|
|
|
*HOT* Tech News And Downloads, I Would Read This Thread And Post Any Good Info
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. January 2007 @ 09:55 |
Link to this message
|
Bobby Santangelo to the RIAA:
p2pnet.net News:- New York's Santangelo family has come to symbolize the Big 4 Organized Music cartel's ongoing and relentless victimization of men, women and children not only in America, but around the world.
Warner Music (US), EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany) are trying to spin their failure to re-model their business approaches to reflect the fact they're now in the 21st digital century into "criminal" actions on the part of millions of their own customers, accusing them of being file sharing "thieves".
Warner, et al, fronted by their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) attacked Patti Santangelo, accusing her of being a major distributor of copyrighted music tracks over the Net.
However, an ordinary New York mother whose only knowledge of music tracks had hitherto been limited to the ones she regularly bought on Big 4 CDs, she wasn't going to be terrorized and with lawyer Ray Beckerman behind her, initially, then by herself and, finally, with attorney Jordan Glass, representing her, she took on the multi-billion-dollar labels, determined to haul them into court to force them to justify their actions and prove their claims in front of a jury.
The RIAA dropped their case against Patti, turning instead on Michelle, one of her five children who was 16 when she was allegedly engaged in the same non-existent "crime" of file sharing the labels had accused her mother of. Also named was Bobby, who was only 12 when he first came to the Big 4's attention.
Now through Glass, with associate Sharon Taylor, Bobby has filed official, detailed replies to the RIAA's claims, and is demanding a trial by jury.
"Good morning Jon," said Patti in an email. "We finally got to say the things in a legal document that we've been trying to say all along. I hope this gets the message across on behalf of everyone who has been supportive of what we've been trying to do. In particular, I hope the RIAA gets the message that we are not going away: we are in this for the duration. Thanks for everything - we could never have done this without p2pnet readers."
p2pnet readers have contributed more than $14,600 which has been used for disbursements.
And, "Hey Jon," said Bobby. "First I want to thank everyone for sticking by me and my family. I wouldn't have been able to do this without them. While I don't totally understand everything in the answer, I know that what we're doing is important. I think the worst part so far was trying to turn me against my friends and them against me. That makes me sad and angry. But now it's my turn to fight and, with my mom's help to stick up for teenagers everywhere, that's what I'm going to do. Thanks!"
What he's referring to above is the way RIAA "investigators" got to one of his friends, threatening him.
Meanwhile, Bobby's submission makes points such as this:
Plaintiffs had specific information that the Computer alleged to have contained the downloaded files was destroyed by fire in July, 2004, yet Plaintiffs? make the unfounded and unsupportable allegation of continued infringement 'until in or about early 2005'.
And:
... this Defendant, and others similarly situated, to the extent that any downloading or even 'sharing' actually occurred, was not engaged in any type of activity 'for profit.' The legislative history indicates that this remedy was contemplated against businesses and 'pirates,' not children and their unsuspecting parents. Plaintiffs, instead, chose the Ray Kroc (founder of McDonald?s ) approach: 'If my competitor were drowning I'd stick a hose in his mouth and turn on the water.'
And:
Plaintiffs have crafted at least two additional and alternative forms of damages, which forms have not been offered to this Defendant, even though similarly situated. One alternative, explicated by Warner Music?s CEO, Edgar Bronfman, is for a parent to talk to his or her children: 'I explained to them [his children] what I believe is right, that the principle is that stealing music is stealing music. Frankly, right is right and wrong is wrong, particularly when a parent is talking to a child. A bright line around moral responsibility is very important. I can assure you they no longer do that.' As to what else he did to them, he responded, 'I think I?ll keep that within the family.' Plaintiffs have failed and refused to offer this Defendant the same form of damages. The other alternative, offered to large companies, was to simply erase the offending files from the hard drive. Plaintiffs have failed and refused to offer this Defendant the same form of damages.
Among other things, this refers to the Big 4's warning to corporations which says in part, "The purpose of this memorandum is to remind you of (Organization?s) policy on the use of copyrighted material on (Organization?s) computer systems and networks. Unauthorized copying, distribution and certain other use of copyrighted material is illegal and can expose you and (Organization) to severe civil and criminal liability under the copyright law. This applies to all types of copyrighted works, including music, movies, software and other literary and artistic works."
It goes on:
Employees must not make, store, transmit or make available unauthorized copies of copyrighted material using (Organization?s) computers, networks or storage media. Nor may employees use peer-to-peer file transfer services or take other actions likely to promote or lead to copyright infringement. If you have stored unauthorized copies of music, movies, software or other copyrighted works on (Organization?s) computer systems, you should delete those copies promptly.
"So, these corporate defendants, with millions and possibly billions of dollars, armed with attorneys, receive the 'punishment' of a 'warning' and the restorative action of 'deleting' the offending files," says Bobby's submission, continuing:
"In contrast, non-asseted teenagers and their unsuspecting parents have the weight of the Federal Courts of the United States of America, along with the U.S.C.A. Copyright, and cash damages, with no hopes of mounting a full and proper legal defense, put upon them. This alone cries out for redress."
Go here for the complete document.
Below is the full submission. Go here for the .pdf. Anyone following the continuing depradations of the Big 4 should take the time to read it.
===================================
Civil Action No. 06-cv-11520 (SCR)
Defendant, ROBERT SANTANGELO, JR., by his attorneys, Jordan D. Glass, P.C., for his answer to the Plaintiffs? complaint, alleges:
1. Denies paragraph 1, sentence 3 to the end of the paragraph. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to paragraph 1, sentence 1.
2. Denies paragraphs 2, 18, 19, 20 and 21.
3. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to Plaintiffs? statements in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 as to the actions or statements of others. Denies Plaintiffs? allegations about Defendant contained in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.
4. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. Denies Plaintiffs? allegations about the Defendant contained in paragraph 8.
5. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17.
6. Defendant reaffirms each and every response above in answer to paragraph 15 as if set forth fully at length herein.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8. Plaintiffs? claims against Defendant are barred by acquiescence.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9. Plaintiffs? claims against Defendant are barred by estoppel.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10. Plaintiffs? claims against Defendant are barred by estoppel by acquiescence.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11. The alleged conduct, had it occurred, constituted fair use, as it would have been solely been for private entertainment and not for commercial use.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the pleading requirements applicable to copyright infringement. There is no liability for infringing upon the right of distribution unless copies of copyrighted works were actually disseminated to members of the public.
13. Defendant denies having disseminated any copyrighted works to members of the public.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. Plaintiffs have engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to defraud the Courts of the United States.
a. Plaintiffs, ostensibly competitors in the recording industry, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and public policy, by litigating and settling all cases similar to this one together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in an identical manner and through common lawyers.
b. Among the acts in furtherance of this conspiracy are: (1) bringing, without investigation sufficient to establish that the allegations and factual contention therein have evidentiary support, lawsuits against persons who are not specifically known to have infringed copyrights; (2) making false and unsupported allegations that the defendants in these actions have infringed copyrights, by making the unwarranted and technologically erroneous assumption that an Internet Protocol address is a unique identifier of a computer or an individual; (3) using a corporation known as Settlement Support Center, LLC, as their agent to make extortionate threats to take criminal action and to defame defendants? names and credit in order to force defendants to pay sums which have no relation to Plaintiffs? actual damages, if any, and by delivering fraudulent releases to settling defendants (few of whom are represented by counsel), in that such releases do not constitute true releases of all claims, thereby misleading settling defendants into erroneously believing that they cannot be sued again; (4) commencing ex parte ?John Doe? lawsuits which they have no intention of pursuing, but by means of which they are able to communicate with District Judges, Magistrate Judges, and other judicial officials on a daily basis, without providing defendants with notice or opportunity to be heard, in violation of attorneys? ethical obligations as officers of the Courts; (5) invading the privacy of these ?John Doe? defendants by then serving subpoenas on Internet Service Providers without notice to the potential defendants; (6) bringing the ?John Doe? lawsuits in jurisdictions far removed from the domiciles of the ?John Does,? so that they have no meaningful opportunity to be heard or to retain counsel of their own choosing; (7) withdrawing such actions upon being challenged and thereby preventing defendants from obtaining relief for having to defend them; and, (8) engaging in other unconscionable conduct.
c. On information and belief, these and other plaintiffs and the Recording Industry Association of America (?RIAA?) have commenced some 19,000 actions in the District Courts of the United States in the past five years, the overwhelming majority of which have resulted either in default judgments or extortionate settlements far in excess of any actual damages incurred by these Plaintiffs or other plaintiffs within and without the RIAA.
15. These actions, and the conduct underlying them, constitute misuse of Plaintiffs? copyrights, thereby barring Plaintiffs claims.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. Plaintiffs? claims are barred under the doctrine of unclean hands.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. Upon information and belief, the alleged conduct, had it occurred, was authorized; indeed, on information and belief, Plaintiffs promoted, fostered and facilitated such conduct over the Internet and by other means.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. The Complaint fails to join one or more individuals and entities as parties to the action whose absence precludes complete relief to those already parties, or impairs Defendant?s ability to protect his interests within the meaning of Rules 12(b)(7) and 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; therefore, this matter should be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs? claims against Defendant are also barred because Plaintiffs have failed to join the indispensable party or parties of the ?online media distribution system? identified in Plaintiffs? Complaint paragraph 18, and the person or persons or entities, also identified in paragraph 18, who or which obtained copies of the works allegedly ?distributed? or ?shared? by Defendant. Plaintiffs? claims against Defendant are also barred because Plaintiffs have failed to join the indispensable party identified by Plaintiffs as the ?neighbor and best friend? in Plaintiffs? Complaint paragraph 3, with whom Plaintiffs claim to have made a settlement and who is known to the Plaintiffs to have been the person who loaded the allegedly offending programs onto the Santangelo Computer.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19. Defendant is not a necessary and proper party. Plaintiffs have sued the wrong person.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20. The alleged claims made by each Plaintiff against Defendant are neither well grounded in fact nor warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. Plaintiffs? claims are barred under the doctrine of laches.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22. The claims alleged by each Plaintiff against Defendant are barred by the statute of limitations, 17 U.S.C. § 507 (b), which provides that no civil action may be maintained under the federal Copyright Act unless the same is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if there actually be any, as required by law.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24. To the extent that Plaintiffs? claims accuse Defendant of criminal acts, Defendant specifically denies that he has committed any criminal acts and asserts his Fifth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. (Plaintiff has verbally identified perjury and piracy as possible crimes committed by Defendant.)
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25. While maintaining that Defendant did not download any music, Defendant asserts that all music alleged to have been downloaded was already owned by the Defendant or immediate family members prior to the dates of any alleged downloading, and that there is no evidence to support that Defendant was involved in any downloading whatsoever.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26. On information and belief, Plaintiffs promoted downloading free music, and then Plaintiffs, once having already enticed and encouraged children and teenagers to download music for free, turned on their audience and sued them for the same behavior they had previously encouraged. Plaintiffs exhibited their ability to turn on their audience by displaying physically threatening and frightening behavior at depositions.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27. To the extent that Plaintiffs have suffered damages, if at all, they have set their own public rate of damages at $0.99 per song, of which they do not receive the entire amount and can not claim more than their actual damages. Plaintiffs? actual damages are claimed to be $0.70 per recording and Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act which are between 1,071 and 42,857 times the actual damages suffered. Popular music sound recording downloads [owned by the Plaintiffs] and the consumer license to use them are lawfully obtainable to the public at $0.99 per song and, of that $0.99, roughly $0.70 per song is paid by the retailer to the record label. The statutory damages sought by Plaintiffs under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1) are unconstitutionally excessive and disproportionate to any actual damages which may have been sustained, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28. Plaintiffs can not meet their burden of proof that Defendant either downloaded or ?shared? files.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
29. On information and belief, Plaintiffs were in the unique and best position to stop the distribution of such files over the Internet, as they possessed the technology and money to do so, but failed and refused to do so; in fact, they lobbied Congress to set safe harbors with their collaborators and business partners, such as in the form of the Digital Millennium Act and other such laws, and are now using such laws as the platform from behind which to sue children, people who are seriously ill and whose illnesses may be exacerbated by the actions of the Plaintiffs, the elderly (and even deceased ), impoverished, and uneducated (or at least the technologically unsophisticated ? for these purposes they suffer the same), targeting parties unable to defend themselves against multiple law firms with defenses requiring sophisticated technical acumen and six-figure discovery activities. On further information and belief, Plaintiffs colluded with America Online (?AOL?), in particular, in regard to the use of parental controls, both accusing parents of not setting such controls ? for secondary liability purposes ? and then hiding behind the fact that when parents did set such controls, that such controls effectively blocked the Plaintiffs? agent?s (?Agent?) alleged warnings (?Warnings?) that downloading from KaZaA, iMesh, Napster, Grokster, LimeWire and others was improper or illegal (Plaintiffs? claimed message has not been seen, so its exact contents are unknown, but is alleged to exist by Plaintiffs). So insidious is this scheme, it is akin to asking, ?Will you stop beating your wife?? Plaintiffs used this Hobson?s choice in the secondary liability cases thus: if parents set the controls to block unknown ?Instant Messages? (?IM?) from reaching their children (to prevent, say, child pornographers from making contact), then the Agent?s Warnings, too, would be blocked. Plaintiffs claim this ?proved? a parent?s ?ability or right to control? the use of the computer, allegedly establishing secondary liability. Conversely, if a parent failed to make use of such controls, then the parent would be accused of implicitly condoning the downloading. But who was in the better ? indeed, best ? position to work with AOL to allow such Warnings to bypass the parental controls? The parents who didn?t even know the problem existed, or the Plaintiffs, who managed to obtain law enforcement authority for its Agents to directly access potential defendants? hard drives, bypassing any kind of parental controls (and perhaps going through firewalls and other security settings) to take ?snap shots? of alleged ?shared directories?? Clearly, if Plaintiffs could manage direct remote and secret access to potential defendants? hard drives, they could manage an arrangement with AOL and law enforcement to allow these Warnings to be passed through to the nation?s unsuspecting children ? that is, if they had wanted to stop the downloading and prevent these lawsuits.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
30. Plaintiffs notified only large businesses and the Federal Government that their employees and their respective families might be violating the law, but failed to make any meaningful or reasonable efforts to notify the public at large, even though they were in the best position to do so. As of this date, there are no publications available to the public at the United States Government?s Federal Citizen Information Center warning against, or offering ways for parents to protect their children against, the allegedly illegal downloading.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
31. To personally defend against the type of violation Plaintiffs allege, one needs specialized technical training not available to the average person; indeed, even the CEO of Warner Music could not ? or did not takes steps to, or did not know to takes steps to, or did not know how to take steps to ? prevent his own children from illegally downloading music (infra, paragraph 30). It is not a question of ignorance of the law ? of which law the Plaintiffs, on information and belief, affirmatively encouraged and facilitated violation (if it is, in fact, a violation of any law); rather, it is a question of inability to know that a law is even being violated, an inability to defend against knowing of the violation without ?methods assistance,? which assistance was available to Plaintiffs, but which they failed and refused to provide to consumers. Further, the type of technological defense necessary to combat such violations was not practicably available to home computer users when the alleged violations took place (and such defensive systems are still not largely available), but such technology was available to, and in use by, the Plaintiffs, large businesses, the United States Government and various state governments: one type of technology is called a ?firewall? and most home computer users did not have them (or know how to use them) when the violations were alleged to have occurred, back in 2002 through 2004, importantly, when this Defendant was only 11-14 years of age. The home computing world was entirely different then, and it is impossible to consider anyone?s actions, knowledge, inactions, or access to technology from that time based upon today?s knowledge and available technology. Plaintiffs chose who they would warn (such as ?big business? and the Federal Government ? there was even a special notice for the White House), and once they took an action to affirmatively warn one group, they had an obligation to affirmatively warn all potential defendants similarly situated, and that, by the most basic definition, would include any computer user, whether in business, government or home. To not demand this means it would be acceptable for Plaintiffs to warn Utah, but not Missouri; African Americans, but not Latinos; males, but not females; people with incomes over $100,000.00, but not under (which Plaintiffs did do in the form of warning big business and big government but not individuals); businesses, but not individuals. The burden to do so on the Plaintiffs was low (through the Internet, ISP?s, various governmental agencies, computer manufacturers, computer superstores and distributors, on their own CD?s and self-promoting shows), and the Plaintiffs had the resources, technology and law available to them to accomplish this; the damage to the potential defendants was high (19,000 lawsuits and counting); but the Plaintiffs did nothing after taking their initial self-serving steps.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
32. Plaintiffs have crafted at least two additional and alternative forms of damages, which forms have not been offered to this Defendant, even though similarly situated. One alternative, explicated by Warner Music?s CEO, Edgar Bronfman, is for a parent to talk to his or her children: ?I explained to them [his children] what I believe is right, that the principle is that stealing music is stealing music. Frankly, right is right and wrong is wrong, particularly when a parent is talking to a child. A bright line around moral responsibility is very important. I can assure you they no longer do that.? As to what else he did to them, he responded, ?I think I?ll keep that within the family.? Plaintiffs have failed and refused to offer this Defendant the same form of damages. The other alternative, offered to large companies, was to simply erase the offending files from the hard drive. Plaintiffs have failed and refused to offer this Defendant the same form of damages. Exhibit A.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
33. Plaintiffs? first demand for damages is moot and frivolous and should be dismissed as Plaintiffs have acknowledged that the Computer relevant at all times to this action, along with its hard drive, was destroyed in a fire more than 30 months? ago, and at least five months? prior to any Santangelo defendant having notice of any potential litigation.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
34. Plaintiffs? claims against Defendant are barred due to a settlement agreement Plaintiffs reached with Sharman Networks, creators and distributors of the KaZaA software. Upon information and belief, this settlement was in the amount of $115 million. Although Plaintiffs in their Complaint do not allege which media network the Defendant used (paragraph 18), Plaintiffs have previously identified KaZaA to have been the ?online media distribution system? used by the Defendant. Through Plaintiffs? settlement with Sharman Networks, Plaintiffs elected to accept a settlement which fully compensated Plaintiffs for the injuries allegedly caused by Defendant and others. This settlement fully compensated Plaintiffs for any alleged infringement by Defendant, and therefore bars Plaintiffs from recovering any damages a second time for the same alleged infringements.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
35. Plaintiffs? claims against Defendant are barred due to a settlement agreement Plaintiffs reached with the Defendant?s ?neighbor and best friend,? with whom the Plaintiffs, according to their Complaint (paragraph 3), have settled by having the ?neighbor and best friend? ?pay[] a settlement amount? and for other relief received. Through Plaintiffs? settlement with the ?neighbor and best friend,? Plaintiffs elected to accept a settlement which fully compensated them for the damages allegedly caused by Defendant and possibly others. This settlement fully compensated Plaintiffs for any alleged infringement by Defendant, and therefore bars Plaintiffs from recovering any damages a second (or even third) time for the same alleged infringements.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
36. It is Plaintiffs? contention that the offending programs were installed by Defendant?s ?neighbor and best friend,? and there is no allegation or evidence that such was done with the knowledge or permission of the owner of the Computer, Patricia Santangelo, mother of the Defendant, and with whom the Defendant resides. The ?neighbor and best friend? exceeded his authority in his use of the Computer, whether as a licensee or an invitee, and installed and used the programs for his own benefit and gain and, as such, was a trespasser. The existence of the offending programs were invisible to Patricia Santangelo; they were a trap set by the trespasser for his own benefit and gain. He gave no notice, asked no permission, and left no meaningful visible trail or warnings of his actions. That ?neighbor and best friend? too, was duped by the provider, or earlier facilitated by the Plaintiffs, only supports the Defendant?s additional positions. Whether ?neighbor and best friend? set such programs to ?share? or ?distribute,? or failed to set such programs to ?not share? and ?not distribute,? was and is unknown to Defendant and unknowable to his mother, Patricia Santangelo. In any event, ?neighbor and best friend? caused any sharing or distribution to occur, not Defendant or Patricia Santangelo. Consequently, and for reasons separate and apart from those in the Twenty- Seventh Affirmative Defense, Plaintiffs? claims against Defendant are barred due to the settlement agreement Plaintiffs reached with the Defendant?s ?neighbor and best friend,? with whom the Plaintiffs, according to their Complaint, paragraph 3, have settled by having the ?neighbor and best friend? ?pay[] a settlement amount? and for other relief received. Through Plaintiffs? settlement with the ?neighbor and best friend,? Plaintiffs elected to accept a settlement which fully compensated them for the damages allegedly caused by Defendant and possibly others. This settlement fully compensated Plaintiffs for any alleged infringement by Defendant, and therefore bars Plaintiffs from recovering any damages a second (or even third) time for the same alleged infringements.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
37. Plaintiffs claim they reached a settlement agreement with the ?neighbor and best friend.? Plaintiffs failed to notify Defendant of such settlement to which settlement agreement Defendant (and perhaps others) was a necessary party as he had a direct interest in the structure, terms, scope, nature and outcome of the agreement, and such agreement necessarily impacted him. Since Plaintiffs failed to notify Defendant and reached such a settlement without his participation, knowledge or agreement, Plaintiffs should be barred from recovering any damages a second (or even third) time for the same alleged infringements, in particular those known to the Plaintiffs to have been caused by someone other than the Defendant (i.e.: the ?neighbor and best friend?).
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
38. To the extent that any downloading occurred, if at all, it would have been the result of an agreement with some provider (which agreements, if any, were not created by Defendant, but under which Defendant impliedly and unknowingly operated). Such agreement, constituting either a fraud in the inducement or a contract, would have been voidable as to Defendant because (at minimum) the Defendant was a minor at all times relevant to the action, and is still a minor as of this date. It is undisputed that the Computer on which the alleged downloaded music resided was destroyed five months before any Santangelo defendant had any notice of any lawsuit. The Defendant, not then being in possession of any such downloaded music at the time of the lawsuit, and there being no allegations by the Plaintiffs that he remained in possession of any of such music, or that he continued to or then first started to download music onto any replacement computer (in particular, between the time of the destruction of the old computer and the time of the bringing of the lawsuit), the contract was voided by the Defendant and there were no damages to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs? damages can not be based upon ?listening? to music over the Internet, as, on information and belief, anyone can listen to Plaintiffs? songs for free through AOL radio or any number of other ?Internet radios,? as well as for free on various AM or FM radio music stations; the damages must be based upon some benefit to the Defendant or damage to the Plaintiffs. There is no evidence that Defendant listened to anything either than on the Internet or on CD?s already owned. Further, to the extent that the music listened to was the result of music being played on the computer from CD?s already purchased and owned by the Defendant or his family, the ?listening? was part of Plaintiffs? license and any ?playing? is within the license provided by the Plaintiffs, which license, on information and belief, does not limit the mechanical or electronic device on which Plaintiffs? CD?s can be played ? only the distribution could be part of the Plaintiffs? claim. Since there is no evidence the Defendant distributed anything, even if he had listened to music on the computer ? from CD?s already owned, ownership being based upon purchases and gifts (of original CD?s) and of neither by any alleged downloading ? Defendant can not be attributed with causing any damages to any Plaintiff by having not ventured outside the license of the Plaintiffs. This Defendant having obtained no benefit, and the Plaintiffs not having been damaged, the action is therefore moot and should be dismissed with prejudice.
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
39. On information and belief, Plaintiffs engaged in deceptive and misleading advertising in connection with the distribution of their copyrighted works. The nature of such deceptive and misleading advertising included, but was not limited to, enticing children and others to listen to music over the Internet, which, in turn, caused unsuspecting downloads and/or was associated with claims by others of allowable free downloading.
40. Plaintiffs? claims are barred because of their deceptive and misleading advertising in connection with the distribution of their copyrighted works. Plaintiffs must not be allowed to profit from their deceptive and misleading actions.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
41. Plaintiffs? claims are barred to the extent any persons, based on whose behavior Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendant liable, are innocent infringers.
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
Breach of Duty to Warn; Unequal Treatment Under Law
42. Defendant-counterclaim plaintiff Robert Santangelo, Jr., is an individual residing within this district.
43. On information and belief, plaintiff-counterclaim defendant Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New York.
44. On information and belief, plaintiff-counterclaim defendant Virgin Records America, Inc., is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New York.
45. On information and belief, plaintiff-counterclaim defendant UMG Recordings, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California.
46. On information and belief, plaintiff-counterclaim defendant BMG Music is a New York general partnership with its principal place of business in the State of New York.
47. On information and belief, plaintiff-counterclaim defendant Sony BMG Music Entertainment is a Delaware general partnership with its principal place of business in the State of New York.
48. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (copyright), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (copyright). The Court has jurisdiction over counterclaims under U.S.C. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 13.
49. Counterclaim defendants are, on information and belief, the copyright owners or licensees of certain sound recordings.
50. On or about November 1, 2006, counterclaim defendants commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (06-cv-11520) against counterclaim plaintiff charging him with copyright infringement.
51. Counterclaim plaintiff is accused therein of downloading and file-sharing certain computer files consisting of sound recordings allegedly owned or licensed by counterclaim defendants.
52. The acts allegedly committed by counterclaim plaintiff as set forth in the complaint therein do not constitute copyright infringement.
53. Counterclaim defendants do not allege any specific acts of downloading or file-sharing or provide any details of time and place regarding such acts as against counterclaim plaintiff.
54. There is an actual controversy between the counterclaim plaintiff and counterclaim defendants.
55. Counterclaim plaintiff reasserts each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 41 of his Answer as if set forth fully at length herein, and incorporates same by reference.
56. Plaintiffs, whether individually or through their agent, the Record Industry Association of America (?RIAA?), had a duty to warn individuals ? this Defendant and those similarly situated ? of the type of copyright infringement or violation they allege, just as they warned large businesses and the government. (At all times hereafter in this section on the First Counterclaim, the word ?Plaintiffs? refers to the individual plaintiffs in this action and their agent, the RIAA.)
57. On information and belief, Plaintiffs actively and openly, as well as secretively and furtively, encouraged children and others to participate in seeking out, listening to, ?playing? and ultimately, often unintentionally and unknowingly, downloading Plaintiffs? copyrighted materials from the Internet.
58. Plaintiffs thereafter changed their position and determined they did not want this same group to play or download music from the Internet. Defendant and others similarly situated relied upon Plaintiffs? representations, upon which representations they were reasonable to rely, and upon which representations they did rely to their obvious detriment.
59. To the extent that Plaintiffs were not happy with such representations in the marketplace, they were in the best position to change such notions, as they had the contacts with law enforcement, businesses, governments, OEM?s, computer manufacturers, programmers, ISPs, and all level of manufacturers and service providers. Plaintiffs then engaged in a series of notifications to the government of the United States and to large corporations, as well as, on information and belief, to certain academic institutions. The RIAA?s undated warning to large businesses, goes so far as to include a sample memo for such businesses to send to their employees. Id. Exhibit A.
TO: (Distribution list)
FROM: (Senior Officer)
SUBJECT: Policy on Use of Copyrighted Material
DATE: (Insert)
The purpose of this memorandum is to remind you of (Organization?s) policy on the use of copyrighted material on (Organization?s) computer systems and networks.
Unauthorized copying, distribution and certain other use of copyrighted material is illegal and can expose you and (Organization) to severe civil and criminal liability under the copyright law. This applies to all types of copyrighted works, including music, movies, software and other literary and artistic works.
Employees must not make, store, transmit or make available unauthorized copies of copyrighted material using (Organization?s) computers, networks or storage media. Nor may employees use peer-to-peer file transfer services or take other actions likely to promote or lead to copyright infringement. If you have stored unauthorized copies of music, movies, software or other copyrighted works on (Organization?s) computer systems, you should delete those copies promptly.
(Organization?s) complete policy on the use of copyrighted material is attached. Please note that employees are subject to disciplinary action, including possible termination, for violation of this policy. (Compliance Officer) will be organizing regular audits of (Organization?s) computers and networks to ensure compliance and, if necessary, will remove unauthorized copies if you have not done so.
Please do not hesitate to contact (Compliance Officer) if you have any questions.
60. The seven page document is signed, ?Hilary B. Rosen, Chairman and CEO, RIAA,? and ?Jack Valenti, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of America.?
61. Further, The Executive Office of the President (of the United States), through the Office of Management and Budget sent a memo to warn themselves and other federal employees, of the various dangers and illegalities of downloading music (as well as pornography and other things ...) and ?to show the American Public? responsible Internet practices.
62. The first page of the memo, Exhibit B, states:
The purpose of this memorandum is to detail specific actions agencies must take to ensure the appropriate use of certain technologies used for file sharing across networks. These actions are based on recommended guidance developed by the CIO Council in 1999. The effective use and management of file sharing technology requires a clear policy, training of employees on the policy, and monitoring and enforcement.
Background
A type of file sharing known as Peer-to-Peer (P2P) refers to any software or system allowing individual users of the Internet to connect to each other and trade files. These systems are usually highly decentralized and are designed to facilitate connections between persons who are looking for certain types of files. While there are many appropriate uses of this technology, a number of studies show, the vast majority of files traded on P2P networks are copyrighted music files and pornography. Data also suggests P2P is a common avenue for the spread of computer viruses within IT systems.
Federal computer systems or networks (as well as those operated by contractors on the government?s behalf) must not be used for the downloading of illegal and/or unauthorized copyrighted content. It is important to ensure computer resources of the Federal government are not compromised and to demonstrate to the American public the importance of adopting ethical and responsible practices on the Internet.
[The word ?Background? is bolded in original. All other emphasis added.]
63. The Defendant, and others similarly situated, received no such brochures or notices, only enticements for ?free music? from computer providers, such as Gateway (which was the Santangelo computer at that time). To a teenager, advertisements for free music are not replete with notices about when ?free? starts and ends and what to do next. Once ?hooked,? as the companies clearly intended, with free music sites available all over the Internet, one not distinguishing itself from another, any reasonable teen would similarly behave. Gateway?s advertisements promoted the power of its CD-burner. If not for music, then for what ? to a teenager?
64. Plaintiffs breached their duty to warn the public, and chose who it would warn. Once having taken the affirmative step to issue warnings to some, it then failed to warn others, in particular, the Defendant and others similarly situated.
65. The relief requested cannot be obtained in the action against counterclaim plaintiff.
66. Plaintiffs failure to adequately and meaningfully warn was the direct, legal and proximate cause of any damages which Defendant has incurred, and Defendant has been damaged therefrom, as to his reputation, legal fees and expenses, distraction from school and life activities, held up to public obloquy, used as an operative against his friends for the benefit of the Plaintiffs? cartel and had stolen from him the one thing even this honorable Court has not the power to return: his time. But he can be compensated with money.
67. In addition to pecuniary damages, pursuant to Copyright Act § 505, defendant is entitled to be awarded his attorneys fees in defending this frivolous suit.
SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
Misuse of Copyright
68. Counterclaim plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 42 through 54 of his First Counterclaim.
69. Counterclaim plaintiff reasserts each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 41 of his Answer as if set forth fully at length herein, and incorporates same by reference.
70. The counterclaim defendants are competitors in the business of recorded music.
71. The counterclaim defendants are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and public policy, by litigating and settling all cases similar to this one together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in an identical manner and through common lawyers.
72. Counterclaim plaintiff re-alleges paragraph 14, et. seque, of his Seventh Affirmative Defense.
73. Such actions represent an attempt by counterclaim defendants to secure for themselves rights far exceeding those provided by copyright laws.
74. Such acts constitute misuse of copyrights, and lead to a forfeiture of the exclusive rights granted to counterclaim defendants by those laws.
75. Counterclaim plaintiff is entitled to a judgment that counterclaim defendants have forfeited the exclusive rights, if any, which they possess in and to the sound recordings which they allege him to have infringed.
76. Counterclaim plaintiff is further entitled to costs and a reasonable attorney?s fee and such other relief as may be just.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment:
a. against the Plaintiffs, and each of them, dismissing their causes of action and awarding Defendant his costs, disbursements and attorneys fees if and as allowed by law;
b. awarding Defendant damages on his counterclaims inclusive of his costs, disbursements and attorneys fees if and as allowed by law; and
c. for such other, different, additional and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: Valhalla, New York, 29 January 2007
S/
Sharon G. Thompson, Esq. (ST-8932)
Jordan D. Glass, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
7-11 Legion Drive, Suite M-1C
Valhalla, New York 10595
(914) 831-3087
To: Richard L. Gabriel, Esq.
Holme, Roberts & Owen, LLP
1700 Lincoln, Suite 4100
Denver, Colorado 80203-4541
(303) 866-0331
http://p2pnet.net/story/11178?PHPSESSID=...78c7e555767a5df
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. January 2007 @ 10:38 |
Link to this message
|
Sony BMG Settles FTC Rootkit Case
By Ed Oswald, BetaNews
January 30, 2007, 2:16 PM
Sony BMG has settled with the Federal Trade Commission, agreeing to reimburse consumers up to $150 for damage to the computers caused by the label's use of rootkits to prevent piracy of its discs.
The company had settled a similar case with 39 states and the state of California late last year. Like those settlements, Sony BMG admits no wrongdoing, and must provide tools to help uninstall the rootkit software. In addition, it would be required to post notices of the settlement on its Web site for two years.
"Installations of secret software that create security risks are intrusive and unlawful," said FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. "Companies must adequately disclose unexpected limitations on the customary use of their products so consumers can make informed decisions regarding whether to purchase and install that content."
In a statement, the FTC said the software "exposed consumers to significant security risks and was unreasonably difficult to uninstall." It was used to monitor listening habits and prevent discs from being copied more than a preset number of times.
Exchanges of discs with the rootkit software would be accepted through June 31, 2007, the FTC ordered.
The commission vote to accept the settlement was unanimous at 5-0, and would be open to public comment for the next 30 days. After that time, the FTC would decide whether to make the ruling final.
Sony BMG was not returning requests for comment on the decision as of press time.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Sony_BMG...Case/1170182186
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. January 2007 @ 08:26 |
Link to this message
|
New York teen sues record Industry
'Pirate' boy bites back
By Nick Farrell: Wednesday 31 January 2007, 16:15
A New York teen, dubbed a pirate by the Record Industry, is counter suing them for defamation, violating anti-trust laws, conspiring to defraud the courts and making extortionate threats.
In papers responding to a lawsuit filed by five record companies, Robert Santangelo, who was 11 when he is supposed to have downloaded music, has come out fighting. He denies sharing music using P2P technology and says it's impossible for the record companies to prove that that he did.
Robert Santangelo and his lawyer, Jordan Glass, have raised 32 defences against the music industry's charges. Amongst Robert's defence is the information that all the music that it was claimed he downloaded he already owned on shop bought CDs.
They have demanded a jury trial and filing a counterclaim against the companies for allegedly damaging the boy's reputation, distracting him from school and costing him legal fees. The record companies have engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to defraud the courts of the United States, the court documents say. Competitors in the recording industry are a cartel acting together in violation of the antitrust laws by bringing the piracy cases jointly and using the same agency "to make extortionate threats ... to force defendants to pay", our precocious teen wrote.
Santangelo's mum, Patti Santangelo, is 42-year-old suburban mother of five who also refused to pay up when the music industry accused her of being a pirate. After the case started to get messy, particularly when it became clear that Patti didn't know how to turn a computer on, let alone file share, the music lawyers dropped its case against her.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37337
more here
http://www.1010wins.com/pages/193237.php...ontentId=298727
|
Senior Member
|
31. January 2007 @ 08:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
I would love to see this family stick it up the industries gee gee hole.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. January 2007 @ 08:43 |
Link to this message
|
www.FamilyWatchDog.us
United States
When you visit this site you can enter your address and a map will pop up with your house as a small icon of a house. There may be red, blue and green dots surrounding your entire neighborhood. When you click on these dots a picture of a criminal will appear with his or her home address and the description of the crime he or she has committed.
The best thing is that you can show your children these pictures and see how close these people live to your home or school.
This site was developed by John Walsh from Americas Most Wanted. This is another tool we can use to help us keep our kids safe.
Please pass this on to
www.FamilyWatchDog.us
Online sexual predators act
p2pnet.net News:- If a bill introduced in the US Congress, yesterday, goes through, people such as Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch would have full access to a restricted US database of sex offenders.
Murdoch's News Corp owns MySpace, infamous as a hunting ground for sexual predators. Under the legislation, it and similar sites would be able to tap into the data base to check names and addresses against public profiles, says Associated Press.
"The legislation, aimed at giving computer network operators the knowledge and ability to remove sexual predators from their sites, would require convicted sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses and other online identifiers with federal authorities," says the story. "The information would not be released to the public."
Presumably, this is meant to make sure data held in the base aren't abused. However, MySpace and sites like it, hard-core commercial enterprises run by entrepreneurs, are hardly shining examples of probity.
Be that as it may, "Adults who misrepresent their age to a minor with the intent of sexually abusing a child could be prosecuted and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison," says AP, adding:
"The bill defines "social networking" sites in broad terms - a Web site that allows users to create public profiles and communicate with other users - and could include popular destinations like Amazon.com, which allows shoppers to make personal pages and discuss items for sale."
However, "Critics are ridiculing the latest legislative effort to combat online sexual predators, saying provisions of a law proposed Tuesday would be easy to circumvent and amounted to little more than political 'window dressing' supported by the online social networking giant MySpace.com," says The San Francisco Chronicle, going on:
"But sponsors - which include influential senators like John McCain, R-Ariz., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., - say the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007 addresses a small, but important, part of ridding social networking sites of predators:"
Meanwhile, MySpace, currently being sued by the families of five girls who were sexually assaulted by men they'd met on MySpace, says it'll donate use of its own sex offenders database to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC).
. Slashdot Slashdot it!
Also See:
Associated Press - Lawmakers Take Aim at Online Predators, January 31, 2007
The San Francisco Chronicle - Bill to curb online sexual predators criticized, January 31, 2007
five girls - MySpace in sex assault case, January 29, 2007
sex offenders - MySpace sexual offenders dbase, January 31, 2007
http://p2pnet.net/story/11185?PHPSESSID=...d567636039a833c
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. January 2007 @ 08:44
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. January 2007 @ 08:49 |
Link to this message
|
BBC versus P2P
p2pnet.net news view:- More 'evidence' that free P2P is evil and illegal, according to the BBC's Click.
Studies conducted independently and for movie studios and TV networks unanimously show free P2P has no negative effect on ticket and DVD sales, yet producers inside and outside Hollywood still claim it's illegal and killing their business.
They continue their false, misleading rhetoric that filesharing of legally purchased or recorded TV shows and movies is illegal. No court or government on earth has ever declared that to be so, but the major studios and mainscream media would like the public to believe they've "successfully prosecuted" thousands of "illegal filesharers" of music and video.
Children, single moms, senior citizens and corpses blackmailed by the studios and record producers have been forced to settle out of court, causing untold financial hardships and in some cases even bankruptcy and dissolution of the family.
A recent ruling in an Italian court quashed the convictions of two former students who in 1994 set up a P2P network, saying downloading computer files containing films, music or software isn't a crime if not done for profit.
In the recent edition of the Beeb's Click, a TV magazine concerned with all things electronic and internet, presenter Spencer Kelly and journalist Marc Cieslak report on the popularity of downloading US tv shows for free hours, weeks, months or years before they air in certain time zones or countries - if ever.
"With the advent of broadband, viewers are increasingly turning to the web and peer-to-peer downloading software to get their fix of the latest TV shows," says the BBC. "There is just one small problem with this P2P trend - a large proportion of this downloading is illegal."
While spouting the same tired Hollywood lies and falsehoods, the reporters fail to back up their claims with any type of proof that it is indeed illegal, instead concentrating their efforts on demonizing file sharers, who don't sell anything and who therefore don't make money of file sharing.
Intimidating and threatening internet service providers for customer details is one strong-arm tactic employed. The Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact) says it tracks down pirates and brings them before the courts. "We look to sites that we hear about, that we've got intelligence on, and we examine what's happening on those sites, and we continue to investigate and eventually we will be taking enforcement action," said Fact's director general Kieron Sharp.
p2pnet has suggested FACT is short for Farcical Approaches to Copyright Transgressions.
An anonymous filesharer interviewed by Click told of the ease of finding and downloading any program he wanted. "It's very, very easy to find the shows you're after. There are several websites that my friends have told me about. I do a Google search within that website and can find anything I want."
The most popular and easiest-to-use P2P software is BitTorrent, a free, open source protocol. Invented by Bram Cohen several years ago, Cohen claims he'd only been interested in finding a way to transfer large files over the internet using a minimum amount of personal bandwidth, and had never intended it to be used for 'illegal purposes'. Indeed, he claims he himself has never used BitTorrent to download or share copyrighted materials.
'Click' makes a point of highlighting the availability of such US shows as 24 and Lost by doing a quick search on Torrentspy, a popular torrent listing website which Hollywood has unsuccessfully tried to close down time and again. "If I perform a quick search for Kiefer Sutherland's action show '24', pages and pages of files appear. Some entries are individual episodes, but lots of them are entire seasons of the show."
The program completely ignores the fact that most of the BBC's new shows are just as desired and available as any US offering, with new episodes of the hugely popular Dr Who and Torchwood appearing online within hours of broadcast, allowing people in the US and elsewhere to download and watch them at their leisure instead of having to wait months or years for them to air.
Click also fails to acknowledge that it, too, is widely available over free P2P.
A 16-minute audio discussion on the Click website reveals the presenters and reporters haven't a clue as to how influential free P2P is to the consumers' purchasing choices, as well as their ignorance of the quality of digital videos available.
They believe that the majority of Hollywood movies on P2P are poor-quality cams at odd angles and resolutions, with audience members walking past the screen.
That might have been true in the last century when broadband filesharing was in its infancy, but the days are long gone when cams and telecines dominated. A cursory glance through any BitTorrent tracker or website shows that the majority of new films are DVD screeners (given to promoters and Academy members), or legally purchased retail DVD rips.
As the sharing of legally purchased or recorded TV shows, movies and music is not illegal and P2P is gaining more and more users every day, besides trying to sue their customers into buying 'product', networks are countering with reduced quality online streaming of some popular series.
"You can go to the ABC website and watch Lost, you can go to the NBC website and watch Heroes, says David Price, Head of Piracy Intelligence at Envisional. "In the US networks are selling episodes of Lost and episodes of other shows on iTunes for about $1.99 a go."
Another expected avenue of mainstream, 'legal' distribution is Hollywood's desire to enter the world of P2P. It's widely known and not disputed that several major Hollywood studios and broadcasters are planning to launch their own filesharing services using BitTorrent within the next year or two.
Last year, BT's Cohen contracted with several Hollywood studios and music producers to distribute 'legal' DRM-infested files using the BitTorrent protocol and listing them on his own BitTorrent web site. Recently BitTorrent acquired µTorrent, possibly the most popular and user-friendly P2P program available because of its simplicity and low use of memory resources.
A quick glance of BitTorrent.com reveals their official releases are comprised mostly of home-made or independent films and music videos, as well as trailers for Hollywood movies, although it's been reported that their search engine will find and list torrents for 'illegal' shows such as 24 and Lost.
A year or two ago the BBC decided to make its entire archive of audio and video available on the internet for free, and developed a proprietary Beta software for UK tv license holders to access and download anything they wanted. As this endeavor would undoubtedly require an unlimited amount of storage space and bandwidth, Auntie is now in talks with Google to put some content on YouTube, mostly in the form of clips and trailers "to raise the profile of its content".
The BBC's efforts to make its library available for free are honorable and should be used as a template for US networks. Although it's fair enough that tv license holders in the UK should have unlimited and unrestricted access for the content they paid for, this shuts out the many people in foreign countries who receive BBC broadcasts legally through their cable or satellite subscriptions. Indeed, many streamed clips and episodes now online on the BBC are only accessible to IP addresses in the UK. Likewise, some online episodes of US TV shows (and in some cases the entire website) can only be viewed by IP addresses in the US.
"TV battles peer-to-peer pirates" is the headline of the Click report, but they're fighting a losing battle.
Dissatisfied consumers drew the line in the sand years ago and Hollywood has never been able to cross it, though they've repeatedly tried and failed. The more they threaten and blackmail people into buying 'product,' the more they use illegal and immoral strong-arm tactics to get their way; the more they use Washington for their own needs; the more they try to intimidate foreign countries into kowtowing to their demands, the longer and wider that line in the sand will become.
As studies have repeatedly shown, free filesharing promotes artists and films for free, jump-starts careers, and increases sales of CDs, DVDs and cinema tickets. The market dictates what works, not the marketers.
catflap - p2pnet
http://p2pnet.net/story/11187?PHPSESSID=...11da7cdfb082e26
|
Senior Member
|
31. January 2007 @ 09:33 |
Link to this message
|
This is only the final conclusion from a 11 page article comparing Vista to XP...Here is link to complete article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html
Conclusion: K.O. For Windows Vista?
Windows Vista clearly is not a great new performer when it comes to executing single applications at maximum speed. Although we only looked at the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Enterprise, we do not expect the 64-bit edition to be faster (at least not with 32-bit applications).
Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as Everest, PCMark05 or Sandra 2007 show that differences are non-existent on a component level. We also found some programs that refused to work, and others that seem to cause problems at first but eventually ran properly. In any case, we recommend watching for Vista-related software upgrades from your software vendors.
There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications.
We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue.
There is good news as well: we did not find evidence that Windows Vista's new and fancy AeroGlass interface consumes more energy than Windows XP's 2D desktop. Although our measurements indicate a 1 W increase in power draw at the plug, this is too little of a difference to draw any conclusions. Obviously, the requirements for displaying all elements in 3D, rotating and moving them aren't enough to heat up graphics processors. This might also be a result of Windows Vista's more advanced implementation of ACPI 2.0 (and parts of 3.0), which allows the control of power of system components separately.
Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP. Is this a K.O. for Windows Vista in the enthusiast space?
If you really need your PC to finish huge encoding, transcoding or rendering workloads within a defined time frame, yes, it is. Don't do it; stay with XP. But as long as you don't need to finish workloads in record time, we believe it makes sense to consider these three bullet points:
* Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for free.
* There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead.
* No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor.
Although application performance has had this drawback, the new Windows Vista performance features SuperFetch and ReadyDrive help to make Vista feel faster and smoother than Windows XP. Our next article will tell you how they work.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. January 2007 @ 09:40 |
Link to this message
|
IE7 - Phishing and malicious scripting attacks remain a problem
Jan 31, 2007 - 7:43 AM - by Digital Dave
Oh yea... more coffee...
Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7 offers significant security improvements over its deservedly criticized predecessor. But the new IE still does not do enough to protect users.
pcworld.com
Internet Explorer 7 Is Still Not Safe Enough
IE 7 is definitely more secure, but phishing and malicious scripting attacks remain a problem.
Andrew Brandt
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 01:00 AM PST
Illustration: Mark Matcho
Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7 offers significant security improvements over its deservedly criticized predecessor. But the new IE still does not do enough to protect users.
Microsoft has, in IE 7, locked down some of the problem areas in IE 6. The browser will permit a Web site to nag you only once about installing an ActiveX control, for instance. (Some users will approve an installation simply to get rid of the pop-up windows.)
But malicious scripting attacks remain a big problem. Some miscreant Web sites use scripting code (such as JavaScript) to exploit security holes. This can allow them to perform drive-by installations of spyware or Trojan horse programs. IE 7 has a host of features designed to thwart exploits, including showing a pop-up warning that lets the user know when a site is trying to use scripting. But the new features don't go far enough.
Firefox's NoScript plug-in (a free download at NoScript.net) provides an elegant solution to the problem of malicious scripting. Once installed, NoScript prevents scripting from working at any Web site you visit until you approve it for that particular site. Being able to control scripting on a site-by-site basis with a single mouse click gives you a powerful security advantage.
But instead of the surgical script controls of NoScript, IE 7 still uses the same mud-covered sledgehammer that IE 6 did. Like NoScript, IE lets you block scripting for all sites in the Internet Zone, after which you can enable scripting for a particular site, but getting to the necessary dialog box takes at least six mouse clicks, and you must then enter the site's URL into the Trusted Sites list. It's a hassle most users won't deal with.
Microsoft touts IE 7's Phishing Filter as a significant new security feature, but a recent test of IE 7's filters by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that the Phishing Filter caught, at best, 68 percent of the phishing URLs that the researchers threw at the browser. (You can read more about the study's findings "Phinding Phish: An Evaluation of Anti-Phishing Toolbars.") Your best bet: Install an antiphishing toolbar as a safety net. In the CMU tests, SpoofGuard identified 91 percent of phishing sites. EarthLink's free toolbar placed second, with 83 percent accuracy.
None of this means that you shouldn't upgrade to IE 7. The new browser is more secure than IE 6--and given how tightly it's integrated into Windows, that extra protection is critical.
Andrew Brandt is a contributing editor for PC World. E-mail him at privacywatch@pcworld.com.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128536-page,1/article.html
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. January 2007 @ 10:22 |
Link to this message
|
Canada music download record
p2pnet.net News:- The CRIA says its owners, the members of the Big 4 Organized Music cartel, are being "devastated" by customers who share music with each other. These men, women and children are "criminals" and "thieves," say Warner Music (US), EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany).
With file sharing, no money changes hands and no one has been deprived, permanently or temporarily, of something he or she used to own.
But files shared equal sales lost, says the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America).
That notwithstanding, however, somehow, Canada's digital download market grew more than any major market in 2006, state new Nielsen BDS statistics.
Why, then, are the Big 4 still trying to find ways to sue Canadian music fans?
The Canadian Music Creators Coalition wants to know. And so do Canadians.
"Propping up old business models that favour multinational record companies? interests ahead of those of Canadian artists just doesn?t make sense," says the Bare Naked Ladies' Steven Page.
According to Nielsen, Canadian music download sales grew by 120% in 2006, well ahead of the 80% growth in Europe and 65% growth in the US, and overall sales grew 10%, says a CMCC statement, going on:
"Despite this growth, recent Canadian Press reports indicate that the major foreign music labels continue to pressure the federal government to move forward with radical changes to Canada?s Copyright Act. Major label representatives have consistently said that the only way the industry can survive is by making it easier to sue music downloaders and by providing legal protection to so-called 'digital locks'."
CMCC members, some of the, "very artists copyright laws are designed to protect," aren?t convinced, says the group, which includes performers such as Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, BNL, Broken Social Scene, Matthew Good, Metric, Randy Bachman, Billy Talent, Sloan, Chantal Kreviazuk and Sum 41.
Major record label lobbyists are, "looking out for their shareholders, and seldom speak for Canadian artists," says the group. "Legislative proposals that would facilitate lawsuits against our fans or increase the labels' control over the enjoyment of music are made not in our names, but on behalf of the labels? foreign parent companies."
"Fans who share music are not thieves or pirates," stated the CMCC when it started up last year. "Sharing music has been happening for decades."
The CMCC says it stands on three key foundations:
Suing Our Fans is Destructive and Hypocritical
Artists do not want to sue music fans. The labels have been suing our fans against artists? will, and laws enabling these suits cannot be justified in artists? names
Digital Locks are Risky and Counterproductive
Artists do not support using digital locks to increase the labels? control over the distribution, use and enjoyment of music or laws that prohibit circumvention of such technological measures. Consumers should be able to transfer the music they buy to other formats under a right of fair use, without having to pay twice.
Cultural Policy Should Support Actual Canadian Artists
The vast majority of new Canadian music is not promoted by major labels, which focus mostly on foreign artists. The government should use other policy tools to support actual Canadian artists and a thriving musical and cultural scene.
"The industry seems to say that if you don?t support suing downloaders you support giving music away for free," says Page.
"That?s simply not true. In fact, there are numerous third-way alternatives out there. Changes to Canada?s copyright laws should reflect where our music business is going rather than looking back to where it has come from."
Said New Democratic Party heritage critic Charlie Angus last year, "When a consumer legally purchases a CD they should not have to worry whether the disc is infected with spy ware that worms its way into their computer. Neither should the consumer worry that a company like Sony has the power to decide whether or not your favourite song can be played on an iPod, a hard drive or a non-Sony CD player. It is our job as Parliamentarians to protect consumers from the unchecked use of digital locks.
"And when it comes to assessing the 'threats' or 'benefits' from P2P, politicians need to be very wary about proscribing emerging technologies simply because it is upsetting existing business models."
Stay tuned.
http://p2pnet.net/story/11190?PHPSESSID=...a4e72bd47639fbf
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. January 2007 @ 12:04 |
Link to this message
|
AROVAX SHIELD..........Rather than looking for spyware traces or tracking applications that secretly send or receive data over the Internet, Arovax Shield blocks any attempt by malicious software to add entries to the auto-start menu, change the registry, hijack or install itself into a browser or find any other way to stealthy get itself onto a PC .....(free).....GO THERE!
http://www.arovaxshield.com/
New Free PC Solution Stops Malware Before It Overtakes your PC.
Every day hackers around the world try to infect your PC with all forms of spyware:
Adware
Keystroke Monitors
System Monitors
Trojan Horse Viruses
Security Disablers
Browser Hijackers
Page Hijackers etc.
Arovax Shield? is a brand new type of personal security solution that is unlike to any firewall, anti-virus or spyware remover.
Rather than looking for spyware traces or tracking applications that secretly send or receive data over the Internet, Arovax Shield blocks any attempt by malicious software to add entries to the auto-start menu, change the registry, hijack or install itself into a browser or find any other way to stealthy get itself onto a PC.
Arovax Shield? detects and notifies you about all major online threats trying to penetrate your system, isolates & blocks them:
- Spyware & Adware
- Keystroke Loggers
- Trojan Horses
- Administration Application
- others
Make your PC impenetrable to hackers completely free of charge!
It?s not a secret anymore, that 9 out of 10 PCs are infected with all forms of spyware, which on its way to your system cannot be detected by an antivirus or a firewall or most of other security software you have installed on your PC.
Once hackers sink their teeth into your PC, you?re a sitting duck ? a prime target for remote-access trojans, spywares, viruses, Internet worms and other parasites. The security of your personal data, private files, online shopping details ? even your system performance ? are all at their mercy.
Arovax Shield? protects your PC with bulletproof security from both known and unknown threats before they even get on your personal computer. Not a tech wiz? No problem! An easy-to-use interface and pre-loaded settings take the guesswork out of security.
Why do you need Arovax Shield?
Doesn?t this situation look familiar? Your information protection software seems strong and various but time and again you have to interrupt your normal workflow for scanning and cleaning up your PC. Malicious programs penetrate through your firewalls and your anti-virus tools cannot deal with onrush of newest viruses.
Arovax Shield is revolutionary, powerful and unique security software that will put an end to malicious intrusions threatening your computer, capable of stealing your information, tracking your activities and impeding your network access. Where the others failed, Arovax Shield will win.
Arovax Shield protects your IE and Firefox from unwanted extensions like odd toolbars or malicious browser helper objects and keeps your default home page settings secure. It pays particular attention to hosts file, system registry and other crucial areas of your PC which are most frequent targets of malware.
Arovax Shield discovers and blocks suspicious activities. After this it acts depending on your preferences: notifies you letting you make the final decision or automatically defines if the activity is actually harmful to your computer.
And while other security systems of similar complexity and security level are beyond the pocket of most small companies and individual users, Arovax Shield is absolutely free and available to anyone.
How does Arovax Shield work?
Arovax Shield's main function is to monitor all important branches of the Windows registry. If any attempts to write/delete/change are made, it notifies the user immediately and shows what program aroused suspicions and what actions it wanted to do. Arovax Shield gives the user an ability either to allow or block this attempt explaining what exactly is trying to infiltrate the system.
With the help of a special Arovax Shield parameter it can simply be hidden in the tray doing all the actions itself, letting you do your work while it silently sits in the background guarding your PC.
What is Spyware?
Spyware is a software that exploits the end-user to serve the purposes of the spyware developers. Spyware usually sneaks onto the user/'s computer, which is why it/'s called spyware. The spyware appropriates your Internet connection to introduce advertising messages, or, far more insidiously, to act as a server in your PC, sending demographic and usage information about you to unauthorized third-parties. While the creators of the spyware are more likely to be corporations interested in your activities as a consumer than they are to be thieves looking for your credit card information (a lot of spyware does do this, however), the spyware can drain system resources, create problems in applications, subject you to reams and reams of spam, and threaten your privacy and security.
What is Adware?
Adware is a software application that can display advertising banners while the program is running or via some other triggering mechanism. Ad delivery systems are most often integrated into free applications as a way for developers to recover costs or generate revenue. A critical eye has been placed on adware systems since in many cases, in addition to downloading ads, they may also upload user information collected without explicit permission. This type of adware is often referred to as "trackware" or "spyware".
What is Malware?
Malware (for "malicious software") is any program or file that is harmful to a computer user. Thus, malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, and also spyware, programs that gather information about a computer user without permission.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. January 2007 @ 12:06
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. January 2007 @ 15:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
Couch Potato' Lifestyle Helps Drive Diabetes
January 26, 2007 12:55:39 PM PST
By Kathleen Doheny
HealthDay Reporter
Yahoo! Health: Diabetes News
FRIDAY, Jan. 26 (HealthDay News) -- A new study offers another compelling reason to get up off the sofa and exercise.
The research shows that people with type 2 diabetes, or those at risk for the obesity-linked disease, are less likely to be physically active than those who are not at risk.
The benefits of physical activity in preventing diabetes are well-documented, but the message does not seem to be getting through, said study lead author Elaine Morrato.
"People don't think of inactivity as abnormal," said Morrato, an assistant professor of pediatrics and preventive medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver.
Her team published its findings in the February issue of Diabetes Care.
An estimated 20 million U.S. children and adults have diabetes, according to the American Diabetes Association, although some are not yet aware they have it. Most -- about 95 percent -- have the obesity-linked type 2 form of the illness, but a minority have type 1 diabetes, an inherited condition in which the body fails to produce enough insulin.
In their study, Morrato and her colleagues evaluated data from a nationally representative survey of the U.S. population called the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which included more than 23,000 adults. Respondents answered questions about whether they engaged in moderate or vigorous activity 30 minutes or more at least three times a week.
Morrato's team found that just 39 percent of adults with diabetes were physically active, compared to 58 percent of those without diabetes.
Among those who did not have the disease but had risk factors for it, the researchers found that the more the risk factors, the less likely the people were to be active. "As the number of risk factors [for diabetes] increased, the proportion of people saying they are active decreases," Morrato said.
Risk factors for developing type 2 diabetes -- in which the body does not properly use insulin, the hormone which allows glucose to enter cells -- include being 45 years of age or older and having a body mass index of BMI of 25 or higher, the threshold for being considered overweight.
"If people had four risk factors, for instance, only 42 percent were active," Morrato said.
Another expert, Cathy Nonas, director of the obesity and diabetes program at North General Hospital in New York and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, said she isn't surprised by the findings.
"We are a society that doesn't move very much," she said. "We're not seeing it get any better."
While consumers, especially those with diabetes or at risk for developing it, need to take charge and become active, Nonas said that health care providers should be more pro-active about encouraging exercise, too.
"We, as clinicians, have to be much more assertive," she said. She suggested that health care providers need to question patients more, asking them such things as, "Are you dancing?" "Are you walking?" "Are you parking in the back of the parking lot?"
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. January 2007 @ 15:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sputum Test Could Spot Early Lung Cancer
January 23, 2007 03:55:54 PM PST
Yahoo! Health: Cancer News
TUESDAY, Jan. 23 (HealthDay News) -- U.S. researchers say a simple test that analyzes DNA in a person's sputum could be used to diagnose lung cancer.
As outlined in an article in the Jan. 15 issue of the journal Clinical Cancer Research, a team at the University of Maryland School of Medicine is developing an inexpensive and non-invasive genetic test to help detect early stage lung cancer in current and former smokers.
The test looks at whether two genes (HYAL2 and FHIT) -- believed to be tumor-suppressors -- are missing from cells found in sputum. The test, called "fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH)," uses fluorescently labeled single-strand DNA probes to bind to the complementary band of a specific gene. A special microscope is then used to check for the presence or absence of a fluorescent signal produced when the strands bind.
An initial test of FISH identified 76 percent of stage 1 lung cancer patients whose tumors also showed the same loss of the two genes. In contrast, standard sputum cytology tests -- which look for changes in cell structure -- identified 46 percent of the patients.
"There is an urgent need to develop reliable early diagnostic biomarkers for lung cancer that can be detected non-invasively, and these two genes look to be great candidate markers for such a test," Dr. Feng Jiang, assistant professor of pathology, said in a prepared statement.
"We need to validate our finding, of course, but we have shown that the genetic aberrations seen in sputum reflect the same genetic aberrations found in lung tumors, and that these molecular changes occur before any morphological changes can be seen in a cytology test," Jiang said.
"As a diagnostic tool to identify early stage lung cancer patients who would then benefit most from curative therapies, FISH is very cheap and convenient," he said. "The technique may be also useful in monitoring lung cancer patients for response to treatment, disease progression and early evidence of relapse in the future."
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. January 2007 @ 15:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
Heavy Metal Toxins a Danger in Homes
January 20, 2007 01:55:14 PM PST
Yahoo! Health: Bioterrorism News
SATURDAY, Jan. 20 (HealthDay News) -- Exposure to heavy metals -- arsenic, lead and mercury -- can occur in the home through common items such as glazed pottery, herbal supplements, food, and garden pesticides/herbicides, notes an article in the January issue of the Mayo Clinic Health Letter.
Potential household sources of lead include: old painted surfaces; tableware such as leaded crystal, pewter and some glazed pottery; fumes when soldering stained glass projects; and pottery glazes with white or yellow finishes. Dietary supplements, especially those from China, can also be a source of lead exposure. And some jewelry from China may be made from lead.
Certain kinds of fish or shellfish may contain high levels of mercury, including shark, swordfish, tuna, pike, walleye, bass, and Atlantic salmon. While concerns have been raised about mercury in dental fillings, no firm link has been established between metal dental fillings and changes in the central nervous system, the article said.
Some garden herbicides and pesticides contain arsenic. People who use these products should always read and follow instructions on the labels. Until recently, arsenic was used in pressure-treated lumber. If you're working with older, treated lumber, wear gloves and a dust mask and do your work outdoors.
There is no government oversight on what's in homeopathic, herbal or complementary health products, and it's possible that they could contain heavy metals.
Limited exposure to heavy metals isn't likely to cause any harm to your health, the article said. Some general symptoms of heavy metal toxicity include hearing loss, impaired concentration, personality changes, and loss of feeling, especially in the fingertips. People who are concerned about exposure to heavy metals should talk to their doctor. Blood tests and other methods can be used to determine if a person has toxic levels of heavy metals.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. January 2007 @ 15:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Why Video Games May Be Hard to Give Up
January 15, 2007 01:55:41 PM PST
Yahoo! Health: Addiction News
MONDAY, Jan. 15 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers say they've found another reason why video games are so hard to give up: They may help fulfill basic psychological needs.
In a study published in the January issue of Motivation and Emotion, investigators from the University of Rochester and Immersyve Inc. looked at what motivated 1,000 gamers to keep playing video games.
"We think there's a deeper theory than the fun of playing," lead investigator Richard Ryan, a motivational psychologist at Rochester, said in a prepared statement.
The gamers were divided into four groups, each asked to play different games. They answered questionnaires both before and after playing the games. The researchers used the questionnaires to look at the underlying motives and satisfactions that can spark players' interests and sustain them during play.
The researchers found that the games can provide opportunities for achievement, freedom and even a connection to other players. Those benefits trumped a shallow sense of fun, which doesn't keep gamers as interested. Players reported feeling the best when the games produced positive experiences and challenges that connected to what they knew in the real world.
"It's our contention that the psychological 'pull' of games is largely due to their capacity to engender feelings of autonomy, competence and relatedness," said Ryan. He believes that video games not only motivate further play but "also can be experienced as enhancing psychological wellness, at least short-term."
For the participants who played massively multiplayer online, or MMO, games -- which are capable of supporting hundreds of thousands of players simultaneously -- the need for relatedness emerged "as an important satisfaction that promotes a sense of presence, game enjoyment and an intention for future play," the researchers found.
Ryan pointed out that while not all video games are able to satisfy basic psychological needs, "those that do may be the best at keeping players coming back."
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. January 2007 @ 15:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Garlic shows no effect on heart risk factors
January 7, 2007 02:40:21 AM PST
Though garlic is touted for heart health, new research suggests that garlic supplements have no effect on several heart disease risk factors.
In a study of 90 overweight smokers, European researchers found that those who took a garlic powder supplement for three months showed no changes in their cholesterol levels or several other markers of heart disease risk.
The study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, adds to the conflicting evidence on garlic and heart health. A number of studies have found that garlic supplements may help lower blood cholesterol, and possibly blood pressure, but other studies have failed to find such benefits.
In the new study, researchers looked at whether a garlic supplement could affect heart risk factors other than the usual suspects of high cholesterol and high blood pressure.
Along with blood cholesterol, they measured participants' levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and other blood proteins that indicate the degree of inflammation in the arteries. They also measured several blood substances that reflect how well the blood vessel walls are working.
Both of these factors -- inflammation and blood vessel function -- are believed to be key in heart disease risk. However, the study found that garlic may have no effect on them.
After three months, men and women who were assigned to take the garlic supplement showed no changes in either these measures or their cholesterol levels. In contrast, those given the cholesterol drug atorvastatin (Lipitor) showed a drop not only in cholesterol, but also in levels of CRP and another inflammation marker called TNF-alpha.
This makes it "unlikely" that garlic can protect the heart by combating high cholesterol or inflammation, write the researchers, led by Dr. Martijn B.A. van Doorn of the Center for Human Drug Research in Leiden, the Netherlands.
Of the 90 adults they followed, a third were randomly assigned to take 2 grams of the garlic supplement each day. Another third took 40 milligrams of Lipitor per day, and the rest were given inactive placebo pills.
Compared with the placebo group, the Lipitor group had, on average, a 53 percent drop in "bad" LDL cholesterol, a 20 percent dip in CRP levels and a 42 percent decline in TNF-alpha. In contrast, the garlic group showed no clear differences from the placebo group, the study found.
The findings, van Doorn's team concludes, suggest that garlic powder -- and probably garlic in general -- "has no relevant place" in preventing or treating high cholesterol or the inflammation that marks artery damage.
SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 2006.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. January 2007 @ 15:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Organic ketchup protects against cancer
* Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
* Anna Gosline
Organic varieties of tomato ketchup contain three times as much of a cancer-fighting chemical called lycopene as non-organic brands.
In the US, tomato ketchup comes in purple and green varieties as well as the traditional red. Betty Ishida and Mary Chapman at the Agricultural Research Service in Albany, California, US, wondered if the colouring might be indicative of low levels of lycopene, the pigment that makes tomatoes red.
The chemical has been shown to help protect against breast, pancreatic, prostate and intestinal cancer, especially when eaten with fatty foods. There is also evidence that lycopene can reduce the risk of heart attacks (New Scientist print edition, 23 December 2000).
The researchers tested lycopene levels and antioxidant activity in 13 ketchup brands: six popular ones, three organic, two store brands and two from fast-food chains. Purple and green ketchups had a similar lycopene content to their plain red counterparts.
But organic ketchups excelled, with one brand containing 183 micrograms of lycopene per gram of ketchup, about five times as much per weight as a tomato. Non-organic brands averaged 100 micrograms per gram, with one fast-food sample containing just 60 micrograms per gram.
If you want high lycopene levels, says Ishida, the rule of thumb is to pick the darkest red ketchup.
Journal reference: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (DOI: 10.1021/jf0401540)
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
31. January 2007 @ 17:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have heard the whole "Garlic is good for your heart" stuff for a long time. It tastes ok most the time but destroys your breath, which is why I usually try to avoid it so at least now I know its been proven that it is 'neutral' (Neither good nor bad) for your heart, now it really is more bad breath for nothing. :p
Its also cool to hear the organic ketchup is better for you (with more of the anti-cancer stuff, lycopene) then 'regular' non-organic ketchup.
Arovax Shield looks interesting, kind of like "WinPatrol" maybe? I will probably give it a try and report back with my findings. :)
|
|
xhardc0re
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
1. February 2007 @ 00:49 |
Link to this message
|
a few comments about your posts ireland.
Robert Santangelo: Very good reply by his attorney. I hope they keep up the pressure & cause the case to backfire on the RIAA. Legal precedent is good; we definitely need a major case to go against the M.A.F.I.A.A.
Windows Vistorz: A piece of crapware thats filled to the brim with Digital Rights Management. PASS. That's one Vista that needs revoking.
IE7 & security: Today's oxymoronic comment, tomorrow's worm of the year.
CRIA: Proof that greed knows no bounds; if they can't get every penny from every download, it's highway robbery to them. Why bother paying for a d/l when all they want is war? I say GIVE it to THEM.
Arovax shield: Works great with Kerio or another application level sw blocker. A good firewall & Arovax is prob all you need + antivirus.
Video games are pathological indeed! I still have the need to play Leisure Suit Larry every so often. ;) Fulfills some gratification that i can't put to words...LOL yeah right
if you're a college student, do NOT settle with the RIAA http://tinyurl.com/37oz2z
~ SlimPS2 v15US, PSP v3.60FW, TaiyoYuden DVD-R, SwapMagic_v3.6 & BreakerPro 1.1 (No mod)
Writer: HL-DT-ST DVD-RW GWA-4080N 0G03 SW: DVDDecrypt*r,
lastest Nero Ultra 7 & Alcohol 120% ~ |
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. February 2007 @ 06:37 |
Link to this message
|
Current - DVD neXt COPY V2.3.5.1 - 01/31/07 -
Download
http://www.dvdnextcopy.com/setup/DVDneXtCOPY_V2_3_5_1.exe
Release Notes
* Some Minor Fixes in Software Usage
* Added Help Agent to Better Explain Copy Errors
* Changed Numeric Codes in Logfile for Better Reading
* Improved Stability
* Optimized Engines
* Optimized Playback Structures
* Updated Splash Screen Image V2.3.5.1
* Updated Resources to V2.3.5.1
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. February 2007 @ 08:57 |
Link to this message
|
Parent controlled technology
p2pnet.net news view:- In response to a discussion in Hansard about Bill C-327, I wrote the following letter. (Please go to V-Chip Canada for information on that technology.)
Dear Ms. Tina Keeper, Member for Churchill, and Liberal Heritage Critic,
I noticed that on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 you participated in the debate on Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts). In this discussion you discussed technologies that allowed for parental control such as the "V-chip". I would agree with what I believe you were suggesting, that the right way to solve the problem is to have the government mandate labelling on programming and then put technology in the hands of individual Canadians to allow them to make their own viewing choices, and to give parents the tools to restrict the viewing choices of their own children.
Unfortunately, the law and technology are headed in a different direction. Increasingly we are seeing device manufacturers taking control away from the owners of these technologies, often under the false pretence that revoking this control will somehow reduce copyright infringement. We are then seeing laws, such as the proposals that came out of the USA's National Information Infrastructure Task Force in 1995 that lead to the 1996 WIPO treaties, which legally prohibit the owners of these technologies from gaining control over what they own. These technologies cannot have two masters, and in order for Citizens to digitally secure (lock down) their own technology to obey their own instructions they must first remove any third party locks which are already on the technology.
Stewart Baker, Department of Homeland Security's assistant secretary for policy, said to a group of copyright holders about this critical policy conflict, "It's very important to remember that it's your intellectual property -- it's not your computer. And in the pursuit of protection of intellectual property, it's important not to defeat or undermine the security measures that people need to adopt in these days."
I would like to meet to discuss this issue. The ratification of the 1996 WIPO treaties will not only harm the interests of a majority of creators and other copyright holders, and all digital device owners, but will also have serious implications on other public policy as well. It is hard to give parents the tools to make their own choices about their children's viewing habits when the technology involved will be under the exclusive control of the device manufacturers. Only when the interests of the parent and the manufacturer are aligned will these devices obey the instructions of parents.
Russell McOrmond - p2pnet contributing editor
[McOrmond is an independent author (software and non-software) who uses modern business models and licensing (Free/Libre and Open Source Software, Creative Commons). He's also the CLUE policy coordinator.]
http://p2pnet.net/story/11199?PHPSESSID=...3ad3ae81d720d8d
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. February 2007 @ 08:59 |
Link to this message
|
Dutch hackers jailed
p2pnet.net News:- A Dutch court jailed two unidentified hackers for commandeering millions of computers.
"They used the hijacked systems in a network, popularly called a botnet, to steal credit card numbers and other personal data, and to blackmail online businesses by threatening to take down their Web sites," says CNET News.
One was sentenced to two years in prison, and his accomplice to 18 months, but in both cases, "the sentences equal the time the two young men have already served, meaning they don't have to spend any more time in prison," says the story.
"In addition to the prison sentences, the court ordered the main hacker to pay a 9,000 euro ($11,700) fine, while the second hacker was ordered to pay 4,000 euros ($5,200)."
The leader, 20, created Toxbot as well Wayphisher, the court heard, and, "The 28-year-old accomplice helped to spread the Trojan horses and maintain the network of compromised PCs," says CNET, going on:
"The pair used the identity information they collected, which also included eBay and PayPal account details, to purchase PlayStation game consoles, iPods, audio speakers, a graphics card and a camera, according to the prosecution."
Other suspects in the Dutch case still have to appear before a judge, adds the story.
. Slashdot Slashdot it!
Also See:
CNET News - Dutch botnet hackers sentenced to time served, January 31, 2007
http://p2pnet.net/story/11200?PHPSESSID=...bc63b37a6e13251
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. February 2007 @ 09:02 |
Link to this message
|
Microsoft Canadian copyright win
p2pnet.net News:- After running its own investigations, Microsoft has won a major copyright victory in Canada where it's been awarded $500,000, the maximum permissible damages, against Inter-Plus, a Quebec software reseller operated by Carmelo Cerrelli.
"The RCMP executed a search warrant at Inter-Plus in November, 1998, and Montreal police did the same in 2000," says The Financial Post. "Both times, CD-ROMs and other products were seized and both times the Crown prosecutor declined to press criminal charges.
"In August, 2000, Microsoft took matters into its own hands and filed a civil suit. It gained custody of the items seized by the RCMP. Microsoft had them analyzed and found 394 of the 397 CD-ROMS seized by the RCMP were counterfeit. It has been before the courts ever since."
The $500,000 is a mere drop in the bucket for Microsoft, "But in the Canadian copyright and counterfeiting universe, the award in Microsoft v. 9038-3746 Quebec Inc., 9014-5731 Quebec Inc., et al. is no drop, it's the whole bucket," says the story.
Justice Sean Harrington also awarded Bill and the Boyz another $100,000 in punitive damages from the numbered companies that own Inter-Plus, and $100,000 from Cerrelli personally, "making it the highest punitive damage award in a Canadian counterfeiting case to date".
But, "Despite investigations and seizures of counterfeit goods from Inter-Plus by the RCMP and Montreal police, no criminal charges were laid against the company or its principal, and Microsoft had to do its own investigation and defend its IP rights under civil law," says the story, pointing out the case dates back to 1997.
However, "In effect [Microsoft] is seeking an order that Inter-Plus be kept out of the grey market," The Financial Post says Harrington wrote in his decision. But, "I decline to do so."
. Slashdot Slashdot it!
Also See:
The Financial Post - Black eye for black market, January 31, 2007
http://p2pnet.net/story/11204?PHPSESSID=...42cc6c4533a24bb
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. February 2007 @ 09:08 |
Link to this message
|
DVD BUILDER..........DVDBuilder was designed to convert your mpeg file to DVD. You can use this software to create DVD from your digital video recorder, Webcam, or downloaded file. DVDBuilder is a powerful, splendid and simple to use application for MPEG file to DVD video converting .....(free).....GO THERE!
http://www.keronsoft.com/dvdbuilder.html
READ WHATS AT THE SITE
DVDBuilder Pro- DVD Authoring Software. A total solution for your digital camera & camcorder . It includes IphotoDVD , iMpeg Converter and DVDBuilder.
DVDBuilder- DVD Authoring software.
iMpeg Converter - AVI to VCD, AVI to DVD and AVI to SVCD video converter.
Iphoto - Fast Internet Picture Downloader.
Iphoto Pro - Buy Iphoto Pro get free IphotoDVD, iMPEG Converter.
Web Pictures Downloader is the express version of Iphoto. It is for you to download pictures from your favorite web gallery.
Newsgroups Pictures Downloader is a specialized news reader that focuses on picture newsgroups.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. February 2007 @ 09:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. February 2007 @ 09:18 |
Link to this message
|
Setup and Secure your PC and Network once and for all.
Feb 01, 2007 - 7:44 AM - by Digital Dave
A "Digital Dave" original.
I've been in this business for a very (very) long time and have been one of the co-owners of WinXPcentral.com for a number of years. I've read numerous posts on this site by users who are increasingly frustrated by problems related to Pop-Up's, Spyware, slow system response, and of course, viruses galore. I have decided to do something about it once and for all. What I am about to tell you is what I personally use when setting up systems for not only for myself, but also my kids, my wife and for those who pay me to do it (not bad money either).
Winxpcentral.com Article.
(Please Note: This article pertains to 2000/XP installs. I will update this one with Vista information as soon as I can)
I've been in this business for a very (very) long time and have been one of the co-owners of WinXPcentral.com for a number of years. I've read numerous posts on this site by users who are increasingly frustrated by problems related to Pop-Up's, Spyware, slow system response, and of course, viruses galore. I have decided to do something about it once and for all. What I am about to tell you is what I personally use when setting up systems for not only for myself, but also my kids, my wife and for those who pay me to do it (not bad money either).
Unfortunately, not all of this is free. I know some of you are sitting there saying "ah man..." but if you're tired of pop-up, spyware, and all the other crap you have to deal with, then spending a little cash is well worth it.
This article assumes you already have your PC setup and running. I don't care what version of Windows you are using, as long as it's newer than Windows ME (Windows 2000 is good also).
Firewall
This is the most important piece of hardware or software you can buy PERIOD! If you have a high speed internet connection and you don't have a firewall installed, you are just inviting hackers to come in and steal anything and everything on your PC. Get a firewall and get it now!
Hardware firewall (DSL Users) - my personal favorite is made by a company called 2Wire. It has a very simple and easy to use interface allowing quick and easy access for just about any service you would need to enable or disable. Opening and closing game ports is a snap, and the wireless coverage and range is excellent! The user interface is very easy to use. For instance, let's say you want to host a Quake III server and only want to allow those particular ports open to your PC. With the 2wire solution, you simply choose Quake III in the Services Manager and move it over to the allowed list. The ports are now open. When you're done, you can simply open the user interface and close the ports. For those who need SMTP opened (you run a mail server and need SMTP opened to the server), the same setup applies. Need remote desktop opened to the box? Same steps apply. This is truly one of the best firewall/Wireless routers I have used (and I've used quite a few). - 2wire Home Portal - Cost - about $150.00 - $200.00 bucks.
Hardware firewall (Cable Modem Users) - Yes, I have both a DSL and a Cable Modem in my house (redundant networks kick ass). I get a lot of questions about what I use to secure my cable modem side and after trying a few different products I settled on a Netgear WPN824. The SPI firewall, web interface, blistering wireless speed with seven (yes, seven) built in antennas made this an easy and very affordable choice. My wife works from home 50% - 70% of the time and works exclusively off the wireless so getting a unit that was not only fast but stable was imperative (another reason why we have two networks in the house, if one goes down she can jump on the other one). This is a terrific unit and one I highly recommend - Netgear WPN824 - under $100.00 bucks.
Software firewall - If you can't afford $200.00 bucks for a good solid hardware firewall, then how about one of the best software ones for free? Personally, I use the free version from Zone Labs as a second line of defense on all my PC's (more "just in case" than anything else). Note that all personal firewalls need to be trained, so be aware of that. What I mean by training, is that once the firewall is installed and running, for the first few day's the firewall software will pop-up telling you some application is trying to access port ### and you have to respond yes or no. What I like about the Zone Labs firewall is the fact that it doesn't interfere with my VPN software for work (works like a charm). It also tries to tell you what the port is that is trying to access the Internet, so at least you have a better understanding of what application is actually trying to access the Internet via a very cool "More Info" button that's right on the pop-up. This helps people tremendously who are new to PC's. - Zonelabs.com
Now, if you want more options than the free version gives you, of course Zone Labs will be more than willing to sell you the full Professional Suite for about $70.00 bucks, which is a very good deal since a good stand alone anti-virus program will run you a cool $50-$70 bucks. This full suite protects everything including the up and coming virus problems with chat clients - Zone Labs Full Suite
Windows Update - this has to be the most over looked aspect of any Windows user. If you run Windows, of any flavor, you need to visit Windows Update at least once a week (or as soon as you hear about a critical update from Microsoft or us). Open Internet Explorer and go to Tools - Windows Update - and install ALL critical updates. Then, on the same Windows Update page, look at the Recommended Updates and install the ones you need (I normally install them all).
Anti Virus - AVG Anti-Virus - If you don't have an anti-virus program installed, please log off the Internet now, re-box your PC and send it back to your manufacturer. You MUST have one installed and it's virus signatures MUST be kept up to date. Personally, this is something I buy. I do not use a "freebee" version. Now, what to buy, what to buy indeed. Anti-Virus packages are a dime dozen now. Almost all the anti-virus manufacturers have now starting offering package deals that include AV, anti-spyware, firewall, etc... I'm not a big fan of those since I find one of the modules really good and the rest is... eh...
I personally like individual packages. Everyone wants a good anti-virus package (don't slack on this) and since my NOD32 was about to expire I decided to shop around. I nailed it down to three: Trend Micro, AVG, and of course NOD32. I opted for the new AVG 7.1 not only because in every review I had read AVG was always in the top three, the real kicker for me was the two for one deal where I get two years of defs for the price of one. Sweet...
Updated - Anti-Virus #2 - Honorable Mention - Nod32 is the only (and I mean ONLY) anti-virus that has not missed a single ?In the Wild? worm or virus in the rigorous testing conducted by Virus Bulletin since May 1998. Used in conjunction with a good anti-spyware program (I will cover that below) your PC will be protected against just about anything. Now some of you might be wondering why I didn't re-new my subscription to NOD32 since I think so highly of it. Well... good question. It all came down to speed. NOD32 can slow your system down where as AVG really doesn't plus AVG really is a terrific AV - ESET Lab
Services - Certain services on your system need to be secured. Now please take what I am about to say next with a grain of salt. I realize some of you run servers in your homes, and if you do some of what I'm about to tell you to do, will break certain things. So, if I tell you to disable a service, and you know you need that service (like telnet), then don't disable it! Or, disable it when it's not needed to help secure your system. For most of you, these services are simply not needed.
- Hit Start then Run and type Services.msc
- Look for Telnet - double click it and then change it from Manual to Disabled.
- Look for Messenger - double click it and then change it from Manual or Automatic to Disabled. This does not affect your Messaging Client!!! - See this page for a full explanation on why you need to disable this service.
- FTP = BAD - Having an open FTP port on your system is like putting a "hack here" sign on your PC. I realize people need to move files back and forth between PC's but this not the way to do it. If you MUST use FTP please don't use the built in one that comes with XP, use (free) FileZilla Client and Server and only open the ports when needed.
That's about it for Services... now let's get to the good stuff
Updated - Browsers - If you're still using Internet Explorer you seriously need to reconsider using that browser. Lot' and lots of problems have been attributed to Internet Explorer and until MS basically redoes I.E. from the ground up the problems will continue to mount. However, don't be dismayed. Others in the browser arena are stepping up and putting out terrific I.E. replacements. Personally, a lot of us around here use either Opera (it's RSS feeds are the best of any browser) or Firefox (huge fan of Firefox). These browsers are proven to be MUCH more secure, faster, and way better at handling bugs that affect I.E. but not them. If you decide to use Firefox, after you install it (it will open after the install) visit the Macromedia web site and download the Flash Player and Shockwave Player to your local disk and install them both. You also need to install and configure SUN's JAVA (for JAVA pages of course). I cannot say enough about these two browsers. They are fast and quite secure.
NEW - Internet Explore Users - eCondom (free) - No matter how hard I try to convince people to use Firefox or (Opera for that matter) inevitability someone comes up to me and says "Hey Dave, I was using Internet Explorer and all of the sudden (fill in the blank) happened."
You've all heard this a thousand times: If you insist on using IE, download and install IE7. It's WAY more secure than IE 6.x plus, it has tabs now!
Once you have IE installed, head on over to AMUSTSOFTWARE.com. They have developed a little program called Econdom for Internet Explorer. What Econdom does is simple; it basically runs Internet Explorer with USER permissions and not Admin permissions. It doesn't remove Internet Explorer, it simply makes a new "e" icon with a red lock in it which now allows you to chose which Internet Explorer you want to use.
NEW - Anti-Spyware Software - Spyware Detector - As everyone knows, Spyware is quickly becoming the "virus" of the web. Phishing attacks, Worms, Trojans, hell if you can think of it someone is working on a way to get it from you. I guess what scares the hell out of me is someone actually getting this info off my hard drive. Like a lot of people my finances and banking info is on my computer and I have taken all the steps I can to protect both my identity and my data however, as we all know the folks that want my data are always one step ahead of the rest of us. So, time to bring out the big guns.
I ran across (quite by accident) what I consider the BEST anti-spyware package sold today. Spyware Detector is not your normal everyday anti-spyware program. Spyware Detector is far and away the best anti-spyware package sold today. With a data base of over 97,000 (and growing) Spyware Detector has almost twice the database of anyone else on the market. I ran three different anti-spyware packages on my system at home, all of them showed "hey, you're fine" but something was still not right. I found this program, downloaded it, ran it, and it found a nasty little "side-by-side" surfing malware package on my system that NONE of the leading packages found (I'm talking three of the most prominent on the market today). Don't believe me? Download it and run it... then get out your credit card and pay the people, they earned it.
Updated - Anti-Spyware Software #2 - Honorable mention - Spyware Doctor ($29.95) - what I consider to be the 2nd best anti-spyware program on the market. Good Keylogger protection and a nice immunize database.
Updated - **Note on Microsoft's Anti-Spyware (a.k.a. - Windows Defender) - Since this article has been out I have had a lot of people asking me about the "free" or beta version of Microsoft anti-spyware package and why I don't use and/or recommend it (ever). Simple, it doesn't work very well from what we can tell.
Pop-Up Blocker - I have only one thing to say about this - Pop-Up Cop.com . This is hands down the best pop-up blocker you can get. It's not free, about $20.00 for 2 PCs, but it works and I mean it really, really works well. This version only works on Internet Explorer, and it also works very well with the new Windows XP SP2 (I have SP2 installed on all my XP machines so I know it works!). Don't worry about Firefox or Opera, they very good pop-up blockers built right into the browser. **Note - if you too my recommendation and got Spyware Doctor, you might not nee this as Spyware Doctor has a pop-up blocker built in, it's not as good as Pop-Up Cop but it does work.
Now I know a lot of you may not have a cool $20.00 sitting around and, as you all know by now, almost all the major web sites offer a pop-up blocker for Internet Explorer, but none of them can touch Pop-Up Cop. However, that being said, Google.com does offer a pretty decent one, as does Yahoo. Having one that kinda works is better than having none at all.
NEW - Secure Your Passwords ? How many passwords do you have? Hey me too! I have so many I can?t remember them all. So, what do I use to remember them all? Well, actually that?s split between two different, very easy to use programs:
RoboForm ? Free for storing up to 10 logins. $29.95 if you decide to buy the Pro Version. This is one of those programs I actually shelled out the cash for. I use it on all my systems and just love the fact that I no longer have to remember all my passwords for 24 different sites I now have added to my profile. Form filling, auto redirect and auto-login to the web page I'm trying to get to? well, just a great piece of software. Easy to backup and maintain, oh and the best thing about it is it?s secure and is available right off the browser bar. One note here: RoboForm only works in IE.x and Firefox.? RoboForm.com
Password Corral ? This is a local application you install onto your system. It?s very easy to use and quite secure when it comes to storing information. I use this program mostly for passwords and information I don?t use all that often but still need to keep track of. I know there are several of these programs out there that do this type of thing but this one?s free and had just worked for me for a number of years. ? Password Corral.
Protect that Network Connection - A lot of people think once they have all the stuff above installed, they're all protected and set to cruise the Internet... well my friends I'm here to tell you -- you're not. The last tool I recommend you install is called SmartFix. SmartFix is an all-in-one system and security repair tool that allows you to fix and eliminate the pesky bugs and problems that may slow down your computer through easy one-click menu options. Furthermore, SmartFix adds an extra layer of protection against the security attacks and hazards of the Internet by repairing the security flaws on your system. Once you install it just run with the defaults and you'll be good to go - Smart Fix Security Center
Administrator Password - This is one of the scariest things I show people, and here's why: I had a friend who brought in a PC that was down hard. He thought he had been hacked. After taking a look at the system, sure enough the box looked like it had been hacked big time. I told him that they probably got in via the Administrator account and I asked if they had set a password for that account when they got the box. He said no, and thought that was already done for them at the factory. Wrong!!! Believe it or not the Administrator password is not set at the factory for you. YOU need to set that password yourself! If you have never set the Administrator password on your system YOU NEED TO DO IT RIGHT NOW!!!
- Hit Start and put your mouse right over "My Computer" and right click on it
- On the Menu that pops up choose Manage
- Hit the + sign next to Users and Groups
- Click Users and in the right hand pane RIGHT click on Administrator and choose Set Password. I highly recommend you make this a different password than the one you currently use but then again one you can remember if necessary.
Now you're ready to move on...
Backups - Good Lord I can't begin to tell you how times we have asked people about backups! The response we get most of the time is stone silence. Backups are like drinking beer. It simply has to be done!! Now most people just don't know how, or don't have the time to do it. Well folks, sorry to tell you this, but you better find the time. You better learn how, and you better find a place to put the data. DO NOT use your primary C: drive to store your backup data IT WILL DIE when you need it the most (it's a known rule with the computing gods).
If you're a novice and have no idea what to use for back-ups, I suggest a very nice USB external drive made by Maxtor. The Maxtor One Touch is what I use for the remote employees I support, and they just love it. I also send them a 1GB USB stick so "super critical" data can get backed up in two places (another good tool for novices). The cost of the drive was nominal (ranging from $100.00 to 250.00 depending on the drive size) and what I got with the kit was great. All the backup software was included, and it works like a charm. Another cool thing about this solution, is that it's portable. My engineers can move the drive between machines, transferring large ISO images without taking my network to its knees. I also use it on my servers as a secondary backup to my tape backups, placing images on the drive as I need to. As I said, I do have all my core critical data going to tape, so if the drive dies, I can still get what I need. To be able to slap an image back on a new disk is such a time saver! This solution also saved us a large amount of cash (we're a start-up so my budget is like nil) since I didn't have to put a very large and expensive file server in place.
Now for those who are "savvy" with the Windows OS's you can use the Windows Backup utility included with the OS. Hey, a Windows backup is better than no backup at all. Personally, I use a disk imaging program from Acronis Software called Acronis True Image. You can get it over on New Egg.com for about 30.00 bucks. I use it to image my laptops and desktop computer to an external USB drive, plus I place all my "critical" data on a RW/CDROM I keep in a nice safe place. God help me if I lose my MS Money file.
Email - oh my God... is this the worst or what! Email DEMANDS you have a good AV installed, fully up to date and working. Personally I use Yahoo mail since I have the service via SBC (my local carrier). If you have the "old school" email (I'm speaking of POP mail here) and you use a mail program like Outlook or Eudora you need a an antivirus that can speak SMTP. An anti-virus that can speak SMTP is critical here! ALL of your mail needs to "washed" by the anti-virus first!!! Now this doesn't mean your mail will be virus free... oh no folks. Rule of thumb (again) if it looks weird delete it!! Do not open it. Anti-Virus companies play catch-up. They do not foresee viruses coming. They react to viruses after people have been infected! Remember, attachments can be very BAD! Opening an attachment with .exe, .bat, .reg, .cpl, .scr, or any other extension that's executable (meaning it can run as soon as you click on it) is not something coming from mom... well it might be, but mom might be infected with a new virus too. Now for me, unless I really know you I'm not opening any attachment. Hell, even if I do know you, I'm going scrutinize that attachment big time. I trust no one!
SPAM - UGH!!! - Believe it or not, the most common way viruses get spread. To top all that off it's just flat out annoying. I swear if I had Bill Gates money I would dedicate legions of my Microsoft minions to make every spammers life a living hell. I hate spammers! But, that doesn't solve your problem now, does it. So, what do you do about it?
Well, for those with a credit card you can purchase a damn good Spam Filter. Personally I've recommended to my clients a product once called Qurb and is now called CA Anti-Spam which, I guess PC Magazine also likes. Plus, it works with Outlook Express AND Outlook!
Now the "Cheap Ass - Free Way" (I fall into this category) to get decent spam and virus filtering is to use one of the free on-line email systems like Yahoo, Hotmail, or GMAIL. With the amount of storage they now offer, Yahoo gives you 1GB (and growing) and a 25MB file send limit, while Hotmail is now offering 250 MB of storage, and them their is GMAIL who offers 2.6GB (yea, you read right) and growing of storage space PLUS, GMAIL probably has the best SPAM filter I have seen.
Remember, a good SPAM filter is for SPAM only. You need to have a damn good AV running to actually get rid of the "bugs" that want onto your system so bad.
Common Sense/Parent Corner - The last thing you need to do when cruising the Internet, chatting, or even reading email is to use some basic common sense. I can't tell you how many people write to us and say "Hey, my son (and/or) daughter download this-that-or-this thing and now my system is hosed!" Common sense when using computers is a must. A rule of thumb I have with email, files, or anything someone sends to me whether I know them or not: if it looks funny its deleted... period! I truly, honest to God do NOT trust anyone. I have yet to see a PC that's totally safe and free of everything bad. Make no mistake, the Internet can be a very bad place IF YOU LET IT BE. If you use common sense and are smart about how you surf, pay attention to what your kids are doing on the Internet (and on YOUR computer) and you clean your PC (yes, clean as in removing Adware and making sure your anti-virus is up to date and TURNED ON) and don't open up files from people you don't know (and scrutinize the files from people you do know) you'll be just fine. Remember, this all starts with a solid first line of defense. Again, if you do not have a firewall GET ONE!
Another thing I tell parents is NOT allow accounts for the kids to have Administrative rights on the system. This is easy to do and saves a ton of headaches down the road. Yes, it will limit their accounts as to what they can and can't do, but better safe than sorry.
To do it:
- Hit Start and put your mouse right over "My Computer" and right click on it
- On the Menu that pops up choose Manage
- Hit the + sign next to Users and Groups
- Click Users and in the right hand pane double click on the account your kids use
- Click the Member Of Tab and REMOVE the Administrator account. This will limit the kids to User rights and not Administrative rights to the system. If you trust your kids (uhhh... yea, right) you can up their permissions to Power User:
- Hit the Member Of Tab
- Choose Add - Advanced - Find Now - Highlight Power Users - click Okay - then Okay again to add them . This will up there rights to the system but still not give them Admin rights to the entire OS.
HOWEVER - If you need to (or want to) let your kids have Admin Accounts (I am firmly against this) then grab a copy of what I use, Cyber Patrol. I have this installed on my kids systems and just love what this program can do. Not being able to watch what my kids do online 7x24 this software package lets me configure what my kids can and cannot see/do. It also lets me specify what time they can access the internet and what time the Internet "closes" for them. I'm also able to control their chat programs, plus being able to "black list" and "white list" web sites is a terrific addition to this suite. My wife and I love just how well this program works. Check it out - Cyber Patrol ($US $39.95)
That's it folks, you're all set to cruise the Internet!
I'm thirsty... I need beer...
Later - Digital
Digital Dave
digital@winxpcentral.com
2004/2005/2006 Microsoft MVP
http://forums.winxpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=42577#post42577
|
|
