don't organise Lanparties or set up warez-forums in Belgium except if you have half a million Euro's to lose
Some organizers of Lanparties in Belgium were convicted after a Lanparty and their warezforums were being raided by the FCCU last year. Other cases of raided Lanparties in Belgium are also being rumored on the web.
A lanparty is where people bring their pc's and external harddisks and let anyone in the network download all the stuff they have on their computers. It seems faster than online and cleaner than online and the person who found the stuff can explain to you where there is other stuff like that online.
It seems like fun - untill the moment that one of the persons sitting next to you seems to be a copper and informs you together with a bunch of other coppers who arrived at the 'scene' that you are under arrest and confiscate your computer and go to your home to get all your other computers and digitalized collections.
The judges seem even to have even less patience and give even prison sentences on probation (6 months) and fines going up to HALF A MILLION euro. Meanwhile all your computers and collections are confiscated.
So lanparties or warezforums aren't that funny any more in Belgium
some say that in Holland as long as you don't upload there should be no problem - which is strange because in a lanparty the computer you have downloaded from can be interpreted as uploading it to you (just to say that I don't think this principle will hold in Lanparties)
What happens after the first Alert?
If the alleged behavior stops, no additional Alerts will be sent. If the activity continues, you will receive additional Alerts. Those Alerts will be more prominent and will inform you how to address the activity that is causing the Alerts. If you fail to stop the infringing activity, the Alerts will ultimately result in a “Mitigation MeasureActions that an ISP may take if allegations of copyright infringement persist. May include: a temporary reduction in Internet speed; a temporary step-down in Internet service tier; redirection to a landing page for a period or until the subscriber contacts their ISP or completes an online copyright education program. ” – an even more prominent notification and educational activity intended to further deter the behavior.
How long will I continue to receive Copyright Alerts?
Once the alleged behavior stops, no additional Alerts will be sent. If the behavior continues, you may receive up to six Alerts culminating with a Mitigation Measure.
What is a “Mitigation Measure”?
Mitigation Measures are intended to further emphasize the need to cease infringing activity over your Internet connection. The measures differ for each Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) but may, for example, take one of the following forms:
- A temporary reduction of Internet speed;
- Redirection to a landing page until the primary account holder of your account contacts your ISP;
- Redirection to a landing page where the primary account holder must review and respond to educational information.
While the ISPs can modify the Mitigation Measures in a manner consistent with their own policies, ISPs will not use account termination as a Mitigation Measure
well this will be interesting because it will open a whole can of beans especially in the US with al their jurisdiction
it is mostly a method to scare the newbies away from filesharing and to oblige them to learn how to do it as a pro and it will also make it totally notdone to open your accounts on youtube and others with identifiable accounts if you were using it untill now as a place for your files
private sharing like mega.co.nz and others propose will be much more en vogue now and windows8 is in fact making it even more easy for the newbie .....
it will be much more copy-and-run actions (you get on your mask - you grab what you can - and you lay down and do as if nothing happened)
Paris, 7 février 2013 – Le commissaire De Gucht est actuellement au Canada, dans le but de conclure CETA, l'accord commercial Canada-UE. Par la même occasion, il a entamé les négociations avec les États-Unis sur TAFTA, un nouvel « accord commercial » USA-Europe. La Quadrature du Net rappelle qu'il n'existe toujours aucune preuve tangible démontrant que les sanctions pénales et dispositions répressives ont été retirées de CETA. Il y a fort à parier que ces mesures ACTA-esques, dangereuses pour un Internet libre, réapparaîtront dans TAFTA. Karel De Gucht, qui a déjà ouvertement menti aux citoyens et au Parlement européen durant les débats sur ACTA, pourrait une fois encore faire pression pour imposer des mesures répressives portant atteinte aux libertés fondamentales à la faveur d'accords commerciaux. Les citoyens doivent rester vigilants et dénoncer cette tendance croissante.
you will have to search the sites themselves for them or use links on sites that have the content you are looking for (which means we are going back 20 years when links were the most important way to find interesting information and sites)
"Last month alone 2,362 copyright owners and 1,482 reporting organizations ordered Google to remove 13,665,695 URLs across a total of 43,980 domains. And very soon indeed a group of music rightsholders, who together accounted for 1,721,058 of last month’s takedowns, will reach their own personal milestone.
In the next few hours Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music, Warner Music and EMI – together the four largest member labels of the RIAA – will ask Google to remove the 10,000,000th allegedly infringing URL on their behalf."
On Wednesday, the European Commission suspended efforts to ratify the new international anti-counterfeiting agreement known as ACTA. Critics claim ACTA is a draconian measure that would effectively end freedom of the Internet, and fundamentally change the Internet as we know it.
The commission’s choice to suspend efforts to ratify ACTA is seen by many as a direct result of a relentless campaign directed by Anonymous hacktivists both in the streets of Europe and on the Internet.
this doesn't mean that the battle is over
it can come by another name or in another agreement or something like that
In fact if you look at the site and you go through the files you will see that most of the files are gone before the day is over
which means that
or mega is indexing the files that appear on this searchmachine and is checking automatically if there is a high probability that they are copyrighted or not (for example a file with the name of a film uploaded on a folder that is not owned by the producer of the film is for 99% copyrighted)
or mega has already its own search machine in place (like scribd.com has for books for example) and eliminates automatically these files
or the copyright cops are watching this search machine or others indexes and are sending complaints through a more or less automated process that is being followed up more or less automatically and executed very fast
which means that the complaint in the US against mega for some copyrighted files on her systems is a non-issue (and in the worst case is legal harrassment and nothing else) because all hosters work on this system (even youtube eliminates hundreds of videos each week this way) because the proof is here for all to see that these complaints are being followed up actively
the copyrightholders should also thank mega because each file that is more or less the same (not based upon name but based upon the bits and dots of a file) has the same ID which means that if you get a complaint against one copy, all other copies will also disappear. I imagine that their lawyers won't be too happy but the cost of applying their copyrights is much easier. In fact you have to look for all copies of your file (for example the hobbit) that have the same number of bits and file one complaint for each of them
this means that for copyrightbreakers or pirates changing the name of the file is not sufficient to make your file survive, you should also change the number of bits of a file (for example by encrypting, hashing or zipping it or by adding other files or cutting parts of it). You can expect software to be developed quite soon (take one file of xbytes and get 5 files with a totally different number of bytes)
the best thing to do is not to use mega for public P2P but to do what people have always done throughout history, exchange personal copies for personal use knowing that in nearly all the countries of the world they will break some law with that (you should better go to the library or the secondhand shop if you can't buy the shopversion)
because it is privacy and encryption on the cheap
and you don't want to be busted because there is a complaint that the lawyers will now not file a complaint against one specific copy of the film but against all the people who uploaded a copy of the film (or thought they had) and so they will ask compensation or punishment against all the different uploaders as they know that that information is possible to extract
or this will be another thing that Kim Dotcom the big defender of freedomhosting hasn't thought about and has to change in the coming days or weeks
"The fact that encrypted data is not a total mystery to Mega is the most troubling issue. On one hand, the reason behind implementing a block-based data deduplication scheme is obvious: storage is cheap, but it's not that cheap, and the distributed infrastructure providers supplying storage to Mega don't have to waste space storing non-unique data—instead of 10,000 copies of The Hobbit, the service would only store a single copy, freeing up terabytes of space (though the scale and scope of the deduplication isn't known yet, so this may be optimistic). On the other hand, even if the service doesn't know those blocks of data happen to be The Hobbit, the service does know which users own those deduplicated blocks, and if one user is implicated, there's proof against all the others, too.
so do not include the name in the file
give the file another name or just a number and you take the note the real filename somewhere offline
The most interesting part, though, comes when you share a file. You click the link button on the right, and a box asks you what details you want to share with people. If you select the file without the key and you share the link with people, you’ll need to share the key in some other “secure” channel. Mega themselves say that “MEGA’s cryptographic security model depends on the confidentiality of the keys displayed above. Avoid transmitting them through insecure channels.”
I know that, but do most of the other people who will use it know that ?
email ? with 50 million logins online, clearly broken as secure channel
sms ? intercepted, so not secure for dissidents
chat ? no, not secure for dissidents
onion ? if you trust the server that you have used to connect to TOR
IRC ? heavily monitored and logged by several police and intelligence services
as long as you don't build such a communication channel into the fully encrypted hostingplatfrom it is not that easy to have a secure communicationplatform if you don't want the file to be read by others - even if they intercept it (on the computer or on its way to the computer of your correspondent
they say they are developing it, but this will be the really hardest part of the system because you really have to be sure that this system is closed from end to end (even asking them to close other browsers, apps and tabs in the browsers wouldn't be too farfetched). If you really want to secure this interface you have to be sure that there is a (free) antivirus-firewall on it and that all other applications that could pose a securityproblem or interference are closed down (maybe there should be an app that would secure your pc before you log to Mega)
a very interesting article about a hero who became K in kafka's trial and couldn't take it anymore
oh if you step into a computer room to copy data directly from servers you should know there are camera's in there and you should take that into account
because this was too late
for securitypeople there is one thing that links Manning and swartz
they both got the information directly from the servers
how is that about securing your servers, their data and making different zones in which you only see what you have to see (even if you are god or administrator on the machine, this doesn't mean you have to see the data on the machine, which is the same for applications and databases)
For example Oracle has a whole string of securityapplicants and functions that can isolate and log all those things. Both cases wouldn't have been possible if it were secured Oracle databases.
You see, even though every American has a constitutional right to access the records of our courts, and the government has them online, they charge you for access unless you physically go to the court in which the case is being tried (in this case the federal courthouse in Boston).
The justification for locking those records behind a government paywall is that the $77 million in fees are needed to fund the system, called Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER).
But the money collected far exceeds to costs of running the system, and has, according to California Watch, been used as a slush fund to pay for a hodgepodge of other expenses.
Why the digression? Swartz himself downloaded and published 20 million of those court documents — documents which it is every American’s constitutional right to see. In return he was the target of an FBI investigation (that did not lead to any criminal charges).
yep, everything that is public in paper should be public in digital form and free as the paper version you can see
Over the past few years we’ve watched a lexical warfare battle slowly unfold in the treatment of the term “hacktivism.” There has been an effort to redefine what the word means and what kinds of activities it describes; at the same time there has been an effort to tarnish the hacktivist label so that anyone who chooses to label themselves as such does so at their peril.
In the simplest and broadest sense, a hacktivist is someone who uses technology hacking to effect social change. The conflict now is between those who want to change the meaning of the word to denote immoral, sinister activities and those who want to defend the broader, more inclusive understanding of hacktivist.
Off course we are all humans and the the word hacker is sexier and more glamourous than activist which shows more reason, time-consuming boring repeptitive work, but there is a reason activists should clearly state they are NOT hacktivist. They are doing nothing clearly illegal or criminal and should not be treated by general laws as hackers (criminal break-ins) but as political activists with freedom of speech (even if they are sometimes transgressing the strict borders of the law at a certain moment - which is not the case with me :))
The same thing has been done with the altermondalists and hard syndical battle which were described by the press and vested interest as terrorists. Terrorizing semantically protest movements - even by concentrating on the riots or marginal terrorist or violent attacks - has only one goal : disbanding them. First you do it to keep the normal people away from the protest and you make it harder for them to sympathize with them. Second you use it start criminal investigations under criminal law against the main active elements. Third you enlarge this investigation into anybody who is contacting, helping or meeting them - even if there are fully understandable and democratic reasons to do so. In most of the cases you even don't need new laws for that, the changing of power and/or of public atmosphere and debate is enough, even in a potentially fully democratic state like the US. When we look at what happened in the US after 9-11 or what Poetin is doing in the USSR-new style - you know what I mean.
The biggest mistake from Anonymous untill now is that it has no clear distinction between the legal operations and the hacktivists. Servers with legal ops are the same as those with illegal ops, official twitter accounts are used for communication about both kinds of actions and so on, so for the media for which everything at the spur of the moment is rather good or bad, it is too difficult to explain after which they chose for the more spectacular hacktivist or hacker jargon. The problem with this is that the infrastructure that is being used for operations that could be interpreted for illegal operations can be confiscated, monitored or attacked without being sure that there is a solution for the continuity fo the legal operations - even if the bounderies of them are very vague and can change over time.
Swartz was not a hacker. He didn't hack into the system of the publication, he combined some characteristics of the open free access to those publications inside the perimeter of the network of the university to make it public for everybody outside. It wasn't 100% legal but if it wasn't treated as hacking than he should have a fairer chance to make his case and he wouldn't feel like K in the process by Kafka (a book I would recommend again)
That is why I also say I am not a hacker, I am not a hackitivist and I am not Anonymous. I will not be boxed into a corner even semantically and defend my identity as a Internet ACTIVIST (on and for the free and secure internet for all) as the most precious arm I have. As long as I am an Activist they can't pin me down with even the most vague cybercrime law. THe moment I call myself or let myself be called an hacktivist (even if that makes me more interesting to the media, geeks and chicks) I am lost, ready to be slaughtered and locked up for a long time or thrown of the internet awaiting trial years later.
MIT says it will have to change after the death of Swartz (not running with the copyrightmob for starters)
Meanwhile, unlike JSTOR, MIT refused to stand up for Aaron.' With MIT President Emeritus Charles M. Vest currently serving as a Trustee of JSTOR parent Ithaka as well as a Trustee of The MIT Corporation, one might have expected MIT to issue a statement similar to the let's-put-this-behind-us one JSTOR made on the Swartz case back in 2011."
so if there was no corruption of values, no commercial buy-out or no double commercial interests, the case could have been closed a year ago and wouldn't have contributed to its effects
as a memorial for the death of one of the persons in the avant-garde of liberating scientific and other information academic researchers and others are publishing their works for free to protest against the way MIT and DOJ handled the case and put too much effort into pushing him over the edge without any consideration
you can find a list of all those works and initiatives of the same kind here http://pdftribute.net/
as a note the system that swartz liberated JSOTR didn't pay a cent to the researchers. The publishing firms took all the money and were the ones to push MIT to prosecute him.
TorrentFreak notes that the leaked Oscar screeners “are BitTorrent Smash Hits,” with Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained racking up 500,000 downloads the first day it was seeded Saturday. The Hobbit, seeded days ago, racked up more than 2 million downloads, according to a TorrentFreak analysis.
that are the films you see with trademarks that saying that they are copyrighted
they have tried all kinds of tricks to trace the leakers or to make the videos not so pleasant to view
but it is free so who cares, we are going afterwards to the cinema to watch it on a big screen if the film it worth our money
Despite increasing amounts of photos, videos, music, and documents one wants to share with family and friends there still has yet to be a convenient method for doing so.
“It has the same functionality as some other Torque Labs projects, but it has been designed from the ground up to bring the inherently social activity of sharing files to where the people are,” says the company in a blog post. “It?s a Facebook app that aims to make sharing your files as simple as sharing anything else.”
What BeamItOver does is allow users to finally share unlimited-sized files with friends and family right inside of Facebook. The desktop app makes it more convenient than ever before to share those family videos, photo albums, music, and data for which current methods can be exasperatingly difficult, especially when dealing with those that are less than tech-savvy.
or will they block it
YouTube found out that the companies were using view building services hired from sites such as Fiverr to create video views that never existed.
Sony/BMG's was hit the hardest with views dropping from a total of more than 850 million to just 2.3 million. RCA declined by 159 million views to a total of 120 million. Universal lost more than 1 billion views and now stands below 6 billion.
when the mega filehoster was brought down, the FBI had only to close down some servers in the US (which was their jurisdiction) and elsewhere to disable the whole service of nearly a billion shared files
now kit dotcom has had the time to think about it all and where it went wrong
there must be something that could be done to make it more difficult to bring it down but keep it worldwide available - even if it would be brought down in one country or some
the missing links in all the online P2P projects are encryption and decentralisation, there were some first steps but never combined in such a way
imagine that you can't read any file without being member of it and authorized to do so and that if you are taking a server you wouldn't be able to read the files or logs and that servers all over the world would be linked to each other and replace each other if one would come unavailable
and why should investors and hosters participate in such a project (or set up socalled independent firms) ?
because there are hundreds of millions to be made by p2P online filehosting especially if there are not many chances of being shut down or prosecuted if you are outside the USA and some other countries
in a month we will know
and as he says, it will all be legal (for some)
A. Literary works distributed electronically – assistive technologies
B. Wireless telephone handsets
C. Wireless telephone handsets – interoperability with alternative networks
D. Motion picture excerpts – commentary, criticism, and educational uses
E. Motion pictures and other audiovisual works – captioning and descriptive audio
A. Literary works in the public domain – digital access
B. Video game consoles – software interoperability
C. Personal computing devices – software interoperability
D. Motion pictures and other works on DVDs and other media – space shifting
internet archive is using bittorrent for 1 million files for what it is : the fastest distribution channel
The Internet Archive is now offering over 1,000,000 torrents including our live music concerts, the Prelinger movie collection, the librivox audio book collection, feature films, old time radio, lots and lots of books, and all new uploads from our patrons into Community collections (with more to follow).
To download the Torrent of the files in the item, click the Torrent link at the bottom of the download box; your Torrent client (such as transmission and uTorrent) can use the Torrent file you get to download the files in the Archive item, including the original item files, plus all derivative and metadata files. Individual files can be selected (or deselected) from the list within most BitTorrent clients, allowing Torrents to be used to retrieve an entire item or a specific subset of files within it.
BitTorrent is the now fastest way to download items from the Archive, because the BitTorrent client downloads simultaneously from two different Archive servers located in two different datacenters, and from other Archive users who have downloaded these Torrents already. The distributed nature of BitTorrent swarms and their ability to retrieve Torrents from local peers may be of particular value to patrons with slower access to the Archive, for example those outside the United States or inside institutions with slow connections.
We are starting to track some BitTorrent statistics, which can be fun to watch.