We’ve been following the Jammie Thomas case for some time now and, interestingly enough, our latest coverage discussed how the legalities of MediaSentry was being questioned. During the Jammie Thomas case, there was a motion filed that suggested that the judge only looked at the state laws of the defendants location. The motion to suppress the evidence was originally denied, seemingly on the basis of geography (MediaSentry was operating outside of the state)

You’d think there would be some uncertainty about the legality of MediaSentry’s investigation techniques. Of course, the RIAA seems to think that the techniques are perfectly sound if you read this latest objection in the Tenenbaum case (PDF, source with built-in PDF viewer, hat tip: Ray Beckerman). Here’s the reference:

Finally, the District of Minnesota recently rejected an identical motion asserted by the same counsel in Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, Case No. 06-cv-1497-MJD-RLE (D. Minn.). In the Thomas-Rasset case, the court found that counsel’s arguments had no merit and denied it. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, Case No. 06-cv-1497-MJD-RLE, slip op. at 2-12 (D. Minn. June 11, 2009) (denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence by MediaSentry because defendant failed to show MediaSentry violated any law in gathering evidence to be used in the case) (hereinafter Thomas-Rasset, attached hereto as Exhibit B). Specifically, the Thomas-Rasset court held that:

MediaSentry did not illegally obtain the evidence in question. MediaSentry acted for the legitimate purpose of discovery infringers and protecting its clients’ copyrights. Therefore, there was no ethical violation committed by Plaintiffs’ attorney’ involvement with MediaSentry’s investigation. . . . Because Defendant has failed to show that MediaSentry violated any law in gathering the evidence to be used in this case, Defendant’s motion to suppress is denied.

Id. For all of these reasons and those explained below and in the Thomas-Rasset decision, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress should be denied.

Perhaps that ellipses is a little convenient given that the reason, according to the more recent motion filed by Thomas’ legal counsel, said that the only real reason that the motion was rejected was because of geographical law problems (the judge merely looked at laws in one state, not the state MediaSentry operated in), not necessarily because the practises were completely legal anywhere. Naturally, this is the legal counsel for the RIAA and it would probably be unwise on the part of the lawyers to expose this vulnerability in their own motion.

Still, who knows how many inconsistencies US law experts can find throughout this case? It’ll be interesting to see how the judge responds to this regardless.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Their membership isn’t exactly hitting tens of thousands yet. Their manifesto hasn’t even been completed. They haven’t really been around for more than 6 months in its current incarnation. They have yet to participate in an election at all. You’d think that they wouldn’t really be making any sort of movement on their issues at all, but already, they are making waves in the media and are catching the attention of other political parties. If they are this successful already, imagine what would happen by the time they make it to the point of participating in a national election.

Earlier, in an interview with Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, there were comments that there isn’t a need for a Pirate Party because there’s the Green Party who has similar stances on issues with copyright and patents. While it seems to be looking like the two parties might have their differences, we also noted that the Pirate Party of Sweden has already chosen to sit with the Green Party in the European election.

The Pirate Party is well aware of the video interview and we asked for their thoughts on the subject.

“The fact that the Green Party has already noticed us and is talking about copyright law is a huge early success for the Pirate Party.” Dusty Phillips, member of the Pirate Party of Canada responded. He then said, “Even if the Green Party had the same stance as us on privacy, digital rights, copyright, and patent law [...], they were not talking about these issues in the last election; no party was.”

“The Green Party is both a model and an inspiration for us: two decades ago, environmental issues were not a part of any political platform. Now they are a major player in most political debates. We hope to follow a similar path in bringing another distinct set of very important issues to the voter’s attention.” Phillips added.

Jake Daynes, whom we spoke to earlier when the Pirate Party of Canada was forming, commented, “we feel that our two parties could help and support each other greatly.”

As for being similar to the Green Party on copyright issues, he seems to agree with our note about similarities between them and the Green Party on the international stage while finding an additional example, “We would also like to note the fact that our Swedish counterparts have opted to sit next to the Green Party in the EU, on the basis of similar interest as well as that an Austrian MEP representing the Green Party participated in the first Pirate Party International event.”

There’s been some talk already about how the current political system doesn’t allow very many parties to directly participate in policy making. Daynes commented, “In terms of Proportional Representation, we are very much in support of the idea, and realize that with the help of a PR voting system, both the Green Party and the PPoC would stand a much better chance to erect change inside our government.”

When it comes to patents, Daynes offered an example on how the Pirate Party and the Green Party of Canada could work together. He referred us to a story about how Toyota took out numerous patents on the Hybrid car to stall the competition.

Daynes then said, “we have not taken a solid stance on issues aside from our main platform, we are very open to helping other parties pursue their goals, as long as they do not contradict our purpose, or go against the democratic and constitutional rights of Canadian Citizens.”

He conceded that as of right now, the party is not in any position to help others out yet though appreciates the common stances the two parties have on several core issues.

“Right now we are busy concentrating on getting ourselves established and sorted,” he added, “and would be amenable to collaborating on projects after we have got ourselves sorted.”

The party certainly has a long way to go, but in a short period of time, they’ve accomplished quite a lot. We would like to thank the Pirate Party of Canada for responding to us.

Pirate Party of Canada home page

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

May also talked about how copyright law changes are already in the party platform. She said that the party is very concerned with how copyright laws and patent laws are used to restrict the flow of free speech, creativity and even the advances in the health sciences in favour of corporate interests who want a monopoly on such things. On patents, she suggested that patents are decreasing the likelihood that cures for cancer or AIDS because the steps to discovery are patented by pharmaceutical companies.

The whole interview can be found here.

“And on the subject of Copyright,” commented Reading 4 New Times, “neither Liberal nor Conservative governments have impressive resumes.”

There is also the note that Canada employs a first past the post electoral system and says that vote splitting prevents special issues from being part of law reforms. It is indeed true that, time and time again, the First Past the Post system has been a major contributing factor for keeping two major parties in power and keeping other parties with noble causes out – mainly interests that might very well serve Canadians.

While there is a notable tone of friction between the two parties already, that kind of friction is to be expected given the electoral system. However, the interests of the Green Party resembling that of the Pirate Party isn’t without international precedent. In Sweden, the Pirate Party opted to sit with the Green Party (Google Translation) in
the European Union because of similar interests.

What should also be noted is that copyright issues have only been an issue with the Green Party for the last 2 years. I’ve personally had a chance to talk to Green Party Candidates in both the 2008 election and the 2006 election. During the 2008 election, copyright issues were definitely ingrained into the Green Party platform and consistent with the stance seen in the interview with May. However, in 2006, when I personally brought up the issues of bad copyright laws, the Green Party candidate unfortunately said that she really didn’t know much about those issues. The NDP seemed to have knowledge on this area since 2006 – at least among some members such as the very notable Charlie Angus. One could draw the formation of the Pirate Party as an extra wake-up call for, at the very least, smaller parties to bring forth the issues that have been seemingly absent in the text of both Bill C-60 in the Liberal government and Bill C-61 in the previous Conservative government (this session, so far, hasn’t produced a copyright reform bill)

While the Pirate Party of Canada Manifesto hasn’t even been completed, the effects of their formation has already been felt by many including other parties.

[Hat Tip: Michael Geist]

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Christian Engström, newly elected member of the Swedish Pirate Party to the European Parliament, has written an excellent op-ed article for the Financial Times criticizing the damage that copyright law enforcement is doing to the ability of individuals to freely communicate with one another, and that furthermore, is eroding any sense of a “common cultural heritage.”

“What we think of as our common cultural heritage is not ‘ours’ at all,” he observes by noting that one can’t watch or hear anything by our great musical icons like Elvis Presley without paying a fee. Artists like Presley comprise part of our very cultural fabric, defining a whole generation of people and influencing artists that follow.

It’s quite distasteful to think that copyright laws have been so warped that long after an artist dies, long after the need for artist compensation is necessary, society still must “pay to play.”

“Technology opens up possibilities; copyright law shuts them down,” he continues.

“This was never the intent. Copyright was meant to encourage culture, not restrict it. This is reason enough for reform. But the current regime has even more damaging effects. In order to uphold copyright laws, governments are beginning to restrict our right to communicate with each other in private, without being monitored.”

Exactly. Copyright law was written in an analog world so to speak, a world before the Internet and online communication, and fair use laws haven’t been appropriately strengthened since.

For section 107 of US copyright law specifies 4 factors in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Copyright law was really meant to govern commercial use of copyrighted material not noncommercial, and so has resulted in a de facto state of affairs where copyright holders simply argue that posting copyrighted material without authorization isn’t protected by fair use, that it negatively effects the “potential market for” and “value of” it.

When it comes to illegal file-sharing, Engström notes that the only way too fight it is to inspect every byte of data as it’s transferred between individuals.

“Even if the authorities closed down all other possibilities, people could still send copyrighted files as attachments to e-mails or through private networks,” he writes. “If people start doing that, should we give the government the right to monitor all mail and all encrypted networks? Whenever there are ways of communicating in private, they will be used to share copyrighted material.”

This is a thought that should send shudders through all with it’s right to privacy and free speech ramifications.

“If you want to stop people doing this, you must remove the right to communicate in private,” continues Engström “There is no other option. Society has to make a choice.”

That choice is being made as we speak with copyright holders working overtime to enact “three-strikes” and data filtering legislation around the globe.

“The technology could be used to create a Big Brother society beyond our nightmares, where governments and corporations monitor every detail of our lives,” he says. “In the former East Germany, the government needed tens of thousands of employees to keep track of the citizens using typewriters, pencils and index cards. Today a computer can do the same thing a million times faster, at the push of a button. There are many politicians who want to push that button.”

Engström says that we must embrace file-sharing technology because it encourages cultural and civic participation, turning people from “passive consumers” who are fed information into people who actually share it with others, “collaborating on a journey into the future.”

The real point here is that copyright laws have yet to catch up with our online world, and until it does our online freedom truly is as “threatened” as Engstrom says, specially if deep-pocketd copyright holders succeed in updating it for us vis a vis “three-strikes” and other draconian measures.

jared@zeropaid.com

The Swedish Performing Rights Society (STIM), whose job it is to “protect the interests of authors and publishers of music in Sweden,” has sent letters to over 2900 companies in Sweden demanding compensation for their allowing employees to listen to music during work hours.

“Perhaps someone has the radio on or is listening to a CD and if so, you need to have a permit that allows for music to be played the workplace,” said Susanne Bodin, a STIM spokesperson, to the Sweden-based DN newspaper. “A workplace isn’t private and therefore you should have a licence for music to be played so that the copyright holders get paid.”

The issue first arose after STIM sent a letter to the County Council in Stockholm demanding 25,000 kronor ($3,141 USD) in order to allow its 500 employees to listen to music at work. It then asked the Govt Offices of Sweden if the fees were proper.

“According to the legal investigation I carried out, it seems appropriate that these fees are paid, but we still want a response from the Government Offices as to whether you pay these fees yourself,” says State Provincial Office lawyer Annika Kleen in a letter to the Cabinet Office.

According STIM, all companies and organizations with more than 40 employees must pay a licensing fee if employees listen to music on a CD player or PC that can be heard by others.

“It is part of our mission to find these companies so that our clients, music generators, get paid,” says Bodin. “We would have preferred that the situation is the reverse: that companies and organizations contacted us, but it is difficult to know of all that need licenses.”

So what of businesses that say they employees aren’t listening to music? Will there be surprise workplace inspections?

“We obviously can not force anyone to pay if they say they are not listening to music,” adds Bodin.

It follows a similar effort in other countries like Australia, where music licensing bodies are even targeting gyms, cafes, restaurants, and other places where people hear music as a group.

The ink on the UK gov t’s Digital Britain Report is barely dry and already it finds itself unable to reduce illegal file-sharing by 70% over two to three years as reiterated from an earlier pledge last July.

Why? Because according to a letter leaked to the Times, UK Culture Ben Bradshaw says the time frame was “based on the premise” that measures to combat piracy would be “taken from July 2008 onwards.”

Bradshaw said that “a more constructive approach” would be “to take as our starting point the time at which obligations on ISPS take effect.”

With a bill based on the Digital Britain Report not expected to become law until 2010 at the earliest, it means an effective push back date of 18 months from the time the promise was first made.

A goal of 70% reduction in piracy was in the Digital Britain report issued last month. The report referred to surveys that indicate notifications are sufficient to “stop or significantly reduce” a user’s file-sharing activity. But the report left open the possibility of harsher anti-piracy measures if softer measures did not produce the desired results.

Interestingly enough, not only is the start time of the 70% goal flexible, but the yardstick used to gauge anti-piracy measures’ effectiveness is as well. A 70% reduction in piracy could be achieved by an actual 35% reduction in piracy.

In the example contained in the Digital Britain report, warning letters are sent to half of all ISP subscribers. If those letters resulted in a 70% reduction letter recipients’ piracy, the 70% benchmark would have been achieved even though there would have been only a 35% decrease in piracy.

From the Digital Britain Report:

The Proportionate Notification Response trigger that we propose, should be focused on measuring the efficacy of the scheme involving a notification procedure, legal action and other measures as set out above in relation to achieving the 70% target for reduction in unlawful sharing. We therefore believe that the trigger should be calculated by (a) taking the number of unique individuals notified and (b) assessing what percentage of those notified have stopped unlawful file sharing, either voluntarily or due to prosecution. If that percentage does not exceed or is not significantly close to 70% the mechanism will be triggered.

With the annual cost to ISPs for the plan to be about £290-500 million ($476-821 million USD) with no mention of who’s responsible for the tab – it certainly won’t be copyright holders – unworkable benchmarks like a phantom 70% make their anti-P2P plans seem even more foolish.

Instead of warning letters and disconnections it ought to focus its resources on giving consumers what they want.

Steve Jobs arguably did it for the music industry, whom is still kicking and screaming about iTunes by the way, so why can’t we do the same for other content industries concerned about turning a profit?

Study after study has shown that P2P actually INCREASES music consumption. It’s time we quit listening to the whining of record label cartels and force them to compete in the marketplace like everybody else.

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com

A few days ago, we noted that Jammie Thomas and her lawyers vowed to appeal the $1.92 million damage award saying that the award was unconstitutional. Court documents (PDF, source with built-in PDF viewer, hat tip Ray Beckerman) recently released certainly backs up what the lawyers had said they’d do now.

While the documents border on being considered a lengthy read, it’s certainly well worth it as one can very easily see the amount of research that actually went in to this motion. There are several pages that point out what we have suggested in a previous posting – that there is quite a discrepancy between how much one pays for a single track on iTunes (we suggested it was 99 cents per track as this has been the classic price-point for a single song, but the documents say $1.29) and the actual award ($80,000 per track)

So, starting from the beginning of the filing, the motion argues, unsurprisingly, that the award amount for damages is unconstitutional. How this argument was brought about, and is repeated throughout the entire document, is what makes this argument fascinating. It’s not entirely the large number, $1.92 million, that is seen as grossly excessive, but the damage of cost versus damages. In this case, on a per song basis with the knowledge of what a single track costs on iTunes – $1.29 – the damages ratio is 1:62,015.

If $1.92 Million was bad PR, imagine the kind of PR the RIAA would get if they sued for $134.24 Million.

The filing further argues that if each song was compared to an album for sale, the ratio is a whopping 1:5,333.

The document explains, “such a judgment is inconsistent with the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution.”

In a later part of the document, Thomas’ lawyers cite another case that pin-points why the ratio is extremely important in determining the constitutionality of the award:

Campbell, 538 U.S. at 418. Although the Supreme Court has declined to state a bright-line rule about the maximum permissible ratio, it has repeatedly held that “few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process.”

So, at most, the damage award would be 1:9, or $1.29:$11.61 on a per track basis.

To put the whole concept of the currently awarded damages into another perspective, there’s this particular passage later on in the court documents that highlight further why $1.92 million, or $80,000 per track, is grossly excessive:

Had the recording companies sued on all the songs they claim to have found on Mrs. Thomas’s computer, the verdict would have been $136,240,000. This does not show that they are “being reasonable” by seeking only $1.92M; it shows, rather, that $80,000 per song is a grossly excessive and therefore unconstitutional civil penalty.

“Mrs. Thomas did no physical harm; any harm that occurred was purely economic,” the document further argued, “to the tune of $1.29 for each of the 24 songs or $15 for each of the 24 albums at issue. See also Wechsberg v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 158, 167 (Fed. Cl. 2002) (requiring plaintiffs to offer evidence of actual injuries if these are used to justify an award of statutory damages higher than the minimum). Her conduct did not evince any indifference or reckless disregard for the health of safety of others since, again, any harm she did was purely economic. And the targets of her conduct are the largest recording companies in the United States and are hardly financially vulnerable relative to those plaintiffs — maimed children, for example — who we think of as most deserving of punitive damages.”

Not only was there arguments against such a high award, Thomas’ lawyers argued that the discrepancy between the initial $222,000 and the newer $1.92 Million is cause for concern. The document says, “BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 646 So. 2d 619, 626 (1994) (per curiam) (describing disparity between $4M punitive-damages verdict by one Alabama jury and $0 punitive-damages verdict by different jury in case on same facts). “The real problem, it seems, is the stark unpredictability of punitive awards.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 2625 (2008). In this case, this unpredictability is stark indeed: two different juries returned punitive awards that differ by almost an order of magnitude.”

Another note-worthy point being made can be found in this excerpt:

Importantly, the legitimate interests in relation to which a civil penalty must be reasonable are those related to punishing and deterring a defendant for her conduct and the injury that she caused to the plaintiffs. It is unconstitutional to impose a civil penalty on a defendant for either the conduct of others or her own conduct that harmed those who are not plaintiffs. See Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346, 353–54 (2007). The plaintiffs in this case repeatedly argued that, in selecting what damages were appropriate, the jury should consider not only the harm to the recording companies, but also to artists creating music (who the recording companies’ representatives repeatedly testified are independent third parties, not employees) and to consumers of music.

What makes this point particularly interesting is the fact that the copyright industry in the United States have stressed for years that the lawsuit campaign is merely an education campaign. An underlying point through legal threats read by tens of thousands is that you could be hauled to court and forced to pay millions in damages if you don’t pay the settlement. That, legally speaking, if this argument goes over well in court, could be the industry’s own undoing. Another way of putting this is, is one user liable for the actions of another user in a given network or should that second person be liable for their own actions? This question has an interesting resemblance to the safe harbour clause in the DMCA that an ISP is not liable for the users of their own network. In this case, say you upload a copyrighted work to three individuals and leave that swarm. Should you be liable for the actions of those users after you leave that given swarm? The industry certainly seems to want compensation not just for the actions of a given user, but for every user involved in uploading a given work. Trying to get a total award out of just one person is certainly an interesting legal question.

So what is being requested includes the following:

Defendant Jammie Thomas respectfully requests that this Court (1) alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) to remove the award of statutory damages; (2) order remittitur of the statutory-damages award to the statutory minimum; or (3) order a new trial on all issues under Rule 59(a).

Another interesting point being brought up is that Media Sentry had illegally obtained evidence against Thomas. The motion to suppress the evidence was denied because the court only looked at Minnesota law. Since Media Sentry was operating outside of that state, the original motion to suppress the evidence was denied. So where was Media Sentry operating? Turns out, they were operating in New Jersey. Since that is a known fact now with regards to this case, Thomas’ lawyers looked at applicable private investigators acts and determined that the activity conducted by Media Sentry was illegal. This was said at the time:

Neither MediaSentry nor Plaintiffs have disclosed the location of MediaSentry’s activities in February 2005. Media reports in 2005 indicate that MediaSentry most likely conducted its activities from either New Jersey or Maryland. Both New Jersey and Maryland have private investigator and wiretap statutes that MediaSentry would have violated if it conducted its activities from these states. See N.J. Stat. §§ 45:19, 2A:156A-2; Md. Code, Business Occupations & Professions § 13-801; Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 10-402.

This court document certainly has a lot of food for thought on the legalities of file-sharing. It also shows that even though the DMCA exists to supposedly make the legal issues of file-sharing as clear as black and white, there’s still a huge grey area – namely around awards in part, thanks to the fact that there hasn’t been any other file-sharing case that has gone this far that’s related to an individual user.

Currently, the RIAA already wants Thomas to destroy all copies of copyrighted works and hinted at wanting more than the $1.92 Million awarded in court. One can easily see that this particular legal case is far from over even though it’s been carrying on since 2007.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

A few years back I posted a a hilarious anti-piracy PSA with a rapper singing “Don’t Copy that Floppy!” in an attempt to scare young people out of making unlawful software copies in the pre-file-sharing age.

Well, it seems somebody over at the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) is undeterred by the outlandish claims and laughable attempts to scare kids the first time around and is in the process of releasing an update to “Don’t Copy that Floppy!”

“Anti-piracy hero MC Double Def DP will return in the summer of 2009 to drop some more knowledge on would-be pirates in the sequel to 1992’s “Don’t Copy That Floppy!” reads a post on a YouTube video submitted by AntiSoftwarePirates.

Now the video is so laughable that I had to double check several times to make sure it was directly linked to the SIIA website, which it is.

Here’s just a few of the odd attempts to scare file-sharing kids….

A. Mother of teen file-sharer in hair curlers fighting swat team cop off with rolling pin in kitchen…

B. Male file-sharer in prison cell tattooing fellow inmate…

The latter one’s my personal favorite, hinting as though a judge would actually sentence a teenager to hard time for downloading a game illegally. If the final “Don’t Copy that Floppy!”is anything like this teaser we’re all in a for a real treat.

Watch the whole thing for yourself. What’s your favorite scene?

jared@zeropaid.com

[Hat Tip]

Thanks to pressure from NY Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, AT&T will soon join ISPs Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and Sprint in eliminating free Usenet access, specifically to the alt.bin and alt.bain newsgroup hierarchies that provide actual data files, in order fight child pornography.

“The pervasiveness of child pornography on the Internet is horrific and it needs to be stopped,” said Attorney General Cuomo in a press release last month.  “We are attacking this problem by working with Internet Service Providers to ensure they do not play host to this immoral business.  I commend the companies that have stepped up today to embrace a new standard of responsibility, which should serve as a model for the entire industry.”

This new “model” begins next Wednesday, July 15th, for AT&T and means Usenet users will have to begin seeking an alternative if they want to continue downloading actual content.

“Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be offering access to the Usenet Netnews service,” reads a post on AT&T’s Usenet site. “If you wish to continue reading Usenet newsgroups, access is available through third-party vendors.”

That last part reiterates the idiocy of AG Cuomo’s efforts. All he’s really doing is forcing people to purchase 3rd party premium Usenet services like Giganews. The creeps who traffic child porn will just pony up the $3 to $30 bucks a month and go on with their lives, resulting in a probable net zero effect on the trafficking of child porn. The lack of free child porn certainly won’t deter them, and it’s pretty disheartening to learn an educated man like AG Cuomo thinks it will.

“AT&T takes its obligation to protect its customers from child pornography very seriously,” adds AT&T in a message on its Usenet’s “system status” page. “We’re working with public officials and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the effort to help prevent the distribution of this harmful and illegal content.”

It really had to begin discontinuing free Usenet access to alt.bin and alt.bain because it couldn’t effectively filter child porn. After AG Cuomo uncovered “88 different Newsgroups that contained a total of 11,390 sexually lewd photos featuring prepubescent children, and in some cases photos of children being raped and sexual activity involving animals” the writing was on the wall.

“While we will continue to provide access to newsgroups as part of our Internet Service Offerings, we will no longer include alt.bin nor alt.bain hierarchies because of the possibility of child pornography in those particular groups and the difficulty in ensuring that no child porn reappears in them.”

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com

______________________

NEED AN ALTERNATIVE USENET PROVIDER?

The one preferred by most is Giganews, myself included, for it has more data, or “binary retention” (365), available than any other Usenet provider. It even boasts that Usenet members upload more than 5TB of new discussions and content on a daily basis.

Others include:

• Binverse
• PowerUsenet
• NewsDemon
• Newshosting
• NewsgroupDirect
• UseNetServer

]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86599/att-quits-free-usenet-access-july-15th/feed/ 18 http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86599/att-quits-free-usenet-access-july-15th/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zeropaid/~3/7dlJJW0tITw/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86595/bram-cohen-on-bittorrent-bandwidth-fundamentals/#comments Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:52:26 +0000 soulxtc http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=86595 BitTorrent creator explains just why BitTorrent works so well, that the formula is simply bytes downloaded = bytes uploaded.

I’ve always found Bram Cohen, author of the BitTorrent protocol, very fascinating, perhaps mainly because he’s allowed myself and countless others the ability to share content in ways still yet to be imagined.

So whenever he shares his thoughts on BitTorrent I always sit up and take notice.

In this case it’s nothing spectacular, but he does give a simple explanation of why BitTorrent performs so well why dispelling the myth that content popularity drives download speeds.

He writes:

There’s a classic fallacy because if one person stands up during a concert they get a better view, then if everybody stood up during a concert they’d all get a better view. This is of course is not true – they wind up slightly worse off by all standing, because they all compete with each other for a view. The same thing happens with downloading from a server. In general, web servers will give about the same rate to every client downloading from them, so if you open many more connections than everybody else you get a greater proportion of the bandwidth and hence a better rate. But you do so simply by taking bandwidth from other downloaders. The overall supply of upload is unchange, it’s simply being shuffled around. If everybody does the same thing it results in overall slightly worse performance and you’re basically back where you started, but with a bunch of headaches tacked on.

So why does BitTorrent perform so well? Quite simply, because it does a better job of finding more places to do uploading. Any peer which is downloading is in general willing to upload as well, and their uplink is usually unutilized, so if you can get a peer to start uploading as soon as it starts downloading, and keep uploading as long as possible, and saturate its link while it’s uploading, then overall performance will be better. It doesn’t necessarily help to transfer over more connections, or make more different things available at the same time, or use error correcting codes. In fact, all of those are a complex tradeoff between benefits and costs, with the net result being that small amounts of them can help reliability and robustness, but in general it’s good to keep things simple and be polite to the network.

On the internet, the formula is bytes downloaded = bytes uploaded. It’s that simple.

Indeed it is.

jared@zeropaid.com