TechLuver.com

Feb 03, `08 — As Swedish prosecutors fixed their sights last week on The Pirate Bay, an Internet file-sharing service that is a scourge of the movie and music industries, the operators of the site responded by hoisting a defiant, digital Jolly Roger, reports the IHT.

The Pirate Bay, on its blog, called for a celebration saying, “This week we’ve hit some magic numbers. We’re tracking over 1 million torrents. We have had over 10 million simultaneous peers on the trackers. We’re at 2.5 million registered users (and they are active as well).”

The 100th post on the Pirate Bay blog further adds, “In case we lose the pending trial (yeah right) there will still not be any changes to the site. The Pirate Bay will keep operating just as always. We’ve been here for years and we will be here many more.”

The Wires writes, “Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, one of the four Swedes charged in Sweden on Thursday, said in a telephone interview that the site has set up a clandestine, double-blind operation with its servers spread throughout the world — and out of reach of the Swedish authorities.

“The Pirate Bay is not in Sweden,” the 29-year-old Kolmisoppi said. Where are the servers?

“It’s a distributed system. We don’t know where the servers are. We gave them to people we trust and they don’t know it’s The Pirate Bay,” Kolmisoppi said. “They then rent locations and space for them somewhere else. It could be three countries. It could be six countries. We don’t want to know because then you’ll have a problem shutting them down.” More at IHT, theWired.

Feb 03, `08 –This Slashdot article reports on a new Italian copyright law, in which the Italian parliament may have mistakenly legalized sharing music over P2P networks.

The new copyright law, passed by both houses of parliament, would allow Italians to freely share music over the Internet as long as it is free of charge, at low resolution or “degraded,” for scientific or educational use, and only when such use is not for profit.

Excerpts of the Slashdot article:
According to Italian lawyer Andrea Monti, an expert on copyright and Internet law, the new Italian copyright law would authorize users to publish and freely share copyrighted music (p2p included). As Monti says in the interview, those who wrote it didn’t realize that the word “degraded” is technical, with a very precise meaning, which includes MP3s, which are compressed with an algorithm that ensures a quality loss. The La Repubblica.it article in Italian, and Google translation is here. More at Slashdot.

Feb 01, `08 — Four men who run one of the most popular file-sharing sites in the world have been charged with conspiracy to break copyright law in Sweden, the BBC reported on Thursday.

Pirate Bay does not store music and video files on its own servers, but instead helps users share them on the internet. The website acts as a directory of the files used by the BitTorrent file-transfer protocol.

“It’s not merely a search engine. It’s an active part of an action that aims at, and also leads to, making copyright protected material available,” public prosecutor Hakan Roswall told Reuters. “It’s a classic example of accessory — to act as intermediary between people who commit crimes, whether it’s in the physical or the virtual world.”

Pirate Bay told the news agency that the people running the site cannot be held responsible for how its directory services are used. The website is said to have between 10 and 15 million users around the world and is supported by online advertising.

Police seized computers in May 2006, temporarily shutting down the website.

Prosecutor Hakan Roswall said the website was commercially exploiting copyright-protected work because it was financed through advertising revenues. According to the Pirate Bay website, its users are currently downloading close to a million files.

On the site, a statement says: “In case we lose the pending trial (yeah right) there will still not be any changes to the site.

“The Pirate Bay will keep operating just as always. We’ve been here for years and we will be here many more.”

In an interview with the BBC’s technology programme Click last year Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde said: “I think it’s okay to copy. They get their money from so many places that the sales is just one small part.”

The other three men facing charges are Carl Lundstrom, Frederik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg. If convicted, the four men could face a maximum of two years in prison.

The website had up until 2006 based its servers in Stockholm, but moved some to the Netherlands after a raid in May of that year by Swedish police, who seized equipment and held three people for questioning “on suspicion of breaking copyright law or abetting the breaking of copyright law,” authorities said. The site was taken down for a day, but was soon up and running again.

Moves against the site have been backed by entertainment industry groups, including the Motion Picture Association of America and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. More at BBC News.

Los Angeles — Dec 19, `07 — In a significant victory for the major Hollywood studios, a federal judge in Los Angeles has terminated an ongoing lawsuit against the operators of TorrentSpy.com in favor of all six of the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) member companies.

The court imposed the harshest sanction against the TorrentSpy defendants because of their brazen, continuous, and systematic destruction of evidence and subversion of the judicial process. The ruling means that TorrentSpy operators are liable for copyright infringement.

The District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper of the Central District of California found that the defendants, Justin Bunnell, Forrest Parker and Wes Parker, had lied to the court and had systematically destroyed evidence. She also found that TorrentSpy is responsible for copyright infringements. A further court session next year will determine what penalties will be imposed - the extent of damages and any other sanctions, such as closure of the TorrentSpy website.

In its decision, the court ruled that “although termination of a case is a harsh sanction appropriate only in extraordinary circumstance, the circumstances of this case are sufficiently extraordinary to merit such a sanction.” The court found that the evidence was “not deleted or modified negligently, but intentionally in direct response to the institution of this lawsuit.” Observing that defendants “already had been subjected to lesser sanctions in this case”, including a fine for $30,000 for violation of a court order, the court concluded that the “harsh sanction” of terminating the defendants’ case was the only appropriate remedy.

The evidence defendants destroyed included forum postings with references to copyright infringement and other incriminating statements; site directories referencing copyrighted works and subcategories clearly referring to pirated content; and user IP addresses.

MPAA members filed lawsuits against various P2P sites including TorrentSpy, early last year, because such websites enable users to download complete films from the internet. TorrentSpy defended itself and brought a motion to dismiss the action, on the basis that it does not host copyrighted works itself. In June of this year, TorrentSpy was forced to log visitor details. In response, the torrent search engine blocked access for US internet users. More at MPAA (in pdf).

Los Angeles, Calif — Dec 03, ‘07 — A federal judge on Monday threw out an antitrust lawsuit brought by the operator of the LimeWire online file-sharing service against a coalition of major record labels, concluding the firm failed to make its case that it has been harmed by the recording companies’ business practices, Alex Veiga of the Associated Press reported.

U.S. District Judge Gerard E. Lynch in New York ruled that Lime Group LLC failed to make its case that it has been harmed by the recording companies’ business practices, and he granted the companies’ motion to dismiss the claims.

Lynch also dismissed several claims brought under state laws “without prejudice,” which gives New York-based Lime Group the option to pursue the claims in state court.

Lime Group’s lawsuit was a counterclaim to a copyright infringement lawsuit brought last year against by record labels owned by the four major recording companies: Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group Corp., Britain’s EMI Group PLC, and Sony BMG Music Entertainment, a joint venture of Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG.

That case, which is still pending, was the first piracy lawsuit brought against a distributor of file-sharing software after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that technology companies could be sued for copyright infringement on the grounds they encouraged customers to steal music and movies over the Internet. More at Google/AP.

San Francisco — Nov 28, ‘07 — In the wake of the detection and reporting of Comcast Corporation’s controversial interference with Internet traffic, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has published a comprehensive account of Comcast’s packet-forging activities and has released software and documentation instructing Internet users on how to test for packet forgery or other forms of interference by their own ISPs.

Separate tests in October from EFF, the Associated Press, and others showed that Comcast was forging small parcels of digital data, known as packets, in order to interfere with its subscribers’ and other Internet users’ ability to use file-sharing applications, like BitTorrent and Gnutella. Despite having been confronted by this evidence, Comcast continues to issue incomplete and misleading statements about their practices and their impact on its customers.

“Comcast is discriminating among different kinds of Internet traffic based on the protocols being used by its customers,” said EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann. “When confronted, Comcast has been evasive and misleading in its responses, so we decided to start gathering the facts ourselves.”

Protocol-specific discrimination gives ISPs a tremendous amount of power over the kinds of new applications and services that can be deployed by innovators and competitors. To the extent that practices like those employed by Comcast change the “end-to-end” architecture of the Internet, those practices jeopardize the Internet’s vibrant innovation economy.

“This recent interference by Comcast in their subscribers’ Internet communications is a cause for grave concern,” said EFF Staff Technologist Peter Eckersley. “It threatens the open Internet standards and architecture that have made the network such an engine of technical and economic innovation.”

In addition to an account of the results of EFF’s independent testing of Comcast’s packet forging activities, EFF has also issued a detailed document and software to assist other networking experts in conducting their own testing.

“If ISPs won’t give their customers accurate information about their Internet traffic controls, we have to detect and document them for ourselves,” said EFF Staff Technologist Seth Schoen.

For “Packet Forgery by ISPs: A Report on the Comcast Affair”:
http://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-affair

For “Detecting Packet Injection: A Guide to Packet Spoofing by ISPs”:
http://www.eff.org/wp/detecting-packet-injection

For more on EFF’s research into Comcast’s packet monitoring:
http://www.eff.org/testyourisp

More at EFF.

Paris — Nov 23, ‘07 — French web users caught pirating movies or music could soon be thrown offline.

Those illegally sharing files will face the loss of their net access thanks to a newly-created anti-piracy body granted the wide-ranging powers. The anti-piracy body comes out of a deal agreed by France’s music and movie makers and its net firms.

The group who brokered the deal said the measures were intended to curb casual piracy rather than tackle large scale pirate groups.

In a landmark speech Nicolas Sarkozy said: “The rights of authors, the preservation of creativity, the recognition of the rights of each artist, of each performer… was an important commitment of my presidential campaign. “The deal was a decisive moment for the future of a civilised internet” he further added.

Net firms will monitor what their customers are doing and pass on information about persistent pirates to the new independent body. Those identified will get a warning and then be threatened with either being cut off or suspended if they do not stop illegal file-sharing.

The agreement between net firms, record companies, film-makers and government was drawn up by a special committee created to look at the problem of the net and cultural protection.

Denis Olivennes, head of the French chain store FNAC, who chaired the committee said current penalties for piracy - large fines and years in jail - were “totally disproportionate” for those young people who do file-share illegally.

In return for agreeing to monitor net use, film-makers agreed to speed up the transfer of movies to DVD and music firms pledged to support DRM-free tracks on music stores.

The deal was hailed by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which represents the global interests of the music business.”This is the single most important initiative to help win the war on online piracy that we have seen so far,” it said in a statement.

French consumer group UFC Que Choisir was more cautious.It said the agreement was “very tough, potentially destructive of freedom, anti-economic and against digital history”

Nov 17, ‘07 — News.com is reporting on the US House of representatives passing an amendment to the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 (in pdf), that should make folks in Hollywood, the RIAA, and the MPAA well pleased.

The House of Representatives education committee passed a bill on Nov 15, ‘07 that would set higher-education policy for the next five years — and despite the efforts of campus officials and lobbyists, the measure directs colleges to take steps to combat illegal file sharing.

In the House Education and Labor Committee’s mammoth College Opportunity and Affordability Act lies a tiny section, which dictates universities that participate in federal financial aid programs “shall” devise plans for “alternative” offerings to unlawful downloading, such as subscription-based services, or “technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.” The committee unanimously approved the bill Thursday.

Supporters and opponents of the proposal disagree, however, on what the penalty would be for failure to comply with the new rules. The proposed requirements would be added to a section of existing federal law dealing with federal financial aid.

Some university representatives and fair-use advocates worry that schools run the risk of losing aid for their students if they fail to come up with the required plans.

“The language in the bill appears to be clear that failure to carry out the mandates would make an institution ineligible for participation in at least some part of Title IV (which deals with federal financial aid programs),” Steven Worona, director of policy and networking programs for the group Educause, said in a telephone interview Thursday.

Worona acknowledged that “there does appear to be a great deal of confusion with respect to what penalties would be involved in not carrying out the mandates in this bill.” Still, Educause, which represents college and university network operators, continues to “strongly oppose these mandates,” he said. More at News.com.

SAN JOSE, Calif – Nov 14, ‘07 – A San Francisco Bay area subscriber to Comcast’s high-speed Internet service has sued the company, alleging it engages in unfair business practices by interfering with subscribers’ file sharing.

Subscriber Jon Hart based his claims on the results of an investigation by the Associated Press published last month that showed Philadelphia-based Comcast actively interferes with attempts some high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online.

Hart’s lead lawyer, Mark N. Todzo of San Francisco, said his client suspected before reading the AP report that Comcast was interfering with his Internet traffic. “What the AP report did was just confirm to him that it wasn’t just him who was suffering from the problem,” Todzo said. “There was this confluence of events where everyone seemed to reach the same conclusion, which was that Comcast was engaging in this activity.”

A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars formally asked the Federal Communications Commission early this month to make Comcast stop interfering with file sharing. Comcast is the country’s largest cable company and second-largest Internet service provider with 12.9 million Internet subscribers.

The company denies it blocks file sharing. But it acknowledged after the AP report was published that it delays some of the traffic between computers that share files. Comcast said the delays are designed to improve the Internet experience for its subscribers as a whole.

Hart’s lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, alleges Comcast misleads customers by promising “mind-blowing” speeds and “unfettered access” to the Internet in advertisements while hindering the use of certain applications such as peer-to-peer file sharing. It seeks unspecified money damages.

Todzo is seeking class action status for the lawsuit.

November 1, ‘07 –SaveTheInternet.com –Cable giant Comcast has become the poster child for Net Neutrality — with actions to block user traffic that make a clear-cut case for Internet protections.  

Today, SavetheInternet.com members and legal scholars took this case to the Federal Communications Commission. We filed an official action urging the agency to stop the cable giant from meddling with your ability to connect and share information.  

In the “most drastic example yet of data discrimination,” the Associated Press exposed that Comcast was actively interfering with its users’ ability to access legal content and share it with one another.  

Despite mounting evidence that Comcast is crippling peer-to-peer communication, the company’s spokespeople have thumbed their noses at the public and the press — refusing to admit that the blocking of connections is underhanded or in any way threatens the free flow of information that’s become the hallmark of an open Internet.  

In the complaint, Free Press and Public Knowledge are asking the FCC to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber. Comcast is the nation’s largest cable company and second-largest Internet service provider, with 12.9 million subscribers. If the FCC honors the complaint, the size of the fine for violating Net Neutrality could be astronomical. 

The action puts the FCC on notice. The agency has policies that partially defend against discrimination but these have yet to be tested against a real violation such as what Comcast is doing.  

Comcast: A Problem Found: Phone and cable lobbyists have called Net Neutrality “a solution in search of a problem.” Well, here’s the problem. In the past three months, incidents of censorship and blocking by Verizon, AT&T and now Comcast have made headlines around the world. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.  

The FCC should immediately declare that Comcast is violating the FCC’s policy. The Commission now faces a clear choice. It can either side with the interests of consumers and for an Internet unfettered by corporate gatekeepers, or it can let companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T erect “walled gardens” and destroy the most democratic communications tool in history. 

You can help convince the agency to do the right thing. More at SaveTheInternet.

Washington — Oct 26, ‘07 — Two Senators on Friday called for a congressional hearing to investigate reports that phone and cable companies are unfairly stifling communications over the Internet and on cell phones.Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-ND, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said the incidents involving several companies, including Comcast, Verizon Wireless and AT&T, have raised serious concerns over the companies’ “power to discriminate against content.”

They want the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to investigate whether such incidents were based on legitimate business policies or unfair and anticompetitive practices and if more federal regulation is needed.

An Associated Press report on Oct. 19 detailed how Comcast was interfering with file sharing by some of its Internet subscribers. The AP found instances in some areas of the country where traffic was blocked or delayed significantly. Comcast — the nation’s No. 2 Internet provider — has acknowledged “delaying” some subscriber Internet data, but said the delays are temporary and intended to improve surfing for other users.

AT&T reportedly changed a service agreement that previously included language permitting the company to cancel accounts of Internet users who disparage the company.

Several lawmakers, including Dorgan, earlier this year introduced so-called legislation promoting “Net neutrality,” which is the principle that all Internet traffic be treated equally by carriers. More at AP here and here.

London-October 24, ’07-The UK government could legislate to crack down on illegal file-sharers, a senior official has told the BBC’s interactive PM show and blog. Lord Triesman, the parliamentary Under Secretary for Innovation, Universities and Skills, said intellectual property theft would not be tolerated. “If we can’t get voluntary arrangements we will legislate,” he said. He also called on internet service providers to take a “more activist role” in the problem of illegal file sharing.

There are ongoing talks between internet service providers and the music industry and these are, said Lord Triesman, “progressing more promisingly than people might have thought six months ago. For the most part I think there are going to be successful voluntary schemes between the creative industries and ISPs. Our preferred position is that we shouldn’t have to regulate,” he said.

“We have some simple choices to make. If creative artists can’t earn a living as a result of the work they produce, then we will kill off creative artists and that would be a tragedy.” He further said. More at BBCNews

To raise your voice against internet traffic blocking/filtering,  go to Save The Internet and Act Now. The Associated Press reports on this troubling story of ISP blocking BitTorrent traffic. Peter Svensson of The AP writes, ”Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.

If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.”

Apparently Comcast accomplishes this using technology from the broadband network traffic management company Sandvine. The technique Comcast uses at its Internet boundaries to interrupt P2P file transfers is to forge packets to both ends of the session telling them that the other machine closed the link.

The obvious solution is enactment of Net Neutrality legislation requiring ISPs to treat all traffic equally without discrimination as to source or nature of the communication. However, the Net Neutrality legislation is presently stalled in the US Congress.