The other countries are Belgium, Poland and Slovenia, the official said, declining to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter. The Commission is due to announce its decision to take legal action on Thursday.
More:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/net-us-eu-telecoms-rules-idUSBRE84S0YO20120529
There is simply not enough money generated by online advertising to be able to pay journalists to do the in-depth job we’d like to see, or that used to be common. And there is enormous pressure to do as little as possible in terms of original content, and original research.
That’s simply the reality of the newsroom and my chief complaint about journalism professors is how distant they are from a real newsroom (or, even any newsroom at all, one admitted to me he had only spent 6 months as a reporter 20 years ago).
Much more:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/the-rise-of-the-17-hour-journalist/2284
The fact that Kroes now only wants Internet Service Providers to be more transparent about their practices and will not take any additional measures probably means that:
1. Kroes realizes that bandwidth management, filtering and blocking measures are needed because the internet infrastructure cannot accommodate just everyone anyway;
2. Differentiation between services and having data distributors pay for access to the infrastructure can be a nice cash cow (content vs infrastructure) much similar to how cable providers are making money.
All of this puts the recent speech of Neelie Kroes in an entirely different perspective:
Now we need to find solutions to make the Internet a place of freedom, openness, and innovation fit for all citizens, not just for the techno avant-garde.
What can freedom online give us?
For one thing, a huge economic boost. An open Internet can power innovation, surge productivity. And can put innovation tools into the hands of ordinary, enterprising people.
That’s why I’m convinced web entrepreneurs are the key to our future growth. And I want to make sure they have the tools to innovate.
Dutch language news article:
http://www.nu.nl/internet/2822881/dwing-netneutraliteit-af-in-europese-regels.html
and:
EU Report Reveals P2P Traffic Interference By ISPs
http://torrentfreak.com/eu-report-reveals-p2p-traffic-interference-by-isps-120530/
“These guys have been buying Macs forever. There is a level of trust in those relationships. Steve bought us even closer because he also owned a content business for a while [Pixar].”
More:
http://gizmodo.com/5914140/choice-quotes-from-tim-cooks-second+ever-public-interview
Because algorithms only enable automated spam, malware, app and advertising takedowns, not takedowns of copyrighted content
Engineer Craig Mansfield has worked out how much it would cost per year to pre-screen all that video for copyright infringements—and the answer is close to that of Google’s annual revenue.
Mansfield calculated that a team of 199,584 judges—or equally qualified individuals—would be required to watch and rule over the video, which in turn would cost $36,829,468,840. For comparison, Google’s revenue for 2011 was $37,905,000,000.
Much more:
http://gizmodo.com/5914188/it-would-cost-37-billion-per-year-to-pre+screen-youtube-videos
Previously:
Last Year Google Rejected 610,000 Websites And Disapproved 134 Million Ads
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/26/last-year-google-rejected-610000-websites-and-disapproved-134-million-ads/
Big Content may not even be looking to eradicate 100% the piracy problem, much like Big Data is not looking to eradicate 100% of the botnet, spam, malware, ‘bad’ apps or illegal advertising problem. It’s about limiting damages…limiting costs due to piracy or other illegal activities online. Technical solutions for online illegallity need to be able to at least achieve that goal.
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/28/much-worse-than-the-loss-of-freely-accessible-pirated-files-is-the-loss-of-freely-accessibly-attractive-websites-in-general/
The White House is planning to convene a cybersecurity summit Wednesday morning to discuss ways to counter botnets, which have emerged as the leading Internet security threat.
Industry representatives are planning to announce a nine-point plan that includes sharing more information about identifying botnets — and how to help their customers remove the malware from their computers.
Much more:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57443380-83/white-house-prepares-to-convene-anti-botnet-summit/
The implementation of the judgement will be deferred for two weeks
Whether you wanted us to be or not
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/google-apps-iso/
“Threatening” to splatter its website across 256 IP addresses which are all part of its own IP range
Dutch language news article:
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/110649/the-pirate-bay-dreigt-met-256-eigen-ip-adressen.html
Previously:
Site Blocking Measures Appear To Work: The Pirate Bay Changes Its IP Address (But Still In The Same Range)
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/18/site-blocking-measures-appear-to-work-the-pirate-bay-changes-its-ip-address-but-still-in-the-same-range/
See also:
Study: A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet in Europe
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/30/study-a-view-of-traffic-management-and-other-practices-resulting-in-restrictions-to-the-open-internet-in-europe/
If there’s one thing that jumps out from the new Google copyright removal request tool released last week, it’s that Microsoft is number one, having gone after 2.5 million URLs that may infringe on the company’s copyright. But dig a little deeper, and it becomes clear that around 2 million of those URLs were reported by a company called Marketly LLC, which tops the list of reporting organizations.
Given that the next highest is only around a million URLs, as reported by NBCUniversal, followed by Degban, a company that openly advertises its services, it seems a bit odd that Marketly seems to have popped up out of nowhere. It remains a bit of a mystery as to what Microsoft’s and Marketly’s relationship is exactly and how Microsoft selected this tiny company to become its copyright attack dog.
TF1 claimed that YouTube users uploaded videos of some of the sports and film productions that the channel had the rights to distribute, and that Google owed the company up to €141 million (or about $176 million) in damages.
Instead the Tribunal de Grande Instance determined that YouTube was not responsible for filtering the videos that users upload to the platform, and ordered TF1 to pay Google €80,000 (or about $99,900) for legal fees incurred since the case was brought to court back in 2008.
Dutch police and US enforcement officers representing ICE are to provide more information at press conference in The Netherlands
Dutch language news article:
http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/2822442/wereldwijd-440-onderzoeken-zedenzaak.html
See also:
http://vrritti.com/?s=mikelsons&submit=Search
and:
The investigation into the Dutch pedophile Robert Mikelsons, who has abused 87 toddlers and babies, produced 46,803 pictures and 3,672 videos (8 Terabytes of data)
http://vrritti.com/2012/03/12/the-investigation-into-the-dutch-pedophile-robert-mikelsons-who-has-abused-87-toddlers-and-babies-produced-46803-pictures-and-3672-videos-8-terabytes-of-data/
Equinix Ashburn is the extreme logical opposite of the Internet’s standard proposition: if most days we count on the Internet to let us be anywhere, this is the place where the Internet connects to the earth. It is the seam between the global brain and the geologic crust.
More:
http://gizmodo.com/5913934/the-bullseye-of-americas-internet
Findings from BEREC’s and the European Commission’s joint investigation
Commissioner Neelie Kroes:
BEREC has today provided the data I was waiting for. For most Europeans, their Internet access works well most of the time. But these findings show the need for more regulatory certainty and that there are enough problems to warrant strong and targeted action to safeguard consumers.
For the first time we know that at least 20%, and potentially up to half of EU mobile broadband users have contracts that allow their Internet service provider (ISP) to restrict services like VOIP (e.g. Skype) or peer-to-peer file sharing.
Around 20% of fixed operators (spread across virtually all EU member states) apply restrictions such as to limit peer-to-peer volumes at peak times. This can affect up to 95% of users in a country.
At the same time, in nearly all Member States, most if not all ISPs offer fixed and mobile Internet access services that are not subject to such restrictions. According to the BEREC figures 85% of all fixed ISPs and 76% of all mobile ISPs propose at least one unrestricted offer. So the market is generally providing choice, but in some countries the choices are quite limited in some EU countries.
But are customers really empowered to choose well? Do they realise what they are signing up for? I didn’t read all the pages in my mobile contract and I bet you didn’t either! I believe we all need more transparent information.
Given that BEREC’s findings highlight a problem of effective consumer choice, I will prepare recommendations to generate more real choices and end the net neutrality waiting game in Europe.
First, consumers need clear information on actual, real-life broadband speeds. Not just the speed at 3 am, but the speed at peak times. The upload as well as the download speed. The minimum speed, if applicable. And the speed you’ll get when you’re also watching IPTV as part of your triple-play bundle, or downloading a video on demand via a premium “managed” service. Plus, you should know what those advertised speeds typically allow you to do online
Second, consumers also need clear information on the limits of what they are paying for. Clear, quantified data ceilings are much better than vague “fair use” policies that leave too much discretion to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). They allow low-volume users to look for deals that suit them. And they incentivise ISPs to price data volumes in ways that reflect costs, and so support investment in modernising networks as traditional voice revenues decline.
Third, consumers also need to know if they are getting Champagne or lesser sparkling wine. If it is not full Internet, it shouldn’t be marketed as such; perhaps it shouldn’t be marketed as “Internet” at all, at least not without any upfront qualification. Regulators should have that kind of control over how ISPs market the service.
More:
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/netneutrality/
See also:
Study: A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet in Europe
http://erg.eu.int/doc/consult/bor_12_30_tm-i_snapshot.pdf
Research firm Gartner said by 2015, around 60 percent of corporations will have programs in place to monitor social media accounts — including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn — for security breaches and data leaks.
Traditionally, companies have taken the ‘internal’ approach to monitor activities within the corporate domain. Gartner suggests looking at both inside and outside the enterprise zone would lead to a more effective solution.
A New Zealand court this week relaxed his bail term and ruled that Dotcom was no longer a flight risk.
New Zealand press report that meaning Ortmann, Batato and Van der Kolk- are also no longer subject to electronic monitoring.
Dotcom, currently on bail awaiting an extradition hearing to the US, last week his defence team filed a motion requesting that Dotcom be allowed to move back into the property with his wife Mona and their children.
At a court appearance last week Dotcom’s bail conditions were also altered in order for him to spend more time at Neil Finn’s recording studio where he is recording his own album.
Judge David Harvey told the Auckland District Court he believes it is unlikely that Dotcom will flee New Zealand, claiming that the original flight risk was overstated and he no longer needs to be electronically monitored.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/kimdotcom_hangs_at_home/
A New Zealand court has ruled that the U.S. Government must hand over the evidence they have against Megaupload so Kim Dotcom and other employees can properly defend themselves against the pending extradition request. The U.S. refused to comply but Judge Harvey concluded that this would be unfair. He further noted that the entire U.S. case stands or falls on the strength of the alleged copyright infringement charges.
This is a significant victory for Megaupload, and not only because they can now build a better defense against the extradition as well as any U.S trial. The comments made by Judge Harvey also suggest that without proper evidence of criminal copyright infringements against the accused, there’s not much left of the case. And as Kim Dotcom revealed earlier, this evidence might not be that strong
More:
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-wins-crucial-evidence-disclosure-battle-with-us-govt-120529/
The commission has been piecing together the case for months, according to several officials and executives briefed on the case, focusing on the activities of two Chinese makers of mobile network equipment, Huawei and ZTE.
