Signing a deal that makes anyone a net profit participant in a Hollywood movie deal has always been a sucker’s bet. In an era where studios have all but eliminated first dollar gross and invited talent to share the risk and potential rewards, guess what? Net profit deals are still a sucker’s bet. I was slipped a net profit statement below for Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix, the 2007 Warner Bros sequel. Though the film grossed $938.2 million worldwide, the accounting statement below conveys that the film is still over $167 million in the red. Text continues below…harry potter net profits

via STUDIO SHAME! Even Harry Potter Pic Loses Money Because Of Warner Bros’ Phony Baloney Net Profit Accounting – Deadline.com.

Now on sale in some online marketplaces: cheap, illegal access to SciFinder, an extensive database of scholarly articles and information about chemical compounds run by a division of the American Chemical Society. The sellers are pirates, hawking stolen or leaked SciFinder account information from college students and professors.”There are reseller Web sites in China where we’ve purchased access to our own products for pennies on the dollar,” says Michael Dennis, vice president for legal administration and applied research at the Chemical Abstracts Service, the division that publishes SciFinder. “We’re shutting down hundreds of these every couple of months,” he says, though in some cases the publisher has trouble taking effective action against sites in other countries.

via Academic Publisher Steps Up Efforts to Stop Piracy of Its Online Products – Technology – The Chronicle of Higher Education.

“Myself and a few friends were very angry that certain people only seem to want to profit from recordings like the Toy album, so when we saw the eBay auction and heard of someone else selling discs for $55, I decide to upload it and give it away,” Brigstow told TorrentFreak.

via Unreleased Bowie on BitTorrent: Pirate Sabotage Turned Cultural Blessing | TorrentFreak.

There are two principle components of the new value chain of television hyperdistribution: the producer and the advertiser. An advertising agency is likely acting as an intermediary between these two, connecting producers to advertisers, working out the demographic appeal of particular programs, and selling ad payload into those programs; this is a role they already fulfill – although at present they work with the broadcast networks rather than the producers. There is no role for a broadcaster in this value chain; the audience has abandoned the broadcaster in favor of a direct relationship with the program provider. That said, the broadcasters are uniquely qualified to transform themselves into highly specialized advertising agencies, connecting advertisers to producers; this is something they already excel at.

This is clearly a viable economic model: the producer gets paid at least as much for their programming as they would have received from a broadcaster, and probably more; the advertiser gets a cheaper ad buy; and the audience continues to receive free television programs. This is a win-win-win scenario, unless you're a broadcaster.

via Mindjack – Piracy is Good? Part Two: The New Laws of Television.

Hulu Blog

The Hulu team is often asked about our thoughts on the future of TV. The following represents our point of view, which has been materially influenced by our daily interactions with users, advertisers, and content owners. We are fortunate to have such meaningful interactions with these three customer sets, and we are relentlessly inventing better ways to serve them.

Slashdot

“The Guardian reports that Britain’s two biggest record labels, Sony and Universal, plan to beat music piracy by making new singles available for sale on the day they first hit the airwaves hoping the effort will encourage young people to buy songs they can listen to immediately rather than copying from radio broadcasts online. Songs used to receive up to six weeks radio airplay before they were released for sale, a practice known as ‘setting up’ a record. ‘What we were finding under the old system was the searches for songs on Google or iTunes were peaking two weeks before they actually became available to buy, meaning that the public was bored of — or had already pirated — new singles,’ says David Joseph. Sony, which will start the ‘on air, on sale’ policy simultaneously with Universal next month, agreed that the old approach was no longer relevant in an age where, according to a spokesman for the music major, ‘people want instant gratification.’”

Slashdot

“Ambiguity surrounds the real impact of digital book piracy, notes Brian O’Leary in an interview with O’Reilly Radar, but all would be better served if more data was shared and less effort was exerted on futile DRM. ‘The publishing industry should be working as hard as we can to develop new and innovative business models that meet the needs of readers. And what those look like could be community-driven. I think of Baen Books, for example, which doesn’t put any DRM restrictions on its content but is one of the least pirated book publishers. As to sales, Paulo Coelho is a good example. He mines the piracy data to see if there’s a burgeoning interest for his books in a particular country or market. If so, he either works to get his book out in print or translate it in that market.’”

Gabriella Coleman – Technology – The Atlantic

Anonymous, who have been on a week long sprint/spree to paralyze website sites like Mastercard and Paypal, are often described in the news as a “group” with “members.” This is usually followed by a series of prolonged qualifications and caveats because many characteristics we usually associate with groups don’t seem to apply comfortably with Anonymous: there are no leaders, anyone can seemingly join, and participants are spread across the globe, although many of them can be found on any number of Internet Relay Chat Channels where they discuss strategy, plan attacks, crack jokes, and often pose critical commentary on the unfolding events they have just engendered. Earlier this week, The Economist listened in on the IRC channels, opening a fascinating window into the order behind the seeming chaos of Anonymous and providing a sense of how the Distributed Denial-of-Service attacks are coordinated by a trusted group of Ops who leverage the labor of thousands of other contributors.

But there is a lot more to how Anonymous, at least in this operation, deliberate about their mission, make decisions, and produce collective statements, such as Manifestos. Here I want to give a fuller picture of what it looks like to participate in Anonymous, how they arrive at some consensus, how they change tactics, and how they use technology to produce collaboratively. Although this is quite an incomplete picture, it will perhaps give a more human face to an operation that otherwise seems faceless.

As mentioned already, IRC is where many participants congregate. They do so in very large numbers to coordinate attacks, debate, and simply watch. In the constant streams of chatter (and they are often multiple channels), there is always a strange mix of pragmatic imperatives with more philosophical or critical takes on the events:

(11:23:42 AM) XXXX Well until we get real orders, just keep attacking MasterCard, until we get real orders(in the topic)Well until we get real orders, just keep attacking MasterCard, until we get real orders(in the topic) migs.mastercard.com.au port . . .

(11:23:43 AM) YYYY: i think most of people here do not fight because of something… they are fighting because of the fight… such a shame

We see here how one participant is trying to rally the infantry to stay on target but this is followed by critical commentary on motivations behind the attacks. But is it the case that “most people here do not fight because of something?” In reality, it is hard to tell. In some ways, it may be impossible to gauge the intent and motive of thousands of participants, many of who don’t even bother to leave a trace of their thoughts, motivations, and reactions. Among those that do, opinions vary considerably.

And yet there are other statements made by Anonymous that do give a clear sense that some fight for “something” and that this is part of a larger political plan, even if surely not everyone participates in Anonymous for noble causes. Along with IRC, Anonymous have also made ample use of collaborative writing software, in this case Pirate Pad (which rose from the ashes of Etherpad) and do so to coordinate actions, pick targets, and write manifestos. If IRC is where the cacophonous side of Anonymous is most clearly manifest, then the documents and conversation on Pirate Pad reflect a calmer, more deliberate and deliberative side of Anonymous, where participants offer arguments that are picked apart or supported through reasoned debate.

Take for instance a snapshot from a document written by 31 anons, 16 writing simultaneously:

Here they get into a few more details as to who and why they attack:

From at least this vantage point Anonymous starts to look more like a group of seasoned politics activists, debating the merits and demerits of actions and targets, warning for example, not to attack the media. Even if these documents cannot be taken as the totality of Anonymous, they reveal that some of the participants do engage in strategic and political thinking.

These documents are not, however, the only place where participants deliberate or announce tactics. IRC, as I noted, is where so much of the action and the coordination occurs.

As I was writing this up, a number of participants were calling for a change of tactics: (12:25:13 PM) AAAA: Decision: Our message has come across. We have been mentioned in medias, blogs and other sources. Our response has been succesful. Our point has come across. We need to stop all attacks now and focus on organization, so that future attack may come in tenfold strength. Stop all attacks!

And yet, did this happen? There are some signs — like Operation Leakspin — that it has. But it’s too early to make a real determination. And Anonymous has shown that it’s willing to change as circumstances change. And the news that Julian Assange expects to be charged for espionage could shift things for Anonymous, as this tweet makes utterly clear. Stay tuned.

TekGoblin

Netflix announced today that they have brokered a deal with Disney-ABC to add their content to the Netflix library. The deal should add a substantial number of new TV shows and Movies to instant watch. The episodes will be added rather quickly to instant watch only 15 days after initial telecast. Here is a list of the new additions to Netflix:

• Prior season episodes of current ABC hit series “Grey’s Anatomy,”  ”Desperate Housewives” and, for the first time on Netflix, “Brothers & Sisters,” all of which are among the network’s most successful and popular TV franchises in recent years.
• Every episode of recent ABC favorites “Lost” and “Ugly Betty,” the latter making its streaming debut at Netflix.
• Each season of several hit series from ABC Studios, including “Scrubs” and “Reaper,” which are both new additions to Netflix.
• A host of content from the Disney Channel, including the hits “Phineas and Ferb” and “Good Luck Charlie,” which are also new to Netflix; updated and expanded offerings of “The Suite Life on Deck” and “Wizards of Waverly Place;” and library offerings from the smash hits “Hannah Montana” and “The Suite Life of Zack & Cody.”
• A wide range of content from ABC Family, marking the introduction of ABC Family content streaming from Netflix.  Included are the hit series “Greek,” “Make It or Break It,” “The Secret Life of the American Teenager” and “Melissa & Joey.”

With much more content to come. Netflix also recently added a new plan that included no dvd rentals but unlimited streaming for only $7.99 a month down from the original $8.99 plan.

ars techica

YouTube will begin paying French artists when their works show up on the site, thanks to a new deal with three French royalty societies. The agreement only affects videos viewed in France, Belgium, and Luxembourg, but it does cover clips and movies uploaded to YouTube from 2007 all the way through 2013.

Google’s new agreement affects screenwriters and filmmakers represented by Société des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques (SACD), Société Civile des Auteurs Multimedia, and the Société des auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques, the company said during a press conference on Thursday (covered by the Wall Street Journal). The agreement follows a similar one made earlier this year between Google and France’s leading royalty society for musicians, SACEM.

Like other agreements made in other parts of Europe—as well as the US—the royalty societies will get a cut of YouTube’s ad revenues in exchange for permission to host the clips. Google didn’t disclose the terms of the deals, but it’s likely that the payments will vary depending on how many views each of the films gets from Internet users in France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Whether the films will be viewable to users outside of those countries isn’t clear.

Making these agreements hasn’t always been easy for YouTube. The site had to block “premium” content in the UK in 2009 thanks to a disagreement over royalties. Warner Music made waves in 2008 for pulling all of its content in the US after licensing negotiations broke down. It’s a fine line to walk—content owners can definitely benefit from the exposure of their materials to a wider audience, but they want to make sure YouTube’s not getting a free ride either.

“This is a happy moment after nearly 10 years of misunderstanding,” said SACD director general Pascal Rogard. “It shows that there is a middle ground between protecting authors’ rights and making [content] available online.”

 | TorrentFreak

In the last two months, dozens of anti-piracy groups, copyright lawyers and pro-copyright outfits have been targeted by a group of Anonymous Internet ‘vigilantes’ under the flag of Operation Payback.

Initially DDoS assaults were started against the MPAA, RIAA and anti-piracy company AiPlex Software because these outfits had targeted The Pirate Bay. Those DDoS attacks were later replicated against many other targets that have spoken out against piracy or for copyright, resulting in widespread media coverage.

Even law enforcement agencies showed interest in the operation recently. Last week CNET reported that an FBI probe is underway, and TorrentFreak personally knows of at least one court case against a person that was associated with the operation.

Besides covering the results of the DDoS attacks and website hacks, very little is known about the people who are part of the operation. Who are they? What do they want, and what are their future plans? In this article we hope to solve a few pieces of the puzzle.

After numerous talks with people who are actively involved in Operation Payback, we learned that there are huge differences between the personal beliefs of members.

We can safely conclude that this Anonymous group doesn’t have a broad shared set of ideals. Instead, it is bound together by anger, frustration and the desire to be heard. Their actions are a direct response to the anti-piracy efforts of pro-copyright groups.

Aside from shared frustration, the people affiliated with the operation have something else in common. They are nearly all self-described geeks, avid file-sharers and many also have programming skills.

When Operation Payback started most players were not looking to participate in the copyright debate in a constructive way, they simply wanted to pay back the outfits that dared to target something they loved: file-sharing.

Many of the first participants who set the DDoS actions in motion either came from or were recruited on the message board 4Chan. But as the operation developed the 4Chan connection slowly disappeared. What’s left today are around a dozen members who are actively involved in planning the operation’s future, and several dozen more who help to execute the DDoS attacks.

An Anonymous spokesperson, from whose hand most of the manifestos originated, described the structure of the different groups to us.

“The core group is the #command channel on IRC. This core group does nothing more than being some sort of intermediary between the people in that IRC channel and the actual attack. Another group of people on IRC (the main channel called #operationpayback) are just there to fire on targets.”

Occasionally new people are invited to join the command to coordinate a specific attack, but a small group of people remains. The command group is also the place where new targets are picked, where future plans are discussed, and where manifestos are drafted. This self-appointed group makes most of the decisions, but often acts upon suggestions from bypassers in the main IRC channel.

Now let’s rewind a little and go back to the first attacks that started off the operation in September.

The operation’s command was ‘pleasantly’ surprised by the overwhelming media coverage and attention, but wondered where to go from there. They became the center of attention but really had no plan going forward. Eventually they decided to continue down the road that brought them there in the first place – more DDoS attacks.

What started as a retaliation against groups that wanted to take out The Pirate Bay slowly transformed into an attack against anyone involved in anti-piracy efforts. From trade groups, to lawyers, to dissenting artists. Since not all members were actively following the copyright debate, command often acted on suggestions from the public in the main IRC channel.

What followed was an avalanche of DDoS attacks that were picked up by several media outlets. This motivated the group to continue their strategy. Anonymous’ spokesperson admitted to TorrentFreak that the media attention was indeed part of what fuelled the operation to go forward. But not without some strategic mistakes.

As the operation continued more trivial targets were introduced and the group started to lose sympathy from parts of the public. While targeting the company that admittedly DDoSed The Pirate Bay could be seen as payback by some, trying to take out Government bodies such as the United States Copyright Office and UK’s Intellectual Property Office made less sense. In part, these targets were chosen by anarchistic influences in the operation.

“I fight with anonops because I believe that the current political system failed, and that a system based on anarchy is the only viable system,” one member told TorrentFreak. “I encouraged them to go after political targets just because I like Anarchy.”

The Anonymous spokesperson admitted to TorrentFreak that mistakes were made, and command also realized that something had to change. The targets were running out and the attacks weren’t gaining as much attention as they did in the beginning. It was a great way to gather attention, but not sustainable. In fact, even from within the operation not everyone was convinced that DDoS attacks were the best ‘solution’.

“I personally don’t like the concept of violence and attacking, but violence itself does raise attention,” Anonymous’ spokesperson told TorrentFreak.

“Attacking sites is one side of the story, but this operation would finally have to serve a purpose, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. We all agree that the way things [abuse of copyright] are currently done, is not the right way.”

Last week command decided to slow the DDoS attacks down and choose another strategy, mainly to regain the focus of attention. It was decided that they would make a list of demands for governments worldwide. In a move opposed to the desires of the anarchic influences, command decided to get involved in the political discussion.

Copyright/patent laws have to change, they argued, and from the bat they were willing to negotiate. They called for scrapping censorship, anti-piracy lawsuits and limiting copyright and patent terms, but not getting rid of copyright entirely. Interestingly, there is also no word in the demands about legalizing file-sharing.

To some this new and more gentle position taken by Anonymous came as a complete surprise. We asked the spokesman of the group about this confusing message and he said that there are actually several political parties that already adopt a similar position, like the Pirate parties and the Greens in Europe.

However, according to the spokesman (who wrote the latest manifesto with other members in Piratepad) they consciously chose this set of demands. “Some of us have the vision of actually getting rid of copyright/patents entirely, but we are at least trying to stay slightly realistic.”

“What we are now trying to do, is to straighten out ideals, and trying to make them both heard and accepted. Nobody would listen to us if we said piracy should be legal, but when we ask for copyright lifespan to be reduced to ‘fair’ lengths, that would sound a lot more reasonable,” the spokesman told TorrentFreak.

The demands have been published on the Operation Payback site for nearly a week, but thus far the media coverage hasn’t been as great as when they launched their first DDoS. Some have wondered whether this is the right path to continue in the first place, as it may get in the way of groups and political parties that have fought for similar ‘ideals’ for years already.

The spokesman disagreed and said that Operation Payback has “momentum” now.

So here we are nearly two months after Anonymous started Operation Payback. The initial anger and frustration seems to have been replaced by a more friendly form of activism for the time being. The group wanted to have their voice heard and they succeeded in that. However, being listened to by politicians and entertainment industry bosses might take more than that.

Tracker interjúk (Frissítve) – Asva.info

Még a múlt héten szervezkedtünk egy kicsit, és próbáltunk segítni a Hírtv-nek, hogy kapcsolatba lépjenek a tracker tulajokkal. Végül három tracker küldte vissza a válaszát felhívásunkra, ezeket most egy egyesítetett interjúban közöljük.

- Érintette-e a szerver razzia?

1st: Igen, érintett sajnos minket is. Lefoglalták a webszerverünket, amin az oldalunk futott.

BD: Igen érintett a razzia, két, félmilliós gépet vittek el, amit ha vissza is adnának, a képen látható szakszerű tárolás, kezelés miatt hibásan kapnánk vissza.

moon: Igen. Mi is kaptunk felszólítást a jogvédőktől, de a servergépet nem foglalták le.

BladeSector: Közvezlenül nem, viszont közvetve több, mint 2 hétre leállítottuk a fel és letöltést.

- A rendőrség elérhet-e Önhöz, vagy a userekhez?

1st: Kérdéses, hogy az akció elsődleges célja a hazai torrentforgalom megbénítása volt-e, vagy a trackerüzemeltetők és felhasználók felelősségre vonása. Utóbbi esetben elképzelhető, hogy megpróbálják ráhúzni a vélt jogsértéseket a felhasználókra. Ugyanakkor az ügyben eddig nyilatkozatot tett jogászok véleménye szerint ezen jogsértések bizonyítása a trackerüzemeltetők esetében is nehéz, sőt egyes vélemények szerint lehetetlen. Ezen kívül meggyőződésünk, hogy a lefoglalt trackerszerveren felhasználókra terhelő bizonyíték nem található.

BD: Felvettem a kapcsolatot a rendőrséggel, megadtam az elérhetőségemet, így bármikor behívhatnak. A userekhez elérhetnének, de nem fognak, mert nem ez volt a cél. Feleslegesen pánikoltatták egymás a userek, de a jó szóra nem hallgattak. Ma a PROART vezetője megerősítette, hogy nem kívánnak a userek ellen eljárni.

moon: Természetesen az userekhez nem érhetnek el, kódolt merevlemezen vannak az adatok servern. A server tulajához annál inkább.

BladeSector: A leállás során biztonsági lépéseket készítettünk, így a felhasználók biztonságban vannak.

- Milyen látogatottsága volt? Hány regisztrált tagot jelent?

1st: Az oldalnak naponta átlagosan 45 ezer egyéni látogatója volt. Hétvégenként nem ritkán 65 ezer feletti volt ez a szám. Az utóbbi időben nagyjából 50 ezer regisztrált tagunk volt.

BD: 65 ezer user átlagos látogatottság 250 fő 24/7

moon: Nálunk 21 ezer tag volt regisztrálva, ez átlagosan napi 7 ezer egyedi látogatást jelent, és közel 25ezer oldal letöltést.

BladeSector: A razzia előtt 6ezer tagot számoltunk, azóta 5570-re csökkent, bízunk benne, hogy mindenki visszajön, aki accountjának törlése mellett döntött. Ez átlag napi 1000-1500 egyedi IP-t, és többezer oldalletöltést jelent.

- Meglepte-e, hogy ekkorát ütött a rendőrség?

1st: Mindenképpen megdöbbentő volt az akció súlya. Ilyen drasztikus eljárásra nem hiszem, hogy akárki is számított a hazai p2p világban. Még inkább szokatlan, hogy az elsődleges célpontok az ingyenes fájlcserét biztosító, az adatforgalomból nem profitáló oldalak voltak. Többször hangsúlyoztuk mi is, hogy a trackerszerveren nem található illegálisan forgalmazott, jogsértő adattartalom, ennek tükrében még inkább alaptalannak érezzük az eljárást. Furcsa továbbá az is, hogy oldalunk semmiféle előzetes figyelmeztetést vagy a vélt jogsértő tartalmak eltávolítására való felszólítást nem kapott.

BD: Ha arra irányul a kérdés hogy a nekem okozott kárt előre láttam, akkor igen, benne volt a pakliban.Ha a teljes torrenttársadalomra vonatkozik a kérdés, akkor nem gondoltam, hogy az ingyenes oldalakat viszik. Reméltem a fizetősek, akik hasznot húznak,azokat fogják vegzálni.

moon: Igen. Bár sejteni lehetett, hogy előbb utóbb ismét várható razzia, de ilyen mértékű, ilyen határozott fellépésre senki nem számított.

BladeSector: Nem gondoltam, hogy az ingyenes oldalakkal szúrnak ki ennyire, de szokás mondani, “aki k*rvának megy, ne sírjon ha b*sszák”, persze sírtunk miis eleget.

- Lehetett-e belső információja a rendőrségnek? Valaki segíthette-e a nyomozókat a trackerek közül?

1st: A talpon maradt trackerek jelenlegi, akció utáni működését látva mindenképp jogos a felvetés. Elgondolkodtató, hogy egyes jelenleg is működő oldalak szabad regisztrációval és folyamatos reklámozással próbálnak toborozni felhasználókat a lefoglalt oldalak közönségéből. Ezen oldalak közül kettő tudomásunk szerint elérhető közelségben volt és van a hatóságok számára, mégse foglalták le a szerverüket. Erős a gyanú, hogy e két oldal háborítatlan működése összefüggésben lehet azzal, hogy információkat, tippeket szolgáltattak a hatóságnak.

BD: A hírekkel ellentétben, a rendőröknek, és a többieknek is van elérésük. Nem akarom nagyon védeni a rendőröket, de ők tényleg parancsot teljesítettek.

moon: Ez könnyen meglehet, bár nem kell túl nagy zseninek lenni ahhoz, hogy valaki egy domain és a hozzá tartozó ip-cím alapján lenyomozza, honnan, mely szolgáltatótól fut az oldal.

BladeSector: Nem a rendőr fog úgy dönteni, hogy most akkor márpedig mi lefoglalunk 3 napig! Valaki utasította, annak a valakinek lehet fülese.
Ahogy több ezellen küzdő politikus, bíró, és egyéb szerv dolgozója használta a p2p protokollt, úgy ezek az emberek is tagjai lehettek az oldal(ak)nak.
Előfordulhat, hogy valamelyik tracker is ludas, viszont miért vágná maga alatt a fejszét. Annyira nem biztos a helyzet, hogy legközelebb nem vele kezdik.

-Hogyan juthattak el a rendőrök a szerverekhez?

1st: Minden hálózatra csatlakoztatott szervergép rendelkezik IP-címmel, ennek követésével el lehet jutni a géphez. A nyomozás pontos technikai részleteiről célszerűbb lenne a hatóságot kérdezni.

BD: Az oldalak nevei a google keresőben bármikor megnézhetők, az ip keresővel kiadja pontosan hol van a domainhoz tartozó ip, és a gép ha megvan a parancs, akkor azzal a kütyüvel a kezében bemegy, és hátulról kihuzogatják a netkábelt. Ahol a jel megszakad, azt a gépet keresték. (leegyszerűsítve)

moon: Jól kidolgozott akció és tracker lista alapján. Ehhez már csak házkutatási parancsra volt szukség, amit be is szereztek, gond nélkül.

BladeSector: A szerverig eljutni tulajdonképpen nem kell mérnöknek lennünk, tracert is végigköveti az útvonalat, de bármilyen ingyenes domain-tool kiírja a szerver publikus adatait, onnantól meg már csak egy házkutatási parancs a megfelelő teremben.

- Sokan azzal indokolják a letöltést, hogy drágák a jogdíjas termékek. Ön szerint is így van ez?

1st: Egy premier DVD bolti ára 4-5000 Ft (melyek minősége gyakran silány), a premier mozijegyek ára pedig bőven 1000 Ft felett van egy nagyvárosi vetítőteremben. A jogtiszta számítógépes szoftverek ára egyes operációs rendszerek esetén 100 ezer Ft-os nagyságrendű, és akkor még nem is beszéltünk vírusirtó, szövegszerkesztő és egyéb alapprogramokról. Ha még arra a luxusra is ragadtatnánk magunkat, hogy számítógépünkön játszani szeretnénk, szintén 10 ezer forintos nagyságrendben kell kiadnunk 1-1 játékért. Nyilvánvaló, hogy ezek az árak a magyar jövedelmi viszonyok tükrében irreálisak. Egy átlagos magyar család egész egyszerűen nem engedhet meg magának ilyen kiadásokat, esetleg csak alkalmanként. Az ár mellett további elősegítő tényezője a letöltésnek, hogy a magyar piacon egyre növekvő igény van HD tartalmakra, mellyel a forgalmazók egyáltalán nem tartanak lépést. Emellett számos sorozat nem jelenik meg a TV vetítés után nemhogy HD minőségben, de semmilyen megvásárolható formában.

BD: Az én indokom főleg az lenne, hogy több féle dolgot meg tudok nézni, és válogathatok. Sok olyan filmet vettem meg eredetiben, amit ha nem szedem le, és nézem meg, soha eszembe nem jutna megvenni. Ha egy sorozat tetszik, a többi részt is megveszem. A usereket megszavaztattuk, nagy részük arra szavazott, hogy megnézni, informálódni. A második helyen a kipróbálom megveszem verzió volt. Ugyanis megnézik, sikerfilm 10 ezer, de mondjuk 1 év múlva már 2 ezerért is elérhető.

moon: Teljes mértékben! Ha lenne itthon is Magyar Online zene és film bolt megfizethető áron, biztos hogy sokan használnák. Például ha lenne Magyar iTunes, amit már sokan régóta hiányolnak.

BladeSector: Mint minden, ez is relatív. Ha azt nézzük, hogy egy Film legyen mondjuk 5ezer forint akkor az 25 dollár, vagy 17 euró, hogy ne menjünk olyan messze az országokkal.
Egy kezdő fizetés Ausztriába 1200-1500 euró + juttatások + üzemanyag hozzájárulás, de maradjunk 1500nál. 420ezer forint.
Éljünk nagy lábon, legyen a rezsi 150 ezer. Költsünk el kajára, meg mindennapi cuccokra 100 ezret, adjunk a gyereknek heti 5 ezer zsebpénzt, és még mindig maradt 150, ha jól számolom.
Miért ne vegyem meg azt a félévente kiadott új játékot,meg egy két filmet havonta..  Nálunk mi van, egy családi ház rezsije takarékosan (130 négyzet, 5 tagú család) 90-100 ezer.
Apuka keres jóesetben 150 et, anyuka minimálbér, ha nem mindegyik, egyik fizetés egy az egybe a számlákra, és akkor éljünk egy hónapig. Ruha, kaja, pia, bérlet, üzemanyag.
Nem fér bele. Még néha egy-egy mozi sem, mert bárhogy számolom, legyen 1000 a jegy, kukorica + kóla = 1000, 1000Ft/Fő. És akkor még nem számoltuk az utazást, meg az aznapi kaja, pia stb. ha messzebb van a mozi.
Máshogyan kellene gondolkozni a hazai kereskedelemben.

- Mekkora fogásnak minősül ez? A rendőrség szerint világviszonylatban is jelentős.

1st: A kérdés az, mit gondol a hatóság jelentős fogásnak. Ugyanis nyugodtan kijelenthető, hogy ennek az akciónak az időleges elrettentésen kívül semmiféle haszna nem volt, még jogvédő szemmel sem. Látszatintézkedésnek és az ilyen ügyekkel foglalkozó rendőrségi osztály létjogosultságának igazolására mindenképp az lehetett. Pár kisebb-nagyobb bezáró trackeren kívül az eredmény mindössze annyi, hogy új néven, vagy újraindítva folytatódik a nagyobb trackerek működése a továbbra is fennálló letöltési és közösségi-társasági igényt kielégítendő. A lefoglalások miatt minden nagyobb tracker olyan óvintézkedéseket (pl. szervergépek külföldre költöztetése) tesz majd a jövőben, melynek folytán a szervergépek a magyar rendőrség számára elérhetetlenek lesznek, ezáltal egyre kevésbé lehet majd ellenőrizni a fájlcserét. Emellett a meglévő, sőt növekvő letöltési igényt követve újra elharapózik majd a sms-warez szervereken folyó letöltés is. Egy biztos, a jogtiszta szoftverek forgalma nem fog ettől nőni. Valódi javulást nem lefoglalással, nem a szabad forrású szoftverek terjedésének akadályozásával, hanem a jogtiszta szoftverek árának mérséklésével, illetve jogtiszta online letöltési lehetőségek biztosításával lehetne elérni. Ez utóbbi egyébként a jogvédő szervezetek rég óta előszeretettel hangoztatott ígérete. Kár, hogy ebben évek óta nem történik előrelépés.

BD: Elvitték a legnagyobb oldalakat. Jelenleg utkeresés van, de legtöbb oldal ujra el fog indulni.A nagy fogást a seedszerverek, a fizetős ftp, sms -ben lehetett volna. Mindegy mit mondanak, főleg azt amit akarnak, de ha 50 géppől, 15 oldal volt, akkor ott oldalanként 2-5 GB adat volt.A maradék szerverekben nem lehet ennyi adat:)

moon: Mivel az egyik legnagyobb oldalt is elvitték, ahol közel 100 ezer user volt regisztrálva, valamint sok kisebb oldal is elhullott, ezek tudatában kijelenthető, hogy jelentős fogás. Talán az eddigi legnagyobb.

BladeSector: Fogás… Hogy mit, nem tudom. Csak tovább kelti az ellenszenvet és felháborodást az emberekben. Aki eddig megvette, az ezután még annyira sem fogja. Én eddig megvettem, ami tetszett, amire úgy gondoltam megérdemli a szerző.
Ezután inkább gyűjtök új szerverre, hátha elvinnék azt is.

- Ön leállt-e, vagy szünetelteti, vagy külföldre “menekül”?

1st: Az első lehetőség fel sem vetődött bennünk. Jelenleg szüneteltetjük az oldal működését, mialatt kutatjuk a legoptimálisabb körülményeket az újrainduláshoz.

BD: Egyik sem Más domain alatt elindulunk, és a folytatás pontos menetét kidolgozzuk. Vagy szigorítsanak, vagy enyhítsenek, de ez így szélmalomharc….

moon: Külföldi serveren tovább folytatjuk amit elkezdtünk, nem hátrálunk meg. Bár ilyenkor mindig felmerül, hogy bedobjuk a törölközőt, van-e értelme tovább, de még kitartunk.

BladeSector: Mint említettem, 2 hetes átalakítás folyt, de az oldal közösségi (Üzenőfal, Fórum) funkciói működtek.

- Felháborodtak ettől a vehemens támadástól?

1st: Természetesen felháborítónak tartjuk ezt a lépést. Fentebb kifejtettük, hogy egyrészt a trackerszerverek lefoglalása egyáltalán nem volt indokolt, emellett az akció hozadéka egyértelműen ellentétes a vélt jogvédői és hatósági szándékkal.

BD: Felháborodni értelmetlen. Az eljárás sajnos jogszerű volt, hisz az üzemeltetők tudták mi vár rájuk. Mindettől amin felháborodtunk az pont a lényeg amit fent is írtam, hogy a fizetősek, támogatásosok maradtak.

moon: Természetesen! Váratlanul ért mindenkit, minden tracker tulajdonost.

- Üzlet vagy szórakozás, esetleg valamiféle lázadás a fáljcsere?

1st: Az első semmiképp sem; mélységesen elítéljük a nyerészkedő oldalakat, melyek alatt az sms-warez szervereket, illetve az olyan oldalakat értjük, melyek sms-regisztrációval illetve sorozatos átveréssel próbálnak meg pénzt kicsalni a felhasználóktól. Nálunk ugyan volt támogatás opció, de csakis önkéntes alapon fogadtunk el adományt és kizárólag az oldal fenntartására és fejlesztésére költöttünk belőle. Aki úgy gondolja, a torrenttrackerek működtetése aranybánya, az nagyot téved. Aki üzemeltet egy trackert, annak sok esetben inkább ráfizetés ez, mint anyagi haszon. Szórakozás vagy lázadás? Inkább úgy fogalmaznánk, hogy a torrentezés egy szemlélet, mely ötvözi a közösségi szellemet, az „add vissza, amit kaptál” elvét és a letöltés igényét. Egy tracker élete korántsem csak a letöltésről szól. Egy trackeren akkor érzik magukat jól a felhasználók, mikor a fájlcsere lehetősége mellett a fórumon beszélgethetnek, pályázatokon vehetnek részt. Egy minőségi oldal sokkal többet ad, mintsem hogy letöltőhelyként funkcionáljon.

BD: nekem szórakozás,a fizetősöknek üzlet, és mindent bele lehet magyarázni, de lázadásnak semmiféleképpen nem nevezném. Volt egyszer egy ellenzéki képviselő, aki egyszer azt mondta, polgári engedetlenségből, ne fizessünk adót. Ebből kiindulva polgári engedetlenségből, nem akarok több piócát eltartani (főleg hogy magyar zene, film nem volt nálunk….)

moon: Lázadásról nem beszélnék, mert ez nem az. De nyílt titok, hogy vannak olyan oldalak akik hasznot húznak ebből is. SMS-ért támogathatod őket, vagy csak Banki átutalással küldesz nekik pénzt, bizonyos kreditért cserébe. Mi nem használtunk ilyen eszközöket, non-profitban megy a dolog, nincs támogatási lehetőség sem. Számunkra szórakozás az egész, jót tenni másokkal, és a végén látni, olvasni egy köszönömöt! Ezért csináljuk.

BladeSector: Számunkra hobbi, tanulás, a lehetőségek kihasználása, embertársaink segítése, munkánk gyümölcse.

TorrentFreak

A new Internet traffic trends report released by the Canadian broadband management company Sandvine reveals that global P2P traffic is expanding, with BitTorrent as the key player. In North America, more than half of all upstream traffic (53.3%) on an average day can be attributed to P2P. The report further signals some really interesting regional differences in P2P use, such as the dominance of Ares in Latin America.

Technology – The Chronicle of Higher Education

You’ve heard it before: Digital technologies blew up the music industry’s moneymaking model, and the textbook business is next.

For years observers have predicted a coming wave of e-textbooks. But so far it just hasn’t happened. One explanation for the delay is that while music fans were eager to try a new, more portable form of entertainment, students tend to be more conservative when choosing required materials for their studies. For a real disruption in the textbook market, students may have to be forced to change.

That’s exactly what some companies and college leaders are now proposing. They’re saying that e-textbooks should be required reading and that colleges should be the ones charging for them. It is the best way to control skyrocketing costs and may actually save the textbook industry from digital piracy, they claim. Major players like the McGraw-Hill Companies, Pearson, and John Wiley & Sons are getting involved.

To understand what a radical shift that would be, think about the current textbook model. Every professor expects students to have ready access to required texts, but technically, purchasing them is optional. So over the years students have improvised a range of ways to dodge buying a new copy—picking up a used textbook, borrowing a copy from the library, sharing with a roommate, renting one, downloading an illegal version, or simply going without. Publishers collect a fee only when students buy new books, giving the companies a financial impetus to crank out updated editions whether the content needs refreshing or not.

Here’s the new plan: Colleges require students to pay a course-materials fee, which would be used to buy e-books for all of them (whatever text the professor recommends, just as in the old model).

Why electronic copies? Well, they’re far cheaper to produce than printed texts, making a bulk purchase more feasible. By ordering books by the hundreds or thousands, colleges can negotiate a much better rate than students were able to get on their own, even for used books. And publishers could eliminate the used-book market and reduce incentives for students to illegally download copies as well.

Of course those who wanted to read the textbook on paper could print out the electronic version or pay an additional fee to buy an old-fashioned copy—a book.

Some for-profit colleges, including the University of Phoenix, already do something like this, but the practice has been rare on traditional campuses.

An Indiana company called Courseload hopes to make the model more widespread, by serving as a broker for colleges willing to impose the requirement on students. And it is not alone. The upstart publisher Flat World Knowledge recently made a bulk deal with Virginia State University’s business school, and last month the company hired a new salesperson devoted entirely to “institutional sales” of its e-textbooks. And Daytona State College, in Florida, is negotiating with publishers to test a similar arrangement.

The real champions of the change are the college officials signing the deals. They say they felt compelled to act after seeing students drop out because they could not afford textbooks, whose average prices rose 186 percent between 1986 and 2005, and continue to shoot up each year far faster than inflation.

“When students pay more for new textbooks than tuition in a year, then something’s wrong,” says Rand S. Spiwak, executive vice president at Daytona State, who is leading the experiment there. “Our game plan is to bring the cost of textbooks down by 75 to 80 percent.”

Apple reset the sales model for music, with its iPod players and market-leading online store, and the company is likely to try to enter the e-textbook market as well. But watch out, publishers, the change agents for textbooks may just be traditional colleges.

Moving the Tollbooth

Courseload, the e-book broker, started in 2000, when a co-founder, Mickey Levitan, a former Apple employee inspired by the company’s transformative role in the music industry, devised the idea and teamed up with a professor at Indiana University at Bloomington to try it. But the company failed to find enough takers, and it all but shut down after a brief run.

Then last year an official at Indiana, Bradley C. Wheeler, called Mr. Levitan and talked him into trying again.

Mr. Wheeler is part of an effort at the university to bring down textbook costs, and he remembered a conversation he had had with Mr. Levitan about the idea 10 years ago. Back then, Mr. Wheeler was just a professor of business, but now he is also vice president for information technology and able to help try the approach, which he calls “moving the tollbooth” for textbooks.

“Universities are going to have to engage in saying, This is how we want e-textbook models to evolve that are advantageous to our students and our interests,” he told me this month.

For three semesters Indiana has tested Courseload’s system, which brings in content from various publishers and allows annotation and other features. So far the company has persuaded McGraw-Hill, Pearson, and John Wiley to participate. During those first experiments, students were not charged, and the university and Courseload paid for the e-textbooks. But Mr. Wheeler said that in the spring the university would try at least one pilot where students would pay a mandatory fee for the e-textbooks, which he expected to be about $35 per course in most cases.

Company and university officials gingerly approached two key groups early on: students and state legislators. Mr. Wheeler said student-government officials he talked to were supportive. Mr. Levitan said that the legislators generally opposed new fees, but sympathized with the project’s goal of reducing overall costs to students and said they would not oppose it.

Mr. Levitan said the company was running tests at a handful of colleges, though he declined to name them.

The Virginia Pilot

Mirta Martin, dean of Virginia State’s business school, speaks passionately about her reasons for taking part in the experiment with Flat World, which makes e-textbooks standard in eight courses this fall.

“For our accounting books senior year, there’s nothing under $250,” she told me this summer. “What the students were saying is, We don’t have the money to purchase these books.”

Last year Ms. Martin became so frustrated over hearing stories about students who were performing poorly because they could not afford textbooks that she pledged that no needy student would go without a book. At first she asked community leaders and others to donate to a fund to pay for the books of students who sought financial help. Last year that project bought $4,000 worth of books for students.

But Ms. Martin felt that the philanthropic model was not sustainable, so she began reaching out to publishers to see if the institution could get some sort of bulk rate that would allow it to pay for textbooks for all students.

In its standard model, Flat World offers free access to its textbooks while students are online. If students want to download a copy to their own computers, they must pay $24.95 for a PDF (a print edition costs about $30). But the publisher offered the Virginia State business school a bulk rate of $20 per student per course, and it will allow students at the school to download not only the digital copies but also the study guide, an audio version, or an iPad edition (a bundle that would typically cost about $100).

Tricky issues remain, though. What if a professor wrote the textbook assigned for his or her class? Is it ethical to force students to buy it, even at a reduced rate? And what if students feel they are better off on their own, where they have the option of sharing or borrowing a book at no cost?

Proponents of the new model argue that in time policies can be developed and prices can be driven low enough to win widespread support.

If so, more changes are bound to follow. In music, the Internet reduced album sales as more people bought only the individual songs they wanted. For textbooks, that may mean letting students (or brokers at colleges) buy only the chapters they want. Or only supplementary materials like instructional videos and interactive homework problems, all delivered online.

And that really would be the end of the textbook as we know it.

WSJ.com

ABC, CBS and NBC are blocking TV programming on their websites from being viewable on Google Inc.’s new Web-TV service, exposing the rift that remains between the technology giant and some of the media companies it wants to supply content for its new products.

Epicenter | Wired.com

Blockbuster files for Chapter 11 protection | Business | The Guardian

The loss-making DVD rental chain Blockbuster filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the US today, after being hammered by mail-order and online film rental services.

EXCESS COPYRIGHT: Some Thoughts on the Google Book Settlement Hearing of February 18, 2010

1. Is this an appropriate use of the class action process, especially in view of the many prestigious groups, corporations and individuals who have objected to the ASA? In other words, to what extent does the class involved adequately represent affected authors and publishers, not to mention countless other stakeholders, including librarians and scholars?

2. Can a class action settlement go well beyond the original pleadings and, effectively, change the law both for the past and for the future in a way that would otherwise be impossible at this point in time if it were to be attempted in Congress and/or through a treaty?

3. Given the extraordinary complexity of the settlement documentation and the relatively short notice period, can affected authors, publishers and other stakeholders realistically come to informed conclusions?

4. Is it appropriate to use class action litigation to arguably transform the normally “exclusive rights” basis of copyright law, which requires explicit permission, into an opt-out regime, where permission will be given unless specifically refused in writing? The deadline for total “opting out” was January 28, 2010. Google argues that even those who didn’t opt out by January 28, 2010 will have plenty of opportunities to exercise control over their works down the line for many purposes – but this will still require further “opt out” or other action.

5. Would the Settlement, if approved, put the United States into contravention of international law with respect to such basic concepts as those of national treatment, mandatory exclusive rights, and the three step test? None other than the Hon. Marybeth Peters, U.S. Register of Copyrights raised the national treatment issue in her testimony to the House Judiciary Committee.

6. What will be the antitrust implications of the ASA, given the dominant or monopoly position that Google will have with respect to several markets that it is creating by virtue of this Settlement, i.e. access to orphan works, and, above all the sole portal to search engine access to the database of tens of millions of books (the great “Library to Last Forever”, as Sergey Brin himself calls it)?

7. What are the implications of views such as this by prominent US IP antitrust lawyer Gary Reback?

8. What are the extraterritorial implications of this agreement, which requires authors of books published in Australia, Canada (including French language books) and the UK (the “foreign publishing countries”) to have opted out by January 28, 2010 or be bound by it? It also covers books published in these countries, even for the countless authors who are not citizens or residents of these foreign publishing countries or the USA. Unlike United States works, there is no requirement for the foreign works to have been registered in the US Copyright Office. Given the practice of simultaneous or near simultaneous publication of countless English language books in the foreign publishing countries, Google will acquire an enormous number of books in their database that would not fit into the necessarily tighter definition of a US work, which requires publication and registration in the USA. Moreover, many French books published in Quebec but originating from anywhere in the world including France would be included.

9. What about the countless past agreements signed between authors and publishers that were silent or at best ambiguous about electronic rights?

10. What about the privacy rights of potential users?

Here are some Canadian-focussed questions, which Judge Chin will not likely answer but others may eventually have to face:

1. Why has the Government of Canada apparently been uninvolved and uninterested in the GBS? There has been no public consultation that I am aware of. France and Germany have become engaged at the official level. On the other hand, Canadian officials who would normally be involved in an issue such as this haven’t been.

2. Where are the several prominent Canadian trade associations and collectives that should have provided some useful specific advice and potentially some representation for Canadian authors, publishers, librarians etc. on these issues?

3. What are the implications of the Google Partner Program, which appears to allow publishers to feed into Google’s database for very extended access the books of many authors, who may have been and still may be unaware of the Program?

4. Why is this shaping up to be a battle between scholarly and other individual authors. ranging from the most obscure to J. K. Rowling herself on the one hand and big corporate publishers on the other? I note that the Canadian Publishers’ Council and the Association of Canadian Publishers (which together represent the big multinational and major Canadian publishers) are recommending approval of the Settlement at the same time that they attempting to intervene to fight “flexible fair dealing” and push back on the CCH v. LSUC decision in the Access Copyright K-12 case currently before the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal. On the other hand, many independent Canadian authors and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (“CAUT”) are opposing the GBS. Naturally, the database will be far more important for innovation and research purposes with respect to scholarly works than, for example, light romance novels (no offence to the fan fiction crowd).

5. Although vast numbers of Canadian published books by thousands of Canadian authors will be drawn into this settlement, most of the bells and whistles of the Google Books database will presumably not be available in Canada with respect to most of the database. This is because Google is necessarily putting up something of a firewall around this database since, even though there may be some extraterritorial aspects to the settlement, the Settlement not surprisingly purports not to affect activities implicating copyright rights in foreign countries outside of the USA.

6. Canadians may wish to read, if nothing else, the submissions of Google itself and the US Department of Justice (which supports the basic goals of the ASA but reiterates that it is still “a bridge too far” and should not be approved as is). Canadians will also want to read the few but important submissions from Canada. As well, there are “must read” submissions from Pam Samuelson and many notable advocacy groups on all sides, and corporate interests, including Microsoft and AT&T.

The last few weeks were busy. I had many media appearances partly because of the p2p study, partly because of the interest generated by these appearances.

On the recently released p2p study:

• Nem ölik meg a mozikat a filmkalózok [origo] Techbázis 2010. 02. 04.
• Nem zavarják a letöltők a moziforgalmat – kaloz.blog.hu
• „A világhálós kalózokban is van betyárbecsület” – interview in HVG, 2010/6

On other issues in the media:

• Parázs vita az egyetemista blogján – RTL Klub Híradó, 2010. 02. 14.
• Mi lesz a nyomtatott sajtóval? – Magyar Rádió, Magánhangzó, 2010. 02. 16.