Who Is Next To Go

BREIN Plans to Move against NZB Sites

March 14, 2009

Thomas Mennecke

 

Ask just about anyone these days where the pulse of the file-sharing community is, and the most likely answer will probably be BitTorrent. Despite all the glory and power that BitTorrent has, however, it's tough to ignore one thorny issue that's beginning to grind into the entertainment industry: the newsgroups.

For those who only know BitTorrent, the newsgroups are a tough sell. There's no uploading, no peer swarm, and of course you have to pay. All these things superficially appear contrary to what BitTorrent and P2P stand for. But there's little denying that once the newsgroups have you hooked, all other methods of file-sharing seem a bit juvenile.

So it should come as little surprise that BREIN, the Dutch anti-piracy organization pressing legal action against MiniNova, is preparing action against Usenet sites.

"In 2009 BREIN goes on full strength ahead. Already 81 illegal sites were shut down in the first two months of this year. The Mininova case is set for hearing and BREIN will summon several sites exploiting Usenet. 'Sites who structurally link to illegal content have to take preventive measures or cease operations', says BREIN director Tim Kuik. 'The same goes for websites who host illegal content.'"

Some of the big players in the Netherlands include the indexing sites alt.binaries.nl and nzbindex.nl. None of these sites are specifically mentioned in BREIN’s statement, and it remains unknown what sites may be targeted. Our questions about which Usenet sites might face legal action were not answered at time of publication.

Indexing sites that host NZB files have come under increasing fire recently, with the MPA filing legal action against NewzBin.com late last year. However, ridding the internet of the Usenet menace is much more problematic than eliminating BitTorrent websites or trackers. There’s the news server at the heart of the newsgroup community, and with the ISP safe harbor provision protecting these entities, the newsgroups will be around long after their P2P contemporaries have vanished.

The Evolution of P2P and Bittorrent

The Pirate Bay Introduces Facebook App

March 30, 2009

Thomas Mennecke

Here’s a development from The Pirate Bay crew that is bound to send shock waves through the entertainment industry. Over the weekend, The Pirate Bay quietly released a new feature that enables direct torrent linking to a user's Facebook profile.

There’s never been anything preventing a torrent link on Facebook, so the concept itself isn’t very earth shattering. However, what’s very interesting is the “share on Facebook” link that now accompanies every torrent listing on The Pirate Bay. In essence, the feature streamlines the placement and formatting of torrent links on one’s Facebook page.

Facebook has a rather strict policy when it comes to posting unauthorized content. If you’re caught posting a copyrighted work, it will be removed, and quite possibly, your account may be suspended. But we’re talking about torrent files and BitTorrent here, a protocol that is slowly becoming accepted as a mainstream avenue of distribution.

And it’s no secret that bands, musicians, and businesses all use Facebook to profile their offerings. It’s also no secret that many bands, musicians and developers enjoy giving their products away for free. So here’s the conundrum – does Facebook take a Gatling gun to The Pirate Bay’s nifty new feature? Or have we entered a brave new world of file distribution that once again marries social networking with file-sharing?

Thought Your Internet was High Speed?

Cablevision to Offer 101Mbps for $99 in Long Island

• Written by soulxtc

Expected to roll out Ultra fast Optimum Online Ultra service with NO DATA CAPS this May in an attempt to counter Verizon’s FiOS service, proving the benefits of ISP competition.

Finally we see an ISP in this country perform as one would expect in a truly competitive marketplace. Most regions, like San Diego for example, with Time Warner and Cox, have cable cartels the carve up cities into turf and then extort their customers each month free of competition.

Enter refreshing news from the East Coast, where honest competition prevents ISPs from gouging customers, with a report that Cablevision, trying to to counter the competitive threat of Verizon’s FiOS and AT&T’s U-Verse, has decided to roll out a 101Mbps broadband service this May with prices starting at $99p/mo.

Customer also apparently get region wide free Wi-Fi, which they’re DOUBLING download speeds to 3Mbps from the current 1.5Mbps.

And if all this wasn’t perfect enough, the service will also have absolutely NO DATA CAPS!.

Competition has forced the ISP to constantly upgrade its network and connections, and belies arguments, the most recently by Time Warner, that it infrastructure is expensive and somehow finite, ignoring the fact that equipment is getting cheaper all the time as it always does.

Cablevision coverage area...

Comcast also tried to make the same argument with data caps, but simultaneously told investors that it only costs an average $6.85 per home to DOUBLE the bandwidth capacity of an entire neighborhood, and that the equipment necessary to provide 50Mbps costs less than it had paid for the 6Mbps equipment.

S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press, a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media, praises Cablevision’s announcement, but also asks why other ISPs are not only not doing the same, but in many cases looking to actually minimize network bandwidth usage.

“It does, however, beg the question why Cablevision can offer fast access with reportedly no caps or overage fees, when others claim such a plan would cause the sky to fall and an exaflood to break the Internet,” says Turner. “We hope this new announcement will put an end to the bandwidth bogeyman.

In short, a lack of competition has allowed ISPs to deliver minimal service for maximum price. It’s not their fault per se, their only acting as any business would with a captive audience in which to dictate prices. The real blame lies with us, the American taxpayer, who has allowed these monopolistic practices to continue for far too long.

Just look at how ISPs reacted to a small North Carolina town that offers cheap 100Mbps connections to its citizens much like water or power. ISPs don’t want to compete if they don’t have to.

The real threat here is that the Internet is far more that an entertainment portal, it’s a means for communication and education. If we allow ISPs to cap how much date we can transfer each month were also allowing them to cap each of these endeavors and the progress of society as a result.

101Mbps for $99 bucks a month.

Dare to dream.

jared@zeropaid.com

New Stuff

Wixi - the P2P Virtual Desktop

• Written by soulxtc

• 
  

Share and stream content with family friends using a virtual social networking desktop.

Wixi is an interesting new “Online Media Center” that allows you to store and stream audio and video files from anywhere, including the living room TV and iPhone.

It has a simple, easy to use desktop-like interface that you upload content to, and which you then share access with family or friends. It offers unlimited storage space so one could theoretically upload a good sized movie or music collection and then browse on the go or in the comfort of the living room sofa.

The social networking aspect is particularly cool because you can stream a movie or song recommended by a friend, or simply check out a stack a pics they’ve recently taken.

And “Friends Activity Report” is how you keep up with those you add to your trusted network.

An additional feature worth mentioning is that it has an XBMC plugin so you can use your Wixi page on a game console of your choosing.

The only downside is that it’s a subscription service with packages ranging from $7.95 p/mo to $69.95 annually.

All in all I like the Wixi concept. With all the digital content literally floating around these days sites like Wixi provide an essential store and share option that’s yet to be adequately addressed.

jared@zeropaid.com

Here’s a demo video that gives you a better feel for what Wixi’s all about…

 Windows 7's XP Mode

• 
  

Windows 7 will feature a Windows XP mode that will allow applications to run in an XP virtual box so they will run without problems, but will appear as if they're running natively on Windows 7. It's a great tool for businesses and may end up killing Windows XP. But there are five reasons that it's not ideal for consumers.

XP Mode isn't targeted at consumers; instead it's primarily for small and medium-sized businesses who have applications that won't run well on Windows 7. Using it allows those businesses to upgrade to Windows 7, but still be able to run their old XP applications.

For small and medium-sized businesses, it's a great deal -- you get the flash and productivity improvements of Windows 7, while still running Windows XP apps. And you won't have to pay extra for running XP --- it will be free.

Consumers, though, may not be so pleased with XP mode. Here are five reasons why.

The file system may be a kludge

The file system in XP mode will be separate from the file system in Windows 7. So sharing files between the two environments will be a challenge. There will be ways to share files and folders between the two of them, but Microsoft says that it won't be one hundred percent seamless. In other words, prepare to be confused.

It's not for gamers

Are there games that run on XP but don't run well on Vista, and you don't expect them to run well on Windows 7? Don't expect XP Mode to help. It's not designed to run games, and so won't be a viable solution for you.

You won't get the full Windows 7 experience

Individual windows in XP Mode will look like XP, even though they're running inside Windows 7. But they won't run like Windows 7 windows, and won't have all of Windows 7 features. For example, they won't work properly with Aero Peek.

It won't ship as part of Windows 7

Windows XP mode will primarily be provided by computer makers or system integrators directly to businesses --- companies will buy machines with XP mode already installed and ready to go. IT staff will also be given tools to install XP mode on Windows 7 machines, and manage them.

Consumers, though, will be on their own. They'll have to download software, and do the installation themselves. In the ideal world, this will be easy. Few of us live in the ideal world, and usually it takes a bit of hit-and-miss to properly install virtual machines. Don't expect it to be a walk in the park.

You most likely won't need it

Microsoft is targeting small businesses with XP Mode. Older applications that typically might have problems with Windows 7 are connectivity-related applications, and custom-built ones. Most other applications should work fine in Windows 7. For that reason, most consumers will never feel the need to give XP Mode a whirl.

None of these caveats apply to small and medium-sized businesses --- for them XP Mode will most likley work very well, and be a very good deal. But most consumers shouldn't expect much from it.

On its way!

PSP 2 is ready and UMD-less

We've lost count on the number of times we've heard from a friend of a coworker of a cousin whose girlfriend's stepfather happens to work at Sony and they're all but ready to launch a UMD-less PSP in 17 different color options bundled with a portable version ofStreet Fighter IV. Typically, we remain skeptical, but when it's veteran developer David "I made MDK and Earthworm Jim" Perry, we'll give him the floor to speak. Earlier this week, his Twitter account updated to say he's heard the PSP 2 is done and minus that disc drive. He later reaffirmed that comment to GameDaily, saying he can't reveal his source (naturally), but he feels certain UMD is gone. Is his source bunk? He's certainly a guy who'd know a guy, but we've heard this story far too many times to take a leap of faith now.

Federal Authority Over the Internet? The Cybersecurity Act of 2009

Jennifer Granick
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
April 15, 2009

There’s a new bill working its way through Congress that is cause for some alarm: the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 ,( PDF summary here), introduced by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). The bill as it exists now risks giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. It should be opposed or radically amended.

Essentially, the Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many of our critical infrastructure systems (banks, telecommunications, energy) are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government. This is a potentially dangerous approach that favors the dramatic over the sober response.

One proposed provision gives the President unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds goes too far. Certainly there are times when a network owner must block harmful traffic, but the bill gives no guidance on when or how the President could responsibly pull the kill switch on privately-owned and operated networks.

Furthermore, the bill contains a particularly dangerous provision that could cripple privacyand security in one fell swoop:

The Secretary of Commerce— shall have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access…

In other words, the bill would give the Commerce Department absolute, non-emergency access to “all relevant data” without any privacy safeguards like standards or judicial review. The broad scope of this provision could eviscerate statutory protections for private information, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act, or financial privacy regulations. Even worse, it isn’t clear whether this provision would require systems to be designed to enable access, essentially a back door for the Secretary of Commerce that would also establish a primrose path for any bad guy to merrily skip down as well. If the drafters meant to create a clearinghouse for system vulnerability information along the lines of a US/CERT mailing list, that could be useful, but that’s not what the bill’s current language does.

A privacy threat still in the cocoon is the provision mandating a study of the feasibility of an identity management and authentication program with just a nod to “appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections.” There’s reason to fear that this type of study is just a precursor to proposals to limit online anonymity. But anonymity isn’t inherently a security problem. What’s “secure” depends on the goals of the system. Do you need authentication, accountability, confidentiality, data integrity? Each goal suggests a different security architecture, some totally compatible with anonymity, privacy and civil liberties. In other words, no one “identity management and authentication program” is appropriate for all internet uses.

Whether the bill is amended or rejected, the question remains what kind of actions would help cybersecurity, and what role the federal government has to play. As security expert Bruce Schneier has pointed out, the true causes of government cyber-insecurity are rather mundane:

GAO reports indicate that government problems include insufficient access controls, a lack of encryption where necessary, poor network management, failure to install patches, inadequate audit procedures, and incomplete or ineffective information security programs.

The Cybersecurity Act is an example of the kind of dramatic proposal that doesn’t address the real problems of security, and can actually make matters worse by weakening existing privacy safeguards – as opposed to simpler, practical measures that create real security by encouraging better computer hygiene. We’ll be watching this bill carefully to ensure that it doesn’t pass in its present form.