Posts Tagged ‘politics’

European ACTA pressure intensifies

// March 8th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- Europe has become the centre of a storm over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.  Late last week, the Government of Sweden announced that the European Union was now uniformally seeking ACTA transparency. The announcement came just days after the Dutch leak that identified the specific countries opposed to a transparent approach.  The revelations appear to have had a significant impact as all European Union countries are now said to support release of the ACTA text. This week the issue hits the European Parliament that includes an ACTA debate on Tuesday, followed by a landmark resolution that will be on the table on Wednesday. At the moment, there are two competing resolutions. One resolution promoted by an alliance of the Liberal and Green Party, includes the following: 1.  Expresses its utmost concern over the lack of a transparent process in the conduct of the ACTA negotiations, which contradicts the letter and the spirit of the TFEU; 2.  Is of the opinion that legitimate arguments for non-disclosure do not exist with regard to international negotiations on the enforcement of intellectual property rights or similar issues, which are legislative in character and have an impact on fundamental rights; maintains that the negotiating position of the EU or other negotiating parties is not circumscribed if information about the negotiations is available to the European Parliament and the general public; 3.  Regrets the calculated choice of the parties not to negotiate through well-established international bodies, such as the WIPO and WTO, which have established frameworks of public information and consultations; 4.  Calls on the Commission to grant Parliament access to all primary texts relating to ACTA, in particular the ACTA negotiation mandate by the Council, the minutes of ACTA negotiation meetings, the draft chapters of ACTA, and the comments of ACTA participants on the draft chapters; 5.  Acknowledges that, in addition to the clear legal obligation to inform Parliament, the ACTA documents should also be available to the general public in the EU and in the other countries participating in the negotiations; understands the wide public criticism of the secrecy of the ACTA negotiations as a clear signal of the political unsustainability of the negotiation procedure chosen; 6.  Calls on the Commission to engage proactively with ACTA negotiation partners to cancel any previous formal or informal internal agreements on the confidential nature of the conduct of the negotiations and to inform Parliament about its initiatives in this regard in due course; expects the Commission to make proposals prior to the next negotiation round in New Zealand in April 2010 and to demand that the issue of transparency is put on the agenda of that meeting; 7.  Reminds the Commission that if it does not provide Parliament with immediate and full information about the negotiations in accordance with Art. 218 TFEU before the next round of negotiations in April, Parliament will have no choice but to bring an action in accordance with Art. 263 TFEU for infringement of the Treaties to the Court of Justice of the European Union; 8.  Calls on the Commission to conduct an impact assessment of the implementation of ACTA with regard to fundamental rights and data protection, ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures, e-commerce and the possible impact of ACTA on fundamental rights and the rule of law in third – especially developing – countries, prior to any EU agreement on a consolidated ACTA treaty text, and to consult with Parliament in a timely manner about the results of this assessment; 9.  Welcomes affirmations by the Commission that any ACTA agreement will be limited to the enforcement of existing IPRs, with no prejudice for the development of substantive IP law in the European Union; makes any possible assent to the ACTA agreement conditional to the full respect of this affirmation; 10.  Urges the Commission to ensure that the enforcement of ACTA provisions – especially those on copyright enforcement procedures in the digital environment – are fully in line with the letter and the spirit of the acquis communautaire and do not imply ‘self-regulatory’ measures being imposed by private companies outside the scope of democratic decision-making processes; considers that Internet service providers should not bear liability for the data they transmit or host through their services to an extent that would imply prior surveillance or filtering of such data; 11.  Emphasises that privacy and data protection are core values of the European Union, recognised in Article 8 ECHR and Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which must be respected in all the policies and rules adopted by the EU pursuant to Article 16 of the TFEU; 12.  Points out that any measure aimed at strengthening powers for cross-border inspection and seizures of goods should not harm global access to legal, affordable and safe medicines; 13.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the governments and parliaments of countries participating in ACTA negotiations. The second resolution, supported by Conservative Members of the European Parliament, includes: 1.  Is aware that the ACTA negotiations, owing to their particular nature, require a high level of confidentiality in order not to undermine the legitimate interests of the stakeholders and the participating States; considers, however, that a more transparent process should be ensured in order to provide appropriate information, as repeatedly requested by the European Parliament; 2.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission has been briefing members of Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA), despite the confidential character of the multilateral negotiations, using the format of regular exchanges of views with the Director-General of DG Trade at open meetings of INTA coordinators; 3.  Calls on the Commission to grant Parliament access to documentation of ACTA negotiating texts in order to permit it to be up to date with the state of play of the negotiations; acknowledges that certain information might require confidentiality and should be provided in an appropriate form; 4.  Calls on the Commission also to actively engage with the other ACTA negotiating partners prior to the next negotiating round in New Zealand in April 2010, in order formally to place the issue of transparency on the agenda for that meeting, and to report to Parliament’s specialised committee on the outcome of that round immediately after its conclusion; 5.  Calls on the Commission to continue the negotiations on ACTA in order to improve the effectiveness of the IPR enforcement system against counterfeiting; 6.  Calls on the Commission to conduct an assessment of the impact of ACTA’s implementation on fundamental rights and data protection, on the ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures and on E-Commerce, with a view to an EU agreement on a consolidated ACTA text, and to consult with Parliament about the results of this assessment in due course; 7.  Welcomes the Commission’s statements to the effect that any ACTA agreement will be limited to the enforcement of existing IPRs, without prejudice to the development of substantive IP law in the European Union; 8.  Urges the Commission to ensure that the enforcement of ACTA provisions – especially those on copyright enforcement procedures in the digital environment – are fully in line with the acquis communautaire and that no personal searches are undertaken at EU borders; 9.  Considers that, in order to comply with fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy, with full respect for subsidiarity, the proposed agreement should not impose the so-called ‘three strikes’ procedure; 10.  Emphasises that privacy and data protection are core values of the European Union, as recognised in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which must be respected in all the policies and rules adopted by the EU pursuant to Article 16 of the TFEU; 11.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the states party to the ACTA negotiations. Over the next couple of days there will efforts to merge the two documents.  If adopted, the resulting document will be the strongest statement from an elected body on the need for dramatic change to the current ACTA process. On top of these resolutions, there is also a written declaration supported by four MEPs (Françoise Castex, Zuzana Roithová, Alexander Alvaro, Stavros Lambrinidis). Michael Geist – Michael Geist’s Blog [Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at mgeist @ uottawa dot ca ] _______________________________________________________________ p2pnet posted on February 24 > > > Help the European Parliament fight ACTA Four Members of the European Parliament have submitted a written declaration opposing ACTA, says La Quadrature du Net . They are > > > Zuzana Roithova (CZ, EPP) Stavros Lambrinidis (GR, S&D) Alexander Alvaro (DE, ALDE) Françoise Castex (FR, S&D)- “There are now three months to obtain the signatures of the majority of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) for the declaration to be formally adopted by the Parliament”, it says, quoting La Quadrature du Net spokesman Jérémie Zimmermann  as saying: “This written declaration rightly expresses concerns about democratic circumvention and the risks that ACTA represents for fundamental freedoms. It is a strong platform for citizens to act against ACTA and help protect the Internet. “Every European citizen who loves the Net must contact the MEPs from his country and urge them to sign this written declaration.” To find lists of MEPs by country, and contact information, go to Political Memory . Here’s the declaration “on the lack of a transparent process and potentially objectionable content concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)” > > > The European Parliament, having regard to Rule 123 of its Rules of Procedure, A. Whereas the ongoing negotiations concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). B. Whereas the co-decision role of the European Parliament in commercial matters and its access to negotiation documents guaranteed by the Lisbon Treaty, 1. Considers that the proposed agreement should not indirectly impose harmonisation of EU copyright, patent or trademark law. The principle of subsidiarity should be respected, 2. Declares that the Commission should immediately make all documents related to the ongoing negotiations publicly available. 3. Takes the view that the proposed agreement should not force limitations upon judicial due process nor weaken fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy. 4. Stresses that the evaluation of economic and innovation risks must take place prior to introducing criminal sanctions where civil measures are already in place. 5. Considers that Internet service providers should not bear liability for the data they transmit or host through their services to an extent that would imply prior surveillance or filtering of such data. 6. Points out that any measure aimed at strengthening powers for cross-border inspection and seizures of goods should not harm global access to legal, affordable and safe medicines. 7. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Commission, the Council and the parliaments of the Member States. Stay tuned. - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi March, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? - Login User Name: password: Archives 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code Help the European Parliament fight ACTA p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- Four Members of the European Parliament have submitted a written declaration opposing ACTA, says La Quadrature du Net . They are > > > Zuzana Roithova (CZ, EPP) Stavros Lambrinidis (GR, S&D) Alexander Alvaro (DE, ALDE) Françoise Castex (FR, S&D)- “There are now three months to obtain the signatures of the majority of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) for the declaration to be formally adopted by the Parliament”, it says, quoting La Quadrature du Net spokesman Jérémie Zimmermann  as saying: “This written declaration rightly expresses concerns about democratic circumvention and the risks that ACTA represents for fundamental freedoms. It is a strong platform for citizens to act against ACTA and help protect the Internet. “Every European citizen who loves the Net must contact the MEPs from his country and urge them to sign this written declaration.” To find lists of MEPs by country, and contact information, go to Political Memory . Here’s the declaration “on the lack of a transparent process and potentially objectionable content concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)” > > > The European Parliament, having regard to Rule 123 of its Rules of Procedure, A. Whereas the ongoing negotiations concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). B. Whereas the co-decision role of the European Parliament in commercial matters and its access to negotiation documents guaranteed by the Lisbon Treaty, 1. Considers that the proposed agreement should not indirectly impose harmonisation of EU copyright, patent or trademark law. The principle of subsidiarity should be respected, 2. Declares that the Commission should immediately make all documents related to the ongoing negotiations publicly available. 3. Takes the view that the proposed agreement should not force limitations upon judicial due process nor weaken fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy. 4. Stresses that the evaluation of economic and innovation risks must take place prior to introducing criminal sanctions where civil measures are already in place. 5. Considers that Internet service providers should not bear liability for the data they transmit or host through their services to an extent that would imply prior surveillance or filtering of such data. 6. Points out that any measure aimed at strengthening powers for cross-border inspection and seizures of goods should not harm global access to legal, affordable and safe medicines. 7. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Commission, the Council and the parliaments of the Member States. Stay tuned.

Online access a ‘fundamental right’: poll

// March 8th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view Freedom | P2P:- “The internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created.” That’s the belief of Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). He is, however, incorrect. It already is the most powerful source of enlightenment ever created: there’s nothing potential about it. His views come in a BBC story which says almost four in five people around the world believe online access is a fundamental right. A BBC World Service survey of more than 27,000 adults in 26 countries “found strong support for net access on both sides of the digital divide”, says the story. Now governments must “regard the internet as basic infrastructure – just like roads, waste and water”, says Toure. “We have entered the knowledge society and everyone must have access to participate.” The concept is of course an anathema to the government and media powers that used to be. The survey “also revealed divisions on the question of government oversight of some aspects of the net”, says the story, continuing > > > The finding comes as the UK government tries to push through its controversial Digital Economy Bill. As well as promising to deliver universal broadband in the UK by 2012, the bill could also see a so-called “three strikes rule” become law. This rule would give regulators new powers to disconnect or slow down the net connections of persistent illegal file-sharers. Other countries, such as France, are also considering similar laws. Recently, the EU adopted an internet freedom provision, stating that any measures taken by member states that may affect citizen’s access to or use of the internet “must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens”. In particular, it states that EU citizens are entitled to a “fair and impartial procedure” before any measures can be taken to limit their net access. Some 87% of internet users felt net access should be the “fundamental right of all people”, says the BBC, adding: “More than 70% of non-users felt that they should have access to the net. “Overall, almost 79% of those questioned said they either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the description of the internet as a fundamental right – whether they currently had access or not.” - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi BBC – Internet access is ‘a fundamental right’, March 8, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

Corporate 3 Strikes scam to be law in UK

// March 8th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- Hollywood and Big music are  patting themselves on the back for what may be the successul passing of a cartel-inspired UK bill no one, except UK government representatives of the entertainment industry and the entertainment industry itself, wants. “The government deserves credit for pushing through a proposal that is not a votewinner”, the Guardian has a ’senior industry source’ saying. “They recognise that the creative industries are a huge asset for the country.” The ’source’ sounds like Geoff Taylor, mouthperson for Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s BPI (British Phonographic Industry). “The digital economy bill will become law before Parliament is dissolved at the beginning of April ahead of a likely general election in May, senior media industry figures believe”, says the story, continuing > > > That will usher in controversial laws enabling rights owners to cut off or restrict internet access for users who download films and music illegally. The bill contains measures designed to combat piracy. If it becomes law it will compel internet service providers … to pass on information about persistent offenders to rights holders. It is currently in the House of Lords and about to get its third reading … One of the “most contentious” elements was voted down by the  Lords “only to be replaced by a clause that campaigners say is even more draconian”, says the story. It’s referring to a Liberal Democrat amendment to the bill’s notorious clause 17. “Lib Dem peers are seeking to amend the Digital Economy Bill to allow site blocking for copyright infringement”, p2pnet quoted Open Rights Group ’s Jim Killock as saying last Thursday, going on: “This could lead to unwanted blocking of sites accused of copyright infringement, including sites like Youtube, and a massive chilling effect as any site with user generated content could easily fall foul of provisions like this.” ISPA (Internet Service Providers Association) said it was “outraged” by the House of Lords decision to approve Amendment 120A which would allow the High Court to grant an injunction calling for ISPs to block sites with a “substantial proportion” of content alleged to infringe copyrights. “This would open the door to a massive imbalance of power in favour of large copyright holding companies,” Killock warned in the Telegraph . Individuals and small businesses “would be open to massive ‘copyright attacks’ that could shut them down, just by the threat of action”, he states. It “continues to boggle the mind how a group of venal and corrupt commercial operations are able to control the mainstream media and a number of weak-kneed federal government in their concerted efforts to gain control of the Internet as their exclusive marketing and distribution vehicle, using spurrious claims that they’re being ‘devastated’ as the lever”, said p2pnet recently, adding: “Corporate entertainment industry three strikes ‘actions’ are taking place in various countries around the world. And yet as far as one can see, no major print media news outlet has ever pointed out that far from being individual, isolated ‘initiatives’ on the part of the governments concerned, each Three Strikes proposal is no more than an element in a massive international campaign. “With the lamescream press corpse as their willing helpers, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures tout their self-interest ‘copyright protection’ schemes as though they’re of any benefit to anyone but themselves.” Says the Guardian: “After the Lords, the bill will then go the House of Commons in a fortnight’s time. If it proceeds to its second reading by early April, when an election is widely expected to be called, it could enter the statute book before parliament rises.” - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi Guardian – Digital economy bill likely to be pushed through before election, March 5, 2010 p2pnet – ISPs ‘outraged’ over new copyright threat, March 4, 2010 Open Rights Group – Lib Dems seek web blocking: ask them to stop, March 2, 2010 ISPA – ISPA Outraged by Amendment on Network Level Blocking to Digital Economy Bill, March 3, 2010 Telegraph – YouTube ‘under threat’ from Digital Economy Bill changes, March 4, 2010 p2pnet – ‘Mandy’ Mandelson: official UK copyright cop, February 24, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

Oh Canada: Our Bought and Sold Out Land

// March 7th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view Movies | P2P | Politics:- “This entertaining documentary film explores the history of banking, the selling out of the prosperity of Canada, the clearance sale of Canadian businesses and the political liquidation of public infrastructures to the multi-national corporate oligarchy. “How has this led to the biggest economic crash / recession / depression in Canadian history? Could it have something to do with our politicians listening to international bankers and corporations instead of the people Canada? How does the Canadian banking system really work? How does the central Bank of Canada compare with the American Federal Reserve? “This movie presents these issues that affect every Canadian from the perspective of and delivered by concerned youth in a astute and colourful manner. This is a serious journalism piece that asks the tough questions directly to such politicians as Former Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, Ontario Gas Man Dan McTeague, NDP Leader Jack Layton, Mayor of Oshawa John Gray, Former Prime Minister of Canada John Turner and many more! “We encourage you to seed this torrent, pass it around and freely distribute it to your friends and family. Please visit our website @ http://ohcanadamovie.com .” Oh Canada – Our Bought and Sold Out Land (2009) Author       : Dan Matthews Genres       : Documentary http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5197748/Oh.Canada-Our.Bought.and.Sold.Out.Land(2009)DVDRip.XviD http://tracker.concen.org/torrents-details.php?id=14774 http://ohcanadamovie.com/index.html http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/2066142/115648/ http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/2061530/57824/ (Cheers, catflap ) - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi March, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? - Download this torrent ( magnet link ) http://ohcanadamovie.com/ http://www.matthewsmedia.ca/ Oh Canada - Our Bought and Sold Out Land (2009) Author : Dan Matthews Genres : Documentary Plot: This entertaining documentary film explores the history of banking, the selling out of the prosperity of Canada, the clearance sale of Canadian businesses and the political liquidation of public infrastructures to the multi-national corporate oligarchy. How has this led to the biggest economic crash / recession / depression in Canadian history? Could it have something to do with our politicians listening to international bankers and corporations instead of the people Canada? How does the Canadian banking system really work? How does the central Bank of Canada compare with the American Federal Reserve? This movie presents these issues that affect every Canadian from the perspective of and delivered by concerned youth in a astute and colourful manner. This is a serious journalism piece that asks the tough questions directly to such politicians as Former Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, Ontario Gas Man Dan McTeague, NDP Leader Jack Layton, Mayor of Oshawa John Gray, Former Prime Minister of Canada John Turner and many more! We encourage you to seed this torrent, pass it around and freely distribute it to your friends and family. Please visit our website @ http://ohcanadamovie.com

Ars Technica blocks ad-blocking readers

// March 7th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view P2P | Advertising:- “I am embarrassed for P2PNet. It begs for money in public like a beggar on on a street street corner looking for hand outs. I see you have only managed to cheat your readers out of $13.01 this month. Does that not tell everything you need to know? What are your figures? 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 a month? You should do what yu keep promising to do and shut P2PNet down. People see it for what it is.” The comment above went up about 10 minutes after I posted the second ad on the right. And whoever wrote it seems to have been so upset s/he was stuttering —- “on on a street street”. Since s/he asked, and because it meshes in with an interesting email from Devil’s Advocate on the subject of metrics, in January, according to Awstats, of 244,010 visits to p2pnet, 140,622 were uniques. This time last year it was a lot more than that. But shit happens, as they say. Late in 2009, I moved from a host in the US to a host in Belgium. But because of a huge mix-up at Go Daddy, it took eight days to complete the transfer and during that time my Google rank plummeted from 6 out of 10 to zero, and my stats went down to 2,000 or 3,000 a day. I have no idea why the lost eight days had such a dramatic effect, but they did. By February the rank was back to 6 out of 10, and traffic is slowly re-building. One week into March, I’m averaging 6,230.71 uniques a day, says Awstats. Last month, the average was 7,799.18. Of ‘downward spirals’ If you’re consciously and deliberately communicating with other people, as I am, obviously, 100 visitors are better than 10. But to a lot of people, traffic counts don’t matter. They’re bloggers so they blog. To anyone who depends on the number of clicks  each advertisement  on the site produces, though, the amount of traffic isn’t only important, it’s vital —- although I wonder what it’s really worth to the advertisers. If 1,000 people click on an ad, what does it mean? Gargle, or someone like it, large or small, and the owners of the site carrying the ad get paid, and data used for creating databases and behavioural targeting are gathered. But how many of those clicks actually generate a hard sale, or even an inquiry? A couple of years ago, “Advertisers  believe it’s carved in stone we’ll continue to buy their ‘product,’ which increasingly looks the same, sounds the same, smells the same and tastes the same, no matter how they treat us”, I said in p2pnet , going on > > > But we’re not buying it, in any sense. The print and electronic media as they used to exist, and as they still exist in the eyes of most people who are in charge of them, aren’t merely in the doldrums: they’re dying. And it has nothing to do with the “weak U.S. economy”. The “downward spirals” and “tumbling advertising revenues” are due to the fact consumers are customers again, and discerning ones at that. The cheap tricks routinely used by the advertising, marketing and promotion industry just don’t work anymore. The Net is to blame. It’s having a major impact on traditional advertising and news delivery systems because as more and more men, women and children open online accounts, they’re increasingly becoming their own media providers on an individual and group basis. So who needs the heavily biased, often inaccurate, advertiser-controlled corporate press and their allied ’services,” as they are at the moment? Who? And how? “One thing I’ve never truly delved in was the way various ads generate revenue for a site”, says Devil’s Advocate in his email, going on > > > I always assumed that, in the simplest model, an advertiser paid a percentage based on “unique visitor” page view count, collected by the servers of the sponsored site, and “click-throughs” were an additional “bonus”.  Now, I’m wondering if I’ve got it wrong about WHO collects this count, and HOW it’s obtained. The reason my query is, after coming across this at Ars… http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars … I’m confused at to why using an “ad blocker” would screw up a site’s ability to report a true count to its sponsors, unless these advertisers are actually collecting the information themselves, directly or indirectly, through a “trusted 3rd party” arrangement. The other thing that comes to my mind (and that I don’t see reflected in the many comments Ars got for this post)… Isn’t one of the key reasons for using an ad blocker to PROTECT the user from this type of 3rd-party activity?! And, is Ars attempting to dish out a “guilt trip” to its readers, hoping they’ll all just turn off the ad blockers or whitelist all the sites involved (thereby enabling all 3rd-party user tracking), just to keep its sponsors happy?? ‘Blocking ads is stealing’ “Adblock plus is one of the great reasons to use Firefox,” said a Reader’s Write as far back as 2007, continuing, “I always install it on others peoples systems for them. They always tell me afterwards that pages load faster, and it’s now a pleasure to browse. As far as i’m concerned, everyone should get firefox + adblock plus + g.filterset.” It came in a story headlined Firefox: advertising thief discussing stand-alone ,or built-in, applications designed to block advertising. “You’ve reached this page because the site you were trying to visit now blocks the FireFox browser”, said whyfirefoxisblocked.com the then new site dedicated to trying to convince us blocking ads we don’t want to see isn’t our right, and anyone or anything which helps us to do so is a thief. It declared > > > The Mozilla Foundation and its Commercial arm, the Mozilla Corporation, has allowed and endorsed Ad Block Plus, a plug-in that blocks advertisement on web sites and also prevents site owners from blocking people using it. Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing. Millions of hard working people are being robbed of their time and effort by this type of software. Many site owners therefore install scripts that prevent people using ad blocking software from accessing their site. That is their right as the site owner to insist that the use of their resources accompanies the presence of the ads. While blanket ad blocking in general is still theft, the real problem is Ad Block Plus’s unwillingness to allow individual site owners the freedom to block people using their plug-in. Blocking FireFox is the only alternative. Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers. “Jeez,” said another Reader’s Write . “I’ve been house sitting for a few days so I watched a few programs on cable. “OMG, I changed the channel every time commercials came on. Who knew I was stealing?” ‘Blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love’ In the Ars Technica post DA mentions in his email, Ken Fisher kicks off, “Did you know that blocking ads truly hurts the websites you visit? We recently learned that many of our readers did not know this, so I’m going to explain why. “There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won’t hurt a site financially. This is wrong.” Hmmmm. How can that be? “Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis,” says Ars, continuing, “If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue. Because we are a technology site, we have a very large base of ad blockers. Imagine running a restaurant where 40% of the people who came and ate didn’t pay. In a way, that’s what ad blocking is doing to us. Just like a restaurant, we have to pay to staff, we have to pay for resources, and we have to pay when people consume those resources. The difference, of course, is that our visitors don’t pay us directly but indirectly by viewing advertising. (Although a few thousand of you are subscribers, and we thank you all very, very much!) “My argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love. I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, or makes someone the son of the devil. It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content. It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin.” So, “Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool”, says Fisher. “Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn’t see our content.” What a good idea! Ban readers who ignore your ads! He goes on > > > Socially, the experiment was a mixed bag. A bunch of people whitelisted Ars, and even a few  subscribed . And while others showed up to support our actions, there was a healthy mob of people criticizing us for daring to take any kind of action against those who would deny us revenue even though they knew they were doing so. Others rightly criticized the lack of a warning or notification as to what was going on. Ad blockers block ads. But is that all they block? In his email, “The way it looks to me right now is, the 3rd parties are insisting on placing active cookies or engaging in any other user tracking activities (whether direct or indirect), and the ad blockers are preventing these sponsors from doing so, thereby ‘damaging the relationship” between Ars and its sponsors’ ( ? ),” says DA, adding > > > Now, I’m not saying a site shouldn’t have the right to opportunities to earn money, but if my assumptions are correct, this is not the kind of business model I would support.  I don’t visit sites that want to automatically connect my machine to a gang of unknown 3rd parties, regardless of what any of them *say* they’re not collecting or sharing. My computer won’t allow this type of thing, anyway, but if I can’t configure my computer’s security to my satisfaction without it becoming a ‘moral issue’ for the sites I want to visit, I would say the problem would be only with their business models, and shouldn’t be my concern. Either there’s something really odd going on here, or I really have to educate myself on this topic. Do you see what I’m getting at? I do, DA. Meanwhile … … returning to the nastygram mentioned at the beginning, “I see you have only managed to cheat your readers out of $13.01 this month”, it says. The figure was $13.91, not $13.01, and the people who contributed did so because they like p2pnet — same as the people who pumped in more than $1,000 last month. Having said that, I think I recognise the style: the post is very similar in construction to others that’ve been arriving fairly regularly over the past few months. But I’m encouraged because they don’t look like the usual troll junque and flames every site gets. Rather, they fit a pattern. Are they part of some kind of campaign and if they are, who’s behind them, and why? Is this just one person with a hard-on for p2pnet? Or is it someone with enough resources to hire a troll to try to minimise p2pnet? If it’s the former, get a life. But if it’s the latter, great! Stirring things up is one of the things advocacy and alternative news sites such as p2pnet are all about Finally, by way of a heads up, one of my problems has been:  as a businessman, I’d make a great bus driver. With that in mind, for the last few weeks I, and a net pioneer whom I’ve known almost since the beginning, have been talking about him taking over day-to-day management of p2pnet, while I continue to be responsible for content. It’s looking promising. So stay tuned. Cheers! And all the best … Jon - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi p2pnet – Online advertising and the New Consumer, September 2, 2008 Ars Technica – Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love, March 6, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? - Back to You’ve reached this page because the site you were trying to visit now blocks the FireFox browser , it’s the headline on a new site dedicated to trying to convince us blocking ads we don’t want to see isn’t our right, and anyone or anything which helps us to do so is a thief. whyfirefoxisblocked.com declares: The Mozilla Foundation and its Commercial arm, the Mozilla Corporation, has allowed and endorsed Ad Block Plus, a plug-in that blocks advertisement on web sites and also prevents site owners from blocking people using it. Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing. Millions of hard working people are being robbed of their time and effort by this type of software. Many site owners therefore install scripts that prevent people using ad blocking software from accessing their site. That is their right as the site owner to insist that the use of their resources accompanies the presence of the ads. While blanket ad blocking in general is still theft, the real problem is Ad Block Plus’s unwillingness to allow individual site owners the freedom to block people using their plug-in. Blocking FireFox is the only alternative. Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.

Meet the IPR Training Database

// March 6th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- Corporate America never had it so good. Well, perhaps it did — under George W. Bush. But it’s not doing badly under Barack Obama. On the right are organisations comprising an “Obama Administration partnership with PhRMA/Publishers to promote industry IPR propaganda”, says James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, in a Twitter post . His tweet points to the international Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Training Database , “maintained by agencies of the United States Government and industry associations who provide training and technical assistance relating to protecting IPR”. Interestingly, in the first pic, in the top row, front and centre, and with the executive office of president of the United States and US department of homeland security flanking, are the IIPI and RIAA, two hard-core entertainment cartel organisations whose sole purpose in life is to act aggressively for, and on behalf of, heavily vested corporate interests. IIPA is short for International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), the Gang of Seven representing US “copyright-based industries”, in alphabetical order > > > Association of American Publishers; Business Software Alliance (Microsoft et al.); Entertainment Software Association; Independent Film & Television Alliance; Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)’ National Music Publishers’ Association; and, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). On the right is an earlier (or is it updated?) version including Hollywood’s MPAA, the copyright office and the DoJ, but excluding  PHRMA, US Aid and Obama’s executive office . Officially, the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Training Database is “designed to permit the IPR Training Coordination Group, composed of these U.S. private and public sector training providers, to share information in order to coordinate and plan IPR training, as well as respond to queries about U.S. IPR training activities”, it says. But, irrespective of who’s included in which pic, sponsored by the bureau of economic and business affairs of the US department of state and funded by US taxpayers, the IPR’s true purpose is to promote and protect narrow business interests to the exclusion of all else. Stay tuned. Jon Newton – p2pnet - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi March, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

Attention Illiberal Undemocrats

// March 5th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- A vendor selling a copy or imitation that is misrepresented as the genuine article is committing a falsehood, a deceit. This has been recognised as something that should be prohibited since time immemorial. However, a vendor selling a copy or imitation that is honestly represented as a copy, derivative, or imitation of another work is committing no falsehood or deceit. This has also been recognised as something perfectly natural and to be embraced since time immemorial. Man has progressed precisely through a process of sharing knowledge, copying songs, stories, tools and techniques and improving them. The unnatural law that was introduced in 1710 by Queen Anne was the privilege of a reproduction monopoly granted to printers of literary works, and this at a stroke suspended the public’s right to make copies – a natural right that they had enjoyed as part of their natural liberty since time immemorial. So, what happens when the public find themselves in possession of ever more powerful reproduction technology? The people are in fundamental conflict with those in possession of the privilege that suspends their liberty. To say, because the 18th century privilege is still law three centuries later, that it is therefore the law that is right and the people who are in the wrong is to blind yourself to the reality of the conflict, to refuse to recognise the nature of people and information. The [UK]  Digital Economy Bill is simply yet another attempt to provide the privileged with additional legal sanctions, to effectively give King Canute yet more extreme powers to hold back the incorrigibly disobedient tide. The Internet is essentially a system for instantaneously diffusing (distributing & reproducing) digital, intellectual works. A transferable 18th century privilege that requires that no-one distributes or reproduces an intellectual work without permission from the holder of that privilege is at best an anachronism, and at worst an unethical statute that should never have been enacted. This writing is on the wall. If you hesitate to copy it and freely distribute it among your peers you are not dutifully respecting the privilege and law that suspends your liberty to do so, but committing yourself into ignorance and cultural suicide. Crosbie Fitch - Digital Productions [Fitch says he's researching and developing revenue mechanisms and business models for producers of digital art and in the process, 'has discovered that copyright is not only an ineffective anachronism, but is unethical and unconstitutional '.] - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi March, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

South Australia AG Atkinson v Rina Russo

// March 5th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- Michael Atkinson (right) is a, well, he’s a, um, he’s a … If you’re in South Australia where Atkinson is the attorney general, be really really careful about what you say he is. Because if he doesn’t like it, he’ll try to hammer you for $20,000. And costs. That’s what happened to Rina Russo who “compared him unfavourably to an historical figure”, says the Independent Weekly . She’s a “committed campaigner against the St Clair land swap, under which an existing and established community park would be developed for housing and replaced with a new park, to be built on contaminated land”, says the story. Acting for Atkinson, Norman Waterhouse lawyers wrote to Russo complaining about her comparison. And to make sure no one could be in any doubt about the possible implications of her email, they spelled it out, to wit > > > The natural and ordinary meanings of your publication (email) is that our client is a crook, is corrupt, is open to bribery, is suspect, has engaged in improper, unethical and illegal conduct and is not a fit and proper person to hold office in the State of SA … But, says the Independent Weekly, all will be well just as long as Russo coughs up 20 grand, publishes a “full retraction and apology” to each recipient of her email, and meets legal costs of $3000. Russo hadn’t apologised by the time the story was published last month, “although the deadline set by Mr Atkinson has expired”, it adds. (Cheers, Filip) - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi Independent Weekly – Chief law officer threatens to sue constituent, February 19, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

‘Free Ares Vista’ rips off p2pnet

// March 5th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view P2P:- Back in January last year, a “Creative Commons license is handy, but it’s not a silver bullet when it comes to people using other people’s materials without permission”, I said in p2pnet , going on: “That’s the bottom line following p2pnet’s re-print argument with Ares , a P2P application sales site which’d run our stories without acknowledgement or permission. “It was never our intention to use p2pnet’s articles without the proper accreditation,” said Ares . “This was a programming error in our RSS feed. We apologize for any hassles this has caused you. Rest assured, we are currently working with our programmers to have this problem corrected as soon as possible.” And correct it they did. Now another ‘Ares’ company has popped up running not only p2pnet stories, but also posts from p2pnet sister site a2f2a.com. This one’s called Free Ares Vista Says the Ares P2P site on Sourceforge: “Ares is a free open source file sharing program that enables users to share any digital file including images, audio, video, software, documents, etc. You may now easily publish your files through the Ares peer to peer network. As a member of the virtual community, you can search and download just about any file shared by other users. Latest versions support BitTorrent protocol and Shoutcast radio stations. With Ares you can also join chat rooms or host your channel and meet new friends.” Cool. Open Source is good. Sharing is good. Creative Commons is good. However, that doesn’t mean grabbing CC material from another site and running it under your own copyright is acceptable, which is exactly what Free Ares Vista is doing. Under “Latest Blog Posts” are Ares Download: Which Version Is The Best? Ares Windows 7: 3 Reasons File Sharing Community Has Embraced The Software p2pnet World Headlines: Feb 23, 2010 New Zealand ‘three-notice regime’ University pres ‘retires’ after plagiarism charges The last three are, of course, p2pnet stories. And every one of its February Archive items is, Yup, from p2pnet. And they’re all under Copyright ? [guess their copyright symbol is broken ) 2010 Free Ares Vista. All Rights Reserved. Oh Rilly? There’s no contact info, and I couldn’t find anything when I did a search. So how clued in are the people behind this latest Ares item? They name Suprnova as one of “the most popular programs that use the bittorrent client”, linking directly to BitTorrent. And according to Free Ares Vista, Morpheus is a “popular file sharing program”. It, too, is linked to the BT site. In my other Ares story, “I have no problem with p2pnet stories being quoted in full or in part elsewhere,” I say, going on > > > The idea is to get the message out and obviously, the more people carrying it, the better. That’s why I publish under a CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada license. “Given that, is it cool for anyone, anywhere, to use p2pnet, or anyone else’s, material without any kind of reference? Is the message all that counts?” Stay tuned. - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi p2pnet – p2pnet and Ares: sorted, January 13, 2009 March, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

ISPs ‘outraged’ over new copyright threat

// March 4th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- “Lib Dem peers are seeking to amend the Digital Economy Bill to allow site blocking for copyright infringement”, the Open Rights Group ’s Jim Killock (right) posted on Tuesday, going on: “This could lead to unwanted blocking of sites accused of copyright infringement, including sites like Youtube, and a massive chilling effect as any site with user generated content could easily fall foul of provisions like this.” Now ISPA (Internet Service Providers Association) says it’s “outraged” by the House of Lords decision to approve Amendment 120A to the UK Digital Economy Bill which would allow the High Court to grant an injunction calling for ISPs to block sites with a “substantial proportion” of content alleged to infringe copyrights. “This would open the door to a massive imbalance of power in favour of large copyright holding companies,” Killock warns in the Telegraph . Individuals and small businesses “would be open to massive ‘copyright attacks’ that could shut them down, just by the threat of action”, he states. “Whilst we appreciate the concern of opposition front benches to clause 17, we regret that this amendment has been hastily constructed and rushed through at report stage without due consideration of the implications or consultation with the interested parties that would be affected” says ISPA, continuing > > > In the words of Shadow Secretary of State for Culture Jeremy Hunt “trying to rush through controversial powers at the tail end of a Parliament is simply no way to make law and not something we will be supporting”. The many associated legal, technical and practical issues have simply not been debated in nearly enough depth. For a policy of such gravity, this is negligent. Lord Clement-Jones correctly noted in proposing his amendment that the courts in fact already have the power under Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act to grant an injunction requiring ISPs to block access to sites that contain unlawful copyright content. ISPA would agree that 97A strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of different parties and leaves the court free to consider each claim on its merits and independently of other factors. Amendment 120A, however, abandons this balance, introduces a bias in favour of one party (rightsowners) and limits the court’s discretion to judge each case on its merits. ISPA is particularly disappointed that the Lords supporting this amendment drew parallels with the model of network-level blocking administered by the Internet Watch Foundation. The suggestion that a framework developed to fight against the distribution of criminal images of child sexual abuse is appropriate to tackle allegations of civil copyright infringement is incomprehensible. This amendment is misjudged and disproportionate and this Bill is a wholly inappropriate place to introduce this debate. Other countries have explored similar policy options but surfaced these concerns and focused their policy debate accordingly on the most egregious content offences in the cases where the policy has progressed at all. ISPA has been a long term advocate against any form of network level blocking, as it is only effective in reducing inadvertent access, and believes the Peers behind this amendment should consider the available research, which supports this view. ISPA  members are “extremely concerned that the full implications of the amendment have not been understood and that the reasoning behind the amendment is wholly misguided”, says ISPA secretary-general Nicholas Lansman, adding: “We would therefore urge the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to urgently reconsider their position.” - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi Open Rights Group – Lib Dems seek web blocking: ask them to stop, March 2, 2010 ISPA – ISPA Outraged by Amendment on Network Level Blocking to Digital Economy Bill, March 3, 2010 Telegraph – YouTube ‘under threat’ from Digital Economy Bill changes, March 4, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »


eXTReMe Tracker