backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 92 comment(s) - last by herrdoktor330.. on Sep 23 at 11:00 PM
Pirates could soon be invoiced for their activities

YouTube has a new sheriff in town – and its name is Nexicon, Inc.

Nexicon, a “digital media intelligence” company, announced a partnership with YouTube last week that will see it monetizing illegal uploads as a third party-intermediary, on behalf of movie studios and other copyright holders.

According to a press release posted last week, Nexicon will monitor YouTube users’ activities via its content management system, matching YouTube uploads against original, copyrighted content sourced from the company's “MARC” anti-piracy system. Matches will eventually turn into automated DMCA notices sent to individual pirates, who will be given the option of settling online “in less than three clicks.”

The settlement part of the system, which Nexicon calls “Get Amnesty,” bears a striking resemblance to the RIAA’s own “P2P Lawsuits” site, where those facing a piracy lawsuit can preemptively settle claims before their case advances to the court system. Both sites advertise the ability to pay online via credit card, and Get Amnesty even offers PayPal support.

“This is a significant development for our company as we continue to provide innovative solutions for copyright holders in the digital marketplace,” said Nexicon VP of Strategy & Planning Sam Glines. “Content owners now have the ability to monetize their copyrighted digital media and products, and we are here to deliver these capabilities.”

Nexicon announced Get Amnesty in 2007, and the company says it plans to deploy MARC against file-sharers – both uploaders and downloaders – on P2P networks within the next couple of weeks. According to MARC product literature, the system will target almost every major venue for piracy on the net, including FTP servers, IRC, P2P applications like KaZaA or BearShare, BitTorrent networks, UseNet, and online auctions.

In an interview with DailyTech, Glines said artists would receive a much larger cut through Get Amnesty than they would through regular, legal distribution channels such as iTunes. Transactions are handled by Nexicon and an unannounced third-party partner, who will distribute settlement proceeds to labels or artists directly, depending on each artist's situation.

Like the RIAA’s online settlement option, critics were quick to label Get Amnesty as “extortion,” noting that the site strongly suggests users settle with Nexicon instead of letting detected infringement go to trial:

Will I need a lawyer?

Deciding to hire a lawyer is entirely up to you. However, as with any legal proceeding, the guidance and representation of a lawyer can be very important. It is highly probable that the cost incurred to retain a lawyer will exceed the settlement offer. For this reason alone, the acceptance of the settlement offer is an attractive alternative to working through our legal system.

It is unclear how MARC’s systems are able to monitor downloading activity from point-to-point networks such as IRC, where individual file transactions usually occur without informing the central server, or even other users on the network.

Update 09/19/2008: There was a factual error in the original verson of this article: data on copyright infringers from YouTube is not fed back into MARC.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Serious Privacy Concerns
By LyCannon on 9/19/2008 8:28:23 PM , Rating: 5
A few points:

1) How can they monitor direct P2P traffic? Do they have some kind of back-door virus they intend to infect the world with? Perhaps traffic-sniffing software at the major ISP's?

2) How do they equate an IP address with a email or physical address? Our the ISPs providing this information? If so, isn't that illegal without our knowledge/consent?

3) What is preventing this company from sending bogus "settlement's"

4) If asked to furnish proof of guilt to the accused, what is their response?




RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By TomCorelis (blog) on 9/19/2008 9:13:55 PM , Rating: 5
I have an appointment Monday to speak with their CTO about the technology. I'll be sure to mention some of these points :-)


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By tastyratz on 9/19/2008 11:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
Do they have any examples of what kind of "settlement fees" they plan on seeking (are they looking for 5.99 a song, 1.99, or $1000?)

who else have they "partnered" with?

Are they planning on taking the honeypot approach and trying to entice users to download (ala "entrapment") or are they going to try to just find users with large shares available?

Is this settlement going to be targeted towards individuals under a "make available" concept?

Are they working with Riaa/mpaa/someone else/etc...


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By GaryJohnson on 9/20/2008 2:46:46 AM , Rating: 3
They mention 'payment plans' in their FAQ, so I'm guessing it's not 5.99 or 1.99.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By erikejw on 9/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By Zirconium on 9/20/2008 10:12:51 AM , Rating: 3
People and their demands!
quote:
Some p2p guru really need to implement some advanced anonymous features like routing through other users computer and then to the downloader.
...
It should not be too hard to implement softwarewise
Then do it yourself. What is with this "Someone needs to develop this idea for free" notion floating around tech sites? Like the article on that AMD thing which shuts down and restarts processes and programs. If you have the idea, and you want it, and its not available to you, then go do it. Bram Cohen didn't make Bittorrent by wishing someone else would make it for him.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By erikejw on 9/20/2008 5:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
That is how it works with freeware you know.
Someone interested and knowledged enough do the work for the benefit of others.

I guess when you need a new car you design and build it yourself.

That only make sense in a communistic system, you ever heard of capitalism before?


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By Zirconium on 9/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By zolo111 on 9/21/2008 4:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
They must've forgoten, but they should add the word MOAAAHAHAA to the article !

*Just watched Meet the Robinsons with the kids.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By TomCorelis (blog) on 9/20/2008 8:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
You just described Tor.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By 4wardtristan on 9/21/2008 8:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
beat me to it


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By omnicronx on 9/20/2008 2:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some p2p guru really need to implement some advanced anonymous features like routing through other users computer and then to the downloader.

If every piece of the larger file went through different computers they have no chance to get to the real downloader.
That does not really make any sense, this would just shift the blame to the person routing the file, which one would think eventually you would be in that situation because eventually you would have to do the routing with a system you are describing.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By erikejw on 9/20/2008 5:02:34 PM , Rating: 1
Not at all since there would be 1000 different persons routing the file since the files is divided in small chunks and a chunk will be useless by itself and the chunk can be cryptated with an easy algorithm.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By omnicronx on 9/21/2008 11:31:17 AM , Rating: 2
Still does not make sense, what you are describing is how torrents already work, minus the encryption. The reason it would be pointless is because every user on that torrent will still have to have everyone elses connection information. The files will still be flagged in the same way, (downloaded and checked towards a database), and you still get caught.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By erikejw on 9/21/2008 7:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
"The reason it would be pointless is because every user on that torrent will still have to have everyone elses connection information. "

I think you miss the point, noone would have to have any of the real files "users" connection information.

Noone of the middle guys will know what "files" they have or what it is for.

I guess you think encryption is useless too for any purpose.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By TomCorelis (blog) on 9/20/2008 2:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
According to Mr. Glines, Nexicon is not working with the RIAA/MPAA/etc.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By DASQ on 9/23/2008 1:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
Somehow I seriously doubt the money they collect isn't going to end up in the hands of the RIAA/MPAA.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By Methusela on 9/20/2008 2:21:25 AM , Rating: 4
There is absolutely no possible way they can determine legit from non-legit downloads via SSL NNTP servers unless they've breached those servers, thus violating all sorts of laws.

Further, how do they differentiate making a copy of your friend's copyrighted material from downloading the same material? Are both infringements? Have they always been? Where's the fair use?


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By Nik00117 on 9/20/2008 2:58:05 AM , Rating: 5
If I got a letter from them my response would be "Suck my cock" I'd then filter them on my e-mail as spam. For the uninformed i'm sure they are breaking some laws to obtain proof. Therefore I don't think anyone should be worried, just smart.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By Mitch101 on 9/20/2008 11:00:03 AM , Rating: 5
Wow a company based on invading your privacy for profit.

Send a counter suit letter instead and make some money.

I think this is the beginning attempt at legalized extortion. Seems to have worked until recently for the RIAA suing people with threatening letters without providing proof or methods of how the information was obtained. You know the RIAA had to break some laws in the process in their identification process. But that will come out in time. Any time you circumvent an SSL connection or Bypass someomes firewall and install malware without the clients knowledge your breaking the law.

It is exactly like the police breaking into your home and credit card statements looking for something illegal to name you for a case and demand payment. Judging from the outline this company is no different they are invading your space looking for any illegal activity.

If I were an attorney I would be watching this. This is going to be the new ambulance chasing as the good attorneys are starting to crack that RIAA shell which will just open the floodgates for all the other attorneys out there. The RIAA has deeper pockets than the people they are going after. If you noticed lately the RIAA is settling faster with people who are firing back at them.

You know I think one could form a company the investigates these companies and their methods. Has anyone targeted former employees of the RIAA? Whistleblowers are protected and it will only take one for them to crumble. Its only a matter of time before someone spills the beans on these companies methods and how far they go to invade ones privacy. Not every employee leaves happy. Might want to target some of those unlicensed attorneys that were working for the RIAA also. Those places have to have employee turnover. Target the former employees. Even if you don't get a statement from them you will certainly know where to target your legal team to find out what they don't want you to know.

Most attorneys need to learn that former employees of a company are a better source of information than existing ones.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By omnicronx on 9/20/2008 2:46:21 PM , Rating: 3
Sure they can! They have been doing it for years with child porn offenders. You are kidding yourself if you think the server itself is a protected environment, only the data being sent to you is encrypted via SSL, they can still tell what you are downloading and what your connection info is.

The traffic is still decrypted by the NNTP server and they are forced to keep their logs by law. So do not think that by posting something with SSL encryption that you are safe by any means.

The thing is, downloading content is usually not enough in most countries to get a hold of these logs, you almost always have to be posting something illegal in order for law enforment to get a court order to get them.

A lot of the time people use SSL because it gets past many ISP enforced traffic shaping software because they have no way of knowing what you are downloading. (as long as you are not using the standard ports, port 443 which is used with HTTPS is now becomming popular as this is a port ISPS are unable to throttle.)


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By herrdoktor330 on 9/23/2008 11:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
Dude... from the background reading I've done on this company, these guys are a HOAX.

http://techdirt.com/blog.php?company=nexicon

I highly doubt that there's any way they can manage to gather IP addresses from EVERY torrent, P2P program, IRC channel/server, etc. And reading their website looks more and more sketchy. It explains nothing about HOW they're doing it. One could argue that saying how would be unveiling their trade secret. But I'd be one to say that putting the names of popular P2P protocals with other buzzwords like AI and other acronymns and say you're going to police them on a website is easier than writing an AI to do what you're advertizing. And even if they did manage it... I doubt it's anything revolutionary past what other groups are doing now.

Long rant made short: I hope the media firms that bought into this didn't pay up front. Because I'm calling "Shenanigans".


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By epyon96 on 9/19/2008 9:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Google's 1.65 billion investment in Youtube has just been turned to zero. There are so many foreign websites out there for video streaming now that Youtube is a dime a dozen.

I'm on the fence on protecting streaming content. Let's face it, why bother watching TV when I can stream a show when I want to watch it. I save time to download and the quality is "good enough" for most sitcoms and serialized shows.

The only things worth watching on TV is news and sports since they are time sensitive.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By Retrospect on 9/20/2008 9:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
You damn right! There are tons of video website out there you can surf on. This will just make the end of the youtube.. Google is going to shoot it self in the foot and don't forget

what got youtube famous? ohhh wait here is a good one

What got Napster famous? and where are they now? hahahaha


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By murphyslabrat on 9/21/2008 1:45:23 AM , Rating: 5
Napster died, and we now have BitTorrent. Things come and go, but as long as you have college kids, piracy will prevail.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By NullSubroutine on 9/20/2008 1:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
These are some serious legal issues, and may only bring the hammer down on the RIAA/MPAA as they are already being looked into for breaking federal racketeering laws.


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By messerchmidt on 9/21/2008 2:07:01 AM , Rating: 1
what amazes me is that people actually settle with them...and I do see them hitting major legal road blocks.

well looks like we have another reason to spoof our ips, use proxies, clear rotour caches,etc and another company to dick around with...

I do not see this going far. Even if they manage to win a judgment, good luck ever collecting a cent from the vast majority of people who pirate...


RE: Serious Privacy Concerns
By PrinceGaz on 9/21/2008 6:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm wondering how they monitor Usenet traffic, given that it involves a direct connection to a private-server -- either run by your ISP if they happen to have a decent binary news-server, or by a third-party whose server you pay to use and whom almost invariably have an extremely strict privacy policy to protect their paying customers from being tracked.

The only way they can track traffic from those servers (either ISP or third-party) will be by monitoring all net traffic through ISPs themselves. That would have to break so many privacy laws that there is no way it will be allowed (certainly not in Europe).


Can someone help me understand this.
By pauldovi on 9/19/2008 9:17:42 PM , Rating: 5
Scenario A:

Lets say my friend is a musician and he uploads his song titled "Viva la Vida" onto Bit Torrent for all his friends to download. I go and download this song and low and behold it is Cold Play's song instead. Have I done anything wrong?

The point I am trying to get at here is, if you download some random song off of a torrent, how are you to know that it is copy protected and how are you to know that the original owner did not upload the song.

Its like if you unknowingly purchase a stolen vehicle, you are not going to be processioned, so how can they prosecute you for downloading a stolen song (that you didn't know what stolen).




By ShaolinSoccer on 9/20/2008 12:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think this article is about uploading to youtube. Not dowloading. I could be wrong.


RE: Can someone help me understand this.
By JustTom on 9/20/2008 12:51:47 AM , Rating: 3
You certainly can get prosecuted for 'unknowingly' buying a stolen car. It would certainly not happen if you bought a car at a dealership, paid market rate and drove it home. Even if the car was stolen you would not be prosecuted. However, if you bought a 2008 Corvette for 23K your ass is nailed.

As far as P2P downloads go, if you accidentally downloaded one song and the deleted it when you found out your error odds are nothing will happen. If you ‘accidentally’ downloaded 146 Gigs of music and kept it on your machine and are caught you might have problems.


RE: Can someone help me understand this.
By Methusela on 9/20/2008 2:30:36 AM , Rating: 2
Well shit, I guess I'm screwed!

146 gigs is like...7 hours of downloading.


RE: Can someone help me understand this.
By ajdavis on 9/21/2008 1:38:00 AM , Rating: 3
Really? I wish I had a 50Mb connection. That's quite rare here in the States.


RE: Can someone help me understand this.
By shin0bi272 on 9/21/2008 9:41:05 AM , Rating: 2
psht ... 711gb here


By DASQ on 9/23/2008 1:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, short of having the master recordings of Barbara Streisand, how in God's name do some people collect 1TB+ of music?


RE: Can someone help me understand this.
By GaryJohnson on 9/20/2008 2:56:01 AM , Rating: 4
Nexicon reminds you that you're obliged to keep all that pirated media on your harddrive if... err, when you're caught.
quote:
Can I avoid this lawsuit if I delete the illegal content and file-sharing applications from my computer?
No. Once litigation becomes a possibility, deleting files or the file-sharing application from your computer would violate your obligation to preserve evidence.


RE: Can someone help me understand this.
By Strunf on 9/20/2008 6:54:38 AM , Rating: 2
I think a couple days back (or maybe a week) someone was found guilty even after he had destroyed all the data.


By JustTom on 9/21/2008 11:13:54 AM , Rating: 3
There was a default judgement issued because he destroyed all the evidence after being told not to.


RE: Can someone help me understand this.
By Shawn5961 on 9/20/2008 8:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
So, basically, if in some freak occurrence your hard drive was to crash to a point where it couldn't be recovered, you'd be screwed.


By omnicronx on 9/20/2008 2:17:07 PM , Rating: 4
No.. put in a new hard drive.. change the clock back a month and install windows.. and voila an OS dating back further than the offense with no incriminating evidence ;)


RE: Can someone help me understand this.
By ajdavis on 9/21/2008 1:41:35 AM , Rating: 2
The interesting thing to note here is if you encrypt the incriminating evidence it is preserved but protected by your 5th amendment right.


By GaryJohnson on 9/21/2008 4:45:11 AM , Rating: 2
They can't force you to hand over the password because of the 5th, but they can get the drive and try a cold boot attack or someother kind of side channel attack to get past the encryption.


By Murloc on 9/20/2008 2:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
nexon is going to look for copyrights infringements only for the content owned by the ppl who pays the service, therefore you can hope cold play haven't paid any service like this.


Black Hat > White Hat
By grath on 9/19/2008 8:30:42 PM , Rating: 3
It took a corporation spending millions of dollars over a year to develop and deploy this. It will take the international P2P community about 3 days to adapt to it.




RE: Black Hat > White Hat
By TheDoc9 on 9/19/2008 9:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
This looks to be about youtube uploads only, P2P monitoring isn't mentioned.

It's a good way for google to cover themselves on the so far bad decision to buy youtube.


RE: Black Hat > White Hat
By GaryJohnson on 9/19/2008 9:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
P2P monitoring isn't mentioned

quote:
the company says it plans to deploy MARC against file-sharers – both uploaders and downloaders – on P2P networks within the next couple of weeks


RE: Black Hat > White Hat
By TheDoc9 on 9/20/2008 6:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I read right past it.

So skynet here is going to stop all illegal file sharing on all networks. hahaha

lol


RE: Black Hat > White Hat
By GaryJohnson on 9/20/2008 9:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
Change 'skynet' to 'ECHELON' and you might be getting warmer. I too doubt their system can be as automated and pervasive as they say it is.


RE: Black Hat > White Hat
By ShaolinSoccer on 9/20/2008 12:32:27 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe the guys who owned youtube originally saw this coming, eventually? That's why they sold out? Nothing like creating a website, investing a few thousand and making over a billion off of it.


RE: Black Hat > White Hat
By Nik00117 on 9/20/2008 3:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
Funny thing is your right. I wrote a paper about this for school. Basically saying that the priating community has such a large resource of technical poeple who speacilize in dealing with situations like this when a company does launch a "anti-priavcy" measure it finds a way around it, in miuntes.


RE: Black Hat > White Hat
By omnicronx on 9/20/2008 2:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about other sources, but apparently on youtube it will actually analyze the video using special matrixes using some kind of special watermarking technique. Unless the video is physically changed I don't see anyway around this without degrading the quality of the video.


RE: Black Hat > White Hat
By GaryJohnson on 9/21/2008 4:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
But the quality of video uploaded to youtube is degraded right? So that would immediately defeat any non-obvious watermark.


RE: Black Hat > White Hat
By DigitalFreak on 9/20/2008 2:25:57 PM , Rating: 1
I imagine the prof failed you for spelling errors...


RE: Black Hat > White Hat
By DASQ on 9/23/2008 1:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
There is also huge potential for abuse within their own system, easily overloading their own 'reporting' system with false positives.


IRC
By omnicronx on 9/19/2008 9:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is unclear how MARC’s systems are able to monitor downloading activity from point-to-point networks such as IRC
In short, they won't... DCC transfers are direct connections between two users, there is no way to monitor the content being sent. What they can do is download the material, (from xdcc/filesharing bots etc...) run it through their checks and go after the person sharing the file. This is not really monitoring, it is no different than the way the RIAA goes after p2p users with a shared directory.




RE: IRC
By GaryJohnson on 9/20/2008 3:47:54 AM , Rating: 2
Or they could host a bait file and go after anyone who downloads it.


RE: IRC
By Strunf on 9/20/2008 6:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
But if the bait file is a copyrighted material wouldn't they be breaking the law too ? it's like if you were selling drugs and then arresting those who buy it.


RE: IRC
By GaryJohnson on 9/20/2008 7:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
If they're representing the copyright holders they have or could get their permission to use the media as bait.


RE: IRC
By omnicronx on 9/20/2008 2:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
Thats just not correct. Even with torrents, all they can do is check to see who is connected to the torrent, and then go after people sharing it. They can not prosecute someone downloading the file if they are not sharing it.

This system is designed to go after those sharing the files, not those downloading them.


RE: IRC
By GaryJohnson on 9/20/2008 9:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
So what's your message here: use BitThief? If everyone stops uploading, then the torrents kinda stop workin.


RE: IRC
By Shawn5961 on 9/20/2008 8:51:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
MARC monitors every conversation on the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) system, simultaneously tracking more than 80,000 files at one time.


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't monitoring a conversation without any evidence of something illegal being perpetrated an invasion of privacy?

Gotta love the guilty until proven innocent approach.


RE: IRC
By foolsgambit11 on 9/20/2008 1:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
In public chat rooms, though, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Hence the 'public' part.

Additionally, if the monitoring is done by a non-governmental agency, and then used in civil proceedings (not criminal cases) the rules for acquisition of evidence are much more lax.


RE: IRC
By omnicronx on 9/20/2008 2:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In public chat rooms, though, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Hence the 'public' part.
Exactly, Anyone can enter a room and see for example what files that xdcc bots or dcc fileserver bots are sharing. They either appear in the channel where everyone can see, or anyone can connect to a dcc fileserver directly to see what files they are sharing.

I really doubt they are monitoring the server logs, as chances are that would definatly be a breach of privacy, but it is very easy to log everything that is going on in a channel. All they have to do is have some kind of bot join the channel and log everything, or log certain key words when they fit the description in their database for a pirated file.

Really though this is nothing new, this is already done manually by law enforcement around the world. Personally I think its a major oversight, as most channels run by release groups are locked down and only allow 'trusted users' to enter if they have the channel key. The channels that they will be logging are merely small fish, similar to kazaa or limewire users. Not to mention that people have smartened up and started using proxy servers and shell accounts to host their files and run their bots off of, which most of the time makes the IP that is logged pretty much useless.


in a way this is a good thing...
By deadrats on 9/19/2008 8:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
...only because it will lead to new technology to mask individuals online identities; i.e i expect to see a rise in proxy servers, encryption, applications such PeerGuardian and other such methods to protect against detection.




RE: in a way this is a good thing...
By bodar on 9/20/2008 4:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
You know, until ACTA makes many of them illegal.

quote:
Meanwhile, use of internet privacy tools would be greatly restricted and made illegal in many cases.


http://www.dailytech.com/Wikileaks+Airs+US+Plans+t...


RE: in a way this is a good thing...
By GaryJohnson on 9/20/2008 5:34:46 AM , Rating: 2
If they can tell who you are and that you're using a privacy tool, then you're not using a privacy tool, because it's not providing privacy.


RE: in a way this is a good thing...
By mindless1 on 9/21/2008 1:44:23 AM , Rating: 2
Is that like pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, but if it doesn't fire the bullet it can't really be a gun since that's a gun's purpose?


By GaryJohnson on 9/21/2008 5:14:50 AM , Rating: 2
A 'gun' is a well defined physical item, a 'privacy tool' is a kind of vague descriptor, more like 'deadly weapon' than 'gun'.

So if you point an unloaded gun at a person and pull the trigger, was it still a deadly weapon? Legally it is because 'deadly weapon' is well defined legally. But semantically, logically it isn't; in order for it to be deadly, when it’s used on a person, that person has to be dead.

So if they define 'privacy tool' a little better then that can be a problem for people using any legally defined 'privacy tool', but it can't just be a 'tool that defines privacy'.

And I believe new, undefined 'privacy tools' will probably come about faster than the legal definition of 'privacy tool' can be updated to include them.


LOL!
By zeroxcape on 9/19/2008 8:38:56 PM , Rating: 3
When I first read this article, it thought it was a hoax. I laugh in the face of Nexicon for actually thinking this will work. In fact, I foresee Nexicon being slapped with countless countersuits for piracy violation. I think it hilarious that they think they can actually police the internet. Again LOL @ Nexicon. Epic fail in the making.




RE: LOL!
By TerranMagistrate on 9/19/2008 9:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
"piracy violation"

I couldn't agree more. They're aiming to violate some pirates alright.


3 clicks to settle?
By shabby on 9/19/2008 8:50:08 PM , Rating: 5
Clicking on the X in the top right corner is only one click...




Doesn't make sense
By Suntan on 9/19/2008 9:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
I can kind of see how it would work if they inspect every upload, if Youtube lets them (nevermind if Youtube decided it was copyrighted, they could just delete the file instead of trying to extort the uploader.)

But how could they charge the downloader that clicks on the video? How do you know what is copyright and what is not? Come on people, if you knowingly offer an illegal file to be downloaded (Youtube, I'm looking at you) wouldn't that be called entrapment?

-Suntan




RE: Doesn't make sense
By mindless1 on 9/21/2008 1:47:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nexicon, a “digital media intelligence” company, announced a partnership with YouTube last week that will see it monetizing illegal uploads ...


Where's Lumburg
By rtk on 9/19/2008 9:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
At first I though of mediadefenders(-defenders), but once I read the company name the connection was made.

mediadefenders is Initech, Nexicon is Initrode.

"ye.....ah, I'm going to have to ask you to move your "company" to the sub-basement".




RE: Where's Lumburg
By aegisofrime on 9/20/2008 8:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
"ye.....ah, I'm going to have to ask you to move your "company" to the sub-basement".

Is that from the movie "Office Space" by any chance?


º¿º
By Volkerkind on 9/21/2008 1:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
Google uses recognition software which is based on color, time/length (vectors), weight/size. Using vector graphics they are able to analyze information from the source and apply it to the pirated material. Anything from the little FOX emblem on the bottom of the screen, to the scene where Arnie goes back to the future to cancel Skynet. All of this is analyzed and presented on matrices.
You know, Google doesn't want to be the 800 pound gorilla that went from Dorothy to Wicked Witch, but they are going to have to buckle under pressure. They are if not close to being (below the fed) the largest data miners in the world.




By Oysterman on 9/22/2008 10:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
I can´t believe that this will be something new in the U.S.
In Germany and other european countries there are still tribes of lawyer sending out bill after bill to filesharers who got caught after their ISP handed over the connection data. They charge you several hundred or even thousands of dollars and push you to settle this off court.

As i heared they now increase the focus on downloaded porn because in those cases the "criminals" are not only afraid of losing money but they are ashamed too and might pay even quicker (before the wife finds out) and will less likely involve an attourney.

The legal status of their witch hunt is on thin ice but nobody puts a stop on this so they keep making money.
MUCH money !

So people leave emule, edonkey and bittorrent and go to rapidshare and other hosters hoping not to be caught there.




Amnesty NOT Vindication
By The DataRat on 9/22/2008 3:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
The "amnesty" component regards civil penalties only . Offenders are still subject to arrest and rendition to unnamed foreign countries for "harsh interogation methods". It'll suck being a media pirate !




Epic Fail!
By Bateluer on 9/19/2008 8:44:26 PM , Rating: 1
Epic . . . . Fail . . . .!




Yeah...........Good luck with that Nexicon
By captainBOB on 9/20/2008 12:01:03 AM , Rating: 1
I wonder how much these whiny, pot smoking hypocrites called musicians make even with piracy.
I can understand game developers as they really do put a lot of work into their games.

But musicians and actors? They already make 20+ mil a year for lipsyncing and reading a script, that's all they have to do, while Bob here slaves over his computer coding the next Unreal Tournament.




Personally I'd prefer to see...
By Beenthere on 9/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: Personally I'd prefer to see...
By abzillah on 9/19/2008 11:36:38 PM , Rating: 5
I prefer to see people like you suffer by being probed up the butt.


By amanojaku on 9/20/2008 11:12:17 AM , Rating: 5
I wouldn't want to see that. Unless "Beenthere" is a hot girl. Even average. Then I'd buy the DVD. Er, pirate it.


RE: Personally I'd prefer to see...
By mindless1 on 9/20/2008 3:01:47 AM , Rating: 2
Punishment was never supposed to be present, not meant as a deterrent in a civil suit, rather damages are the relevant factor.


RE: Personally I'd prefer to see...
By JustTom on 9/21/2008 11:24:47 AM , Rating: 2
Punative damages are certainly meant to be a deterrent.


RE: Personally I'd prefer to see...
By JKflipflop98 on 9/20/2008 7:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
I bet a dollar your shared directory is active right now with windows sample songs in it. Guess what, asshat? YOU'RE A PIRATE!

Not only should your worthless ass get fined $20K, but you should be anal raped by a 500 pound gorilla with a coconut for the rest of your miserable, song stealing, copyright infringing life! How DARE you rob Usher of another 15 cents in royalties?!

Oh noes! It looks like Lars Ulrich won't be able to buy that 2nd gold plated Ferrari with matching gold-plated phillipino slave boys to wash it for him. Poor, poor Lars.


RE: Personally I'd prefer to see...
By JustTom on 9/21/2008 11:26:58 AM , Rating: 2
Um, how is anyone a pirate if they have window's sample songs? MS paid for them. Do you really think MS is sending out millions of illegal files?


RE: Personally I'd prefer to see...
By Drexial on 9/22/2008 10:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
yes but they included them with your individual copy of windows. Not meant to be shared with others.


RE: Personally I'd prefer to see...
By just4U on 9/22/2008 11:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
There are so many ways that we unknowingly pirate stuff it's mindboggling. Fact is the laws need to change because we are all guilty. The sooner people on all sides realize this the better.


By FaceMaster on 9/21/2008 8:07:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
each pirate charged, prosecuted and convicted. Have a std. punishment of $10K per copy plus jail or prison time depending on the volume.


Yeah and while they're at it they should lower rape to a £250 fine.


By Volkerkind on 9/22/2008 6:14:47 AM , Rating: 1
Downloading illegal porn does not exclude you from being a pirate.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




17 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki