tens of millions of dollars in fines through online gaming and related enforcement activities. For example, when eBay acquired PayPal in 2003, the company had to pay a $10 million fine to settle online gambling charges. And that was before the passage of the 2006 act substantially raised the stakes for the banking industry.

With the new rules under final consideration by the Bush Administration, the potential penalties will now expand to a broader category of internet activity, stifling innovation and economic growth online. The financial service providers will be even more risk-adverse and will implement blanket bans rather than take the risk of a case-by-case approach. The new federal rules will result in bans on processing for many activities such as low-stakes poker online, even though those activities are legal in most states.

Ground-breaking sites like Second Life will likely fall victim to this expanded reach. Second Life has a successful in-world economy that involves, in part, trading and developing real estate with other community members. The Second Life economic system has hundreds of thousands of users trading 5.3 billion "Linden dollars" which are freely convertible to U.S. dollars.

Linden Research has already moved to ban games of chance within Second Life, but the new regulations pose a threat to the fundamental economy of the site.

Given the new risks and burdens the proposed regulations places on the U.S. banking system, there is little difference between trading real estate in Second Life and other “games of skill” that the regulations target.

The new rules will clearly stifle innovation and the creation of new forms of online interaction. It will be impossible to distinguish new forms of collaborative economic activity from the wagering “games of skill” targeted by the law. For the payment processors, it won't be worth the legal risk to even try.

Further, these skill-based online activities will not only be banned for consenting U.S. adults, but for users accessing U.S. sites from anywhere in the world. Again, it does not matter if the “game of skill” is legal or not in the user's local jurisdiction. Federal law, as implemented by these new regulations, will make it illegal, and the feds are empowering your bank to analyze and block any offending transactions.

The new regulations also mean it will be more difficult for U.S. technology companies to operate on a global basis. It is a recipe for moving more technology companies offshore. Already one of the most innovative predictive futures markets covering U.S. elections, InTrade.com, operates in Ireland.

On Tuesday, September 16th, the House Financial Services Committee will hold an emergency mark-up of legislation that attempts to address this urgent matter. The bill is a compromise that will make online sports betting illegal, but delay the implementation of rules governing "games of skill." Instead, the bill would require formal rulemaking so that the impact of the new regulations on communities like Second Life can be fully understood.

Please consider taking action and Tell Congress to pass H.R. 6870, and to oppose regulating internet games of skill.

Urgent: Vote in Congress on Tuesday (9/16)

FreedomWorks
601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 700 North Building
Washington, DC 20004
NetFreedomForever.com is a project of FreedomWorks

----

An aside: Ron Paul's Testimony