|
|
|
*HOT* Tech News And Downloads, I Would Read This Thread And Post Any Good Info
|
|
Senior Member
|
15. January 2007 @ 21:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
Investigation Follows Fatal Radio Station Contest
Mon Jan 15, 11:28 AM ET
Officials continue to investigate after a Rancho Cordova woman died Friday following a water-drinking contest at a Sacramento radio station.
The family of Jennifer Strange said she died after taking part in a competition at the office of KDND 107.9 The End in an attempt to win a Nintendo Wii video game system for her three children.
Assistant Sacramento County coroner Ed Smith said a preliminary investigation found evidence consistent with water intoxication in the death.
Strange was the runner-up in the contest that required drinking huge amounts of water in a short amount of time.Contest winner Lucy Davidson recalled how she and Strange both got ill after the contest. "After it was all over ... we both went into the bathroom and we were both sick," Davidson said. "She's throwing up. I'm throwing up. I mean, we just had too much."Davidson recovered from her illness. Strange was found dead at her Rancho Cordova home Friday afternoon.
Water intoxication occurs when a person ingests too much water, causing organs and the brain to swell.On Monday, a DJ at the radio station came on the air, but there was no mention of the incident. John Geary, vice president for station parent company Entercom Sacramento, said he is "awaiting information that will help explain how this tragic event occurred."
Meanwhile, Davidson expressed sadness about what happened. "It's so horrible," Davidson added. "You know, you don't think water is going to kill you." Contestants signed a waiver going into the contest and were allowed to leave at any time.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. January 2007 @ 12:19
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
19. January 2007 @ 12:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
Bonnaroo Settles In
Updated 03:39 PST Sat, Jan 13 2007
Bonnaroo organizers Superfly Productions and AC Entertainment have purchased a major portion of the site where the annual music festival is held.
The purchase of 530 acres in Manchester, Tenn., encompasses all of the performance areas and much of the camping and parking area used for the annual festival; the festival will continue to lease another 250 acres that currently serve as additional parking and camping.
In addition to becoming the permanent venue for Bonnaroo, the purchase will allow organizers to open the site for a variety of other select events.
"We are really excited about making this investment," Superfly's Jonathan Mayers said in a statement. "It's an incredible property that can lend itself to many different kinds of events and gatherings. Our hope is that this will become one of the premier event sites in the world. We plan to work closely with all local officials as we determine what types of events will be a good match for this site. We are very open-minded about working with anyone interested in using the property."
The new owners are developing a master plan for the land that will be phased in over several years. Improvements will focus on making the event more comfortable for fans and increasing the efficiency of Bonnaroo production as well as developing the infrastructure necessary to host multiple events. Initial improvements will likely begin following this year's event, scheduled for June 14-17.
A limited number of early-bird discounted tickets went on sale at the end of last year's event and quickly sold out. Regular tickets will go on sale with the announcement of this year's lineup, which is expected to begin at the end of the month.
|
Senior Member
|
19. January 2007 @ 14:14 |
Link to this message
|
Hackers Break HD DVD Copy Protection
There's a new twist in the ongoing battle between the next-generation, high-definition DVD standards: Hackers have cracked the antipiracy software on several movies published in the HD DVD format.
Perhaps ironically, hackers chose to break the copy-protection system in Universal's "Serenity," a 2005 science fiction film about a renegade crew of space outlaws. An informal, global alliance of hackers also deciphered the antipiracy protection on "12 Monkeys" and Peter Jackson's "King Kong."
The hackers are distributing copies of the films using BitTorrent, a once-controversial file-sharing tool that is working to clean up its reputation by forging partnerships with TV and movie companies.
Meanwhile, HD DVD and Blu-ray continue to duke it out for consumer votes that would elect one format the ultimate marketplace winner.
Security Background
Sony , Hewlett-Packard, and Dell , along with the majority of Hollywood studios, back the Blu-ray standard, giving consumers a far greater catalog of movies to choose from. Warner Bros. and Paramount support both formats, while Universal has offered its exclusive support to HD DVD. Toshiba, Microsoft , and Intel also stand behind the HD DVD standard.
Both HD DVD and Blu-ray use the same copy-protection scheme, dubbed Advanced Access Content System (AACS). Technology, entertainment, and consumer electronics industry players, including members from both format camps, collaborated to create the system.
While both formats use AACS, Blu-ray adds additional layers of security. The Blu-ray Disc Association mandates that disc manufacturers embed a globally unique identifier in the Blu-ray media to prevent hardware from playing illegitimate discs.
There are varying opinions on how the hacking incidents will affect the format wars, but most analysts maintain that there is no hack-proof digital media and that honest, movie-buying consumers won't notice much of an impact.
Legal Stances
The companies behind AACS will, however, take an aggressive legal stance against the copyright violators, according to Phil Leigh, an Inside Digital Media analyst who pointed out that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has paved the way for lawsuits against copyright violators.
Consumers who look for a free ticket to popular DVD downloads on file-sharing networks could discover that Hollywood has learned some valuable lessons from the RIAA's antipiracy handbook, Leigh said. Beyond lawsuits, he noted, there are guerilla warfare strategies being fought on the front lines against music and movie piracy.
"There are a number of techniques that the media companies have used to frustrate the peer-to-peer networks," Leigh explained. Record labels, for example, have engaged third-parties to put up a lot of files that are labeled correctly but are "just static" when you open them, he said.
By Jennifer LeClaire
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
21. January 2007 @ 11:27 |
Link to this message
|
AnyDVD 6.1.1.1 (beta)
http://sandbox.slysoft.com/SetupAnyDVD6111.exe
6.1.1.1 2007 01 20
- New: Added support for new versions of the SONY Arccos protection
(e.g., "Monster House" and "RV", Germany) to the option to remove
"Protection based on unreadable Sectors"
- New: Added workaround for some drives (e.g. TSSTCORP DVD-ROM
SH-D162C) where disc insertion was not always correctly detected
by AnyDVD and decryption would not work.
- Fix: Removing Sony Arccos at the end of a title did sometimes
caused a "Navigation Pack error" or could cause the title to
disappear completely in elby CloneDVD.
- Fix: Bug introduced in 6.1.0.7, disc recognition did not work
correctly
- Fix: Bug introduced in 6.1.0.7, driver could switch into safe mode
without reason
- Some minor fixes and improvements __________________
James
SlySoft products
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
21. January 2007 @ 11:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
I KNOW that you're not back yet but glad to see you posting anyway. Have a great one.
........c
edit: spelling and grammar.....lol
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. January 2007 @ 11:52
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
21. January 2007 @ 12:15 |
Link to this message
|
today i did two movie with beta AnyDVD 6111,no programs...
works great
|
Senior Member
|
21. January 2007 @ 12:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
Good to hear from you Ireland...Hope vacation has been relaxing...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. January 2007 @ 12:27
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
21. January 2007 @ 12:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
i finished my corporation and my own taxes and i did have a lot of work with the help of my accountant...this year i will be supporting the goverment for .001 seconds this year..
|
Member
|
21. January 2007 @ 16:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
good to see your postings.
:)
Chuck
"Men are slower to recognize blessings than misfortunes." Titus Livius (59BC-17AD)
|
|
Shado36
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
21. January 2007 @ 16:46 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ireland:
i finished my corporation and my own taxes and i did have a lot of work with the help of my accountant...this year i will be supporting the goverment for .001 seconds this year..
That long eh?? Fire him!!! LOL
|
Member
|
23. January 2007 @ 04:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi everybody,
Enjoy a good cup of coffee.
I got the following in a news letter, and thought about sharing it...
Microsoft ends OEM release on Office 2007
MS drops Office 2007 OEM in favor of profit and control
Microsoft will no longer offer any OEM software with it's Office 2007 product lines: A move which has astonished resellers and angered small business users, who will now have to pay substantially higher prices to buy or upgrade their Microsoft office suites and component software.
Microsoft Office 2007 will be avaialble in a system builder format for pre-installation, but will be sold to end users in a license only format- When a user purchases OEM Office 2007 software, they receive no software - Only a keycode and COA to be used on their pre-installed version of office.
Why have MS done this? This moves means that Office 07 OEM Software is available ONLY with a new PC. MS want to enforce higher margins vs competitive freemarket OEM channels where customer savings are higher. But why would charging customers double and cutting out the reseller market make good business sense? Monopolism still dominates the software industry. Microsoft, by dominating sales channels and making it impossible to buy and resell OEM software, can not only aquire customers without market competition, they will also be able to control price, charging resellers and end users whatever they choose.
It seems when it comes to 2007 what is good for Microsoft is bad for it's customers.
Chuck
"Men are slower to recognize blessings than misfortunes." Titus Livius (59BC-17AD)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. January 2007 @ 10:56
|
Senior Member
|
23. January 2007 @ 11:26 |
Link to this message
|
I have been using Open Office for years...does everything that MS Office does...but FREE...Just another reason to hate Micro$uck...
http://www.openoffice.org/
|
|
janrocks
Suspended permanently
|
23. January 2007 @ 13:03 |
Link to this message
|
DRM, Vista and your rights
[ Tuesday, 23 January 2007, michuk ]
In the US, France and a few other countries it is already forbidden to play legally purchased music or videos using GNU/Linux media players. Sounds like sci-fi? Unfortunately not. And it won?t end up on multimedia only. Welcome to the the new era of DRM!
Author: Borys Musielak
In this article I would like to explain the problem of Digital Rights (or restrictions) Management, especially in the version promoted by Microsoft with the new Windows Vista release. Not everyone is familiar with the dangers of the new ?standard? for the whole computer industry. Yes, the whole industry ? because it goes way beyond the software produced by the giant from Redmond and its affiliates.
DRM, Trusted Computing ? what kind of animal is that?
Quoting Wikipedia:
Digital Rights Management (generally abbreviated to DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to any of several technologies used by publishers or copyright owners to control access to and usage of digital data or hardware, and to restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work or device. The term is often confused with copy protection and technical protection measures; these two terms refer to technologies that control or restrict the use and access of digital content on electronic devices with such technologies installed, acting as components of a DRM design.
A similar (but a bit more specialized) term to DRM is Trusted Computing. The term is intentionally misleading. It does not try to improve the security of the user, but rather wants to ensure that the user can be ?trusted?. Obviously it?s not about the trust, it?s about the money. The companies that deliver content (specially multimedia, but it?s not restricted to media only) to the client want to be able to control the way it is used. For example, they want the content to be displayed on approved media only, banning all the ?illegal? applications (illegal does not mean that it violates the law, but rather the agreement between the client and the company that sells the media). More on Trusted Computing can be found (as always) in Wikipedia.
So, what?s wrong with the practice? Why shouldn?t the companies be able to control their content? The idea of DRM has two aspects that are important (and may be dangerous) for computer users. First aspect is technological, the second is ethical. We are going to cover both.
In a nutshell, the technological aspect is that DRM implies that the software, or even worse ? hardware ? should be manufactured not for the highest stability and performance, but rather for the best copyright protection possible. This means, that we ? the users ? are supposed to pay more money for a product that is defective (does not allow certain functionality for non-technical reasons) and provides an inferior performance.
Ethical aspect is even more dangerous. In the world of DRM, it turns that we cannot do whatever we want with the legally purchased products (like software, music, videos or text documents). What we can and what we cannot do is decided the provider, not by ourselves. For example, a DRM-protected product can be disabled at any time by the producer if he believes that we violate the terms of the agreement. This means that your collection of ?protected? music can be rendered useless (e.g. by decreasing the quality or even deleting the content) in a matter of seconds, without your approval. It that some horrible vision of a sick and evil overlord? Nope. This is an upcoming, terrifying era of DRM.
DRM by example
So, what does DRM look like? Can we see it or is it hidden? Actually, quite a lot of famous companies have already decided that DRM is the way to go. Below we present only a short list of the most popular formats that are affected (tainted) by the ?rights protection?:
* DVD ? the disk itself does not contain any hardware DRM, but a lot of providers decided to use the restrictions recommended by the DVD CCA organization, such as CSS (content scrambling by using encryption mechanisms) or RPC (region codes).
* HD DVD ? the new standard that will probably replace DVDs has been unfortunately tainted by DRM since its creation. The main restriction used is AACS, a modern version of CSS.
* AAC ? audio file format invented and promoted by Apple and its iTunes Music Store. In the version with FairPlay (sic!) protection system, it contains DRM-type restrictions (encrypting) aimed at making it impossible for competitive portable players to support this format (AAC works flawlessly only on Apple products like iTunes player or iPod and a few other players approved by Apple)
* Windows Media ? each of the media formats of the Windows Media pack (WMV, WMA, WMP or ASF) has been tainted by some kind of DRM, usually meaning that the content is symmetrically encrypted and if the keys are not accessible, the user can watch/listen to only the scrambled version of the content (very low quality).
What is interesting and not widely known, DRM is not restricted to media only. It can be used to secure any other ?digital goods?, especially the software. The idea to restrict access to proprietary software using hardware DRM technology is getting more and more popular around major software vendors, like Microsoft and Apple. If this gets implemented, the software producer will be able to, for example, block the use certain programs if they recognize it harmful or illegal. This could mean blocking programs of competitors if they violate the company?s internal rules (e.g. enable the user to play encrypted DVDs or AAC files, even though it is not illegal to do it in the user?s country). Blocking Peer2Peer clients, like eMule or Gnutella (nevermind if used legally or not) could be another option. And there are many more options available, provided that DRM is publicly accepted?
The price of DRM, or? what says Gutmann
Peter Gutmann in his recent publication analyzed the cost of Windows Vista Content Protection with emphasis on the actual cash to be spent for the computer user if these recommendations are implemented by the hardware vendors. The article is interesting, but long and very technical, so I decided to summarize the main points here. If you prefer to read the original article, we strongly recommend you doing so. Otherwise, you can read our short summary, so that you know what we are talking about.
So, what will happen if the Microsoft vision comes true?
* If you have recently bought a high-end sound card you may be surprised, since in Windows Vista you won?t be able to play any ?protected content? due to the incompatibility of interfaces (S/PDIF).
* Significant loss of quality of the audio may be common due to the need to test every bit of streaming media for the use of ?protected content?
* The idea of open-source drivers will be abandoned since the whole DRM thing is based on the fact that the content decrypting takes place in a ?black box? and only a few selected corporations may have a look at it. Security through obscurity, that?s what it?s called. Open source stands in complete opposition to this concept.
* Removing any standards from the hardware world is one of the Microsoft goals. According to the Microsoft theory, each device will need to communicate with the operating system in a unique way in order for DRM work as required. This will enforce the incompatibility of the devices, killing the existing interface standards.
* Denial of Service attacks will be a common place. The new era of DoS attacks will be more harmful than ever before. This is connected with the tilt bits introduced in Windows Vista. The malicious code will be able to use the DRM restrictions in any suitable way and the detection of this activity will be almost impossible if not illegal (sic!) thanks to the infamous DMCA act that prohibits the use of any reverse engineering techniques used to either understand or break DRM.
* The stability of the devices will be decreased due to the fact that the devices will not only have to do their job but also ?protect? (who? obviously not the user?) against the illegal use of the audio and video streams. This ?protection? requires a lot of additional processing power and of course a lot of programmers man days. Who?s gonna pay for that? Of course us ? the customers.
* Issuing the specification by Microsoft seems to be the first case in the history when the software producer dictates the hardware producers how their hardware should be designed and work. Seems dangerous, especially when we all realize the intentions of Microsoft.
The conclusions are rather sad. If the major hardware vendors like Intel, NVidia and ATI take these recommendations seriously and implement them in their products, it may occur that the client will not only get an inferior product (defective by design), but will also have to pay the extra cost of implementing DRM restrictions (the vendors won?t be probably willing to spend the extra costs for something that does not give them any profits).
Update: there has already been a Microsoft response to the Gutmann?s paper: Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers). The advocacy is however very poor. The Lead Program Manager for Video (Dave Marsh) confirmed most of the Gutmann?s conclusions, but presented them as ?inevitable? and ?providing additional functionality?. The OSNews readers seem to agree that Marsh?s response was basically the act of admitting the guilt :)
What we have covered so far are only the technical costs of DRM/Trusted Computing in the form proposed by the Redmond giant. The ethical costs of the ?innovation? are even more interesting? or rather depressing. Read on.
DRM and freedom, or what says Richard Stallman and FSF
According to Stallman,
DRM is an example of a malicious feature - a feature designed to hurt the user of the software, and therefore, it?s something for which there can never be toleration.
Stallman is not the only person respected in the IT world who believes that DRM is pure evil. Another known DRM-fighter is John Walker, the author of the famous article ?Digital imprimatur: How big brother and big media can put the Internet genie back in the bottle?. Walker compares the Digital imprimatur with DRM in the Internet and computing in general.
In Windows Vista it has been decided that the most restrictive version of DRM ever known will be implemented. If the Redmond dreams come true and the large hardware producers also decide to implement the DRM bits in their chipsets, it may lead to the situation in which we ? the users, practically won?t be able to decide about our own software of legally purchased media. And this is actually only the beginning of what we can expect if a massive consumer protest against DRM does not begin. In the near future it may turn out that we will not be able to run any programs that violates one of the absurd software patents in the US or any kind of so-called intellectual property (just as if the ideas could have an owner!). And almost everything will be patented or ?owner? in some way by that time.
I have a science-fiction vision of the IT underground, where the only hardware not tainted with DRM is made in China and using it is illegal in most of the ?civilized? countries. And the only software that allows users to do anything they want with it is (also illegal) the GNU software, developed in basements by so-called ?IT terrorists? ? Linux kernel hackers, former Novell and Red Hat employees and sponsored by the Bin Laden of the IT ? Mark Shuttleworth. Sounds ridiculous? Well, hopefully so. But I don?t think Microsoft and Apple would be protesting when this ridiculous and insane vision comes true?
What is it all about and how can you protect yourself?
So, where is this all heading to? It seems that, for Microsoft, controlling the desktop software market is not enough anymore. Now they try take control of the hardware market as well. Currently only by ?recommending? their solutions to external hardware companies. But in the future, if the current pro-DRM lobbying proves successful, it may happen that Microsoft and other big software companies will be dictating how the hardware is designed. And all this ? of course in their argumentation ? only for securing the end user and protecting the intellectual property of the artists and programmers. This situation is rather paranoid. The hypothetical pact between the software vendors, hardware vendors and the content providers (RIAA, MPAA) could slow down the innovation in the entire IT industry for many years. This would be also one of the first times in the history where certain new technology is introduced not based on the customers? demands, but rather on the need of large and influential companies. The customers (those aware of their rights) cannot be satisfied by this kind of agreement by no means.
So, how can you protect yourself from this ?pact of evil??
1. First of all ? ignore the hardware and software using DRM techniques to restrict the rights of the user. Do not purchase music, movies and other content secured by DRM mechanisms. Instead, use alternative services recommended by the Defective By Design campaign ? these are the tools and services DRM-free.
2. Secondly ? talk, talk and once again, talk ? make your family, friends, co-workers aware of the dangers connected with the use of DRM in the products. This is the best way to educate people what DRM really is and why they should care. Nobody wants to be restricted. When people become aware of the restrictions, they will not buy the products that restrict them. Simple enough :)
Breaking the DRM ? it?s? easy :)
OK, and what if we have already legally purchased some content (like multimedia or text document) secured by some kind of DRM? Do not worry. Most of them has been broken a long time ago. For example, in order to play an CSS-encrypted DVD under GNU/Linux, you can use almost any player like VLC, MPlayer or Xine with libdvdcss2 enabled (this is a non-licenced library used to decrypt DVDs encrypted with CSS). If you posses music in AAC format (e.g. purchased at iTunes), you can easily convert them to a friendly format using JHymn without losing quality. The story repeats with each and every new introduced DRM technology, like encrypted PDFs, Windows Media, or recently HD-DVD (see the muslix64 post on BackupDVD) and BluRay.
Breaking the DRM restrictions is hard but always possible, due to the fact that all DRM mechanisms need to use symmetric encryption in order to work. This kind of encryption requires the keys to be hidden either in the hardware or software ? in both ways it?s possible to access them by the hacker, analyze and find the way to decrypt the data streams. If you are interested in the details of DRM hacking, read the lecture of Cory Doctorow for Microsoft Research about the nonsense of DRM.
OK, but is it legal?
We know that we can break almost any DRM restriction using easily available open source software. But what about the legal part? Is it legal to do this at home? Well, this depends? Depends on where you live actually. For instance, if you have the misfortune of being located in the United States or France, you are prohibited by law to play your legally purchased music or films (sic!) that are secured by DRM if you don?t buy an approved operating system (like MS Windows or MacOS) with an approved media player (like PowerDVD or iTunes). In the US this has been enforced by the DMCA act. In France, a similar act called DADVSI.
Fortunately, in most other countries, it is still completely legal to use free software to break any DRM restrictions, like DeCSS to play your DVDs. What we, as the free software supporters, need to do is to constantly watch the law-makers in our own countries so that they do not try to introduce similar restrictions as in France or US. In Poland, for instance, a protest led by one of the big pro-Linux portals and thousands of computer users made the leading party to abandon the project to introduce a DMCA-like law in Poland. Free-software supporters in other countries, like the United Kingdom go even further and try to completely ban the use of DRM in the British law system.
Of course, breaking the restrictions is fighting the results, not the causes. The real problem is the pure fact that DRM exists and is widely accepted by the (unaware) majority. If the computer users do not unite and protest against including DRM in more and more products, nobody will, and the DRM will become our every-day experience which we will need to fight just like viruses or malware. This year may be the one in which the major decision will be made both by the industry (whether or not to apply DRM in the products) and by the customers (whether or not accept DRM as is). If we miss this fight, we may have to accept what we get. I don?t think we can afford missing it. Do you?
Original article with all links http://polishlinux.org/gnu/drm-vista-and-your-rights/
|
Member
|
23. January 2007 @ 16:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
if good ol' G Orwell was around..., Big Brother watching...
terrible times are coming.
Chuck
"Men are slower to recognize blessings than misfortunes." Titus Livius (59BC-17AD)
|
Senior Member
|
23. January 2007 @ 16:48 |
Link to this message
|
The DRM story shows the biggest problem with the US goverment...Lobbist...
In California lobbist just got in acted legislation that allow...cities and counties to use iminient domain laws...to forceablly sell property to benefit private individuals and their projects...the project no longer has to provide any benefit to the public...Reason this was done...
So developers could force individuals to sell their property through the legal system...
This never would have happened with-out Lobbist...
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. January 2007 @ 11:13 |
Link to this message
|
BitTorrent is DOOMED!
p2pnet.net news view:- The self-acclaimed guru of IPTV, Mark Cuban claims P2P and, more specifically, BitTorrent, is doomed. Apparently, ?conflicting clients?, lack of knowledge, limited Internet plans, and ?bandwidth premiums? are going to be jointly responsible.
Here?s Cuban?s argument: he believes from the business standpoint, BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer technologies are great. They save massive amounts of bandwidth and help efficiently distribute large media files, possibly even speeding up transfers. We agree with everything up ?til here.
But now he goes on to say although content creators can profit from BitTorrent, users are getting screwed. Why? Here are his reasons.
# Conflicting Clients
# End Users don?t understand how P2P works
# The P2P model of seeding is a HUGE problem for those [?] with bandwidth constraints or per bit or per minute costs
# There is a misconception that there is bandwidth savings for the end user
On conflicting clients he says, ?When multiple clients are installed on a PC, not only does that create confusion among users, its a ?last installed, first in charge? approach. That approach and lack of respect for other clients will lead to user configuration problems.?
Okay, Number One, if you?re referring to file associations, ie, the most recently installed app is associated with the file type, then this ?problem? is not limited to BitTorrent clients. Everything from graphic editors (Photoshop, Gimp) to music management applications (iTunes, WinAmp) do this.
Secondly, if this causes confusion among users, then how do millions of people manage to get their music into iTunes and sync it to their iPods without accidentally having their mp3s added to the Windows Media Player library? This ?lack of respect? isn?t so much about BitTorrent client developers trying to steal users from their competitors, as it is about how operating systems function today.
Onto Point Two. ?End Users dont understand how P2P works, and once they do, they get concerned about giving up bandwidth.?
I hear BitTorrent transfers make up about one third of all traffic on the Internet these days. It seems likely that end users do, in fact, understand how P2P works. And unless their other online activities are hindered by BitTorrent or P2P, I don?t see users really having a problem with the uploads.
Most don?t even bother uploading once their file has been download, and since the majority of users download torrents from public trackers, they aren?t forced to either.
Cuban?s third point, ?The P2P model of seeding is a HUGE problem for those using wireless broadband with bandwidth constraints or per bit or per minute costs. People are going to wake up and find that they owe Verizon, Sprint, whoever a lot more than they ever thought possible because they installed a client on their Laptops. That could lead to these networks blocking the protocol.?
This actually makes sense. The real problem here is miscommunication. In developing countries such as India, ISPs milk customers for money by charging them for every MB downloaded, and in some cases, for every minute spent online.
Some ISPs (Sify, for one) even lie about unlimited plans and have per-day limits (eg. 200 MB), which, if exceeded, cause the number of days the plan is valid for (usually a month) to be reduced every time the download limit is excedded. Someone I know actually ran up a bill of several hundred dollars because he thought he was on an unlimited plan, whereas in reality his ISP hadn?t processed his request to change plans. But as BitTorrent and P2P grow in popularity, users are quickly starting to demand ?unlimited? plans.
If you look at the trend, ISPs are more likely to cash in on the P2P phenomenon and offer unlimited plans for a premium than start blocking protocols. And although per-bit and per-minute plans are widespread in developing countries, I don?t know how much of a problem they are to European, Australian and North American users.
Cuban?s last point is, ?There is a misconception that there is bandwidth savings for the end user. If you want to download a 1gb size file, 1gb of data will be delivered to your PC. There is no savings of bandwidth on the client side. In fact, the client is charged a bandwidth premium because after they have received the entire file, they are asked to particpate in the peering by delivering parts of the file to other users.?
Guess what? The end user doesn?t care if he?s uploading bits while downloading. Unlike hosting providers, users incur no cost from constantly uploading data. It doesn?t matter, as long as they can go about their other activities. And unless they're on a per-bit or per-minute plan, no ?bandwidth premiums? are going to be charged. Also, no one is asking the user to ?participate in the peering? (or simply, seed) once the download is complete. That is only a requirement of select private trackers.
When it comes to utilising BitTorrent in business, as part of a content store, I think Cuban?s looking at it the wrong way.
When the various BitTorrent stores (BitTorrent.com, Zudeo.com) are up and running, content creators are not going to be getting a free ride. Users are not going to pay the same price they do at conventional stores such as the iTunes Store and Amazon Unbox. Why should they? They?re acting as servers for content creators and are distributing content for no charge at all. But since money isn?t being deducted from their bank accounts, and seeding a torrent is not really affecting their web browsing, users are okay with uploading.
Keep in mind, this business model will only work if the rates at BitTorrent-powered content stores are significantly lower than conventional ones. In other words, users aren?t just going to let themselves be ripped off. If they feel they?re getting a raw deal, they?ll head straight to ?illegal? torrent sites like The Pirate Bay and Isohunt. In fact, that?s what users are doing right now!
I?m open to the possibility that I?m dead wrong. I don?t know, maybe Cuban is right. Maybe BitTorrent is in fact doomed, and the video streaming technologies he pioneered with Broadcast.com in the 90s will make a major comeback.
I mean, who uses BitTorrent these days? Just a bunch of pirates, soon to be exiled to metal platform in the middle of the North Sea. Right? Right.
What do you think? Are the days of P2P over? Is the the balkanisation of BitTorrent imminent?
Torrentfreak - The Netherlands
http://p2pnet.net/story/11111?PHPSESSID=...f4ad938b344480c
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. January 2007 @ 11:14 |
Link to this message
|
Seeing the light on DRM
p2pnet.net news special:- While much of the northern hemisphere has been experiencing heretofore unseen spring-like weather conditions in January, disrupting the hibernation and mating habits of many of the world's animals, a group of snakes and other cold blooded, skin-shedding reptiles and amphibians have gathered in the warm sunshine of southern France for the 41st annual MIDEM conference of, "nearly 10,000 international music (labels, publishers, artist managers and many more), digital and mobile professionals gather to do business".
Besides the usual back-slapping, self-congratulatory butt kissing on how well the industry is doing - and they are doing well despite a reported decline in CD sales (Digital music sales soar 80 percent in 2006 ) - there's an unexpected and welcome turn of events, that of the major players finally starting to see the light on DRM and file-sharing: DRM is bad, very bad. Files-sharing is good, very good. DRM inhibits sales, industry growth and artistic endeavours, while file-sharing promotes artists for free, jump-starts careers, and increases sales of CDs. The market dictates what works, not the marketers.
At least one of the four major labels is expected to begin sales of unrestricted MP3s this year, something the major players had previously vowed they'd never do, capitulating to the demands of the customer "which has destroyed their monopoly over the worldwide distribution of music in the past decade and allowed file-sharing to take its place". Independent labels and artists are way ahead of the majors in this respect, having listened to consumers and been offering their works in this way for years, often for free, and have reaped the benefits the majors have denied existed.
"Free is the new paid," said Kenneth Parks, chief operating officer of Brilliant Technologies, a company based in New York and Melbourne that is developing a service called Qtrax, which will provide free music - legally - to Internet users.
"We could release our products without digital-rights management restrictions on them in the way that consumers want and still make a lot of money," Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, said at Midem. "And I think we'll be hearing more and more about that."
But Mitch Bainwol, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America, says, "We're for interoperability, and there's nothing intrinsic to DRM that prevents interoperability."
Tell that to Apple, which has dominated online music purchases for years, incorporating their own brand of DRM into every download, which can then only be played on an iPod. Apple, which sells works by RIAA artists, doesn't seem to share Bainwol's 'enthusiasm' for interoperability.
That could change sooner than Steve Jobs might like, especially if French lawmakers have their way. In recent years, France has been in the forefront of protecting consumers' rights, including forming a commission to oversee measures to force interoperability, stifling DRM, and protecting file-sharers from illegal prying eyes.
Italy has also declared that file-sharing is not illegal, stating downloading computer files containing films, music or software isn't a crime if not done for profit. The top criminal court's ruling throws out convictions of two former students who had set up a p2p network in 1994, and undoubtedly will pave the way for more quashed convictions and the refusal of courts to hear file-sharing cases brought by the cartels.
Economists such as Jacques Attali, a French author and music aficionado, understand that the market decides what restrictions it will accept, and what it won't. Attali predicts the current business models employed by the cartels will be discarded and all recorded music will be free in the next several decades, reflecting the old radio model: free online music supported by advertising.
"A lot of people will still make money out of it," he said during an interview at Midem.
Ad-supported, DRM-free file-sharing and download services are now being seriously considered by the major cartel members.
With companies such as EMI offering free streaming music on Baidu.com in China; VirginMega and FNAC selling DRM-free tracks from indie labels; Yahoo! continuing their 'experiments' in offering DRM-free tracks from selected artists; and, Amazon.com planning a DRM-free download service, the industry has finally smelled the coffee and opened their eyes and ears to what file-sharers and consumers have been saying and demanding for years.
"It will happen between next year and five years from now, but it is more likely to be in one to two years," said Rob Glaser, chief executive of RealNetworks. "DRM-free purchases is an idea in ascendance and whose time has come."
And, DRM is a "pain in the neck" for consumers, says Julian Ulrich, general manager of VirginMega.
As the winter of 2006-2007 has been a mild one, in most of the world the mildest in recorded history, it would seem the music industry has got the jump on famed groundhog Punxsutawney Phil, coming out of hibernation several weeks early and declaring an end to the icy chill of DRM Winters and the start of free, unrestricted entertainment and information Springs and Summers.
Free file-sharing networks will never go away, but perhaps the cartels are finally admitting that you can't sue their customers into buying 'product', and that DRM was a bad idea, poorly conceived and implemented, largely despised by consumers and retailers, and that the physical and virtual marketplace can support all types of content distribution, and still earn them a pretty penny.
http://p2pnet.net/story/11120?PHPSESSID=...0969293d4c5be8e
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. January 2007 @ 11:16 |
Link to this message
|
DRM, Vista and your rights
[ Tuesday, 23 January 2007, michuk ]
In the US, France and a few other countries it is already forbidden to play legally purchased music or videos using GNU/Linux media players. Sounds like sci-fi? Unfortunately not. And it won?t end up on multimedia only. Welcome to the the new era of DRM!
Author: Borys Musielak
In this article I would like to explain the problem of Digital Rights (or restrictions) Management, especially in the version promoted by Microsoft with the new Windows Vista release. Not everyone is familiar with the dangers of the new ?standard? for the whole computer industry. Yes, the whole industry ? because it goes way beyond the software produced by the giant from Redmond and its affiliates.
DRM, Trusted Computing ? what kind of animal is that?
Quoting Wikipedia:
Digital Rights Management (generally abbreviated to DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to any of several technologies used by publishers or copyright owners to control access to and usage of digital data or hardware, and to restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work or device. The term is often confused with copy protection and technical protection measures; these two terms refer to technologies that control or restrict the use and access of digital content on electronic devices with such technologies installed, acting as components of a DRM design.
A similar (but a bit more specialized) term to DRM is Trusted Computing. The term is intentionally misleading. It does not try to improve the security of the user, but rather wants to ensure that the user can be ?trusted?. Obviously it?s not about the trust, it?s about the money. The companies that deliver content (specially multimedia, but it?s not restricted to media only) to the client want to be able to control the way it is used. For example, they want the content to be displayed on approved media only, banning all the ?illegal? applications (illegal does not mean that it violates the law, but rather the agreement between the client and the company that sells the media). More on Trusted Computing can be found (as always) in Wikipedia.
So, what?s wrong with the practice? Why shouldn?t the companies be able to control their content? The idea of DRM has two aspects that are important (and may be dangerous) for computer users. First aspect is technological, the second is ethical. We are going to cover both.
In a nutshell, the technological aspect is that DRM implies that the software, or even worse ? hardware ? should be manufactured not for the highest stability and performance, but rather for the best copyright protection possible. This means, that we ? the users ? are supposed to pay more money for a product that is defective (does not allow certain functionality for non-technical reasons) and provides an inferior performance.
Ethical aspect is even more dangerous. In the world of DRM, it turns that we cannot do whatever we want with the legally purchased products (like software, music, videos or text documents). What we can and what we cannot do is decided the provider, not by ourselves. For example, a DRM-protected product can be disabled at any time by the producer if he believes that we violate the terms of the agreement. This means that your collection of ?protected? music can be rendered useless (e.g. by decreasing the quality or even deleting the content) in a matter of seconds, without your approval. It that some horrible vision of a sick and evil overlord? Nope. This is an upcoming, terrifying era of DRM.
DRM by example
So, what does DRM look like? Can we see it or is it hidden? Actually, quite a lot of famous companies have already decided that DRM is the way to go. Below we present only a short list of the most popular formats that are affected (tainted) by the ?rights protection?:
* DVD ? the disk itself does not contain any hardware DRM, but a lot of providers decided to use the restrictions recommended by the DVD CCA organization, such as CSS (content scrambling by using encryption mechanisms) or RPC (region codes).
* HD DVD ? the new standard that will probably replace DVDs has been unfortunately tainted by DRM since its creation. The main restriction used is AACS, a modern version of CSS.
* AAC ? audio file format invented and promoted by Apple and its iTunes Music Store. In the version with FairPlay (sic!) protection system, it contains DRM-type restrictions (encrypting) aimed at making it impossible for competitive portable players to support this format (AAC works flawlessly only on Apple products like iTunes player or iPod and a few other players approved by Apple)
* Windows Media ? each of the media formats of the Windows Media pack (WMV, WMA, WMP or ASF) has been tainted by some kind of DRM, usually meaning that the content is symmetrically encrypted and if the keys are not accessible, the user can watch/listen to only the scrambled version of the content (very low quality).
What is interesting and not widely known, DRM is not restricted to media only. It can be used to secure any other ?digital goods?, especially the software. The idea to restrict access to proprietary software using hardware DRM technology is getting more and more popular around major software vendors, like Microsoft and Apple. If this gets implemented, the software producer will be able to, for example, block the use certain programs if they recognize it harmful or illegal. This could mean blocking programs of competitors if they violate the company?s internal rules (e.g. enable the user to play encrypted DVDs or AAC files, even though it is not illegal to do it in the user?s country). Blocking Peer2Peer clients, like eMule or Gnutella (nevermind if used legally or not) could be another option. And there are many more options available, provided that DRM is publicly accepted?
The price of DRM, or? what says Gutmann
Peter Gutmann in his recent publication analyzed the cost of Windows Vista Content Protection with emphasis on the actual cash to be spent for the computer user if these recommendations are implemented by the hardware vendors. The article is interesting, but long and very technical, so I decided to summarize the main points here. If you prefer to read the original article, we strongly recommend you doing so. Otherwise, you can read our short summary, so that you know what we are talking about.
So, what will happen if the Microsoft vision comes true?
* If you have recently bought a high-end sound card you may be surprised, since in Windows Vista you won?t be able to play any ?protected content? due to the incompatibility of interfaces (S/PDIF).
* Significant loss of quality of the audio may be common due to the need to test every bit of streaming media for the use of ?protected content?
* The idea of open-source drivers will be abandoned since the whole DRM thing is based on the fact that the content decrypting takes place in a ?black box? and only a few selected corporations may have a look at it. Security through obscurity, that?s what it?s called. Open source stands in complete opposition to this concept.
* Removing any standards from the hardware world is one of the Microsoft goals. According to the Microsoft theory, each device will need to communicate with the operating system in a unique way in order for DRM work as required. This will enforce the incompatibility of the devices, killing the existing interface standards.
* Denial of Service attacks will be a common place. The new era of DoS attacks will be more harmful than ever before. This is connected with the tilt bits introduced in Windows Vista. The malicious code will be able to use the DRM restrictions in any suitable way and the detection of this activity will be almost impossible if not illegal (sic!) thanks to the infamous DMCA act that prohibits the use of any reverse engineering techniques used to either understand or break DRM.
* The stability of the devices will be decreased due to the fact that the devices will not only have to do their job but also ?protect? (who? obviously not the user?) against the illegal use of the audio and video streams. This ?protection? requires a lot of additional processing power and of course a lot of programmers man days. Who?s gonna pay for that? Of course us ? the customers.
* Issuing the specification by Microsoft seems to be the first case in the history when the software producer dictates the hardware producers how their hardware should be designed and work. Seems dangerous, especially when we all realize the intentions of Microsoft.
The conclusions are rather sad. If the major hardware vendors like Intel, NVidia and ATI take these recommendations seriously and implement them in their products, it may occur that the client will not only get an inferior product (defective by design), but will also have to pay the extra cost of implementing DRM restrictions (the vendors won?t be probably willing to spend the extra costs for something that does not give them any profits).
Update: there has already been a Microsoft response to the Gutmann?s paper: Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers). The advocacy is however very poor. The Lead Program Manager for Video (Dave Marsh) confirmed most of the Gutmann?s conclusions, but presented them as ?inevitable? and ?providing additional functionality?. The OSNews readers seem to agree that Marsh?s response was basically the act of admitting the guilt :)
What we have covered so far are only the technical costs of DRM/Trusted Computing in the form proposed by the Redmond giant. The ethical costs of the ?innovation? are even more interesting? or rather depressing. Read on.
DRM and freedom, or what says Richard Stallman and FSF
According to Stallman,
DRM is an example of a malicious feature - a feature designed to hurt the user of the software, and therefore, it?s something for which there can never be toleration.
Stallman is not the only person respected in the IT world who believes that DRM is pure evil. Another known DRM-fighter is John Walker, the author of the famous article ?Digital imprimatur: How big brother and big media can put the Internet genie back in the bottle?. Walker compares the Digital imprimatur with DRM in the Internet and computing in general.
In Windows Vista it has been decided that the most restrictive version of DRM ever known will be implemented. If the Redmond dreams come true and the large hardware producers also decide to implement the DRM bits in their chipsets, it may lead to the situation in which we ? the users, practically won?t be able to decide about our own software of legally purchased media. And this is actually only the beginning of what we can expect if a massive consumer protest against DRM does not begin. In the near future it may turn out that we will not be able to run any programs that violates one of the absurd software patents in the US or any kind of so-called intellectual property (just as if the ideas could have an owner!). And almost everything will be patented or ?owner? in some way by that time.
I have a science-fiction vision of the IT underground, where the only hardware not tainted with DRM is made in China and using it is illegal in most of the ?civilized? countries. And the only software that allows users to do anything they want with it is (also illegal) the GNU software, developed in basements by so-called ?IT terrorists? ? Linux kernel hackers, former Novell and Red Hat employees and sponsored by the Bin Laden of the IT ? Mark Shuttleworth. Sounds ridiculous? Well, hopefully so. But I don?t think Microsoft and Apple would be protesting when this ridiculous and insane vision comes true?
What is it all about and how can you protect yourself?
So, where is this all heading to? It seems that, for Microsoft, controlling the desktop software market is not enough anymore. Now they try take control of the hardware market as well. Currently only by ?recommending? their solutions to external hardware companies. But in the future, if the current pro-DRM lobbying proves successful, it may happen that Microsoft and other big software companies will be dictating how the hardware is designed. And all this ? of course in their argumentation ? only for securing the end user and protecting the intellectual property of the artists and programmers. This situation is rather paranoid. The hypothetical pact between the software vendors, hardware vendors and the content providers (RIAA, MPAA) could slow down the innovation in the entire IT industry for many years. This would be also one of the first times in the history where certain new technology is introduced not based on the customers? demands, but rather on the need of large and influential companies. The customers (those aware of their rights) cannot be satisfied by this kind of agreement by no means.
So, how can you protect yourself from this ?pact of evil??
1. First of all ? ignore the hardware and software using DRM techniques to restrict the rights of the user. Do not purchase music, movies and other content secured by DRM mechanisms. Instead, use alternative services recommended by the Defective By Design campaign ? these are the tools and services DRM-free.
2. Secondly ? talk, talk and once again, talk ? make your family, friends, co-workers aware of the dangers connected with the use of DRM in the products. This is the best way to educate people what DRM really is and why they should care. Nobody wants to be restricted. When people become aware of the restrictions, they will not buy the products that restrict them. Simple enough :)
Breaking the DRM ? it?s? easy :)
OK, and what if we have already legally purchased some content (like multimedia or text document) secured by some kind of DRM? Do not worry. Most of them has been broken a long time ago. For example, in order to play an CSS-encrypted DVD under GNU/Linux, you can use almost any player like VLC, MPlayer or Xine with libdvdcss2 enabled (this is a non-licenced library used to decrypt DVDs encrypted with CSS). If you posses music in AAC format (e.g. purchased at iTunes), you can easily convert them to a friendly format using JHymn without losing quality. The story repeats with each and every new introduced DRM technology, like encrypted PDFs, Windows Media, or recently HD-DVD (see the muslix64 post on BackupDVD) and BluRay.
Breaking the DRM restrictions is hard but always possible, due to the fact that all DRM mechanisms need to use symmetric encryption in order to work. This kind of encryption requires the keys to be hidden either in the hardware or software ? in both ways it?s possible to access them by the hacker, analyze and find the way to decrypt the data streams. If you are interested in the details of DRM hacking, read the lecture of Cory Doctorow for Microsoft Research about the nonsense of DRM.
OK, but is it legal?
We know that we can break almost any DRM restriction using easily available open source software. But what about the legal part? Is it legal to do this at home? Well, this depends? Depends on where you live actually. For instance, if you have the misfortune of being located in the United States or France, you are prohibited by law to play your legally purchased music or films (sic!) that are secured by DRM if you don?t buy an approved operating system (like MS Windows or MacOS) with an approved media player (like PowerDVD or iTunes). In the US this has been enforced by the DMCA act. In France, a similar act called DADVSI.
Fortunately, in most other countries, it is still completely legal to use free software to break any DRM restrictions, like DeCSS to play your DVDs. What we, as the free software supporters, need to do is to constantly watch the law-makers in our own countries so that they do not try to introduce similar restrictions as in France or US. In Poland, for instance, a protest led by one of the big pro-Linux portals and thousands of computer users made the leading party to abandon the project to introduce a DMCA-like law in Poland. Free-software supporters in other countries, like the United Kingdom go even further and try to completely ban the use of DRM in the British law system.
Of course, breaking the restrictions is fighting the results, not the causes. The real problem is the pure fact that DRM exists and is widely accepted by the (unaware) majority. If the computer users do not unite and protest against including DRM in more and more products, nobody will, and the DRM will become our every-day experience which we will need to fight just like viruses or malware. This year may be the one in which the major decision will be made both by the industry (whether or not to apply DRM in the products) and by the customers (whether or not accept DRM as is). If we miss this fight, we may have to accept what we get. I don?t think we can afford missing it. Do you?
Original article with all links http://polishlinux.org/gnu/drm-vista-and-your-rights/
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. January 2007 @ 11:17 |
Link to this message
|
Microsoft announces extended support for XP poop home
1/24/2007 12:03:26 PM, by Jeremy Reimer
Today, as Microsoft prepares for the consumer release of Windows Vista, the Redmond-based software company quietly announced that they are adding additional support for Windows XP Home Edition and Windows XP Media Center Edition (MCE). With this announcement, XP and XP MCE will be covered by five years of Mainstream Support (ending in April 2009) and five more years of Extended Support. This move matches the support timeline that had previously been offered for Windows XP Professional.
According to Microsoft's software support policy, "Mainstream" support includes paid, per-incident support, security updates, non-security related hotfixes, no-charge incident support, warranty claims, design changes, and feature requests (it's pretty unlikely that these will be honored for XP at this point, but it's in there), and access to information about the product through the Microsoft Knowledge Base and other online support areas. The "Extended" support phase drops non-security hotfixes, no-charge incident support, warranty claims, and feature requests.
Continuing support for older operating systems and applications in this way is not a new thing for Microsoft: the company officially supported Windows 98 until June 2006, extending their initial extended support deadline from January 2004 after receiving numerous requests from users.
Despite this history of extending support for older products, Microsoft?like any software company?is sometimes accused of threatening to remove support in order to convince people to purchase new versions of their products. While it is true that Microsoft wants to promote its new offerings as vigorously as possible, especially Windows Vista, its history of extending support periods shows that Microsoft isn't in the business of forcing customers into upgrades by yanking the carpet out from under them.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070124-8691.html
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. January 2007 @ 11:18 |
Link to this message
|
Apple DRM illegal in Norway: Ombudsman
Fairplay not playing fair
By OUT-LAW.COM → More by this author
Published Wednesday 24th January 2007 16:56 GMT
Research Library - All papers free to download
Apple's digital rights management lock on its iPod device and iTunes software is illegal, the Consumer Ombudsman in Norway has ruled. The blow follows the news that Germany and France are joining Norway's action against Apple.
The Norwegian Consumer Council, Forbrukerradet, lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman on behalf of Norwegian consumers claiming that the Fairplay DRM system acted against the interests of consumers. It said the fact the technology stopped songs bought from iTunes being played on any player other than an iPod broke the law in Norway.
The Ombudsman has now agreed, according to Torgeir Waterhouse, senior advisor at the Consumer Council.
"It doesn't get any clearer than this. Fairplay is an illegal lock-in technology whose main purpose is to lock the consumers to the total package provided by Apple by blocking interoperability," Waterhouse told OUT-LAW.COM. "For all practical purposes this means that iTunes Music Store is trying to kill off one the most important building blocks in a well functioning digital society, interoperability, in order to boost its own profits."
Waterhouse said the Ombudsman has written to Apple to say it believes that Apple's Fairplay system is illegal. "iTunes Music Store must remove its illegal lock-in technology or appear in court," he said. "As of right now we're heading for a big breakthrough that will hopefully pave the way for consumers everywhere to regain control of music they legally purchase."
The Consumer Council believes Apple has only three options: it can license Fairplay to any manufacturer that wants iTunes songs to play on its machines; it can co-develop an open standard with other companies; or it can abandon DRM altogether.
The Ombudsman has also backed the Consumer Council's claim that the DRM technology is not simply a copy protection scheme. The Council had argued that in restricting consumers' use of music so heavily the technology broke contract law in Norway.
"The Ombudsman has confirmed our claim that the DRM must be considered part of the contract terms and not a copy protection scheme only," said Waterhouse. "This means that under the Norwegian Marketing Control Act the DRM must provide balanced and fair rights to the consumer when they purchase music form iTunes Music Store and similar download services."
"Apple is aware of the concerns we've heard from several agencies in Europe and we're looking forward to resolving these issues as quickly as possible," Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr told AP news agency earlier this week. "Apple hopes that European governments will encourage a competitive environment that lets innovation thrive, protects intellectual property and allows consumers to decide which products are successful."
OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.
Related links
Apple 'unmovable' on iPod lock-in
Apple requests secrecy in bid to keep iTunes legal in Scandinavia
Norway, Sweden, Denmark may fine Apple over iTunes
Related stories
RIAA talks flat fees, and how they turned the French (21 January 2007)
Apple to license FairPlay DRM? (17 January 2007)
Security, privacy and DRM: My wishes for 2007 (13 January 2007)
Apple iTunes Music Store sells 2bn songs (9 January 2007)
Sonos adds Windows Media DRM to multi-room music system (8 January 2007)
Apple fixes first-gen iPod Shuffle DRM playback glitch? (27 December 2006)
With a blanket license, will CDs get cheaper? (12 December 2006)
iTunes sales 'collapsing' (11 December 2006)
DVD Jon opens Apple DRM for profit and pleasure (2 October 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/24/...egal_in_norway/
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. January 2007 @ 11:20
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. January 2007 @ 11:29 |
Link to this message
|
BSA spying on BitTorrent
p2pnet.net News:- BitTorrent traffic is being monitored. But not by the RIAA, says Nick Haywood on Hexus.
"We know that this isn't new to some of our USA readers," he says, going on, "The difference here is that we have had a report that a user of UK ISP Pipex has been contacted over downloading 'unlicensed copies of copyrighted computer programs'. Hmmm.
ISPs are not, however, the culprits. Doing the dirty is the BSA (Business Software Alliance) which, "watches all traffic and it sees what IPs are contributing or downloading from various sites," says the story.
"It will then do a look-up and follow a route of action, starting with an email to the ISP who have a legal obligation to pass on the email associated with the the IP connection. If, however, the ISPs don't contact the customer then they will be held liable for contributory infringement."
Now, "it's clear that the BSA are getting serious and will be clamping down on folks who continue to download in volume from flagged peer-to-peer networks," warns Haywood, going on that an email from the BSA to tincludes the IP, the Protocol, the Asset being downloaded, the EXACT file name and the DNS address of the connection (and date/time stamp, too).
He quotes the Pipex 'rectify within seven days or else' missive to its customer:
We have received a complaint regarding an allegation of Copyright Infringement.
We were supplied an IP address of the system that was sharing the alleged copyrighted material, which we traced to your PIPEX ADSL account.
As I am sure you are aware, this breaches our Acceptable Use Policy, (http://www.pipex.net/legal/aup/ ) and many copyright laws, namely the Berne Convention.
"Will we see the RIAA-style snoop attack flowing forward?" - wonders Hexus.
Stay tuned.
http://p2pnet.net/story/11115?PHPSESSID=a0289aee173a41765b3f6cbcf
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. January 2007 @ 11:48 |
Link to this message
|
Everybody is invited to test this beta:
http://sandbox.slysoft.com/SetupAnyDVD6112.exe
The "Saw III (R1)" issue has not been addressed, I am waiting for my original disc to arrive.
From customer reports:
You can copy "Saw III (R1)" full disc with CloneDVD2 when deselecting the "bogus" titles.
You can copy "Saw III (R1)" movie with CloneDVD2 when deselecting with or without menus.
If you want to use another compression program, use CloneDVD2 to rip to harddisk (select DVD-DL as output size, so CloneDVD will not compress).
6.1.1.2 2007 01 24
- New: Added support for new versions of the SONY Arccos protection
to the option to remove "Protection based on unreadable Sectors"
- New: Added workaround for some drives (e.g. TSSTCORP DVD-ROM
SH-D162C) where disc insertion was not always correctly detected
by AnyDVD and decryption would not work.
- New: Added UDF 2.5 support to the UDF parser.
- New: AnyDVD status window shows larger volume names
- New: Recognizes HD-DVD video discs and correctly displays
HD-DVD volume names
- Fix: Removing Sony Arccos at the end of a title did sometimes
caused a "Navigation Pack error" or could cause the title to
disappear completely in elby CloneDVD.
- Fix: Short titles with read errors (Arccos) at the end of the file
were not handled correctly (e.g., special features in "Mirrormask",
Germany)
- Fix: Bug introduced in 6.1.0.7, disc recognition did not work
correctly
- Fix: Bug introduced in 6.1.0.7, driver could switch into safe mode
without reason
- Some minor fixes and improvements
__________________
James
SlySoft products
|
Senior Member
|
24. January 2007 @ 12:34 |
Link to this message
|
I'm still waiting for AnyDVD to send me that new update, do scared to downlaod the beta version, some people had trouble with it, anyway clone and AnyDVD cant do saw3, hope AnyDVD sends the update soon.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. January 2007 @ 12:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
i installed the beta,and had no problems with it on xp-poop or windows 2000...
and i never seen a report of any problems with any of the betas 6011 and 6112..
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
24. January 2007 @ 12:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
yeah there was a couple of reports on the saw3 thread with the beta version, though mostly didnt have a problem, just be my luck I could be one of the few and not be able to fix it, so I'm a gonna wait I guess.
|
|
