Avtorsko zašèitena vsebina

[alenvprekršku]

Slo-tech, danes

Warner Bros. priznal obseĹľne zlorabe DMCA takedown postopka
Mandi :: danes ob 06:13 Avtorsko pravo

DMCA takedown postopek deluje tako, da avtor pod prisego izjavi, da neka spletna vsebina krši njegove avtorske pravice. Gostitelju je ni potrebno odstraniti, a èe je ne, prevzame sam odgovornost za nastalo škodo, èe se vsebina dejansko izkaže za nezakonito (ni licence, ni zakonite licence, ni proste uporabe). V praksi gostitelji sploh ne razmišljajo. YouTube ima celo orodja za enostavno odkrivanje kršitev (na voljo za velike založbe), tri zaporedne prijave zoper en raèun pa ga suspendirajo. Podobno Twitter. Zadeva seveda deluje v obe smeri - par mesecev nazaj je nekdo poslal ponarejene DMCA zahtevke zoper Bieberjevo ponudbo na YouTube/VEVO in milijone fenov za tri dni prikrajšal za njegove mojstrovine.
vir: TorrentFreak
TorrentFreak - Težko je zanikati, da na portalih za gostovanje videa ni mogoèe najti tudi kakšnega avtorsko zašèitenega posnetka, se pa kopja strašno ostro krešejo glede vprašanja, ali je problem omejen na par gnilih sadežev ali pa imamo opravka s full blown hruševim ožigom (za katerega ni zdravila, se strašno hitro širi in zato pomaga le takojšen požig rastline, pardon, video portala). Založniki so seveda za opcijo b). Februarja je njihovo interesno združenje MPAA vložilo tožbo proti ponudniku Hotfile, ker ta za razliko od hongkonške konkurence domuje na Floridi. Oèitali so mu sistemsko kršitev avtorskih pravic: z denarjem naj bi aktivno vzpodbujali nalaganje avtorsko zašèitenih vsebin (do $15/1000 ogledov za ti. affiliate), ker bi prav te vsebine prinesle najveè ogledov, oglasnih prihodkov in s tem nakupov naroènin na strani. Hkrati naj bi posebej plaèevali referrerje, to so strani, ki zbirajo povezave do filmskih / tv datotek na razliènih strežnikih in s tem prinašajo dodaten obisk. Tako oèitno in pretenciozno služenje denarja na raèun ukradenih vsebin naj bi, pravi MPAA, zadostovalo za izkljuèitev ugovora varnega pristana. Po ameriškem zakonu DMCA (podobno pri nas) namreè gostitelji vsebin ne odgovarjajo za njihovo zakonitost, èe zanjo niso vedeli in èe jo umaknejo takoj, ko zanjo zvejo (= ko prejmejo takedown notice). Hotfile naj bi za nezakonitost vsebin še kako vedel in jo celo aktivno vzpodbujal, zato izkljuèitev odgovornosti zanj ne bi veljala in bi moral založbam povrniti vso povzroèeno škodo, odmerjeno po posebnih ameriških pravilih (veè 10 tisoèakov za vsako nezakonito deljeno kopijo).

Žal so ga potem založniki potem strašno zamoèili. Hotfile jim je po vložitvi tožbe omogoèil avtomatsko procesiranje DMCA takedown zahtevkov, za kar so dobili poseben interni API in ne zgolj e-poštni naslov tipa dmca@domena.com z roènim procesiranjem zahtevkov, kot to prav spretno zavlaèujejo nekateri drugi. Eden od èlanov MPAA, distributer Warner Bros., je nato uporabil avtomatizirano orodje, ki je na hotfile.com poiskalo vse datoteke z doloèeno kljuèno besedo in avtomatsko zahtevalo njihov umik. Na ta naèin so odstranili ogromno število datotek, vkljuèno s vsebinami, za katere sploh niso imeli avtorskih pravic, npr. vsebine drugih imetnikov, demo razlièice raèunalniških iger in celo odprtokodne programe. Hotfile jih je na kršitve veèkrat opozoril, a brez sprememb. Septembra so nato vložili nasprotno tožbo, v kateri so jim oèitali ponavljajoèe in oèitno lažnivo vlaganje DMCA takedown zahtevkov.

Warner je obtožbe priznal. Povedali so, da je obseg piratskih vsebin na Hotfile.com tolikšen, da preprosto nimajo èasa roèno preveriti vseh sumljivih vsebin, ampak so primorani uporabiti avtomatizirano orodje. Priznali so tudi, da so nekateri njihovi zaposleni namerno odstranjevali odprtokodne programe, to pa za to, ker so ti programi omogoèali izmenjavo piratskih vsebin po p2p omrežjih in so zato škodljivi.

�e hotfile dobi nasprotno tožbo, bodo morali založniki plaèati stroge kazni za zlorabo DMCA takedown zahtevkov, po vsej verjetnosti pa bodo izgubili tudi izvorno tožbo. Primer je s tem izjemno zanimiv, ne toliko zaradi izredne bizarnosti, ampak bolj zato, ker tako iskreno ilustrira, kaj se zgodi, èe založniška industrija ali katera druga ozka interesna industrija dobi namenske bližnjice, mimo rednega sodnega postopka. Ne smemo pozabiti, da je ista industrija Google preprièala v cenzuriranje doloèenih iskalnih pojmov v svojem iskalniku - najprej v suggestu, potem potem pa še za obièajno iskanje, zdaj pa intenzivno delajo na SOPI (nasledniku PROTECT IP), ki bi pooblastila za brisanje razširil še na DNS strežnike, vse spletne iskalnike in imenike ter ponudnike plaèilnih storitev. To bi ponudnike spletnih portalov prisililo v izjemno samocenzuro, ker bi sicer zaradi izredno nizkega dokaznega standarda po SOPI lahko padli na èrno listo. Upravitelji športnih portalov so svoje èlane že zaprosili za urgenco pri svojem parlamentarcu, ker bi jih lahko že pešèica povezav na neuradne spletne streame športnih dogodkov stala internetne pipice.
_________________
B&O Fan in audiofil z OKM!
... it's not just about what your equipment does, it's about how it makes you feel.

[alenvprekršku]

Bo Hollywood cenzor interneta?
Osnutek zakona omogoèa zatemnitev spletne strani zaradi najmanjšega kršenja avtorske pravice
Dnevnik, Svet - ponedeljek, 21.11.2011
Tekst: Andrej Mrevlje, New York

Bo Amerika postala dežela, v kateri bodo sodišèa dobila pravico, da kadar koli, brez predhodnega opozorila ter zaradi še tako majhnega prekrška zatemnijo spletne strani, blokirajo internetne ponudnike ali celo amaterski video na youtubu? Pa ne zgolj sodniki. Ameriški kongres v teh dnevih razpravlja o predlogu zakona, ki naj bi tudi korporacijam dajal pravico, da storijo isto. Da torej zatemnijo, zablokirajo spletne strani, ki kršijo njihove pravice do intelektualne lastnine.



V dolgoletnem boju proti piratstvu in zašèiti intelektualne lastnine ter avtorskih pravic se ameriško zakonodajno telo približuje odloèitvi, ki bo deželo, ki je zibelka demokracije, postavilo ob bok avtoritarnim režimom v Pjongjangu, Pekingu in Teheranu. Osnutek zakona, ki v ameriškem kongresu potuje pod dvema naslovoma (Protect IP Act v senatu ter Stop Online Piracy Act ali SOPA v predstavniškem domu), je v najvišje zakonodajno telo prispel s podporo vplivnih lobijev zabavne industrije. Zakon o cenzuri interneta, ki naj bi šèitil interese Hollywooda, namreè podpirajo Ameriška trgovinska zbornica, Združenje Motion Picture, Ameriško združenje glasbenikov, Združenje ameriških režiserjev, Združenje igralcev ter celo Sindikat mednarodnih prevoznikov.

Grozi paraliza spleta
Namen zakona seveda ni cenzura politiènih, verskih in preostalih združenj, kot se, na primer, dogaja na Kitajskem. Njegov namen naj bi bila zašèita pred piratstvom. Toda, kot v zadnjih dneh opozarjajo mnogi kritiki, vsebina novega zakona - zaradi nepoznavanja materije med zakonodajalci - dejansko vzpostavlja cenzuro in grozi s paralizo interneta. SOPA namreè predvideva blokado vseh spletnih strani, kot so flickr, tumblr, youtube in tako naprej, kadar ti objavljajo vsebine uporabnikov, ki kršijo avtorske pravice. Vsakiè, ko bo sodnik na podlagi zakona ocenil, da ta ali ona spletna stran, video, fotografija ali celo blogovski zapis krši pravila o intelektualni lastnini, lahko odredi njegovo zatemnitev. Ne glede na to, ali gre za glasbo, filme ali televizijske posnetke, lahko sodnik, dokler ne bo umaknjena prepovedana vsebina, odredi celo odklop internetnega ponudnika.

Spletni velikani opozarjajo
Kritiki opozarjajo, da bi bil takšen zakon v diametralnem nasprotju z odprtostjo, svobodno izmenjavo in neomejenim sodelovanjem, ki so temeljna naèela interneta. Mnoge internetne korporacije, med katerimi so Google, Facebook in Twitter, dodajajo, da bi SOPA zavrl razvoj in inovativnost interneta. Predstavniki javnosti s prstom kažejo na skorumpiranost ameriške politike in trdijo, da kongres šèiti interese Hollywooda in zabavne industrije v upanju, da bosta prodala veè filmov, glasbe in TV-oddaj. �eprav se strinjajo, da je avtorske pravice treba zašèititi, opozarjajo, da je internetna industrija že zdavnaj presegla obseg hollywoodske. ACLU, sindikat za civilne svobošèine, je kongresu poslal protest z opozorilom, da bi aplikacija tovrstnega zakona lahko upravièila nadaljnjo cenzuro v državah, kjer ne obstaja svoboda govora.

Dokument navaja arabsko pomlad ter dejstvo, da avtoritarni režimi zlorabljajo nove tehnologije za blokiranje vsebin, ki jim niso po volji in jih ogrožajo. Ali z drugimi besedami, vse veè nasprotnikov osnutka zakona skuša zakonodajalce preprièati, da lahko nepoznavalski sodnik internetu in družbi naredi podobno veliko škodo kot režimski cenzor v avtoritarnih državah.

Tisoèe cenzorjev?
Nekateri kritiki osnutka novega zakona sarkastièno pripominjajo, da bo, èe bo zakon sprejet, socialne mreže, kot je twitter, prisilil, da zaposlijo tisoèe cenzorjev. Ti bodo, podobno kot kitajska internetna policija, bdeli nad vsebinami brezštevilnih tvitov v upanju, da bodo hitreje kot sodniki ali pa katera koli hollywoodska korporacija pritisnili na gumb in zablokirali tvit, ki bi lahko v skladu z novim zakonom zatemnil celotno socialno mrežo.
_________________
B&O Fan in audiofil z OKM!
... it's not just about what your equipment does, it's about how it makes you feel.

[alenvprekršku]

Boj proti piratstvu draĹľji od samega piratstva!

http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-costs-hollywood-more-than-us-bittorrent-piracy-111122/

MPAA Costs Hollywood More Than US BitTorrent Piracy
Ernesto, November 22, 2011

During the last year Netflix managed to outgrow BitTorrent in terms of the amount of US Internet traffic it generates. A promising finding for Hollywood as it shows that there’s an overwhelming interest for the legal movie streaming service. At TorrentFreak we wondered what might happen if all US BitTorrent users made the switch to Netflix, and the results of this exploration are quite intriguing.

The movie industry claims that piracy is costing them billions of dollars a year.

Luckily for Hollywood, many Americans choose to consume their online media through legal services such as Netflix. In fact, there are now so many that the total Internet traffic generated by Netflix has outgrown that of BitTorrent.

This made us wonder – what would happen if all movie-downloading BitTorrent users made the switch to Netflix? What if movie piracy via BitTorrent disappeared?

Before we crunch some numbers we have to say that the model we use relies on a lot of assumptions. However, we try to keep these in favor of the movie industry to maximize their potential �profits’. We obviously chose Netflix as a BitTorrent replacement because it comes closest to what �pirates’ want.

What’s the �value’ of BitTorrent piracy?
What we’re going to do is determine the amount of Internet traffic movie and TV related BitTorrent downloads generate in the US. Since the file-sizes of Netflix and BitTorrent downloads are about the same, we then compare this traffic to what Netflix is generating now. Assuming a linear relation between revenue and traffic we can then “guess” how much extra money would come in if all BitTorrent users switched – and paid.

Step 1: How much BitTorrent traffic is movie/tv related?

The first assumption we’re going to make is that all BitTorrent traffic is unauthorized. This is of course not the case, but we’ll leave that debate for another time.

If we then take a look at one of the more recent reports on the BitTorrent ecosystem, often cited by the MPAA, we see that 35.2% of all torrents are movie related. Another 12.7% are TV-related. For the purpose of this thought experiment we are going to forget about Hulu and other free services and add TV to the �pirate traffic’ mix.

The total percentage of video torrents is then 47.9%.

Since we’re comparing traffic we have to adjust for the file-size of videos compared to all other content on BitTorrent and the actual popularity of the files. This is nearly impossible to estimate precisely , but several reports show that movie and video are downloaded the most by far. So we’re going to set the total amount of infringing BitTorrent video traffic at 85%, which is probably on the high end.

Step 2: How does BitTorrent traffic compare to Netflix traffic?

The next step is to see how much of total Internet traffic 85% of all BitTorrent traffic actually is.

A recent report from the Canadian company Sandvine shows that in the US 16.5% of total Internet traffic on an average day comes from BitTorrent. Since BitTorrent traffic goes both ways (upload and download), 8.75% of this is downstream traffic. This means that a little under 7.5% (85% of 8.75) of all Internet traffic in the US is video downloads over BitTorrent.

The same Sandvine report shows that 23.3% of total Internet traffic an average day comes from Netflix. More than 95% of this traffic is downstream, so we can set Netflix downloads at approximately 22.5% of all US Internet traffic, which is three times as much as BitTorrent’s video download traffic.

Step 3: How much revenue would these pirates generate on Netflix?

Here comes the interesting part. What would it mean in terms of revenue if ALL BitTorrent traffic moved to Netflix?

If we assume that BitTorrent and Netflix users consume roughly the same amount of content (again an assumption favoring the movie studios), then this is an easy calculation. Netflix would generate a third more revenue. Based on the shareholders report of the last quarter of 2010 (where most of the torrent stats in this article are based on) this translates into $198 million additional revenue for Netflix.

Based on more recent stats contained in Netflix’s third quarter filing of this year, the increase in revenue would be $266 million for that quarter.

Step 4: How rich would Hollywood become?

It’s clear that according to our (very unrealistic) calculations Netflix would greatly benefit from the sudden disappearance of BitTorrent piracy. The next step is to see how Hollywood would be impacted. Since most licensing deals are fixed and not based on usage, one could argue that the movie studios wouldn’t benefit at all. However, that’s not much fun.

So let’s look at the licensing deals that were in place already and determine Hollywood’s added profits based on that, assuming they would be more flexible.

In the whole of 2010, Netflix paid the movie studios $181 million in licensing fees according to the shareholder reports. If we add a third to that, Hollywood would have “made” roughly $60 million extra. Salient detail, the yearly budget of the MPAA is higher than that.

In recent months the movie studios have exponentially increased Netflix’s licensing costs, but still the added profits for the movie studios will be nowhere near a billion dollars. No, getting rid of ALL BitTorrent movie and TV piracy appears to have a �relatively’ small effect, even if all pirating BitTorrent users signed up for a Netflix account.

What does this mean?
Nothing. It’s a simplistic attempt to put a number on BitTorrent piracy in the US.

It shows that even when you assume that 90% of all US BitTorrent traffic is dedicated to video piracy, the added revenue for Hollywood in 2010 would have been less than the amount they paid to the MPAA. That is, if all BitTorrent users switched to Netflix.

The real added revenue if BitTorrent disappeared would of course be a fraction of this, as not everyone would start paying.

We don’t want to draw too many conclusions on this simple thought experiment, but it’s something to consider, especially when ISPs are expected to dedicate millions of dollars in resources to send BitTorrent users warning letters early next year. Not to mention the negative effect of the censorship bills that have been proposed recently.

Is it really worth all that?
_________________
B&O Fan in audiofil z OKM!
... it's not just about what your equipment does, it's about how it makes you feel.

[alenvprekršku]

Ĺ vica: piratiziranje v osebne namene ostaja zakonito
Mandi :: vèeraj ob 23:10
Avtorsko pravo

Slo-Tech - Švicarsko ministrstvo za pravosodje je minuli teden predstavilo rezultate študije posledicah nedovoljene uporabe avtorskih del na internetu. Marca lani jo je naroèil zgornji dom parlamenta, na podlagi pritožb založnikov o "upadu dohodka" in temu sledeèi "krizi ustvarjalnosti" v švicarski družbi.

Poroèilo najprej ugotavlja, da znaten delež (do 1/3) 15-letnikov z interneta prenaša glasbo, filme in raèunalniške igre, brez da bi za to plaèalo; se pravi, gre za pojav, ki je v družbi sorazmerno pogost , toleriran in celo sprejemljiv. Vse to ne glede na dejstvo, da v državi že veè let potekajo pogoste in dobro izvedene medijske kampanije o nasprotnem.

Dalje, še bolj kljuèna je ugotovitev, da se delež razpoložljivega dohodka, ki ga Švicarji porabijo za medijske vsebine, glede na obdobje pred internetom ni zmanjšal. Ustvarjalna industrija kot celota torej ni na slabšem in dobi svoje. Kar pa se je zgodilo, je, da je prišlo do prerazporeditve tega dohodka - potrošniki naj bi vse, kar prihranijo z nabavo brezplaène piratske kopije, vrnili industriji z veèjim obiskom koncertov, kinodvoran in nakupom drobnarij (majice, šalèke, rekviziri - ti. merchandizing). Pravzaprav so se dohodki avtorjev še poveèali, ker jim iz tega naslova praviloma pripada veèji delež prodajne cene kot pri nakupu CD nosilcev ali digitalnih downloadov (kjer veliko veèino, tudi 90% poberejo založbe).
V zakljuèku je zapisano, da trditve o izrazito negativnem vplivu na švicarsko kulturno industrijo ostajajo nedokazane, ter da pravzaprav ne prihajajo iz Švice, ampak od predstavnikov tujih produkcijskih hiš. Te se morajo prilagoditi na omenjene spremembe, ne pa skušati zadržati stanje izpred 10 let s prisilnimi predpisi. Posledièno dodatni zakonodajni prijemi, kot je vpeljava kaznivosti piratiziranja v osebne namene, niso potrebni. Posebej so omenili tudi nesmiselnost "three-strikes" modela za odklop domnevnih internetnih piratov, kjer citirajo skrajno pretirane stroške v Franciji (12 milijonov evrov za pol ducata odklopov, do zdaj). Še pred tem je njihovo ustavno sodišèe zaradi pomislekov o kršenju zasebnosti prepovedalo zasebni nadzor p2p omrežij za potrebe izsiljevanja domnevnih piratov.

Tovrstne umirjeno in premišljene zakljuèke je v današnjem èasu, ko se zdi, da je cel internet znorel, zelo lepo slišati.

Legalizirali so ganjo in ne mislijo moralizirat z avtorskimi pravicami.
Kje smo mi?
_________________
B&O Fan in audiofil z OKM!
... it's not just about what your equipment does, it's about how it makes you feel.

[janzi]

[Mr.Zigy]

Legalized it
_________________
Please visit my web site !
Home Page:
Zigy's Home Page

[JAZZZ]

[Pestilence.]

Saj je pisalo do 90%, ne toèno in samo 90% pri vseh založbah.
_________________
Music was my refuge. I could crawl into the space between the notes and curl my back to loneliness.

[alenvprekršku]

Eno bitko smo dobili, vojna pa še traja!

http://youtu.be/mFkEULhLPwY

You're not downloading a car! Original still exists with it's owner.
_________________
B&O Fan in audiofil z OKM!
... it's not just about what your equipment does, it's about how it makes you feel.

[alenvprekršku]

Why SOPA and PIPA Won’t Stop Real Piracy

http://mashable.com/2012/01/18/sopa-and-pipa-wont-stop-piracy/
_________________
B&O Fan in audiofil z OKM!
... it's not just about what your equipment does, it's about how it makes you feel.

[alenvprekršku]

Frišno: FBI shuts down Megaupload.com, Anonymous shut down FBI!


AnonymousIRC :
In case u missed it once again...FBI.gov tango down. #Anonymous #ExpectUs #LulzSec #opMegaupload #EatCock




Link 1:http://www.news.com.au/technology/fbi-shuts-down-megauploadcom-charges-seven-with-online-piracy/story-e6frfro0-1226249114650
Link 2:http://www.trueactivist.com/
_________________
B&O Fan in audiofil z OKM!
... it's not just about what your equipment does, it's about how it makes you feel.

[JAZZZ]

Zgornji informaciii pritièe še:
http://www.rtvslo.si/svet/zda-ustavili-delovanje-megauploada-anonymus-vraca-udarec/275136

zasluĹľek Kim Dotcoma naj bi bil 42 mil. fino, a ne
_________________
"There are two kinds of fools. One says-this is old and therefore good. The other says-this is new and therefore better." Bob Katz

[alenvprekršku]

Edit: Iztok, preveè prvooseben in neprimeren komentar sem napisal.

Sva na razliènih bregovih in naj tako tudi ostane. Tukaj se, èedalje veè, samo dolgoèasimo.

Lp, Alen
_________________
B&O Fan in audiofil z OKM!
... it's not just about what your equipment does, it's about how it makes you feel.

[JAZZZ]

Alen, razlièni bregovi ne vplivajo na korektno podajanje informacije. Sploh pa nisem na nobenem bregu ampak tam nekje vmes in zato lahko vidim tudi slabe strani bregov.
lp Iztok

P.S.: Verjetno bodo moje izdaje na HDjih imele tudi zastonjske MP3je.Plaèalo naj bi se samo neizgubarske stvari.
_________________
"There are two kinds of fools. One says-this is old and therefore good. The other says-this is new and therefore better." Bob Katz

[alenvprekršku]

@Iztok, zakaj je padel Megaupload?:

Navedek je v Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq#111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq


Why was MegaUpload really shut down?

In December of 2011, just weeks before the takedown, Digital Music News reported on something new that the creators of #Megaupload were about to unroll. Something that would rock the music industry to its core. (http://goo.gl/A7wUZ)

I present to you... MegaBox. MegaBox was going to be an alternative music store that was entirely cloud-based and offered artists a better money-making opportunity than they would get with any record label.

"UMG knows that we are going to compete with them via our own music venture called Megabox.com, a site that will soon allow artists to sell their creations directly to consumers while allowing artists to keep 90 percent of earnings," MegaUpload founder Kim 'Dotcom' Schmitz told Torrentfreak

Not only did they plan on allowing artists to keep 90% of their earnings on songs that they sold, they wanted to pay them for songs they let users download for free.

"We have a solution called the Megakey that will allow artists to earn income from users who download music for free," Dotcom outlined. "Yes that's right, we will pay artists even for free downloads. The Megakey business model has been tested with over a million users and it works."
_________________
B&O Fan in audiofil z OKM!
... it's not just about what your equipment does, it's about how it makes you feel.