VERY,VERY HOT READS, I Would Read The News In This Thread This Thead Is To post Any Thing Ye Want About The News,,NEWS WAS MOVED,READ MY FIRST POST..CHEERS
p2p news / p2pnet: Fifteen-year-old Elisa Greubel made headlines when she contacted Nettwerk music artist MC Lars to say she identified with 'Download This Song,' a track from his then latest release.
That was because the Big Four record labels, Warner Music, Vivendi Universal, EMI and Sony BMG, were trying extort a lot of money from her father, David, for supposedly sharing nine copyrighted songs online.
MC Lars passed Elisa's message to Canada's Terry McBride, who runs Nettwerk, and he decided, "Suing music fans isn't the solution, it?s the problem," as he told p2pnet in a recent Q&A.
So he promised to pick up the Greubel's legal bill.
Now a new motion has been made to have a copyright infringement case brought by the Big Four's RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has been made in Texas, says Recording Industry vs The People.
In it, Greubel states:
* The RIAA's attempt to recover $750 per song, while its actual damages are only 99 cents per song, is unconstitutional;
* Since 2003 the RIAA has been actively engaged in "extortive and predatory litigation tactics" and misused the Courts to "create a veil of fear designed to frighten average consumers into paying thousands of dollars in settlements to avoid prolonged litigation";
* The RIAA's pleadings are "smoke and mirrors";
* The complaint lacks sufficient specificity;
* Tthe "distribution right" upon which the RIAA vaguely relies does not apply to electronic transmissions; and
* Even if it did, the mere act of making sound recordings available online does not constitute an actionable infringement.
Go here for the full document.
And definitely stay tuned.
Also See:
recent Q&A - p2pnet talks to Nettwerk Music, February 14, 2006
Recording Industry vs The People - Motion to Dismiss Made in Texas in Arista v. Greubel, February 26, 2005
Motion to Dismiss Made in Texas in Arista v. Greubel
A new dismissal motion has been made, this time in Texas, in Arista Records v. Greubel, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.
In his motion papers Mr. Greubel argues that:
-the RIAA's attempt to recover $750 per song, while its actual damages are only 99 cents per song, is unconstitutional;
-since 2003 the RIAA has been actively engaged in "extortive and predatory litigation tactics" and misused the Courts to "create a veil of fear designed to frighten average consumers into paying thousands of dollars in settlements to avoid prolonged litigation";
-the RIAA's pleadings are "smoke and mirrors";
-the complaint lacks sufficient specificity;
-the "distribution right" upon which the RIAA vaguely relies does not apply to electronic transmissions; and
-even if it did, the mere act of making sound recordings available online does not constitute an actionable infringement.
Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Published at Internet Law & Regulation)
Keywords: copyright download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists RIAA independent mp3 cd favorite songs
Posted by Ray Beckerman @ 2/26/2006 05:45:00 PM Link to this Post (Will change if updated in subsequent month)
Comments:
Ray what do you think about the motion to dismiss? does it make sense to you? do you think the judge would find it made sense and would dismiss it?
It makes sense to me however, I have noticed that the judges seem reluctant to ever dismiss these cases under any circumstances, although if one judge does then it could make the RIAA think twice next time.
# posted by Oli : 6:37 PM
Dear oli,
I thought it was excellent.
It absolutely does make sense, and if the judge rules correctly, it will be granted, and the case thrown out.
There is only one dismissal motion of which I am aware that has been ruled on to date, so I don't see how you can have discerned a trend yet.
There is a long and clearcut tradition of what constitutes proper pleading of a copyright infringement case, and the RIAA's boilerplate -- identical in about 19,000 cases -- is not it.
Best regards,
Ray
# posted by Ray Beckerman : 6:58 PM
There was also a dismissal motion in BMG v. Conklin, in Houston, but that one doesn't really count -- it was a litigant who didn't have a lawyer, didn't fully brief the motion. Also the judge didn't say what the ruling was based on.
# posted by Ray Beckerman : 6:59 PM
Sorry my statement wasn't based on fact it was more a broad sweeping "feeling" that the system is against everyone but the recording industry!
It is in fact good to know that what I thought was the case it not! so thanks for pointing that out! But I was also thinking of your dismissal motion with the Santangelo case - but maybe I am confused with the type of different motions.
I wonder what the RIAA's lawyers would have to say about the motion and if it is dismissed would that mean that everycase that was brought could and should be dismissed by a precedent being set? and would there be a way to appeal any decision that the court made on the motion for either party?
# posted by Oli : 7:25 PM
The Santangelo motion is the one dismissal motion I was referring to.
There are several others in the pipleline, but we don't know their outcome yet: Maverick v. Goldshteyn, Elektra v. Barker, Arista v. Greubel. There's also one pending in Atlantic v. Andersen and another pending in Minnesota.
# posted by Ray Beckerman : 11:07 AM
As to what's binding, it's only binding if it's from an appeals court, and then it's binding on every district court within its purview. A decision from a circuit court is binding on every district court within that circuit. If the US Supreme Court says it, then it's binding on all the federal courts.
If, e.g., the motion in Elektra v. Barker is granted.... the RIAA appeals... the Second Circuit affirms... the US Supreme Court denies cert.... then the 2d Cir. decision will be binding on every district court in the 2d Cir. If on the other hand the US Sup. Ct. granted cert, and affirmed, then it would be the law.
# posted by Ray Beckerman : 11:11 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
# RSS Feed For This Site
Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman.
We are lawyers in New York City. We practice law at Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP.
Through the Electronic Frontier Foundation we and our firm have undertaken to represent people in our area who have been sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for having computers whose internet accounts were used to open up peer-to-peer file sharing accounts.
We find these cases to be oppressive and unfair, as large multinational corporations gang up, in a cartel, to misuse the federal courts and sue ordinary working people for thousands of dollars.
We have set up this blog in order to collect evidence and input about these oppressive lawsuits.
We hope you will find it useful.
If you have information relating to the music industry litigation which you feel would be appropriate for publication here, please send it to musiclitigation@earthlink.net
p2p news / p2pnet: Canada's Nettwerk Music Group, based in Vancouver on the British Columbia mainland, manages some of North America?s best-known artists, including Sarah McLachlan and Avril Lavigne. It's also a member of the Big Four record label cartel's RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).
But that doesn't mean the man who runs it, Terry McBride, is a fool. To the contrary, in fact, and like p2pnet, based on Vancouver Island in BC, he's doing his best to help an American family which is being pilloried by the RIAA.
In August, 2005, the RIAA, subpoenaed David Greubel for alleged file sharing, accusing him of having 600 suspect music files on the family computer, but targeting only nine specific songs.
Nettwerk got into it when 15 year-old Elisa Greubel contacted MC Lars, a Nettwerk artist, to say she identified with 'Download This Song,' a track from MC Lars' latest release.
"My family is one of many seemingly randomly chosen families to be sued by the RIAA," Emily emailed MC Lars. "No fun. You can't fight them, trying could possibly cost us millions.
"The line 'they sue little kids downloading hit songs', basically sums a lot of the whole thing up."
But, "Suing music fans isn't the solution, it?s the problem,? says McBride.
He answered a few questions for p2pnet during which he said although he's behind the Greubels, "it's not about winning the case: it's about stopping all the litigation. Period. That's my focus."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
p2pnet: How far are you willing to go with this?
McBride: As far as we need to in order to save the music business from itself.
p2pnet: Have you had any feedback from any of the artists you represent other than MC Lars?
McBride: Yes ... all supportive. All have gotten behind this.
p2pnet: Bob Lefsetz says, " Nettwerk manages such international superstars as Sarah McLachlan, Avri Lavigne and Dido. Along with middle tier acts like the aforementioned Barenaked Ladies, Sum 41 and Jars of Clay. And DEVELOPING acts like Brand New. Isn't this JUST the kind of guy who should be lining up behind Mitch Bainwol and the RIAA?
McBride: Why? .... we're members of the RIAA, but that doesn't mean that I can't disagree with them, which on this subject I do
Lefsetz ...... I mean Terry McBride is IN BED with the major labels. Doesn't Nettwerk function as the A&R for Sony BMG in Canada now??
McBride: Yes. We have and A&R deal to help Artists who want to be on a major label.
p2pnet: Lefsetz also says, "But Terry McBride is drawing the line. Because Terry McBride knows it's about fans, and careers, and what the RIAA is doing is eviscerating both. The fans are the present and the future ... it's been that way for decades, as has the sharing of music, its essential to the fabric." Is that how it is?
McBride: We love what we do. We're creative people with infinite imaginations. Litigation is destructive and has no place in the world.
p2pnet: Have any other production company people said they'd do the same as you?
McBride: Martin Mills from Beggar's in the UK.
p2pnet: What's your personal feeling about p2p, file sharing and the online music scene?
McBride: I think p2p should be a vibrant part of the on-line music scene, not bastardized.
p2pnet: Do you agree that $1 and up is a fair price for a download?
McBride: No higher than $1.
p2pnet: How do you think the labels should be dealing with Elisa and others like her?
McBride: The Labels should stop these actions.
p2pnet: Do you have a message for Mitch Bainwol and his colleagues?
McBride: Yes. Stop litigating. You're ruining my artists' futures.
Denise Barker is one of the few file-swappers sued by the RIAA who has taken her fight to court. Elektra v. Barker is an interesting case for several reasons, including the fact that the RIAA wants to argue that simply making files available (even if they're not actually downloaded) constitutes infringement. The EFF has just weighed in on the case by filing an amicus brief with the court. Rather than address all the issues raised by the case, the brief tries instead to make only a single point: sharing music files does not infringe the "distribution right" granted to copyright holders.
Under US law, copyright owners are the only ones authorized "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." The EFF argues (PDF) that such "copies or phonorecords" only include physical objects such as cassettes, CDs, or a user's hard drive.
When defining the right, Congress deliberately chose not to define the right expansively as a right to distribute the copyrighted work, but instead limited it to encompass only the distribution of copies or phonorecords of the work. ... This distinction is critical, as the Copyright Act defines both "copies" and "phonorecords" as "material objects" in which copyrighted works are fixed.
The issue is important because the RIAA has generally sued file-swappers both for violating the music labels' right of reproduction and their right of distribution. In their brief, the EFF fully grants that the labels can sue file-swappers for illicit reproduction, but they argue that no distribution is actually taking place. Only if a user burned the songs onto a CD and sent it to the other party could he be accused of distribution, in their view.
It sounds like an arcane point, especially since it does not bear on the issue of whether file-swappers are guilty of breaking the law, but it's important because it shows the RIAA trying to extend the idea of "distribution rights" into the digital domain without explicit legal authorization from Congress. The goal, in the EFF's view, is simply to grab power.
"Why does it matter? If transmission plus reproduction equals distribution, then suddenly lots of people start looking like distributors. When XM and Sirius sell you a receiver that can record their broadcasts, or Comcast provides DVRs to subscribers, they might find themselves running afoul of this new, expanded "distribution right." This, in turn, would give the movie and music industries another weapon in their fight against new technologies."
The RIAA has now sued nearly 20,000 people, and in many of those cases has made the claim that both reproduction and distribution were taking place. Since most cases are settled without going to court, the EFF is worried that the distribution claim is going unchallenged, and they are now doing their best to stop it. This probably won't help Ms. Barker much, as she stills stands accused of reproducing copyrighted files, but it may curtail the use of one of the RIAA's favored legal weapons.
By INQUIRER staff: Tuesday 28 February 2006, 14:27
HARD DRIVE maker Seagate said it will release three units designed specifically for the video surveillance market this April.
The 160GB, 250GB and 500GB SV35 drives will allow for up to 23 days of continuous recording, it claimed.
And Seagate said video surveillance systems are rapidly shifting from tape to hard drive systems, with software helping to analyse high resolution images.
How to bypass your BIOS Password
This is a keeper. I run into this every once in a while and I always ended up pulling the battery.
- Basic BIOS password crack
Basic BIOS password crack - works 9.9 times out of ten
This is a password hack but it clears the BIOS such that the next time you start the PC, the CMOS does not ask for any password. Now if you are able to bring the DOS prompt up, then you will be able to change the BIOS setting to the default. To clear the CMOS do the following:
Get DOS prompt and type:
DEBUG hit enter
-o 70 2e hit enter
-o 71 ff hit enter
-q hit enter
exit hit enter
Restart the computer. It works on most versions of the AWARD BIOS.
Basic BIOS password crack - works 9.9 times out of ten
This is a password hack but it clears the BIOS such that the next time you start the PC, the CMOS does not ask for any password. Now if you are able to bring the DOS prompt up, then you will be able to change the BIOS setting to the default. To clear the CMOS do the following:
Get DOS prompt and type:
DEBUG hit enter
-o 70 2e hit enter
-o 71 ff hit enter
-q hit enter
exit hit enter
Restart the computer. It works on most versions of the AWARD BIOS.
Accessing information on the hard disk
When you turn on the host machine, enter the CMOS setup menu (usually you have to press F2, or DEL, or CTRL+ALT+S during the boot sequence) and go to STANDARD CMOS SETUP, and set the channel to which you have put the hard disk as TYPE=Auto, MODE=AUTO, then SAVE & EXIT SETUP. Now you have access to the hard disk.
Standard BIOS backdoor passwords
The first, less invasive, attempt to bypass a BIOS password is to try on of these standard manufacturer's backdoor passwords:
AWARD BIOS
AWARD SW, AWARD_SW, Award SW, AWARD PW, _award, awkward, J64, j256, j262, j332, j322, 01322222, 589589, 589721, 595595, 598598, HLT, SER, SKY_FOX, aLLy, aLLY, Condo, CONCAT, TTPTHA, aPAf, HLT, KDD, ZBAAACA, ZAAADA, ZJAAADC, djonet, %øåñòü ïpîáåëîâ%, %äåâÿòü ïpîáåëîâ%
AMI BIOS
AMI, A.M.I., AMI SW, AMI_SW, BIOS, PASSWORD, HEWITT RAND, Oder
Other passwords you may try (for AMI/AWARD or other BIOSes)
LKWPETER, lkwpeter, BIOSTAR, biostar, BIOSSTAR, biosstar, ALFAROME, Syxz, Wodj
Note that the key associated to "_" in the US keyboard corresponds to "?" in some European keyboards (such as Italian and German ones), so -- for example -- you should type AWARD?SW when using those keyboards. Also remember that passwords are Case Sensitive. The last two passwords in the AWARD BIOS list are in Russian.
Flashing BIOS via software
If you have access to the computer when it's turned on, you could try one of those programs that remove the password from the BIOS, by invalidating its memory.
However, it might happen you don't have one of those programs when you have access to the computer, so you'd better learn how to do manually what they do. You can reset the BIOS to its default values using the MS-DOS tool DEBUG (type DEBUG at the command prompt. You'd better do it in pure MS-DOS mode, not from a MS-DOS shell window in Windows). Once you are in the debug environment enter the following commands:
AMI/AWARD BIOS
O 70 17
O 71 17
Q
PHOENIX BIOS
O 70 FF
O 71 17
Q
GENERIC
Invalidates CMOS RAM.
Should work on all AT motherboards
(XT motherboards don't have CMOS)
O 70 2E
O 71 FF
Q
Note that the first letter is a "O" not the number "0". The numbers which follow are two bytes in hex format.
Flashing BIOS via hardware
If you can't access the computer when it's on, and the standard backdoor passwords didn't work, you'll have to flash the BIOS via hardware. Please read the important notes at the end of this section before to try any of these methods.
Using the jumpers
The canonical way to flash the BIOS via hardware is to plug, unplug, or switch a jumper on the motherboard (for "switching a jumper" I mean that you find a jumper that joins the central pin and a side pin of a group of three pins, you should then unplug the jumper and then plug it to the central pin and to the pin on the opposite side, so if the jumper is normally on position 1-2, you have to put it on position 2-3, or vice versa). This jumper is not always located near to the BIOS, but could be anywhere on the motherboard.
To find the correct jumper you should read the motherboard's manual.
Once you've located the correct jumper, switch it (or plug or unplug it, depending from what the manual says) while the computer is turned OFF. Wait a couple of seconds then put the jumper back to its original position. In some motherboards it may happen that the computer will automatically turn itself on, after flashing the BIOS. In this case, turn it off, and put the jumper back to its original position, then turn it on again. Other motherboards require you turn the computer on for a few seconds to flash the BIOS.
If you don't have the motherboard's manual, you'll have to "brute force" it... trying out all the jumpers. In this case, try first the isolated ones (not in a group), the ones near to the BIOS, and the ones you can switch (as I explained before). If all them fail, try all the others. However, you must modify the status of only one jumper per attempt, otherwise you could damage the motherboard (since you don't know what the jumper you modified is actually meant for). If the password request screen still appear, try another one.
If after flashing the BIOS, the computer won't boot when you turn it on, turn it off, and wait some seconds before to retry.
Removing the battery
If you can't find the jumper to flash the BIOS or if such jumper doesn't exist, you can remove the battery that keeps the BIOS memory alive. It's a button-size battery somewhere on the motherboard (on elder computers the battery could be a small, typically blue, cylinder soldered to the motherboard, but usually has a jumper on its side to disconnect it, otherwise you'll have to unsolder it and then solder it back). Take it away for 15-30 minutes or more, then put it back and the data contained into the BIOS memory should be volatilized. I'd suggest you to remove it for about one hour to be sure, because if you put it back when the data aren't erased yet you'll have to wait more time, as you've never removed it. If at first it doesn't work, try to remove the battery overnight.
Important note: in laptop and notebooks you don't have to remove the computer's power batteries (which would be useless), but you should open your computer and remove the CMOS battery from the motherboard.
Short-circuiting the chip
Another way to clear the CMOS RAM is to reset it by short circuiting two pins of the BIOS chip for a few seconds. You can do that with a small piece of electric wire or with a bent paper clip. Always make sure that the computer is turned OFF before to try this operation.
Here is a list of EPROM chips that are commonly used in the BIOS industry. You may find similar chips with different names if they are compatible chips made by another brand. If you find the BIOS chip you are working on matches with one of the following you can try to short-circuit the appropriate pins. Be careful, because this operation may damage the chip.
CHIPS P82C206 (square)
Short together pins 12 and 32 (the first and the last pins on the bottom edge of the chip) or pins 74 and 75 (the two pins on the upper left corner).
gnd
74
|__________________
5v 75--| |
| |
| |
| CHIPS |
1 * | |
| P82C206 |
| |
| |
|___________________|
| |
| gnd | 5v
12 32
OPTi F82C206 (rectangular)
Short together pins 3 and 26 (third pin from left side and fifth pin from right side on the bottom edge).
80 51
|______________|
81 -| |- 50
| |
| |
| OPTi |
| |
| F82C206 |
| |
100-|________________|-31
|| | |
1 || | | 30
3 26
Dallas DS1287, DS1287A
Benchmarq bp3287MT, bq3287AMT
The Dallas DS1287 and DS1287A, and the compatible Benchmarq bp3287MT and bq3287AMT chips have a built-in battery. This battery should last up to ten years. Any motherboard using these chips should not have an additional battery (this means you can't flash the BIOS by removing a battery). When the battery fails, the RTC chip would be replaced.
CMOS RAM can be cleared on the 1287A and 3287AMT chips by shorting pins 12 and 21.
The 1287 (and 3287MT) differ from the 1287A in that the CMOS RAM can't be cleared. If there is a problem such as a forgotten password, the chip must be replaced. (In this case it is recommended to replace the 1287 with a 1287A). Also the Dallas 12887 and 12887A are similar but contain twice as much CMOS RAM storage.
__________
1 -| * U |- 24 5v
2 -| |- 23
3 -| |- 22
4 -| |- 21 RCL (RAM Clear)
5 -| |- 20
6 -| |- 19
7 -| |- 18
8 -| |- 17
9 -| |- 16
10 -| |- 15
11 -| |- 14
gnd 12 -|__________|- 13
NOTE: Although these are 24-pin chips,
the Dallas chips may be missing 5 pins,
these are unused pins.
Most chips have unused pins,
though usually they are still present.
Dallas DS12885S
Benchmarq bq3258S
Hitachi HD146818AP
Samsung KS82C6818A
This is a rectangular 24-pin DIP chip, usually in a socket. The number on the chip should end in 6818.
Although this chip is pin-compatible with the Dallas 1287/1287A, there is no built-in battery.
Short together pins 12 and 24.
5v
24 20 13
|___________|____________________|
| |
| DALLAS |
|> |
| DS12885S |
| |
|__________________________________|
| |
1 12
gnd
Motorola MC146818AP
Short pins 12 and 24. These are the pins on diagonally opposite corners - lower left and upper right. You might also try pins 12 and 20.
__________
1 -| * U |- 24 5v
2 -| |- 23
3 -| |- 22
4 -| |- 21
5 -| |- 20
6 -| |- 19
7 -| |- 18
8 -| |- 17
9 -| |- 16
10 -| |- 15
11 -| |- 14
gnd 12 -|__________|- 13
Replacing the chip
If nothing works, you could replace the existing BIOS chip with a new one you can buy from your specialized electronic shop or your computer supplier. It's a quick operation if the chip is inserted on a base and not soldered to the motherboard, otherwise you'll have to unsolder it and then put the new one. In this case would be more convenient to solder a base on which you'll then plug the new chip, in the eventuality that you'll have to change it again. If you can't find the BIOS chip specifically made for your motherboard, you should buy one of the same type (probably one of the ones shown above) and look in your motherboard manufacturer's website to see if there's the BIOS image to download. Then you should copy that image on the chip you bought with an EPROM programmer.
Important
Whether is the method you use, when you flash the BIOS not only the password, but also all the other configuration data will be reset to the factory defaults, so when you are booting for the first time after a BIOS flash, you should enter the CMOS configuration menu (as explained before) and fix up some things.
Also, when you boot Windows, it may happen that it finds some new device, because of the new configuration of the BIOS, in this case you'll probably need the Windows installation CD because Windows may ask you for some external files. If Windows doesn't see the CD-ROM try to eject and re-insert the CD-ROM again. If Windows can't find the CD-ROM drive and you set it properly from the BIOS config, just reboot with the reset key, and in the next run Windows should find it. However most files needed by the system while installing new hardware could also be found in C:WINDOWS, C:WINDOWSSYSTEM, or C:WINDOWSINF .
Key Disk for Toshiba laptops
Some Toshiba notebooks allow to bypass BIOS by inserting a "key-disk" in the floppy disk drive while booting. To create a Toshiba Keydisk, take a 720Kb or 1.44Mb floppy disk, format it (if it's not formatted yet), then use a hex editor such as Hex Workshop to change the first five bytes of the second sector (the one after the boot sector) and set them to 4B 45 59 00 00 (note that the first three bytes are the ASCII for "KEY" followed by two zeroes). Once you have created the key disk put it into the notebook's drive and turn it on, then push the reset button and when asked for password, press Enter. You will be asked to Set Password again. Press Y and Enter. You'll enter the BIOS configuration where you can set a new password.
Key protected cases
A final note about those old computers (up to 486 and early Pentiums) protected with a key that prevented the use of the mouse and the keyboard or the power button. All you have to do with them is to follow the wires connected to the key hole, locate the jumper to which they are connected and unplug it.
AACS Interim Agreement to phase out analogue from 2010
Posted by Seán Byrne on 01 March 2006 - 00:31 - Source: Ars Technica
As expected, the AACS Interim Agreement covers the ability to allow content owners to decide which high definition outputs their content may put out on during playback. Unfortunately, the AACS license gets much worse, as it also forces a gradual phasing out of analogue outputs and support starting from 2010 until January 2014, from which the license will prohibit the sale of any equipment that decodes AACS with any analogue output.
Beginning 2010, manufacturers will need to start scaling back their analogue support, which likely means that equipment will need to feature a means of disabling HDTV output over analogue in 2011. From December 31st 2010, any equipment that decrypts AACS will only be permitted to output standard definition interlaced video over any analogue output. During this time, models before 2010 can only be sold if they can be reconfigured to enforce the standard definition interlace limitation. Finally, after December 31st, 2013, all equipment must be free of any analogue outputs in order to be compliant with the AACS license.
While 2013 seems a long way ahead yet, some estimate that there will potentially be up to 40 million homes with TVs that cannot handle any form of Digital TV. As a result, the peak sales for AACS enabled players will likely be just before the process of phasing out the analogue outputs. On the other hand, by phasing out analogue outputs on the next generation of DVD players (both HD DVD and Blu-ray use AACS), the movie industry aims to make it clear that TV manufacturers will need to start putting HDMI inputs in all of its models and that customers should avoid buying any TV that lacks a HDMI input.
While much attention has been paid to how next-gen digital formats won't play on many HD-capable displays, including TVs, we're only now getting a look at AACS's other foibles. The agreement, in its current form, requires that manufacturers cease selling any devices capable of analog video output which pass decrypted AACS content after December 31, 2013. Furthermore, a "sunset" period will begin in 2010, during which time manufacturers will need to scale back their analog support. Existing player models of any (compliant) sort may be sold up to December 31, 2011, with one catch: any device manufactured between December 31, 2010 and the ultimate cutoff date in 2013 must have its analog outputs limited to SD interlace modes only (Composite, S-Video, 480 component, and possible 576i component [the latter will be addressed in the final version of the license]). Older models can also be sold if the manufacturer can programmatically enforce this SD interlace mode limitation.
The full source article can be read here.
While 2013 seems quite a while ahead, I cannot imagine everyone interested in buying a new HD DVD or Blu-ray player suddenly rushing out to buy a new TV starting 2014, particularly if their TV is currently just new but lacks HDCP support or features analogue inputs only. If new players start requiring consumers to fork out on new TV sets, chances are that a lot of consumers are going to stick with the DVD format or what else they have until it does come to the stage where their TV has reached its ?end of life?.
Forcing the analog sunset: the ugly side of the HD revolution
2/24/2006 11:01:41 AM, by Ken "Caesar" Fisher
As reported last week, AACS is a "go." Short for Advanced Access Content System, AACS is a kind of successor to CSS; the specification is being adopted by both HD DVD and Blu-ray for the purposes of securing commercial video content stored on those mechanisms. AACS is far broader than CSS, but that need not concern us now. What I would like to draw some attention to today is the fact that AACS also has some important off-disc ramifications.
The AACS Interim Agreement is a 106-page set of rules for those who wish to license AACS, a list that would presumably include consumer electronics manufacturers and many other technology companies. Although AACS includes, among other things, the ability to allow content owners to determine what kinds of outputs HD video is directed towards, the license also includes a forced sunset for most of those outputs. Put simply, AACS licensees must eliminate analog outputs on consumer electronics devices by 2013 to remain in compliance with the license. Forced obsolescence it is.
The so-called "analog hole" is the bane of Hollywood's attempt to control your entertainment life; put succinctly, if you can hear it or see it on today's consumer electronics devices, you can copy it, with rare exception. The reason is that sooner or later, most signals are converted to analog, and most analog playback devices lack DRM, and analog signals themselves are not particularly well suited to DRM control. Hollywood hates the analog hole, and they have introduced some shocking legislation to shut it down.
While much attention has been paid to how next-gen digital formats won't play on many HD-capable displays, including TVs, we're only now getting a look at AACS's other foibles. The agreement, in its current form, requires that manufacturers cease selling any devices capable of analog video output which pass decrypted AACS content after December 31, 2013. Furthermore, a "sunset" period will begin in 2010, during which time manufacturers will need to scale back their analog support. Existing player models of any (compliant) sort may be sold up to December 31, 2011, with one catch: any device manufactured between December 31, 2010 and the ultimate cutoff date in 2013 must have its analog outputs limited to SD interlace modes only (Composite, S-Video, 480 component, and possible 576i component [the latter will be addressed in the final version of the license]). Older models can also be sold if the manufacturer can programmatically enforce this SD interlace mode limitation.
Brave, new future
2013 may seem like a long way away, and it is. For technology planners, it's not so far away, and this can be perhaps best illustrated when we consider the debates over the transition to digital TV in the United States. While the government is drooling in anticipation of the money it will make by selling the spectrum that is currently used by analog TV broadcasts, it's also realistic. The switch to digital TV won't happen until February of 2009, and even then, the government will provide millions in subsidies to homes that will need analog-to-digital converters to make the jump. Lawmakers know that February 2009 is an aggressive move date, but they believe that converters will make it possible to proceed without worrying about how old the TV technology among the populace is.
Put against this backdrop, a sunset for analog outputs beginning in 2011 begins to look questionable in terms of feasibility (leaving aside all other objections at the moment). With some estimating that as many as 40 million homes will lack the ability to receive digital TV signals, a parallel guesstimation can be made: similar (if not greater) numbers of homes will also lack televisions capable of handling protected digital inputs.
The end result will likely be a consumer rush to buy less-crippled players (you can't call them non-crippled because AACS cripples by definition) before the sunset period begins. Otherwise, come 2011, analog viewing on new players will be limited to SD interlaced quality, and on New Year's Day 2014, analog outputs will be a thing of the past. For the movie industry, then, 2014 is the year that the analog hole starts to walk the plank, as protected transmission comes to dominate. Such is their hope.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060224-6255.html
Late last week, MPAA technology wonk Brad Hunt gave a short talk to a group of movie industry folks at the Hollywood Post Alliance Tech Retreat. His topic? Filling the so-called analog hole, which allows users to move content between devices in accord with fair use, but is also seen as a front for piracy in defiance of digital rights management (DRM) plans. Although Hunt's position at the podium could probably be described as preaching to the choir, his comments were surprisingly not well-received.
Hunt talked up current legislation that would attempt to close the analog hole by adding a signal to analog content which would prevent recording of that content by any devices aware of the signal. The legislation would also make it illegal to sell or create any devices which bypass that signal-awareness.
The industry hopes those schemes will be easy for consumers to use. But when Hunt took questions from the audience, it was clear they were skeptical.
One questioner asked who would be responsible for the extensive consumer education needed. Hunt's answer ? that he hoped retailers would do it ? drew dubious groans.
The analog hole has existed at least since the earliest tape and wire recorders, and will probably continue to do so in some form as long as human sensory organs remain analog. Proposed schemes for closing it are fraught with difficulties. First, there could be as many as five different signals added to analog content, each of which would communicate a different level of copy permission, such as "don't copy," "copy once," "copy freely," etc. In an ideal world, such a signal would be transparent to consumers, yet apparent enough to machines to prevent recording by camera aimed at a TV or a microphone held up to a speaker?an unlikely scenario from a practical standpoint. Second, there will always need to be "professional devices" produced without artificial limitations, and historically it has been only a matter of time before those devices find their way into the consumer realm. Proposed legislation attempts to address that issue by declaring a device "consumer" if sales are too brisk.
So far, Congress has avoided wading too deeply into the analog hole issue, but Big Content is betting that continual lobbying on their part will eventually result in the buckling of enough legislators to see some or all of the industry's desires enacted into law. Ironically, these same content providers, having reaped the huge profit benefits brought by CD and DVD, now seek to legislatively limit technology?not to prevent piracy, as they claim, but to keep the profit supply flowing as they sell the same material to consumers over and over.
The final question summed up the problem: "This is a room full of people whose living depends on this working. You're getting pushback to the point of hostility. If you can't sell this to us, how are you going to sell it to the target 16-45 demographic?"
Hunt said the marketplace would ultimately sort it out.
Thanks to the AACS Interim Agreement, the use of analog in next-generation players is already facing a forced extinction by 2013. Should the current analog hole become plugged, consumers will be faced with the choice of spending their finite entertainment dollars on crippled content, or something else entirely. Perhaps that's what Hunt's detractors are afraid of.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060228-6290.html
Sony Pictures has announced that the Blu-ray revolution will formally kick off on May 23 in North America, targeting this date for the release of the first Blu-ray player from Samsung with flanking support from studios.
The eight Sony movies that will usher in Blu-ray are: 50 First Dates, The Fifth Element, Hitch, House of Flying Daggers, A Knight's Tale, The Last Waltz (MGM), Resident Evil Apocalypse and XXX. Three weeks later, on June 13, six additional titles will be released: Kung Fu Hustle, Legends of the Fall, Robocop (MGM), Stealth, Species (MGM), SWAT and Terminator (MGM). Other studios are currently preparing to announce their own launch titles.
"We are primed to ensure that a variety of Blu-ray Disc content is available at retail to support the introduction of the first BD players from Samsung Electronics and Pioneer, as well as the first BD player and compatible VAIO computer from Sony," said Mr. Feingold. "Sony Pictures further intends to provide additional titles to coincide with the launch of BD products from other manufacturers. We're thrilled that the Blu-ray Disc era is about to begin."
The price tag for the Blu-ray era may put a damper on the parade, however. Sony has already announced its wholesale pricing for its own movies, which we believe will put most titles in the $23 to $39 price range at launch. Sony is not setting "suggested retail pricing" on their offerings, leaving the retail sector to look for a sweet spot.
Lion's Gate Films has announced both their plans and retail pricing for the Blu-ray launch. The company is using two price tiers, $29.99 and $39.99, with the latter reserved for either new releases or "classics." At launch, Crash and Lord of War will weigh in at $39.99, with The Punisher and Terminator 2 priced at $29.99. Then sometime in the summer the company will release Reservoir Dogs, Total Recall, Stargate, and Frank Herbert's Dune for $29.99. The Devil's Rejects will be available at $39.99.
The trend here is clear: new(er) releases are coming out at $39.99, while releases from the catalog are $29.99. Competition in the retail space will result in both of these pricing tiers heading south, but when and how much? Consumers are used to seeing $25 price tags on hot, new DVD releases. Will HD be enough to push that well beyond $30 per movie? Or will studios have to lower their expectations?not to mention prices?to vitalize sales. With worldwide DVD sales slowing, Hollywood and friends are hoping that the HD revolution will breathe new life into this critical revenue stream.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060228-6282.html
Observations by astronomers tracking near-Earth asteroids have raised a new object to the top of the Earth-threat list.
The asteroid could strike the Earth in 2102. However, Don Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near Earth Object Program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, US, told New Scientist: "The most likely situation, by far, is that additional observations will bring it back down to a zero."
He adds: "We're more likely to be hit between now and then by an object that we don't know about."
On 23 February, new observations allowed researchers to more accurately calculate the orbit of the asteroid, named 2004 VD17, which was originally detected by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's LINEAR project. Since the improvement did not rule out a potential collision with the Earth on 4 May 2102, they increased the asteroid's rating to level 2 on the Torino Scale, a relatively rare event.
Degrees of danger
The Torino Scale, adopted in 1999, is akin to a Richter scale for asteroid impacts. The vast majority of the 4000 or so near-Earth objects (NEOs) detected so far have been assigned to level zero on the Torino scale, meaning they have "no likely consequences".
Level 1, colour-coded green, suggests a possible impact that "merits careful monitoring". Beyond that, the risk continues to rise along the scale ? levels 2, 3 and 4 are yellow; 5, 6 and 7 are orange; while 8, 9 and 10 earn red.
The highest level ever reached by an asteroid was level 4 by Apophis (2004 MN4) in December 2004, but subsequent calculations downgraded that concern to a level 1. So VD17 currently claims the top spot on NASA's online list of potential asteroid impacts.
Despite the rarity of the yellow designation, Yeomans says "Torino 2 is not very alarming." He notes that the scale does not take account of how soon an impact may occur, unlike its rival, the Palermo Scale.
Based on current observations, he says the asteroid has a 1 in 1600 chance of striking the Earth in 2102 and a 1 in 500,000 chance of hitting two years later.
But further observations by a worldwide network of professional and amateur asteroid hunters will soon refine the orbit calculation for VD17 ? and hopefully ease minds.
Smaller threats
Since 1998, NASA has had a US Congressional mandate to locate 90% of all NEOs of 1 kilometre or larger by 2008. Yeomans says that 830 out of a predicted 1100 have been found so far, along with thousands of smaller objects.
In the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, Congress directed the space agency to study and report back on the best way to cost-effectively locate 90% of all asteroids down to a diameter of just 140 metres. Yeomans says there are likely to be about 100,000 such NEOs.
Yeomans and Bill Bottke of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, were both members of a team that reported in 2003 that a survey to locate such small asteroids would be cost-effective, considering the damage an impact could cause. Bottke says the group found that "if you wanted to find 90% of the remaining hazard, it would cost roughly the same as a [$300 million] mission".
2004 VD17 is estimated to have a diameter of about 580 metres. An asteroid of that size would produce an impact crater about 10 kilometres wide and an earthquake of magnitude 7.4 if it struck land.
Comets and Asteroids - Learn more about the threat to human civilisation in our special report.
Print this pagePrint this page
Email to a friendEmail to a friend
RSS Feed
RIAA President coins new term for P2P scofflaws 'Songlifter'
Posted by Dan Bell on 01 March 2006 - 19:03 - Source: BetaNews
In a story over at BetaNews today, we learn a couple things. First, 3 men from the warez site "Apocalypse Crew" have plead and were found guilty by the United States Department of Justice on Tuesday in federal court, for the sharing of pre-release, but copyrighted music. In a comment by the DOJ, they said that the actions of the warez site administrators made the copyrighted content available: "to peer-to-peer and other public file sharing networks accessible to anyone with Internet access and potentially appearing for sale around the world," . Looks like they could get up to 5 years in prison, plus a 250,000 dollar fine to boot.
Then, we also learn that Cary Sherman, the latest President of the Recording Industry Artist Association, is waving the flag that the RIAA legal Jihad against the public is necessary, to ensure the future of legal music sites like iTunes.
In a separate action, the Record Industry Association of America announced it had filed another 750 lawsuits against unnamed individuals as part of its long-running legal efforts against P2P users. These "John Doe" suits include the individual's IP address, which the RIAA uses to discover his or her identity.
In a statement, RIAA president Cary Sherman hailed the lawsuits as protecting the integrity of the market so legal music services like iTunes can prosper. Sherman also coined a new phrase for those who download music illegally, likening them to retail shoplifters with the term "songlifter."
"Just as we continue to educate fans about the right ways to enjoy music online, we will continue to enforce our rights through the legal system. Songlifting is not without consequences," he said.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13137
DVD-R/RW takes lead as it prepares faster -R DL media Posted by Quakester2000 on 01 March 2006 - 21:00 - Source: Digitimes
D4rk0n3 used our news submit to tell us that plans are being put in place to start ramping up mass production of 8x -R Dual Layer media as well as compatible recorders for the second half of the year. The current speed of DVD-R Dual Layer media is currently 4x which trails behind the DVD+R standard which is currently 8x.The RW-PPI (Rewritable productions promotion initiative) under the DVD-Forum will for 2006 promote compatibility between recorders and players and the DVD-R, DVD-DL and DVD-RW format.
The RW-PPI representative Koki Aiwaza predicted that DVD recorders have significant growth opportunities for the next 2-3 years. Aizwaza also indicated that the DVD-R/RW format has overtaken the +R/RW format by taking 60% of the world market. Though in Europe this figure is reversed with the +R/RW format ahead with 60%.
Global demand for all types of DVD discs is expected to hit 5.5 billion this year.
DVD forum The RW PPI (Re-Writable Products Promotion Initiative) under the DVD Forum based in Japan is carrying out its M8 test plan to facilitate volume production of 8x DVD-R DL (single-sided double-layer) discs and the corresponding burners/recorders, according to RW PPI representative director Koki Aizawa at the organization?s round robin test seminar held in Taipei on February 23. Aizawa expects volume production of both 8x DVD-R DL discs and devices to begin in the second half of the year. The round robin test seminar, was sponsored by the Taiwan Recording-media Industries Association (TRIA) and took place in Taiwan for the third time.The writing speed for the DVD-R DL format is currently 4x, lower than the 8x for the DVD+R DL format. In addition to upgrading the writing speed, RW PPI will focus its 2006 promotion efforts on the compatibility between optical discs and recording/playback devices for DVD-R, DVD-R DL and DVD-RW formats, Aizawa pointed out.
This is because the global demand for DVD recorders will grow significantly over the next two to three years, Aizawa indicated DVD-R/RW discs have gained the upper hand against DVD+R/RW discs with a global market share of 60%, although the latter has 60% share of the European market, Aizawa pointed out. The global demand for all types of DVD discs will reach 5.5 billion discs this year, Aizawa indicated. RW PPI currently has 69 members around the world, including BenQ, Lite-On IT, CMC Magnetics, Ritek and Prodisc Technologyfrom Taiwan.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13138
Philips unveils the BDP9000 set top Blu-ray writer and media Posted by Dan Bell on 01 March 2006 - 16:55 - Source: HardwareZone
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13135 In what looks a lot like a press release, Hardware Zone is reporting some info on yet another Blu-ray device. This time it is from Philips and it's the set top model dubbed the BDP9000. Not only that, they are also releasing a triple writer for the PC and they have named it the SPD7000. The BDP9000 consumer player will be available in the US in the second half of 2006 and the TripleWriter (SPD7000) will be available in Europe and the US in the second half of 2006.
Below are the specs for the 7000, a mention of some medias and a picture of the BDP9000.
Philips new TripleWriter PC drive
The new Philips TripleWriter (SPD7000) showcases Philips? ability to integrate PC products and technologies into the consumer electronics realm. The drive features recording and playback capabilities of all popular optical storage formats including CD, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, which allows users to select their media of choice depending on the preferred application.
Philips? TripleWriter features a 2x (72 Mb/s continuous data-rate) read and write speed on BD-ROM, BD-R and BD-RE media. The drive reads and writes a variety of legacy media including CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-ROM, DVD+R, DVD+R DL, DVD-R, DVD-R DL, DVD+RW and DVD-RW. Additionally, Philips will launch four types of discs (BD-R and BD-RE, single layer 25 GB and dual layer BD-R and BD-RE 50 GB) together with the introduction of the TripleWriter. The TripleWriter can be built into any PCD featuring S-ATA interface.
Anyway, you can visit the Hardware Zone if you would like to read the article in it's entirety at the source. Philips apparently have also added a friendlier name as well for the set top box. If we look carefully, it says Cineos on the upper right. You can read about other Cineos products in the Philips home entertainment line by following this link.
http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/catalog/concept_landing_...
Microsoft Unveils "Non-Security" Update For IE
Hmmm... not sure I want this installed. I like a little danger.
Microsoft Tuesday updated Internet Explorer 6 for Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1, but denied that the changes were security related.
"The update is labeled as 'non-security' given that it does not include any new updates that affect the security of IE," said a company spokesman Tuesday afternoon.
With the update in place, IE 6 won't run some ActiveX controls until they've been explicitly enabled by the user. Last December, Microsoft posted a note to Web site and ActiveX developers warning them that the change was coming. In that note, the Redmond, Wash.-based developer said that controls loaded by the APPLET, EMBED, or OBJECT elements would be disabled unless the user turned them on.
Putting Your DVDs on a Video iPod
I spent some time doing this a couple of weeks ago and after some trail an error I succeded.
Sure, you could fill your video iPod with episodes of Knight Rider from iTunes for $2 a pop. Or you could save some cash - and your soul - and fill it with files you convert from your DVD collection using freely available software. Problem is, you'd have to break the law.
- Wired.com Post
Sure, you could fill your video iPod with episodes of Knight Rider from iTunes for $2 a pop. Or you could save some cash - and your soul - and fill it with files you convert from your DVD collection using freely available software. Problem is, you'd have to break the law. Though it's theoretically OK to back up DVDs for personal use, it's illegal to override commercial copy protection, a necessary step in the process. Proceed at your own risk. - Cathy Lu
1. Decrypt the DISC
Software like DVDFab Decrypter (www.DVDIdle.com/free.htm) removes a DVD's copy protection. Remember, this is the illegal part, which is why DVD decrypting software is always a moving target. Should DVDFab disappear, a replacement is just a Google search away.
2. Combine the Video files
Ripping a DVD produces a bunch of cryptically named .VOB files. VOBMerge 2.5 (medlem.spray.se/evilmastr/mainmenu.php) will string them together. To find the movie, look for a series of very large files named something like VTS_07_1.VOB, VTS_07_2.VOB, and so on.
3. Convert the Movie
Use an app like 3GP_Converter (www.videohelp.com/tools?tool=3GP_Converter) to turn your movie into an iPod-compatible MPEG-4 file. Select "Model: MP4, for iPod" as the conversion mode (there is also an option for the PSP). The resulting file is ready for iTunes.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/start.html?pg=15
Feed your PC free-to-air satellite TV
[Print][Mobile]
By Tony Smith
1st March 2006 13:02 GMT
AVerMedia has begun shipping just the card you need to connector your computer to freebie satellite TV channels. Its DVB-S Pro PCI card hooks up to your reception dish and get the kind of PVR and programme archiving features you don't get from the standard FreeSat box.
The DVB-S Pro hooks into AVerMedia's AVerTV 6 software and comes bundled with an infra-red remote control. Together, they provide picture-in-picture and picture-on-picture viewing, along with a 16-channel preview screen. AVerMedia claimed the combo finds channels and switches between then quickly, while the card's video processing chippage boosts signal strength for a "sharper and more stable picture".
SPONSORED LINKS
IT gurus seek Your counsel - Jobsite, The best people for the job
UK Jobs @ Jobsite
Browse The Register's IT training library
Rackspace, The Managed Hosting Specialist - its all we do! - Click here to find out more
The card can save programmes to your hard drive in MPEG 2 format, and it allows you to pause, play and rewind live broadcasts. It has a screengrab feature, and there's an album facility for index such stills and video recordings. Programmes can be archived to DVD and CD, AVerMedia said.
You'll still need a dish, of course, and you won't necessarily get the full range of channels included in Sky's £150 one-off purchase FreeSat package. Some channels, like BBC and ITV free-to-air services, are transmitted unencrypted, but others aren't, largely because Sky is providing free access as a loss-leader. Since the DVB-S Pro lacks a viewing card slot to enable their decryption, these will remain off-limits to the AVerMedia solution for now. In any case, it's still a handy solution if you're in an area where Freeview DVB-T reception is poor.
With six separate versions of Windows Vista on the way, Microsoft has a marketing challenge on its hands. How will the company properly inform users as to which versions support which features? One part of the plan is now becoming clear: all four "consumer" versions of the OS will be available to users even after installation. How? They'll all be available for "instant online upgrade" once Windows Vista is installed.
Meet Windows Anytime Upgrade. Matt reported on WAU earlier today on M-Dollar, but I wanted to bring this to the front page because I think the news is bigger than it looks at first glance. The approach is simple: Microsoft is going to pack all four operating systems versions into a single disc package. Once installed, a quick trip to the Control Panel is all you'll need to upgrade from Home Basic all the way to Ultimate, should your heart desire. That, and a credit card.
The puzzle pieces needed to make this happen are actually rather simple to put together. All four versions of the OS are based off of the same core OS, with the Ultimate edition sporting all features. As such, putting all four versions on a single disc is no great feat. You could start with the Ultimate edition and pare down to any other version, for instance. (I'm not saying that this is how it works, but it demonstrates how this is possible.) In this way, the media itself is divorced from the installation. In theory, any user with a valid key could use a consumer Vista disc to install any of the four various versions. And any user could upgrade from Home Basic to Ultimate using that same disc, provided they pay whatever upgrade fee Microsoft requires.
Changing face of upgrading
Aside from the compelling concept of instantaneous upgrades, Windows Anytime Upgrade is notable because of how it relates to Microsoft's developing plans for its consumer products, including but not limited to the Xbox 360.
First, this is the logical extension of Microsoft's Windows Vista "up-sell." With four different consumer offerings it was already more than clear that Microsoft was heading down the path of monetizing OS features beyond the XP divide of "home" and "professional." Whereas we thought that this marketing effort might be focused on the retail/OEM experience, now it simply appears that this strategy will reach all the way into the home.
Approximately 90 percent of Windows OS sales come from OEMs who are distributing the OS with new computers. Anytime Upgrade means that Joe User can decide late one night that Ultimate is what he really wanted in the first place, regardless of what an OEM sold him. In this way, the "point of sale" decision is never really a done deal. Joe can always be tempted to push that bottom and drop a few more clams.
Why might Joe be interested in changing up? Here's a subtle part of Microsoft's ploy: as the company focuses on the digital entertainment sphere over the next several years, it is going to be unveiling products and services that interact with the features of some of these OS versions but not others. Let's take an example from a shipping product. Windows Vista Home Premium will allow you to stream movies and videos to the Xbox 360. Maybe you don't have an Xbox 360, so you choose Home Basic for now. What Microsoft has put into place is an easy for you to move to the Premium or Ultimate version of the OS for any reason, whether it's to get Media Center's spotlight, new Xbox interactivity features, or some other as-of-yet unannounced product or service. You may not have an Xbox 360 right now. You may not have any desire for Media Center functionality. It's no matter. If and when you do, the OS can be upgraded on the fly. And this saves more than just a trip to the store; Anytime Upgrade will upgrade computers in place, component by component. Gone will be the worries of installing one OS on top of another, or upgrading to a OS that isn't a patched as the OS on the target computer. With Anytime Upgrade, Microsoft is keeping one core version of the OS up to date. All it needs to do is turn features off and on.
At the same time, the second interesting aspect of this approach slides in: anti-piracy. While tried and true pirates won't be fazed by Windows Product Activation or the difficulties of obtaining illegal copies of the OS, that has always been the case. Microsoft has been up front about the fact that Windows Product Activation (and Genuine Advantage, for that matter) is primarily aimed at stopping casual piracy. Anytime Upgrade builds on that by giving users a method of obtaining valid licenses from within the OS, making it less attractive (in theory) for Joe User to try and hack his install to get features he didn't pay for. If pricing is right, Microsoft could see a modest revenue stream here. In fact, I wonder if this same service won't be used to sell valid product keys to users who have been sold pirated versions of Windows. That alone could generate some decent skrilla (noun, Money; Cash to be spent freely, not saved.).
Still, as they say, rewards are born of risk. One core OS to rule them all means one target for hacking, and the black-hat hacker community will view this as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The hunt for the magical DLL, the quest for the elusive key generator?these begin anew with the release of Vista.
Anytime Upgrade has made an appearance in the February CTP of Windows Vista, but it is not fully functional. We'll be keeping an eye on its development to see where Microsoft intends to head with this service. In the Orbiting HQ we've talked about the possibility of the company "advertising" upgrades within the OS, at opportune times. For instance, the OS could detect the presence of a portable media player and "inform you" that the OS could do so much more if you had Ultimate edition, for instance. Or perhaps Microsoft could take a page from Apple and show grayed-out features options that become available with that sweet, sweet upgrade to QuickTime Pro.
Continued use of DRM kills sales and targets the wrong people
Posted by Seán Byrne on 02 March 2006 - 00:52 - Source: Security Focus
While the entertainment industry happily continues crippling everything they can with DRM, at this point it is getting very clear that DRM has more evil to it than any good it has brought. Just recently, the head of Yahoo Music even suggested that labels should let their music be sold online without DRM and now Security Focus has published an article going deep into the big mistake with DRM.
For example, iTunes, which grabs most of the music download market locks its customers to the iPod. TiVo added DRM support its PVRs to allow broadcasters to control what viewers can do with their recorded content, including remote deletion. It seems to specifically target the wrong people by affecting paying customers, including their Fair Use rights since these are forced to use compliant hardware, obey its restrictions, etc. If they attempt to get around the restrictions, they are in effect breaking the law due to the notorious DMCA, where as those who decide to download 'illegally' are free to do what they want with their downloaded content, rendering DRM useless against these! So while the Entertainment industry claims DRM stops casual piracy, they may not realise that this does not stop them asking help from their friends and before they know it, they will end up using file sharing services or some other means of getting their copy.
When it comes to investment, everything the customer has paid for is worthless, since unlike physical media, consumers cannot sell unwanted purchased downloaded content, as the DRM effectively ties the user and their equipment to the content. Also, what happens with purchased music once a particular online store ceases or if the company decides to change to a new format, dropping support for an earlier format? Finally, no matter how sophisticated DRM may get, it will not stop the real pirates either, since all it takes is one successful copy to be made, even as simple as an analogue re-recording and the system is beaten. In order for DRM to be truly effective, all forms of file sharing, search engines, etc. would need to be closed off or at least restricted in order to make it as difficult as possible to get hold of a non-DRM protected version.
TiVo added DRM allowing TV shows to include a flag that prevents users from storing shows for any length of time. As a TiVo owner who has left some movies on my box for years, waiting for just the right day to watch them, this outrages me. Sure, TiVo said it was a "bug," but that sounds fishy to me, and I don't buy it. Remember: timeshifting is legal. (One solution: get the files off of TiVo, strip the DRM, and save 'em to a hard drive. A better solution: MythTV.)
Apple's successful iTunes Music Store, in addition to forcing users to accept a pretty sonically-limited format with a proprietary DRM scheme called "FairPlay" (using Orwellian language to mask what you're doing is double-plus ungood, Apple). FairPlay limits what you can do with the music you buy, leaving Apple in charge of your music, not you. Want to play a song you purchased from iTMS on a device other than an iPod? Uh-uh. Want to load music onto an iPod using something other than iTunes? Silly boy. Even worse, some universities are now making lectures and classes available using iTMS, a slap in the face to the open nature of learning and education. Sure, you can remove FairPlay's DRM, but you're still left with a music file recorded at a pretty crappy level, and converting it to a more open format only makes it sound worse. The iTunes Music Store isn't the only offender, as a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation made clear. iTunes is just the most popular, by far. (Solution: Music stores that give you real choice, without DRM.)
The British equivalent to the Oscars is the BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) award. Members of BAFTA are sent "screeners", free DVDs of the movies they're supposed to vote on, so they can view the movies and make judgments. In an effort to prevent the release of those screeners to non-BAFTA members, the DVDs are encrypted to only play on special DVD players that were also sent free to BAFTA members. As you can imagine, this is a royal pain in the posterior for many BAFTA members, who have to hook up special hardware just to watch a few films. In a bit of supreme cosmic irony, the screeners for Steven Spielberg's Munich were encoded for Region One (the US and Canada) instead of Region Two (Europe), so BAFTA members couldn't view the movie to vote on it. Oops.
The full article can be read here.
As the music industry has managed to get file sharing to pretty much flatten out, but not decline, they should really start reconsidering what they are doing to try and get consumers to move to legitimate services. In order for them to compete with file sharing, they really need to offer something that lures in customers and stop with the mess they are at with all their lawsuits. For example, as the head of Yahoo Music mentioned, if they offer content that is better than what file sharing networks have available and make the price more affordable, I can easily see a serious hike in legal download services.
At the moment, the RIAA claims that it is impossible to sell anything that has to compete with an illegal service that offers the ?same thing? for free. Well, if they offered a service like AllOfMP3, where consumers can choose their audio codec (to suit any hardware player), charge a reasonable price and do away with DRM restrictions, there is a good chance that consumers will start thinking twice of the hassle of re-downloading songs over & over from free file sharing networks to find a complete clean correct copy, never mind doing this for a full album?s worth of music, particularly compilation albums or with tracks which are more difficult to find.
Feel free to discuss about music download services, Digital Rights Management and file sharing on our forum. http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13140
Digital Rights Managements hurts paying customers, destroys Fair Use rights, renders customers' investments worthless, and can always be defeated. Why are consumers and publishers being forced to use DRM?
? When I realized that I couldn't copy text out of The Complete New Yorker, I felt like a sucker - a sucker that had been conned by the same people to whom I willingly gave my money. As a college instructor, I especially thought of the loss to my students... ?
Scott Granneman
One of my favorite magazines is The New Yorker. I've been reading it for years, and it never fails to impress me with its vast subject matter, brilliant writing, and the depth, wit, and attention it brings to important matters. When it was announced over a year ago that The Complete New Yorker: Eighty Years of the Nation's Greatest Magazine would be released on eight DVDs, I immediately put in my pre-order. After it arrived, I took out the first DVD and stuck it in my Linux box, expecting that I could start looking at the collected issues.
No dice. The issues were available as DjVu files. No problem; there are DjVu readers for Linux, and it's an open format. Yet none of them worked. It turned out that The New Yorker added DRM to their DjVu files, turning an open format into a closed, proprietary, encrypted format, and forcing consumers to install the special viewer software included on the first DVD. Of course, that software only works on Windows or Mac OS X, so Linux users are out of luck (and no, it doesn't work under WINE ... believe me, I tried).
Even worse, if you do install the software, and then perform a search using the somewhat klunky search tool built in to the proprietary DjVu reader, you'll soon find yourself in DVD-swapping hell as you jump from issue to issue. It is sheer painful tedium, and takes me back to 1985 when I was using the first Macs. Remember the floppy shuffle, as you inserted floppy 1, then floppy 2, then floppy 1, then floppy 2, then floppy 1, then floppy 2, ad infinitum? Now it's the DVD shuffle, 20 years later. That's progress for you! You could try copying the disks onto your hard drive, but the DVDs are encoded with Macrovision's copy protection scheme, so you can't legally do so.
The final indignity is that, although other DjVu readers provide for text selection, The New Yorker has removed that feature from its DjVu reader. You can print, but you can't select or copy. As a teacher of several technology courses at Washington University in St. Louis, this limitation, frankly, completely sucks. Suppose I want my students to read ten paragraphs from a New Yorker story that I provide on a password-protected web page. Too bad! I want to copy and paste some sentences into a presentation? Nope! A student expresses an interest in a topic, and I want to send her a New Yorker article via email that would help further her education? No can do.
I finally got so frustrated that I decided to break through The New Yorker's limitations and DRM, both to access the content I wanted to use and to prove to myself that it could be done. I opened up the article I wanted to copy on a Mac OS X machine, and printed it to PDF using the Mac's built-in support for that format (on Windows, I could have used the open source PDFCreator). I then opened the PDF in OCR software, selected the regions I wanted to scan for text, performed the scan, corrected the results, and saved my output to a text file. It took a while, but it worked.
Other folks have come up with strategies for getting around the annoyances I mentioned above. It turns out that it's entirely possible to copy all the DVDs to your hard drive and then make one simple change in the SQLite database. The result? The slow-as-a-turtle, multi-DVD-swapping The New Yorker turns into super-duper fast The New Yorker. Ta-da!
My experience with The Complete New Yorker is not unique. DRM is cropping up, it seems, everywhere, and people are discussing ways of getting around it.
TiVo added DRM allowing TV shows to include a flag that prevents users from storing shows for any length of time. As a TiVo owner who has left some movies on my box for years, waiting for just the right day to watch them, this outrages me. Sure, TiVo said it was a "bug," but that sounds fishy to me, and I don't buy it. Remember: timeshifting is legal. (One solution: get the files off of TiVo, strip the DRM, and save 'em to a hard drive. A better solution: MythTV.)
Apple's successful iTunes Music Store, in addition to forcing users to accept a pretty sonically-limited format with a proprietary DRM scheme called "FairPlay" (using Orwellian language to mask what you're doing is double-plus ungood, Apple). FairPlay limits what you can do with the music you buy, leaving Apple in charge of your music, not you. Want to play a song you purchased from iTMS on a device other than an iPod? Uh-uh. Want to load music onto an iPod using something other than iTunes? Silly boy. Even worse, some universities are now making lectures and classes available using iTMS, a slap in the face to the open nature of learning and education. Sure, you can remove FairPlay's DRM, but you're still left with a music file recorded at a pretty crappy level, and converting it to a more open format only makes it sound worse. The iTunes Music Store isn't the only offender, as a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation made clear. iTunes is just the most popular, by far. (Solution: Music stores that give you real choice, without DRM.)
The British equivalent to the Oscars is the BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) award. Members of BAFTA are sent "screeners", free DVDs of the movies they're supposed to vote on, so they can view the movies and make judgments. In an effort to prevent the release of those screeners to non-BAFTA members, the DVDs are encrypted to only play on special DVD players that were also sent free to BAFTA members. As you can imagine, this is a royal pain in the posterior for many BAFTA members, who have to hook up special hardware just to watch a few films. In a bit of supreme cosmic irony, the screeners for Steven Spielberg's Munich were encoded for Region One (the US and Canada) instead of Region Two (Europe), so BAFTA members couldn't view the movie to vote on it. Oops.
Customers have paid for the texts/pictures/music/movies they purchased, and they expect to be able to use them as they'd like. You can argue that they're not really buying the content, they're just buying licenses for that content, but that argument, while technically legal, is facile and doesn't take into account how real human beings think. When a normal person buys a song, he considers it his ... after all, he just paid for it!
Intelligent people can disagree about the economic impact of file sharing - it seems pretty clear to me that it actually encourages sales and awareness of movies, music, and other content - but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about moving pictures and movies between devices, about transferring files between the many computers I own, and about changing formats as I please.
When I realized that I couldn't copy text out of The Complete New Yorker, I felt like a sucker - a sucker that had been conned by the same people to whom I willingly gave my money. As a college instructor, I especially thought of the loss to my students, which brings us to the next objection to DRM.
... unless the consumer is willing to break the law. Thanks to the wonderful DMCA (did you catch my sarcasm?), it's illegal for anyone to break the DRM protecting a file, no matter how trivial it might be to do so, in order to exercise the Fair Use rights that are legally granted to American citizens. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress who actually "gets it," had this to say about the DMCA and Fair Use in 2002:
"... section 1201 of the DMCA ... created the new crime of circumvention. Section 1201 (a)(1), for example, prohibits unauthorized access to a work by circumventing an effective technological protection measure used by a copyright owner to control access to a copyrighted work. Because the law does not limit its application to circumvention for the purpose of infringing a copyright, all types of traditionally accepted activities may be at risk. Any action of circumvention without the consent of the copyright owner is made criminal."
So even though a Fair Use exemption is granted for "nonprofit educational purposes," I can't really exercise that legal right with The Complete New Yorker, since it would require the commission of a felony to do so. Other uses of Fair Use include, and I'm quoting from the United States Copyright Office, "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." If I can't copy the text, that makes criticism or comment incredibly onerous, does it not? And so on. DRM means that Fair Use for the file protected via DRM is at the whim of the file's creator, which flies in the face of the whole idea of Fair Use. We shouldn't have to beg for our Fair Use rights, since that's the whole point of Fair Use!
DRM means that my investment in The Complete New Yorker will one day be completely worthless, unless the publishers can ensure that they will continue to support their encrypted, crippled version of DjVu for years into the future. Or, should they go out of business or decide to switch to a new format, that they'll either open the code (riiiiight) or provide some sort of conversion mechanism (suuuuure).
TiVo is a different matter, since it's essentially a closed box (although there are ways to get around that). In this, we need to trust that TiVo will not use a forced upgrade to further decrease functionality that was there when the machine was originally purchased. Seeing that the company has already done this once, by adding support for a type of broadcast flag that limits timeshifting, I don't have high hopes that TiVo will do the right thing. Hello, MythTV.
I feel especially sorry for the people that have spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars at the iTunes Music Store. What happens when Apple downgrades iTunes again, further limiting what users can do with the songs they bought? What happens in five years, when Apple moves on to another format? What happens to your music collection when the iPod is no longer de rigueur, and you want to switch to a new portable player? How are you going to get your encrypted AAC files to play on that new device, with something approaching the same level of quality?
DRM means that you have no control over the files on your computer. You can only do what the company supplying you with the DRM'd files want you to do.
It may take some time, but all DRM can be defeated. Or rather, as Chris Anderson, the thinker and writer behind The Long Tail contends, "Any protection technology that is really difficult to crack is probably too cumbersome to be accepted by consumers." And anything that is not that cumbersome can be defeated (although so-called "Trusted Computing" is going to make that process a lot harder ... but I think it will eventually be overcome by those determined to get around it). Cory Doctorow put it best when he explained that the only way that DRM can work is if all of the following conditions are met:
* Every copy of the song circulated, from the recording studio to the record store, had strong DRM on it
* No analog to digital converters were available to anyone, anywhere in world, who might have an interest in breaking the DRM (since you can just avoid the DRM by ... taking the analog output off the player and re-digitizing the song in an open format)
* Peer-to-peer networks ceased to exist
* Search engines ceased to index file-sharing sites
* No "small worlds" file-sharing tools were in circulation
Although Cory is talking about music here, the same principles apply to any kind of file that can be protected with DRM. Even if Trusted Computing and Microsoft's vision of DRM'd Word documents and emails comes to fruition, if it's hot enough to protect, it's hot enough for someone looking at it - and someone does need to eventually look at it, or how can it be used? - to copy it by hand.
Of course, some might argue that it's enough that the average Joe can't break the DRM. If that's true, then why use DRM? What's the goal? If the goal is to prevent all unauthorized copies from being made and circulated, then it isn't enough to put up roadblocks; you must seek to lock down your "content" (as a writer, I hate that word) completely. If the goal is just to frustrate users, then why use DRM at all, since you must realize that un-DRM'd copies of your materials are going to circulate? And even if Joe can't break the DRM, he'll eventually figure out how to use a P2P network, or ask his nerd friend for help, and then you've got another unauthorized copy and an upset and now more knowledgeable former customer. What publisher wants that?
DRM has wormed its way into the imaginations of Hollywood, the RIAA, and publishers, and they in turn have convinced the computer industry (who, it must be admitted, needed little convincing) that DRM must be applied and supported throughout their products. To The New Yorker, I'm sure that DRM made lots of sense. In reality, though, it doesn't. DRM has angered this customer (and many others), eviscerated my Fair Use rights, ultimately rendered the money I spent moot, and it can still be copied anyway! Where does that leave the publisher? It sounds to me like we were both - consumer and publisher - sold a bill of goods. Welcome to the future!
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/390
Getting OneCare COMPLETELY Uninstalled
If you have the Microsoft One Care installed and decide you don't want it you might want to keep this handy. It seems the uninstaller does not completely remove some features.
After uninstalling OneCare I could not access or be accessed by other computers on my home network. My setup worked fine before OneCare and I was able to get it working with OneCare installed on a couple computers. Once I uninstalled OneCare, suddenly I couldn't access these computers or be accessed by them. Changing XP SP2 firewall settings did nothing. I finally figured out that during the OneCare install, something called Microsoft Protection Services was installed with a seperate MSI file from the OneCare Program Files directory.
- Desktopengineer.com
Getting OneCare COMPLETELY Uninstalled
1/25/2006 11:26 am
Contributed By: Darwin Sanoy
So I didn't care for OneCare, but does it have to keep my computer locked down AFTER it is uninstalled? Finally got it completely uninstalled ...
This was more than a little frustrating. After uninstalling OneCare I could not access or be accessed by other computers on my home network. My setup worked fine before OneCare and I was able to get it working with OneCare installed on a couple computers. Once I uninstalled OneCare, suddenly I couldn't access these computers or be accessed by them. Changing XP SP2 firewall settings did nothing. I finally figured out that during the OneCare install, something called Microsoft Protection Services was installed with a seperate MSI file from the OneCare Program Files directory. Apparently it was not removed during the uninstall. It also did not appear in Add/Remove Programs on my computer (a special setting that can be done for any MSI installed package).
Once I uninstalled this program, everything worked fine. If you are having similar troubles, try running the below command line as and admin - be careful you machine will automatically start rebooting.
* 13:17 02 March 2006
* NewScientist.com news service
* Roxanne Khamsi
The first skin patch that can treat major depressive disorder has received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration. The one-a-day patch has the advantage of freeing patients from dietary restrictions they would have to stick to if they took the same drug in pill form.
The patch contains a medication called Emsam (selegiline), which can trigger sudden spikes in blood pressure if taken orally with certain foods or drinks, such as red wines or cheese. Patients must avoid combining the pill with such foods as the sudden rise in blood pressure can cause dangerously high hypertension, which can result in a stroke.
The lowest-dose version of the patch contains six milligrams of Emsam, a monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitor. The drug is released through the day and does not carry the same dietary restrictions as the pill.
"The advantage of the patch, nominally, is that it allows you to take an MAOI, and you can still eat your pizza, too," Alan Gelenberg, head of the University of Arizona's psychiatry department told Reuters.
However, patients using higher-dose versions of the patch will still have to adhere to strict dietary guidelines. The FDA approved the patch for adults only.
As with all approved antidepressants in the US, the product, developed by Somerset Pharmaceuticals Inc., will bear a warning of increased risk of suicide in children and adolescents.
The FDA had conditionally approved the patch in 2004.
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: March 2, 2006, 12:14 PM PST
Last modified: March 2, 2006, 1:44 PM PST
Tell us what you think about this storyTalkBack E-mail this story to a friendE-mail View this story formatted for printingPrint
update Digital radio receivers without government-approved copy-prevention technology likely would become illegal to sell in the future, according to new federal legislation announced Thursday.
Rep. Mike Ferguson, a New Jersey Republican, said his bill--which would enforce a so-called "broadcast flag" for digital and satellite audio receivers--was necessary to protect the music industry from the threat of piracy.
Ferguson's proposal would grant the Federal Communications Commission the power to enforce "prohibitions against unauthorized copying and redistribution" for both digital over-the-air radio and digital satellite receivers.
"With exciting new digital audio devices on the market today and more on the horizon, Congress needs to streamline the deployment of digital services and protect the intellectual property rights of creators," said Ferguson, who is a member of the House of Representatives' Internet subcommittee. Rep. Mary Bono, a California Republican, is one of the four other co-sponsors.
Without explicit authorization from Congress, the FCC can't get away with mandating an audio broadcast flag on its own. That's because a federal appeals court last year unceremoniously rejected a similar set of regulations from the FCC, saying the agency did not have authority to mandate a broadcast flag for digital video.
At a breakfast roundtable with reporters on Thursday, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said some sort of legislation is necessary to prevent Americans from saving high-quality music from digital broadcasts, assembling a "personal music library" of their own, and redistributing "recorded songs over the Internet or on removable media."
Devices like the Sirius S50, the RIAA worries, can record satellite radio broadcasts but aren't required to include digital rights management limitations.
But the RIAA and Ferguson may face an uphill battle in Congress. At a hearing in January, some senators expressed concern that an audio flag would infringe on traditional notions of fair use rights, and the politically powerful National Association of Broadcasters also urged caution on the audio flag.
The recording industry is worried about a new generation of digital radio and satellite services that send high-quality digital signals along with the associated metadata--song title and artist, for example. Some of the new devices include hard drives that allow these songs to be archived and played back later, and some, such as the popular Sirus S50, can also be connected to a computer.
The satellite radio companies have grappled with the issue of unauthorized copying in the past, although there is little or no evidence showing that their networks have helped seed file-swapping networks or other piracy hubs. XM Satellite Radio pulled a PC version of its receiver off the market in 2004, when an independent company created a tool that let songs be archived on the computer's hard drive.
What's digital radio?
Satellite radio was last year's big thing. With a monthly subscription from either XM Radio or Sirius, you can get hundreds of uncensored channels. And yes, one of those is Howard Stern.
Consumer electronics makers are hoping 2006 will be the year of HD Radio. Like satellite radio, HD Radio requires a special receiver. Unlike satellite radio, though, it picks up digital signals transmitted over the same frequencies that FM radio uses. Many are commercial-free.
CNET has reviewed the Boston Acoustics Recepter Radio HD and the Yamaha RX-V4600.
Matrox brings triple displays to gaming with TripleHead2Go
3/2/2006 1:50:14 PM, by Jeremy Reimer
Matrox announced the DualHead2Go last November, and I reviewed the product early in January. It was a neat little device?small enough to fit in the palm of your hand?that gave spanning double-monitor support to laptops and PCs with integrated graphics chipsets. However, the unit was limited in several ways. Firstly, it supported analog VGA connectors only. Secondly, it had a limited set of graphics chipsets in its compatibility list (although that figure is growing every day). Finally, it didn't offer anything that owners of ATI or NVIDIA graphics cards with two monitor outputs didn't have already. Most graphics cards these days have two connectors on the back, and this makes dual monitor spanning as simple as plugging in a second screen.
According to Matrox, the DualHead2Go has been a popular product, and they are happy with the sales figures, although as a private company they did not want to give me any actual numbers. The product has found a niche, and as public awareness of the device grows, sales have grown with them. However, it was clear that there was a desire for a product that went further.
Enter the TripleHead2Go. With the same small form factor (about the size of a small stack of 3.5" floppies) and basic housing as the DualHead2Go, this new product adds a third VGA output. The user plugs in the TripleHead2Go to their graphics card's VGA or DVI-I output using the provided cable (Matrox ships the unit with both VGA-VGA and DVI-I-VGA cables in the box) and connects three monitors to the output ports. It should be noted that despite the inclusion of DVI-I cables, the unit is analog-only. When connected to a DVI-I jack, it uses the switching properties of that connector to move from digital to analog connection mode.
The Matrox TripleHead2Go
The Matrox TripleHead2Go.
Once the monitors are attached and the user installs the Matrox software under Windows, the operating system detects a new monitor with triple-wide dimensions. The three monitors will appear to Windows as a single physical screen, with resolutions of 1920 x 480 (triple 640), 2400 x 600 (triple 800), 3072 x 768 (triple 1024) or a maximum of 3840 x 1024 (triple 1280). The maximum resolution depends on the graphics card, but the Matrox representative assured me that most ATI and NVIDIA cards can support this resolution. As with the DualHead2Go, the unit uses the EDID standard to report the resolution to the operating system. In theory, this should be enough for the OS to utilize and span over the screen, but the Matrox software simply "forces" the Windows display driver to acknowledge the existence of this non-standard resolution. Other operating systems should work with the unit as long as they fully support the EDID standard, although officially the product is supported for Windows only.
The Matrox TripleHead2Go
The Matrox TripleHead2Go connected to a PC.
Matrox brought triple-headed graphics goodness to the mainstream back in 2002 with the Matrox Parhelia, a card much beloved by its owners for its triple output. However, as ATI and NVIDIA battled each other for the 3D graphics speed championship, the poor Parhelia's 3D chipset got left behind. Many gamers have wondered if Matrox would ever reenter the fight, so that they could have triple monitor support with a 3D chipset that was fast enough for modern games. The TripleHead2Go solves this problem by utilizing the existing ATI or NVIDIA GPU to drive the gaming action, and simply splitting the resulting image over three screens.
There is one problem that gets in the way of immediate triple-headed gaming goodness, however. Most games are designed to work at fixed 4:3 resolutions and open up a full-screen DirectX window at this resolution when they first launch. In testing the DualHead2Go, I found that most games, when played in full-screen mode, simply duplicated the same 4:3 screen on both monitors when they fired up. Games that ran in windowed mode could be spanned over the desktop thanks to the Windows display drivers, but many games do not run in this mode.
Matrox has acknowledged this issue, and come up with a software utility that will automatically customize games' configuration files so that they support the new triple-wide graphics modes, even in full-screen. Currently there are 150 games supported, including Microsoft Flight Simulator, Age of Empires III, World of Warcraft, F.E.A.R., Quake 4, and many others. Also, Matrox is making it easy for enterprising users to customize this software utility with additional text files, and will be opening up a forum on their message boards where people who have adapted the utility to work with their favorite game can upload the configuration file and have Matrox include it in their updated database. This will allow new games to be supported at the click of a button for all TripleHead2Go users.
"Running 3D and animation applications fully accelerated across three screens provides a tremendous productivity benefit for many workstation users," says Dan Wood, VP Technical Marketing. "For gamers, three screens enables an immersive experience by engaging a players peripheral vision and allowing them to see the gaming environment as if they were looking through an extra wide-angle camera lens; it just makes games more fun."
The suggested retail price (MSRP) of the unit is set at US$299. I'll have a review of the TripleHead2Go by the time it is scheduled to ship to the general public some time in April.
Matrox brings triple displays to gaming with TripleHead2Go
3/2/2006 1:50:14 PM, by Jeremy Reimer
Matrox announced the DualHead2Go last November, and I reviewed the product early in January. It was a neat little device?small enough to fit in the palm of your hand?that gave spanning double-monitor support to laptops and PCs with integrated graphics chipsets. However, the unit was limited in several ways. Firstly, it supported analog VGA connectors only. Secondly, it had a limited set of graphics chipsets in its compatibility list (although that figure is growing every day). Finally, it didn't offer anything that owners of ATI or NVIDIA graphics cards with two monitor outputs didn't have already. Most graphics cards these days have two connectors on the back, and this makes dual monitor spanning as simple as plugging in a second screen.
According to Matrox, the DualHead2Go has been a popular product, and they are happy with the sales figures, although as a private company they did not want to give me any actual numbers. The product has found a niche, and as public awareness of the device grows, sales have grown with them. However, it was clear that there was a desire for a product that went further.
Enter the TripleHead2Go. With the same small form factor (about the size of a small stack of 3.5" floppies) and basic housing as the DualHead2Go, this new product adds a third VGA output. The user plugs in the TripleHead2Go to their graphics card's VGA or DVI-I output using the provided cable (Matrox ships the unit with both VGA-VGA and DVI-I-VGA cables in the box) and connects three monitors to the output ports. It should be noted that despite the inclusion of DVI-I cables, the unit is analog-only. When connected to a DVI-I jack, it uses the switching properties of that connector to move from digital to analog connection mode.
The Matrox TripleHead2Go
The Matrox TripleHead2Go.
Once the monitors are attached and the user installs the Matrox software under Windows, the operating system detects a new monitor with triple-wide dimensions. The three monitors will appear to Windows as a single physical screen, with resolutions of 1920 x 480 (triple 640), 2400 x 600 (triple 800), 3072 x 768 (triple 1024) or a maximum of 3840 x 1024 (triple 1280). The maximum resolution depends on the graphics card, but the Matrox representative assured me that most ATI and NVIDIA cards can support this resolution. As with the DualHead2Go, the unit uses the EDID standard to report the resolution to the operating system. In theory, this should be enough for the OS to utilize and span over the screen, but the Matrox software simply "forces" the Windows display driver to acknowledge the existence of this non-standard resolution. Other operating systems should work with the unit as long as they fully support the EDID standard, although officially the product is supported for Windows only.
The Matrox TripleHead2Go
The Matrox TripleHead2Go connected to a PC.
Matrox brought triple-headed graphics goodness to the mainstream back in 2002 with the Matrox Parhelia, a card much beloved by its owners for its triple output. However, as ATI and NVIDIA battled each other for the 3D graphics speed championship, the poor Parhelia's 3D chipset got left behind. Many gamers have wondered if Matrox would ever reenter the fight, so that they could have triple monitor support with a 3D chipset that was fast enough for modern games. The TripleHead2Go solves this problem by utilizing the existing ATI or NVIDIA GPU to drive the gaming action, and simply splitting the resulting image over three screens.
There is one problem that gets in the way of immediate triple-headed gaming goodness, however. Most games are designed to work at fixed 4:3 resolutions and open up a full-screen DirectX window at this resolution when they first launch. In testing the DualHead2Go, I found that most games, when played in full-screen mode, simply duplicated the same 4:3 screen on both monitors when they fired up. Games that ran in windowed mode could be spanned over the desktop thanks to the Windows display drivers, but many games do not run in this mode.
Matrox has acknowledged this issue, and come up with a software utility that will automatically customize games' configuration files so that they support the new triple-wide graphics modes, even in full-screen. Currently there are 150 games supported, including Microsoft Flight Simulator, Age of Empires III, World of Warcraft, F.E.A.R., Quake 4, and many others. Also, Matrox is making it easy for enterprising users to customize this software utility with additional text files, and will be opening up a forum on their message boards where people who have adapted the utility to work with their favorite game can upload the configuration file and have Matrox include it in their updated database. This will allow new games to be supported at the click of a button for all TripleHead2Go users.
"Running 3D and animation applications fully accelerated across three screens provides a tremendous productivity benefit for many workstation users," says Dan Wood, VP Technical Marketing. "For gamers, three screens enables an immersive experience by engaging a players peripheral vision and allowing them to see the gaming environment as if they were looking through an extra wide-angle camera lens; it just makes games more fun."
The suggested retail price (MSRP) of the unit is set at US$299. I'll have a review of the TripleHead2Go by the time it is scheduled to ship to the general public some time in April.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060302-6303.html
ZoneAlarm Free 6.1.744.000
Updated for the masses.
ZoneAlarm makes it easy. Unlike other personal firewalls, ZoneAlarm protects automatically from the moment it's installed - no programming required. ZoneAlarm barricades your PC with immediate and complete port blocking. And, then runs in Stealth Mode to make your PC invisible on the Internet - if you can't be seen, you can't be attacked.
ZoneAlarm makes it easy. Unlike other personal firewalls, ZoneAlarm protects automatically from the moment it's installed - no programming required. ZoneAlarm barricades your PC with immediate and complete port blocking. And, then runs in Stealth Mode to make your PC invisible on the Internet - if you can't be seen, you can't be attacked.
ZoneAlarm delivers simplicity without compromising your security. A getting started tutorial explains controls and alerts to get you up and running quickly. And, to keep you confident that you're always protected, intuitive color-coded alerts rate security risks - in real time.
For basic, "no frills" firewall protection, ZoneAlarm® is the popular first step for many home PC users. And it's still FREE* for individual & non-profit use.
http://www.majorgeeks.com/ZoneAlarm_Free_d388.html
XFX GeForce 7800 GTX 512MB DDR3 XXX Edition
testcenterXFX's latest is powerful and large, yielding top-notch graphics.
PC gamers booed the $600 price tag of graphics cards with nVidia's original 7800 GTX chip---and then drooled as the cards broke graphics benchmarking records. People's reaction to XFX's new GeForce 7800 GTX 512MB DDR3 XXX Edition won't be any less vociferous and Pavlovian.
Advertisement
This shipping PCI Express card features a revved-up 7800 GTX chip, plus 512MB of DDR3 memory (up from 256MB), at a jaw-dropping price of $749. And in our tests, it blew away everything, including our favorite 256MB 7800 GTX board (the $570 EVGA e-Force 7800 GTX KO) and ATI's 512MB Radeon X1800XT ($599).
In our Quake 4 and Doom 3 tests, run at 1600 by 1200 resolution with antialiasing turned on, this XFX dominated. It cranked out frame rates of 72 frames per second and 70 fps, respectively, as compared to the EVGA's 54 fps and 55 fps, and the ATI's 56 fps and 58 fps.
The new XFX ruled in our Battlefront 2 tests (performed at the same settings), too. It generated 76 fps, versus 56 fps for the EVGA card and 69 fps for the ATI board. Predictably, the XFX's high price hurt its overall PCW Rating, despite the awesome performance. One additional knock against the XFX: Its massive (albeit remarkably quiet) cooling system causes the card to occupy two slots.
So is it worth the money? For 98 percent of PC users the answer is no. But if top-notch graphics performance is what you seek, this is the fastest you can get---for now.
Purchasing previously owned gadgets can get you a good deal--if you shop smart.
Dan Tynan
From the March 2006 issue of PC World magazine
I needed to replace my aging VHS camcorder, and I'd dropped enough coin on the holidays to put me in hock for the rest of 2006, so I decided to hunt for a bargain on something used.
Crutchfield's "Scratch and Dent" store had a Canon Optura 300 Mini-DV camcorder listed for $850. It certainly was tempting, but I thought I could do better. Just a little googling brought up the same model for $500 at a New York-based electronics dealer, but it was refurbished and the warranty was a bare-bones 90 days.
Advertisement
I was at a loss. Was I about to enter a world of pain? It turns out buying used can be a good deal, but only if you follow the rules.
Know your stores: Some sellers have special sections on their sites where they offer gear that buyers have returned. Others present used gear alongside new goods but usually label it "refurbished" or "factory reconditioned." Different sites use different terms, and products vary in condition, so investigate before you buy. Inventory and pricing vary wildly day to day; if you're looking for something specific, check back often.
Separate used from abused: Some used electronics are best avoided. Buying anything with lots of moving parts, like a multidisc changer, is a bad idea, says Phil Jones, director of technical support for Crutchfield in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Another bad idea: TV sets and monitors. Tubes fade, bulbs burn out, pixels die--and it could happen at any time. On the other hand, amplifiers, AV receivers, and some single-disc DVD players will hold their value, even if they don't offer the latest 6.1-channel home-theater experience. Used speakers can be a good choice, too, though they're generally not something you want to buy unseen--or unheard.
If you're purchasing a used computer, a handheld, or something similar, a smart cutoff is the device's age, says Gateway spokesperson Lisa Emard. Six months old is okay, but twelve months or more is not.
Scrutinize the warranty: The best protection is to buy reputable products from dealers who give you 30 days to change your mind, says Jones. Ideally, the product will come with the original manufacturer's warranty (usually at least a year), but many refurbished goods offer only 90 days. With the camcorder I wanted, if I had purchased it from the New York dealer, I could have added a four-year extended warranty from Canon for $150 and still paid far less than list in total.
An extended warranty is a great idea, says David Slavitt, CEO of Audio Visual Solutions in Montville, New Jersey. But if adding it brings the price to within 10 percent of a new product's cost, buying used makes little sense.
Price it right: Don't go higher than 80 percent--or below 50 percent--of what the device costs new, Jones recommends. Ignore this guideline, and you're paying too much money or taking too big a risk.
Beware of online stores that advertise superlow prices but try to sell essentials like power cords as "extras." Before you do business with a lowball dealer, check out the store's reputation on sites like Epinions.com, PriceGrabber.com, and ResellerRatings.com. Look for telltale patterns such as reports from buyers who tried to get the advertised price only to find that the gear was now out of stock.
You'll get the best prices from private sellers, many of whom sell via auction sites. Stick with sellers who meet the requirements for being part of the PayPal Buyer Protection program, which will reimburse you for up to $1000 if you get ripped off. The best strategy? Know who you're buying from--or, at least, know where they live--so you can try to work out a satisfactory deal if things turn sour.
I ended up not buying the camcorder. At $650 with the warranty, the deal was so good it looked fishy--and the store's online ratings confirmed my suspicions. Besides, I have my eye on this handheld satellite radio, and there's this PDA I like, and the cutest MP3 player.... I may just have to put them on this year's Christmas list. That's the best deal of all.
Contributing Editor Dan Tynan is the author of Computer Privacy Annoyances (O'Reilly Media, 2005). You can send him e-mail at gadgetfreak@pcworld.com.
http://pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,124160,00.asp
Two arrested in child sex Web probe
By Reuters
Published: March 2, 2006, 7:20 PM PST
Tell us what you think about this storyTalkBack E-mail this story to a friendE-mail View this story formatted for printingPrint
Two men have been arrested on allegations they had illegal sexual contact with minors they met through MySpace.com, a popular virtual hangout for children and teenagers, officials in Connecticut said Thursday.
Sonny Szeto, 22, of New York, used the site to meet an 11-year-old girl, while Stephen Letavec, 39, of Pennsylvania used it to meet a 14-year-old girl, federal authorities said.
"People with nefarious intentions exploit that technology and target our children," Kevin O'Connor, U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, said at a news conference in New Haven, Connecticut.
Some 60 million users post photographs and personal information about themselves on the social-networking site owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp..
MySpace Chief Executive Chris DeWolfe declined to comment on the arrests, saying the company doesn't discuss criminal investigations.
He said MySpace has several measures in place to prevent abuse: It prohibits children under age 14 from using the site; It also restricts access to the profiles of 14- and 15-year-olds, allowing them to be contacted only by users that they add to their buddy lists.
MySpace also uses software to identify minors, flagging profiles with terms likely to be used by children under age 14. Some 200,000 profiles have been deleted from the site on suspicion that users had lied about their age.
Still, there's no fool-proof way for MySpace or any other Internet site to verify the age of all users, DeWolfe said in an interview.
In a bid to fight abuse, the company posts warnings about the potential for its members to become crime victims. "We think that education is the most important piece," he said.
O'Connor said the blame doesn't lie with MySpace. "This really is about the predators," the U.S. attorney said in an interview. "When it comes to blame you can only point the finger at the defendants."
Szeto and his victim also chatted over Time Warner's AOL Instant Messenger service, viewed Webcam images of each other and spoke over the telephone, according to court documents.
He arranged three late-night visits to her home in Connecticut, where they had sexual contact, according to an FBI affidavit. Szeto was arrested on Feb. 27.
In other news:
* Microsoft whispers Origami details
* Google's goal: 'Biggest footprint'
* Ideas on display at Microsoft's TechFest
* News.com Extra: Russian game developer takes on consoles
Letavec is accused of using MySpace to arrange meetings with a 14-year-old girl, also in Connecticut, where they had sexual contact, according to the court documents.
Representatives for AOL were not immediately available for comment.
Neither Szeto nor Letavec has been indicted.
Letavec faces possible charges of using the Internet to persuade a minor to engage in sexual activity and with traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of attempting to have and having illicit sexual conduct with a minor. If convicted, he faces a maximum of 60 years in prison.
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998,United States
On-Line Interactions with Children
[01] Not very long ago a teenager asked me for advice on how to create a Web site. We discussed her interests and what she thought she could do, and then I made some suggestions on how to create the content for a unique Web site. When the girl was wrapping up her work, she asked me how to create the actual pages. In other words, she did not already have Web space to use. At that point I told her a little more about myself, and advised her to sit down and discuss what she wanted to do with her parents or a teacher at school, and to make sure they understood she had been in communication with me about this project.
[02] In order to help her create a Web site, I would either have to ask her for private information such as her name and address, or at least instruct her in how to give this information to a Web-hosting service. I have no right to solicit such information from underage people. Nor should I be advising them to give out that information to other people. This last part of our exchange occurred only a few days after I had become aware of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.
Act Takes Effect April 22, 2000
[03] This law, passed in October 1998, takes effect on April 21, 2000. The Federal Trade Commission has been authorized by Congress to administer the law, and accordingly the FTC solicited input from responsible organizations and the public last year in order to put the final rule into proper form. Unfortunately, many other people and I knew nothing about this process, and the final rule has been implemented without any input from a lot of us. In fact, barely more than 140 individuals and organizations provided comments on a rule which will affect millions of people. For the children's sake, we have to hope it is a well-written rule, but there are some open issues.
To Whom Does It Apply?
[04] One of the chief concerns over this law is to whom it applies. The United States has no jurisdiction over the Internet outside its borders. Some people feel the law may put American businesses into a poorly competitive position. Perhaps, but big business usually finds a way to survive. And other countries may enact similar laws in the near future. The Internet is already governed by international treaty in some areas such as copyright, trademark, libel, and pornography. The international community is slowly but surely building up a framework of law that will apply to everyone or nearly everyone using the Internet.
[05] The new law, known as COPPA, was designed to govern the practices of commercial Web sites that interact with children. But someone somewhere in the process extended the law's coverage to include ANY service that interacts with children. This broader application is of particular interest to the Hercules and Xena online fan community (and all non-commercial Webmasters) for several reasons.
Kids and Private Information
[06] First of all, many of us have children to protect. Even if they are not our own, we might find ourselves in positions of responsibility. A few months ago I helped my 8-year-old niece register for Zoog Disney (http://disney.go.com/disneychannel/zoogdisney/). It is a big thing with kids, but Zoog required parental consent for the registration. Once we got that taken care of my niece could do all sorts of things on the Zoog site. I stepped away from the computer for a few minutes and when I came back I found she had a credit card sitting on the keyboard and she was about to order some merchandise.
[07] Children are not precocious just when it comes to buying things on the Internet. Keeping the credit cards out of their hands is only one aspect of being responsible for them on the Internet. What about those Whizkid Webmasters who set up the fantastic Web sites? Where do they get the Web space? Some are using Mom and Dad's accounts, but many young people are signing up with free Web space providers. How many parents are actually involved in these Web contracts? Do they know what information their children are giving out, or what services their children are signing up for?
[08] Parents may not be aware that kids can now download and install (on their own PCs) software from free Internet Service Providers such as NetZero, Excite, and Alta Vista. They do not have to use Mom and Dad's accounts any more, even though these ISPs may be trying to restrict access only to adults. What is to prevent a determined child from clicking on the "Yes, I am 18 or older" button? Nothing.
On-Line Services Include Chat Rooms and Message Boards
[09] But where the online community of Webmasters becomes directly concerned with the privacy of children is the provision under COPPA for including "online services" in the target population which must comply with this law. An online service includes a chat room or message board. The FTC is not talking about America Online. They are talking about specific services that any Webmaster can install on his or her site: chat rooms and message boards. Also, if you simply run a newsletter, you, too, may have to comply with the law.
[10] The FTC rule says:
If you operate a commercial Web site or an online service directed to children under 13 that collects personal information from children or if you operate a general audience Web site and have actual knowledge that it collects personal information from children, you must comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
[11] How many of us are directing our chat rooms and message boards to the under 13 crowd? The FTC has decided they will use the following criteria for determining who is and who is not targeting children:
To determine whether a Web site is directed to children, the FTC will consider several factors, including the subject matter; visual or audio content; the age of models on the site; language; whether advertising on the Web site is directed to children; information regarding the age of the actual or intended audience; and whether a site uses animated characters or other child-oriented features.
[12] Many Xena web sites are devoted to obviously mature themes. It may, perhaps, be a good idea for the Webmasters to put up a note indicating children should not browse the site, but you need to be careful about what advertising you put on your site. If you are a member of an affiliate or associate program (some online merchants use these terms in different ways), you may have some direct links with graphics which could give the impression you are targeting children. After all, in the general population's perception, who buys action figures? Kids. Is the Xena fan community going to be excluded from compliance with the law? Maybe. We sit in a grey area.
Not So Grey Areas?
[13] Webmasters with Young Hercules content, on the other hand, will probably be perceived as directing their content toward children. The series was broadcast on Fox Kids Network, after all, and was primarily marketed toward the young audience. And if you are selling Young Hercules novels through online bookstore affiliate or associate programs, well, you are not necessarily in the clear. Any message boards or chat rooms or mailing lists devoted to the Young Hercules show may also be deemed as targeting children.
[14] Reviews of the Hercules and Xena animated movie, discussions about it, advertisements for it, affiliate/associate links for purchasing the video, etc. are another factor to consider. There are even Xena books that were published for younger readers. If you are selling these, you need to consider how that affects the overall impression your Web site gives to the casual visitor.
[15] Of course, just because you have got referral links on your Web site does not mean you are required to comply with the law. The question comes down to whether you are initiating an ongoing communication with your visitors, and if you know whether these visitors (or some of them) are children under the age of 13. If you are not hosting chat services, message boards, and newsletters, are you in the clear? Maybe. What about that guest book you have got on your site? Does it not ask for names and email addresses? Is it not making that information available to third parties? Will COPPA be the death of the guest book tradition that many perfectly innocent Web sites have employed for years?
What Is Private Information?
[16] This is what the FTC regards to be private information as defined by COPPA:
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and Rule apply to individually identifiable information about a child that is collected online, such as full name, home address, email address, telephone number or any other information that would allow someone to identify or contact the child. The Act and Rule also cover other types of information - for example, hobbies, interests and information collected through cookies or other types of tracking mechanisms - when they are tied to individually identifiable information.
[17] If a child contacts you on his or her own initiative, you are probably safe as long as the contact is for a one-time purpose. The FTC ruling speaks of homework questions, but there are plenty of other innocent exchanges that happen. We occasionally receive email from children who want to know how to contact members of the television shows we have devoted Web space to. Sometimes children ask us for help in finding things on the Web. I may think twice about giving out that kind of advice in the future. But these kinds of contacts are regarded as reasonable exclusions.
[18] However, any Webmaster who must otherwise comply with the law is expected to immediately delete any private information (including email addresses) they acquire from these exchanges once they are finished. So much for keeping a record of your past emails. If you have to go hunting for something to give advice to a child once, you will have to find some way of preserving the results of your search without violating the child's privacy or else go hunting again if you are ever asked the same question twice.
Non-Commercial Sites Impacted
[19] At Xena Online Resources (http://www.xenite.org/xor/home.shtml) we often come across Web sites which have multiple content areas. Like me with Xenite.Org, many Webmasters create several mini-Web sites within one large Web site. My content covers Xena, Hercules, Edgar Rice Burroughs, J.R.R. Tolkien, Andre Norton, Farscape, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World (and that includes the book, the movies, and the television series), and more. I am not going to be able to duck the "mass appeal" criterion, and many other SF & F Webmasters will find themselves in the same boat as me. So it is not just the commercial Webmastering community who needs to worry about complying with this law.
[20] But what will happen if we fan site Webmasters do not try to comply? I have no real way of knowing, but given that there are hundreds of thousands of SF Web sites, and millions more devoted to other interests which are equally of "mass appeal" (horses, cooking, consumer rights, science, history, literature, etc.) it appears that the Web Content Monitors will not be knocking on many peoples' doors right away. The law will be reviewed in two years and we will see where we go from there.
Policing the Act
[21] The business community has, for this first two-year period, been given an opportunity to set up its own industry standards for compliance. It will be a largely self- regulating effort and doubtless people will be keeping an eye on large commercial kids' sites like Disney.Com (http://www.disney.com), Ty.Com (http://www.ty.com), CartoonNetwork.Com (http://www.cartoonnetwork.com), et. al. to see what standards they adopt. Privacy and legal industry groups will be consulted and looked to to help define these self-regulating standards. But the final question two years from will be, have we all done enough?
What the Websites Can Do
[22] What, specifically, does the law require of Web sites which must comply with its requirements? You have to post a privacy policy on your site, and you must link to it in any page which initiates some sort of ongoing relationship (commercial, discussion, or informative) with your visitors. The policy must state your procedure for verifying parental permission to conduct ongoing relationships with children.
[23] There are several options for doing this, but the requirements are more stringent for sites that sell products or service to children. Not sites that are affiliates or associates of online resellers, mind you. The book stores, CD stores, and other online retailers are the people collecting the information and distributing the merchandise. But you may need to make clear in YOUR privacy policy that YOU are NOT collecting this information, that it does not pass through your hands, and that you are not responsible for its uses.
[24] The privacy policy requirement also stipulates that the "operators" of the Web site or online service must make their offline contact information (name, postal address, and telephone number) available to parents. This is necessary for ensuring that children do not have an easy opportunity to fake a parent's approval. Not everyone is required to give out this information. The FTC says:
To determine whether an entity is an "operator" with respect to information collected at a site, the FTC will consider who owns and controls the information; who pays for the collection and maintenance of the information; what the pre- existing contractual relationships are in connection with the information; and what role the Web site plays in collecting or maintaining the information.
[25] First of all, if you have volunteers helping with your Web site, or if you are paying people to help with your Web site, they are off the hook (as far as your Web site goes). Secondly, if you are using a third-party service, or are referring people to online retailers for commissions, such that you are not directly collecting or using the private information, you are off the hook.
[26] But if you are running your own mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, or distributing your own newsletters, you are the "operator". If instead of running your own services you sign up with EZBoard or InsideTheWeb, or Onelist or Topica, you should be in the clear, unless they give you access to the personal information that their registrants provide to them. If you control the information that a third-party service acquires in the process of maintaining your service, you may become liable under the law. You are responsible for the information that you collect and use, regardless of whether you are selling anything. A child's privacy is not vulnerable just through a commercial Web site. And the purpose of the law is to protect children's private information, not to regulate commerce.
Problems With the Law
[27] Of course, did the lawmakers and the people at the Federal Trade Commission stop to consider that non- commercial Webmasters who have to comply with this law are exposing their own private information? As a domain name registrant I have entered my personal information into a publicly accessible database. But what about people who do not register their own domains? Is it trivial to require them (many of whom are women who have taken measures to protect their own privacy) to post their full names, addresses, and telephone numbers on their Web sites just because they are running message boards or chat rooms?
[28] I have questioned some people about the freeware that is available on the Web. It appears that the originators of these scripts are not going to assume the burden of ensuring that a Webmaster is in compliance with the law. If you download and install any free version of a message board or mailing list script, you cannot look to the software to cover you. There may be registration features which give you control over who is able to post information to the board and how much personal information is disclosed, but you must still take measures to ensure that either your content excludes you from coverage under the law or that you have set up a procedure for acquiring parental permission for the child who makes use of your services.
[29] Even commercial versions of these kinds of applications will not offer any guarantees of compliance. No software provider can assume that kind of liability. It is the Webmaster's responsibility alone to ensure the Web site is in compliance with the law. So if you are running your own CGI applications now, and you are sure you are collecting information from children that is not protected, you should make some changes, but do not get your hopes up about finding a miracle application. Adding a registration requirement to your services will slightly inconvenience your communities, but the kids might just go elsewhere, since larger, commercial sites already require registration and soon will all require parental verification. And they also have many more goodies than the local Webmaster can provide. The law provides a few conditions where prior parental consent is not required for collecting information, but there are conditions attached (see the links at the end of the article for further details on such provisions).
Mass Appeal Test
[30] It is important to know whether your content has "mass appeal", or if it appeals to children. There are already some guidelines available for determining if a Web site is appropriate for children. You can check out the standards published by the Internet Content Rating Service. Their site includes a table that shows what ratings are applied to what content. At the very least, if you can determine that your content is inappropriate for children you can then say so on your Web site (if you feel that would not be harmful to the way your site is perceived). We do not want to put "Adults only" on fan Web sites in most cases. But if you want to exclude your site from compliance with COPPA you will need to ensure it does not look like it is intended for children.
[31] The "mass appeal" rule is harder to cope with. At Xenite.Org, for example, we do not forbid the use of profanity on our message boards but we strongly discourage it. We insist our discussion communities be civil and polite to one another. That provision was created for purely personal reasons. I wanted flame-free communities. But parents do not mind letting their kids browse our boards in part because we maintain a civil atmosphere. Many other message board communities have similar guidelines, and they are also visited by people of all ages.
[32] Would Xenite.Org be rated "Kid Safe"? Probably not quite, but we would get a pretty good rating nonetheless. But if we put "Kid Safe" on our Web pages we are all but saying we intend to provide content for children and therefore we need to comply with the law. Up until now it was a great thing to be able to say your site is "Kid Safe". Now you need to think twice. If you do not get the "Kid Safe" rating, where does that leave you? Kids may still come and sign your guest book, sign up for your newsletter, join your message board, and enter your chat area. But if you put "For adults only" on your site, then you are giving a much different and in most cases the wrong impression. We may need a new, neutral content rating.
Checking On Liability
[33] If you currently use remotely hosted applications you should review the application providers' terms of service agreements and privacy policies. If these documents have not been updated to show these services are aware of the law, then you should contact the service providers. Try to get some clear idea of who they feel is responsible for complying with the law. If they say THEY and THEY alone are, do not worry about it. If, however, the application providers you are using suggest you may also be liable (because you have access to the private information), then you should consider what you can do to either minimize your obligations under the law or to live up to them.
Children Are Everyone's Responsibility
[34] Inevitably, if we as Webmasters, parents, guardians, and employees of businesses which operate commercial Web sites or online services shirk the moral obligation to help ensure this law becomes effective, we will share in the burden of its failure and whatever consequences that failure brings, such as more stringent rules and regulations further down the road. But more importantly, we are leaving it to someone else to protect the children. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is the philosophy behind this law. It may not take much for the majority of us to help ensure the kids' privacy is protected. But we are entering a new era of greater responsibility for everyone, and regardless of whether you feel the law is well-designed, it is here. Let us deal with it as best we can.
