Source: Afterdawn

Citing “minor input” from the MPAA and RIAA, the Los Angeles County government has now added piracy to its definition of “public nuisance", meaning all properties used in the dissemination of counterfeit goods can now be seized.

Physically pirated goods, such as bootleg DVDs or CDs, are now considered to be the same as counterfeit watches or handbags.

This new so called "Counterfeit Goods Nuisance Abatement ordinance" says that the counterfeit goods “substantially interfere with … lawful commerce in the county, property values, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the county's citizens, its businesses, and its visitors.”

Any property owner that knowingly allows piracy on their premises can be held responsible to pay $1000 USD for every, yes every, pirated work produced. The district attorney can also “temporarily restrain, preliminarily enjoin, and/or permanently enjoin the person or persons intentionally conducting, or knowingly maintaining or permitting the public nuisance from further conducting, maintaining, or permitting such public nuisance.”

Last post made by: Lion7718 on Yesterday, 07:07 AM

Source: EFF
By: Richard Esguerra

Today, the House passed the controversial PRO IP Act (H.R. 4279) 410 to 11, with 12 representatives not voting.

While Public Knowledge and other groups successfully persuaded the House to remove the most damaging provision in the bill (seemingly written solely to increase damages in the RIAA's file-sharing lawsuit campaign), the bill would nonetheless significantly expand federal enforcement of copyright law.

The most outrageous provisions would create new and unnecessary federal bureaucracies devoted to intellectual property enforcement. None seems more ridiculous than language creating a Cabinet-level "IP enforcement czar" that would report to the President and coordinate enforcement efforts across government, a proposal that has been loudly opposed by the Department of Justice. Why is Congress spending our tax dollars on a new layer of officialdom that the cops themselves don't want or need?

Moreover, the bill also includes provisions — such as expanded forfeiture penalties and language "clarifying" that copyright registration is not required for criminal enforcement of the copyright -- that could be read to open the door to increased prosecution against individuals or innovators as well as large-scale commercial pirates.

The Senate has yet to introduce a companion bill, although some IP enforcement proposals in the Senate may serve as a basis for a bill. Stay tuned for more information should a bill turn up.

But there is a bright spot on the horizon -- Congress is finally revisiting important "orphan works" legislation that could expand the ability of technology users, archivists and libraries to store and exhibit works whose owners can't be found.

Original Article

Last post made by: vernarial on May 9 2008, 06:00 PM

Source: CNet News
By: Anne Broache

The entertainment industry's controversial efforts to get universities to be more proactive about policing peer-to-peer piracy have begun to spread from Capitol Hill to the states.

Earlier this year, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a Hollywood-backed proposal buried in a higher education reauthorization bill that would require universities receiving federal financial aid funding to devise plans for "alternative" offerings to unlawful downloading--such as subscription-based services--or "technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."

That otherwise wide-ranging bill won't become law until House and Senate politicians agree upon a compromise version. Meanwhile, the debate over the proper role of higher education institutions in fighting piracy has shifted to some state legislatures.

On Thursday, what appears to be the first such proposal in the country became law in Tennessee--home to Nashville, the country music capital of the world. A similar measure is currently being considered in Illinois. And California held an "informational hearing" last month featuring a Recording Industry Association of America representative, although no legislation has been introduced there yet.

RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth declined to divulge where else the industry may be planning to push such policies, but she insisted the group views new laws as a last resort.

Full Article

Last post made by: vernarial on May 9 2008, 05:52 PM

Source: Broadband Reports
By: Karl

Last summer, NBC issued a statement to the FCC demanding that broadband ISPs be forced employ copyright filters on their networks. Among the arguments NBC tried to put forth was that broadband P2P use hurts the American farmer because less popcorn is sold. NBC demanded the FCC require that all ISPs employ piracy filters (so far only AT&T thinks that's a good idea). NBC also argued that hardware vendors should also be forced to put piracy filters in networking gear. This week Viacom's Sumner Redstone made a similar request:That's good. Oh wait, he wants everybody else to:Why the engineers at networking vendors should care that the entertainment industry has struggled to adapt to piracy isn't made clear. I understand why AT&T is playing along; they're becoming content creators. But why should say, Motorola?

Original Article

Last post made by: vampirechronicles on May 9 2008, 07:40 PM

Source: p2pnet.net

“Peer-to-peer (P2P) computing promises to be the paradigm with mindshare sufficient to push a number of interesting distributed computing technologies from the shadows into the spotlight,” stated Todd Sundsted, chief architect, PointFire back in 2001.

“Unless you’ve been asleep at the wheel for the last nine months, you’ve heard of peer-to-peer (or P2P) computing,” he said.

But instead of seeing P2P for what it should and could have been, an important component for a new business model to mark their entry into the 21st digital century, the major record labels, initially, soon followed by the big Hollywood movie studios, reeled back in abject terror, striking out at anyone and anything not tied directly to them who showed the least sign of trying to turn P2P into a business based on worldwide networks of computers both sharing and competing with each other.

When p2pnet first went online, it was supported by P2P file sharing companies Limewire, Bearshare, Blubster and Morpheus, in no particular order. Warez P2P came along a little later and the five paid the rent, in effect.

Today, thanks entirely to the RIAA’s efforts, only Blubster remains and, “With an ‘assimilation agenda’ that only the Borg would be proud of, the RIAA / IFPI and their puppeteers have almost completed the takeover of all the major P2P players, and just need one final filesharing cornerpiece to complete the home-run,” says FileShareFreak in RIAA: Three Down, Limewire to Go, going on >>>

Full Article

Last post made by: vernarial on May 9 2008, 05:47 PM

Source : TorrentFreak
By Ernesto

The movie titles they are claiming damages for are Harry Potter, Syriana, The Pink Panther and Walk the Line and the 13 episodes of the popular TV-show Prison Break. MPAA demands 222,50 kronor ($37) for each download. For Harry Potter, 261,50 kronor ($43) and for the first season of Prison Break 416 kronor ($68).

‘The Pink Panther’ is the most popular title among Pirate Bay users; the least popular, by a mile, is ‘Syriana’. The movies have been downloaded 49,593 and 3,679 times respectively, according to MAQS, the law firm which represents MPAA.”

Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde (Brokep) is not impressed by Hollywood’s claims, he told TorrentFreak in a response: “They know they are losing, and try to make us look like big criminals by adding some zeros to a claim for a made-up crime.”

“The worst thing is that I lost 100 kronor on a bet on the number they would come up with,” Sunde added. “And, it sucks that they didn’t claim more than for Napster and the other sites. It’s cooler to break the record.”

When Monique Wadsted, MPAA’s lawyer and a talkshow host, was asked whether the MPAA really thinks every download is a lost sale, she said: “We don’t know that, but the copyright law doesn’t care about that. It says that if you have downloaded something illegally, you must pay regardless, if you would’ve bought it or not.”

Full Article

Last post made by: TVsFrank on May 9 2008, 10:35 AM

Word Association
Today, 11:26 AM
by Mozart

avg add pops up at start up
Today, 09:36 AM
by multi

Music Video of the day (or week)
Today, 08:45 AM
by TVsFrank

Demotivational Posters
Today, 08:16 AM
by greffov

The "Daily Thought" Thread
Today, 07:46 AM
by Crazy Horse

IpfilterX for ed2k-uTorrent
Today, 06:55 AM
by the_dial_up_boy

The Last Movie You Watched & It's Rating..??
Yesterday, 10:11 PM
by Lion7718

Happy Mothers Day!!
Yesterday, 08:58 PM
by multi

can you add 3 artists u like to here...
Yesterday, 05:31 PM
by rastaX

XP SP3 and Vista SP1
Yesterday, 08:57 AM
by RacknRail

View all new posts