P2PNet

p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Marie Lindor is a New York home health worker whose knowledge of computers is zero.

And yet, she was accused by Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA of being a massive online distributor of copyrighted music.

After relentlessly harassing and hectoring her through the New York civil court system, the Big 4 extortion unit decided it couldn’t wring any more out of the case or Lindor and demanded a voluntary dismissal without prejudice.

In short, it let the RIAA out from under, but left Lindor still on the hook, wondering if and when the RIAA would once again loom up.

But Lindor’s lawyer, Ray Beckerman, in Recording Industry vs The People, isn’t having it.

“Now that the time has come to pay the piper, they seek to scurry away,” he says, going on in a court document that to dismiss a “heavily litigated three year old case” without prejudice, “would be absurd”.

He continues >>>

Due to the incomplete nature of plaintiffs’ pre-litigation “investigations”, which admittedly do not point to the individual who may have committed a copyright infringement (see testimony of plaintiffs’ expert annexed hereto as exhibit A), but merely to a person who paid the bill for an internet access account, there are, as one might anticipate, a huge percentage of false positives.

To permit dismissal without prejudice would be to bless the plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to diligently investigate prior to commencement of lawsuits.

There is an evolving body of law to the effect that where the plaintiffs “throw in the towel” in a copyright infringement case, the defendant is presumptively entitled to an award of attorneys fees under 17 USC § 505. Mostly Memories, Inc. v. For Your Ease Only, Inc., 526 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. May 27, 2008); Riviera Distributors, Inc. v. Jones, 517 F.3d 9026 (7th Cir. February 20, 2008). This issue is presently being litigated in the Second Circuit in the appeal that is pending in Lava Records LLC v. Amurao, 07-cv-321 (CLB)(USDC SDNY), where these same plaintiffs and/or their affiliates voluntarily dismissed their claim, and sought to do so “without prejudice” in order to avoid an attorneys fee award.

In several cases where these same plaintiffs and/or their affiliates “threw in the towel”, they have been assessed with counsel fees, despite mighty efforts in both cases, not unlike the effort being made in this case2, to blame the defendant, rather than themselves, for having sued an innocent party.

In Capitol Records, Inc. v. Foster, 04-CV-1569 (W.D. Oklahoma)(Unpublished decisions dated February 6, 2007, April 23, 2007, and July 16, 2007, collectively annexed hereto as exhibit B) , after a voluntary dismissal, they were held liable for $68,685.23 in attorneys fees, and in Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Andersen 05-CV-933 AS (D. Oregon) (2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48357, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4877, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3460, and unpublished decision of Magistrate Judge September 21, 2007, collectively annexed hereto as exhibit C), again after a voluntary dismissal, they were assessed $107,834.00.

The words of Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas in Andersen resonate here: “[W]hen plaintiffs dismissed their claims in June 2007, they apparently had no more material evidence to support their claims than they did when they first contacted defendant in February 2005….”, as do the words of District Judge West in Foster: ” ‘[N]either the parties’ submissions nor the Court’s own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons….”

In order to attempt an end run around their obvious liability for attorneys fees, plaintiffs attempt to blame Ms. Lindor and the undersigned for the fact that they have sued an innocent person. However, their argument is lacking in logic. Here are just a few of the reasons:

1. They submitted their letter based upon a deposition without a transcript. At the time of plaintiffs’ letter, neither defendant nor the deposition witness had been furnished with a transcript. Clearly the witness was entitled to see her transcript, and to review it, and the defendant’s counsel was entitled to review it, before rather than after an application based upon it had been made. To this day we have not seen a signed transcript from the witness.

2. There is nothing in the transcript which implicates defendant (or anyone else) in copyright infringement.

3. It is plaintiffs’, not defendant’s, fault that plaintiffs chose to depose this witness on the eve of the close of discovery, rather than years earlier. Defendant has never done anything to impede plaintiffs’ discovery; all the impeding in this case has come from plaintiffs in response to defendant’s discovery requests. When the undersigned entered into this case in early 2006, we immediately made defendant available for her deposition and made the hard drive available for imaging. In fact, when plaintiffs indicated that they wanted to take the depositions of Ms. Lindor’s son Woody Raymond and Ms. Lindor’s daughter Kathleen Raymond available for deposition, Ms. Lindor asked them to appear for their depositions voluntarily, without a subpoena, which they did, in Summer 2006. All discovery plaintiffs had requested of defendant was completed in the Summer of 2006. The 2006 deposition testimony identified Yannick Raymond-Wright, and if plaintiffs wished to take her deposition they had two years to do so. 4. The averments that plaintiffs were ‘deceived’ by defendant are completely unsupported and unsupportable, and find no support in the record. In the unlikely event that plaintiffs can point to a discrepancy between something Ms. Lindor said at her deposition and something Ms. Raymond said at her deposition, that could mean many things, including (a) Ms. Raymond-Wright’s being mistaken, (b) Ms. Lindor’s being mistaken, (c) Ms. Raymond-Wright knowing something that Ms. Lindor – who testified that she is out of the house 12 hours a day 6 days a week and who testified that she knows nothing about computers – did not know. And in the unlikely event that there were a factual controversy, and it actually bore upon a material fact, Ms. Lindor would be entitled to a jury trial and to her day in court. Plaintiffs cannot deprive her of that by deciding whom they would want to believe.

5. There is nothing anywhere in the record to suggest that Ms. Raymond-Wright committed any copyright infringement.

6. If Ms. Raymond-Wright had committed the copyright infringement, there is nothing anywhere in the record suggesting that Ms. Lindor would have been liable for it.

7. The statement by Mr. Reynolds that defendant attempted to “impede discovery at every step” is a complete and total fabrication. The only “bitter discovery disputes” in which defendant has been involved have been the plaintiffs’ repeated refusals to respond to her discovery requests. She had completely and fully responded to all of plaintiffs’s discovery requests by the Summer of 2006.

While the letter contains too many ludicrous and baseless statements to which to respond in this limited space, such as reference to an article in “Red Herring” magazine, and plaintiffs’ inability to make service on some of defendant’s relatives, these statements serve to underscore the baselessness of plaintiffs’ application.

Additionally, the motion would be technically deficient since, as a dispositive motion, it is supposed to be made before the District Judge, not the Magistrate Judge. And as a discovery motion it would be technically deficient as well, since — far from following a “meet and confer” — it came from out of the blue. When counsel realized their omission a Mr. Reynolds (not Ms. Burton) called me up and indicated he’d already written and was about to file a motion.

To the best of my recollection, he filed it about an hour later. Needless to say, a perfunctory call of that nature would not constitute the good faith attempt to resolve discovery related disputes that the rules contemplate.

Although plaintiffs say they seek “discovery sanctions” against the undersigned personally, they do not say (a) what that means, (b) what the undersigned did that he should not have done that would warrant “discovery sanctions”, or (c) what the undersigned did not do that he ought to have done that would warrant “discovery” sanctions.

We have been telling plaintiffs all along that the defendant is innocent of any infringement. Unmindful of their duties as officers of the Court, they nevertheless persisted. Now that the time has come to pay the piper, they seek to scurry away, rather than face the music. Justice requires that they be held accountable. Plaintiffs’ contemplated motion is entirely without merit, and would in any event need to be made before the District Judge.

Stay tuned.

. .Stumble It!

harassing and hectoring - RIAA caves in over Lindor case, June 18, 2008
Recording Industry vs The People - Ms. Lindor opposes RIAA attempt to voluntarily dismiss “without prejudice”, July 4, 2008

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

RIAA tries to weasel out of Lindor case

p2pnet news | Celebrities:- Ashley Alexandra Dupre, the online call girl in the sex scandal featuring ex-New York governor Eliot Spitzer, has dropped her $10 million lawsuit against Girls Gone Wild creator Joe Francis.

Dupre claimed Francis’ company, “induced her into exposing her breasts while being filmed” when she was only 17.

Now, her lawyer says Dupre, “wants to eliminate all negativity from her life and focus on the positive,” says Access Hollywood.

She, “also alleged that she was tricked into signing the consent form for the company,” says CelebrityCafe, adding:

“Francis was able to produce videotaped evidence that Dupre did indeed know what she was signing.

“As a result, Dupre has dropped the suit, saying she wants to focus on the ‘exciting new projects’ that await her.”

. .Stumble It!

$10 million lawsuit - Ashley Alexandra Dupre vs Girls Gone Wild, April 30, 2008
Access Hollywood - Ashley Dupre Drops ‘Girls Gone Wild’ Lawsuit, July 3, 2008
CelebrityCafe - Ashley Dupre Drops Lawsuit Against Joe Francis, July 3, 2008

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

Ashley Dupre drops Girls Gone Wild lawsuit

p2pnet news view | Freedom:- The publicity surrounding Bill Gates’ departure from Microsoft should not obscure the fact that he is still deeply involved in the company he founded in 1975.

Steve Ballmer, Ray Ozzie and Craig Mundie may now be in charge, but they were chosen by Gates, worked with Gates and are still answerable to Gates. After all he remains company chairman and a major shareholder, and he will be working as an ‘advisor’ on special projects.

Gates also played a major part in setting Microsoft’s strategy for the next few years, as it continues to try to figure out how to convert its enormously profitable operating system and office software business into something that can generate money as we all move applications online and look for stripped-down, secure and reliable operating systems on our desktops, laptops and handheld computers

So it isn’t quite the end of an era, even if less of his time and concern will be spent on Microsoft matters as he makes the transition to being a global philanthropist through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

As a programmer, trainer, web developer and writer my professional life has certainly been shaped by Bill Gates and the choices he made for Microsoft, right back to 1985 when we used the Multiplan spreadsheet for the accounts at Bensasson and Chalmers, the software house in Cambridge where I had my first programming job.

I remember seeing Windows 1.0 for the first time running on Apricot hardware at Anglia Business Computers and thinking it was a lot less useful than GEM, the earlier graphical environment from Microsoft’s one-time rivals Digital Research, and a lot less flexible than the Macintosh Finder.

But even back then Microsoft knew how to learn from mistakes and improve a product release by release until it did what was needed.

Throughout the 80’s and 90’s I kept up with the new releases of Windows and Office, partly because I felt I needed to understand them and partly because everyone else was doing the same.

Once Internet Explorer became the dominant web browser then anyone working on the web had to take account of its many peculiarities, non-standard extensions and broken features, with all the pain of trying to make sites work on multiple incompatible browsers.

But things have changed. Microsoft’s presence in the mobile world, IPTV and gaming remains important, as are many of the technologies coming out of its research labs, but what Microsoft does or doesn’t do is now less central to the continued development of the networked world.

The clearest example is Vista, the latest version of Windows and the release that was supposed to change the world.

It may be more secure and more stable than Windows XP but the many differences between Vista and its predecessor, especially systems administration, have created a massive barrier to upgrading. My sister bought a new home computer with Vista pre-installed and has regretted not specifying XP ever since.

A few friends work in companies that use Vista, but the majority have not yet upgraded, and when I installed Windows on my desktop Mac this weekend I chose an old XP license because I don’t need the features that Vista offers.

Yet when Windows 95 was released I queued up to buy a copy from PC World, knowing that an understanding of the operating system was vital for my work as a consultant, commentator and critic of technology.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s IBM dominated the computing industry and their moves were observed by those working in the field with the sort of attention that the US State Department devoted to the Kremlin. The world that Microsoft helped create on the back of IBM’s own personal computer architecture gradually eroded its importance, and even though IBM is large and profitable its strategy no longer shapes the computing industry.

Now the same thing is happening to Microsoft.

When the EU fined them £680m over their anti-competitive practices the general feeling within the industry was one of schadenfreude, taking pleasure in seeing a bully laid low. Few thought there was any need for the EU to change the way Microsoft worked because it no longer mattered in the way it had done back in 2000.

It’s easy to see Google as the new monarch, and any software developers with a good idea for a new tool, service, program or utility must now be wondering how they will compete with Google in the way that companies developing disk utilities and office systems wondered about Microsoft back in the 1980’s.

But just asking ‘what would Google do’ is no longer enough. When IBM and Microsoft were dominant the computing industry was just that, an industry that stood slightly apart from other parts of the economy and was, because of the rate of technology innovation, relatively unregulated compared to more mature sectors like cars or steelmaking.

Like Mikhail Gorbachev using his power as head of state to dismantle the Soviet Union, Gates used Microsoft to give us one computer on every desk – in offices and schools if not yet at home - and allow the internet to penetrate every one of them. Windows may not have been the best possible operating system, but it was good enough to build on, usable enough to show us the possibilities of networked computing, and cheap enough (or easily pirated enough) to spread even to developing countries.

Now we have a global networked economy in which information and communications technologies are central to all areas of activity and cannot simply be separated out or left unregulated. Microsoft may no longer be dominant, but not even Google can rule the world that Gates has built.

I wonder if that will be enough for him?

Bill Thompson - andfinally.com
[Thompson is a UK-based writer and broadcaster. He has a weekly column on the BBC WebWise site, and contributes both on and off-line to The Guardian, The Register and The New Statesman, among others. His “inappropriately-titled ‘billblog’ “appears weekly on BBC News Online in the technology news section.]

. .Stumble It!

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

Bill Gates: Not gone, not forgotten

p2pnet news Music | P2P:- You know how Virgin Media sent a nasty letter to 800 customers?

And then had to back down?

It was egged on by Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s BPI (British Phornographic Industry).

Virgin claimed the letters were part of an “educational” campaign staged (word used advisedly) in association with the BPI.

“Important,” warned a label on the Virgin letter. “If you don’t read this, your broadband could be disconnected.”

Now Virgin is blaming an “administrative oversight” for the warning labels that appeared on the letters, says The Telegraph.

Apparently, “the wrong stickers had appeared on the envelopes, and that the company had no intention of cutting off users,” says the story.

But it doesn’t explain what the correct ones should have been, or who, or what, the ‘or else’ stickers were really meant for.

“This is about education,” said a Virgin mouthperson sternly.

“We make no assumptions about who is at fault.”

Riiiight.

Meanwhile, “This latest debacle comes after Virgin Media were reprimanded again by the Advertising Standards Authority for misleading broadband adverts,” notes Bassheadtech.com, adding:

“BT made the complaint after Virgin Media claimed users on its medium broadband package could download a TV episode in less than 26 minutes, which didn’t take into account the speed cap that kicks in after 300Mb on the 2Mbit service.”

Stay tuned.

. .Stumble It!

nasty letter - Virgin goes after UK P2P file sharers, July 3, 2008
back down - Virgin shies away from anti-P2P threats, July 4. 2008
The Telegraph - Virgin Media blames ‘administrative oversight’ for threats on warning letters, Jul;y 4, 2008
Bassheadtech.com - Virgin Media: what is your policy again?, July 3, 2008

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

Virgin blames threat label on admin error

p2pnet news | Mobiles:- Apple has made a 30-minute feature starring the iPhone 3G.

It doesn’t, as yet, have a title.

I, Phone, maybe?

IDG News Service’s Matt Hamblen loves it and so, by implication, does the New York Times, which is also running it, crediting Computerworld.

Actually, it’s not really a movie. It’s a long, drawn-out puff piece with Bob Borchers who’s “not a professional actor, as many have thought,” in the supporting role.

He’s not, though, a thespian. Rather, he’s the senior director of the Apple iPhone product line.

Wonder if he’s also a member of the actors’ union?

Anyway, “Analysts said the video is unusual in smart phone marketing,” Hamblen raves, going on >>>

It is also distinctive because, at 30 minutes, it is lengthy and intimate, with a narrator talking directly at the audience, with up-close demonstrations of how an application works.

Many other cell phone makers and cell phone carriers have elaborate marketing campaigns and offer users the ability to hold and try out phones in their stores before making a purchase, but the video shows how far Apple is willing to go, analysts said.

But we already know how far Apple is willing to go.

To any lengths.

Interestingly the piece isn’t being run under ‘advertising’ or ‘marketing’.

Instead, it’s presented under ‘technology’

. .Stumble It!

New York Times - Apple’s Video of iPhone 3G Shows Its Marketing Prowess, July 2, 2008

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

iPhone 3G: The Movie

p2pnet news Music | P2P:- Don’t Humiliate Yourself Complaining to The Pirate Bay, said a TorrentFreak headline in June.

“The ‘legal threats’ section of The Pirate Bay is where record labels, movie companies, software house and general anti-pirates have their complaints posted after the staff on the site have ridiculed them,” said enigmax, going on >>>

A new set of complaints has appeared in the last few days - some of the most cringe-worthy ever.

When organizations and companies don’t like it that their material - be it music, movies, games or software - are indexed by a torrent site, very often they will contact the site in question and demand that the relevant .torrent files are removed. A lot of sites will remove the files but a few refuse.

Most people know that The Pirate Bay doesn’t like to remove torrents at the copyright holders request, in fact they claim they have never removed any. Instead, when a copyright holder enters into dialogue with the staff, instead of removing the files in question the site posts the discussions up in the ‘Legal Threats’ section. Most of the discussions are entertaining to a degree, with some even extending to personal insults.

However, during the last few days, another copyright complaint and subsequent discussion has been posted and although many might find it funny, personally I found it quite embarrassing raising the question: Should copyright holders just keep their complaints to themselves to maintain some dignity - at least where The Pirate Bay is concerned?

The complaint comes from Ian Morrow at UK based label Gr8pop Ltd, representing American vocalist Indiana Gregg.”

Morrow wanted a .torrent linking to Gregg’s ‘Woman At Work’ album taken down but, “the request was worded in an unfortunate way which appeared to betray a lack of legal understanding,” said TorrentFreak, going on to quote the section in question, and TPB’s (in the shape of Peter Sunde’s (right) response to it.

“We request that you have the file removed immediately as this is legal copyright and has not been authorised to be released as an illegal download,” said Morrow.

In answer, “Is it possible to authorise something to be an illegal download?” - asked Sunde, going on, “That would be a legal download if it would be authorised now, wouldn’t it. Also, i’ve never heard of ‘legal copyright’ (nor illegal copyright for that matter). I think you need to re-check your intentions of the e-mail and try again. We do not respond to messages that do not make 100% perfect sense. You’re confused.”

‘You’re a hoot, that’s what you are : )’

Things quickly degenerated into a fierce slinging match between Sunde and Morrow.

Morrow claimed, “people sharing the album his company is almost bankrupt (along with him personally) and Indiana herself - despite her current position of No.1 in the MySpace charts and the 4th most viewed artist on YouTube,” said enigmax in TorrentFreak, going on, ” The inevitable response from Peter is what we have to come to expect, and that was >>>

You’re a hoot, that’s what you are I want to hug you in a non-sexual way and tell you that you make my heart burst of joy and cuddle up like a cute little cookie monster and ask for more milk … and btw, to be in a business you have very little knowledge on what you’re doing. I would actually see you as a retard, but it’s hard when you’re so cuddly and manly! I wish I was just 20 years older and a girl … oh my..

The post continued:

“Undeterred and armed with a shaky understanding of the scope of the law she’s trying to enforce, Indiana writes to Peter with a fairly detailed explanation of a torrent site’s obligations under the DMCA, but makes the same mistake as so many others. The DMCA is a US law and The Pirate Bay is not in the United States, leaving herself wide open for further ridicule.

“Indiana goes on to explain that she’s actually a millionaire after all, contradicting Ian’s earlier bankruptcy comments which were clearly designed to tug on Peter’s heart strings. Unfortunately when it comes to copyright, Peter’s heart is made of stone.”

You can read the exchanges here, here, here and here.

‘Am I a millionaire because I have millions of ants in my garden?’

Meanwhile, says enigmax in a second TorrentFreak post, Gregg decided to step up on her own behalf, at length, and in detail, stating:

“I felt misrepresented in the first article and obviously, my attempt at humor by stating I’m a ‘millionaire’ wasn’t appropriately quantified.

“Am I a millionaire because I have millions of ants in my garden? Is it because I have had millions of people listen to my music on sites like MySpace or YouTube? Is it because I’m grateful to be healthy?

“How people quantify ‘richness’ in their lives depends on how people perceive value. And, yes, I’m guilty of fueling Peter Sunde’s fire and animosity. I can image it’s not easy in his position just now considering the amount of angry artistic people who are fronting against his cause. I’m sure he has his core values that he wants to defend … I have mine … and I’m not afraid to speak about them … for the sake of music … and the common good.

In The Pirate Bay: The Sinking Ship - My Response,  she goes on >>>

The Wild West of the Internet seems to be getting seriously out of hand and i’ve been wondering if and when the Internet Police will come and sort it all out. I mean … this is the new Wild West …

We’ve all heard and read every form of complaint about the Internet. From cyber-bullying, to child pornography sites, to copyright theft in the form of ‘file-sharing’.

Imagine … .What if the Internet had ‘frontiers’. Why can we go all over the world on the Internet without a passport? Why are cybernauts allowed to steal goods from the store ’shelves’ and ’shop windows’ and justify it as ’sharing’? Since the birth of the Internet, people have been hacking software, stealing music, books, films, television shows, credit card numbers, eBay accounts, IP addresses … you name it, if it’s out there and can be downloaded, it’s being virtually stolen from under your nose.

So, why is this Wild West so hard to monitor? Why are people up in arms and waiving their guns wildly … … Are these new pirate ships sharing other people’s goods for gold? Of course they are … yes, I’m speaking about the torrent sites … and all the other sites who are making money on other people’s back …

Is the Internet really that much ‘bigger’ than the ‘real’ world? I think not. I believe that in the near future, we will all be using our Internet passports. If the government can do it in the real world, what’s stopping them from monitoring this new ‘Wild West’ phenomenon of the Internet in every town, city, state and country. I mean … Don’t we have just as much right as citizens to be protected on the Internet as we would be anywhere else? And really, the only people who would disagree with this idea are people who either are engaging in illegal activity or people who claim ‘civil liberty and freedom of speech’ on the Internet, but remember guys, those freedoms are only good until you begin to harm other people.

You don’t have freedom to shout from the rooftops at 3am outside your neighbor’s house … . and it’s certainly not your civil right to steal from your local baker and share his cream puffs outside his shop window … either, is it? Allow me to explain.

Let’s take one of the major forces on the Internet for example. Let’s look at all of the big music content sites (such as MySpace, Yahoo Music, etc) who seem to be huge driving swarms of traffic on the Internet. When you see the amount of advertisements per page and click, you know you can almost hear the ‘kerching’. These sites are like interstate junctions at rush hour (24 hours a day) so to speak. Torrents are no different … . Kerching kerching … They are giving away things like films, music, tv programs, software … . If it can be downloaded, it can be found … for free …

Thousands upon thousands of websites, sharing sites, and torrent sites exist. These websites are making a constant steady flow of income by using other people’s goods … they are pointing people to the goods (music) for free and selling masses of advertisement because people come to ‘leech’ the goods … these sites are basically allowing people to steal and destroy the music industry (which is in fact like shooting themselves in their own foot). The sites themselves claim to be ‘legal’. It is the user’s responsibility not to share copyrighted files.

So, you’d be silly to think that the Internet police are not planning on coming. How easy would it be to simply find all these people who are illegally ’sharing’ and slap a lawsuit on them. They can do that with a virtual push of a button. How hard do you think it will be for the ISP’s to hand over your Internet passport over to the new frontier police? They can see how much you’ve ’shared’ and potentially fine every single torrent user. I bet the torrent sites wouldn’t like that very much. Suddenly all their users would disappear.

Last year, in an article on Sky News, I read that a woman received a massive fine for file sharing on the KaZaA network. I thought, great! The police are coming.Then my husband sent me a link to another article titled “Should You Pay For Music?” I instantly thought … .eh? Has the world gone mad? It’s like saying “Should you pay for petrol?” or “Should you pay for bread?” Hey, maybe I was being too ‘traditional’? I guess you could compare it to you, yourself, working all week long. You go to the bank and cash your check, and the banker takes your money without putting it into your account.

But, it’s much deeper than this. Whether or not the public is offered music for free or at a cost is not the real issue. The real problem lies in the fact that ’share’ sites are making money by pointing to other people’s copyrighted content … The end user gets it for free … the torrents make money … . And the musicians and artists?? Well, they get to live off of ‘fresh air’. Put simply, musicians will not be able to exist financially in order to create music if income streams are cut off (whether or not a record label comes to play).

And this is exactly what is happening.

As a musician and an independent record-label, I see my livelihood being sucked away every day through file-sharing and torrent sites which are allowing copyright material to flow in and out of their sites. All they have to do is claim that it’s the responsibility of the user to make sure the content they are sharing is not copyright protected material. Last year, in a period of two weeks, we tracked and found over 100,000 leechers of my album alone. Since then, we’ve found about 150,000 more, of which I, the artist, who put my heart and soul, time and sweat into an album and raising money to market that album, haven’t received a dime, not one red cent. Full torrent files of a complete album! Since it’s so easy to ’share’ the music …

In the real world, if everyone walked into HMV and took as many albums as they like … and said they were ’sharing’ … errr … shoplifting? I really don’t see how people think they can give music or any other form of media for ‘free’ without it hurting the livelihoods of musicians. Sharing of copyright protected material is 100% illegal. However, since it’s not being regulated, it’s as if all of us musicians have just left the shop door open so that anybody can lift our guitars and gear out on the street and drive off with it. Isn’t that what’s happening? If you can’t make a dime from that album you just spent all your money, time and effort on because everyone is ’sharing’ it, then how are you going to buy your guitar strings, pay your landlord, or eat? You’ll be selling your gear soon and asking the boss for overtime. Right?

Torrent sites are claiming that they are creating ‘free promotion’ for musicians … . that’s right.. they claim that by giving all these people the opportunity to “share” the music, they are doing all of us musicians a big huge favor. In fact, they think that musician’s, songwriters, sound engineers, mastering companies, etc … should all live on ‘pure fresh air’. They blatantly state that they think it should be enough for a musician to make music out of their ‘passion’ for music … and well, since it’s ‘art’ it shouldn’t have a price … .. er, ok … .. maybe we should go and see if Fender will start giving away free guitars? Free gear for everybody!!! Yipppeee … . Free strings, free amplifiers, free microphones and drum kits … … awww … how novel.

Here’s another funny one … the torrent site’s answer to how musicians are supposed to earn a living is: .. well, musician’s will just need to go out and gig some more in order to make a living. Maybe the band can sell a few more T-shirts, etc. etc. They rationalize stealing by stating that they go to gigs and buy tickets … (or that they plan to do so if ever their favorite band can finally afford to come and do a tour in their country). They claim that by allowing sharing, they are ‘leveling the playing field’.

Well, torrent sites are absolutely NOT leveling the playing field. They are just moving the field and reaping the benefits due to a temporary loophole in the law. I’ll bet that when all their users get slapped a fine for ’sharing’ in their respective countries the torrent sites won’t be there to support them. I doubt that they are planning to send all their users a bunch of ‘gold’ off of their pirate ship. So far, there have only been a few ‘examples’ made with users being slapped heavy fines. I have a hunch that this will CHANGE.

Aww, now there’s a word “CHANGE”.

Well, let’s talk about CHANGE for a moment. The torrent people even go as far as to quote Charles Darwin in an effort to justify theft:

“In nature, it’s not the strongest nor the most intelligent who survives. It’s the most adaptable to change.” (a quote from a torrent fanatic referring to Darwins theory).

Hmmm … … … ..well, I assume that the torrent sites are planning to be adaptable pretty soon then, considering the number of pending lawsuits from pretty strong and intelligent companies who have not only proven their adaptability to change, but have changed the world as we know it (companies like Microsoft, for example).

Please - spare us this kind of rhetoric guys. With the likes of Microsoft, Prince, and the IFPI going after you, any outsider might begin to wonder when YOU plan to adapt to ‘change’. It’s becoming evident that your business model is a sinking ship. Pretty soon, your users will be slapped with fines and more big companies will be slapping on lawsuits. Why not just sink your ship yourselves..eh? That’s really what you’re doing.. Your resistance to ‘change’ is in complete conflict with your very survival … Oh the irony. “Let’s have all our users quote Darwin”.

“Sharing is caring”, so they say. Torrent sites are promoting the idea that if people are taking the time to ’share’ other peoples copyright material it means they care. So, what’s stopping the torrent pirates from ’sharing’ the revenue from the advertising on their sites? Funny how it’s ok for musicians to live off of ‘fresh air’ but these pirates are meanwhile filling their boat with loot on the backs of other people’s hard work. Let’s see how adaptable to ‘change’ they decide to become … and put their Darwin theory where their mouth is … .

Free promotion? Basically, torrents are promoting music that has ‘already been promoted’, so it’s not ‘free promotion’. There will be a small percentage of people who go through the millions of songs that are being seeded and perhaps discover something new because they searched for something they had already heard about. So, torrents are not only ‘moving’ the playing field, they are, in reality, making the playing field so un-even that bands are going to be the new “Sysiphus’s” trying to roll a ball uphill for eternity - although the sites would like to fool us all into believing otherwise.

Stay tuned.

. .Stumble It!

TorrentFreak - Don’t Humiliate Yourself Complaining to The Pirate Bay, June 25, 2008
TorrentFreak - Indiana Gregg to The Pirate Bay: The Internet Police Are Coming, July 4. 2008

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

Indiana Gregg versus The Pirate Bay

p2pnet headline roundups | Last of the day

Did Paramount Do Enough To Protect Kids In Kite Runner? - IMDB

Paramount Pictures is being criticized for the way it has dealt with the Afghan children who appeared in director Marc Forster’s critically praised film The Kite Runner. Although the studio located four of the young actors and their families or guardians to Dubai for their safety before the movie was released, at least one, 12-year-old Zekeria Ebrahimi, who stars in the film, has been forced to return but has become the target of gangs who say that the film denigrates the Afghan culture, according to a report broadcast Wednesday by National Public Radio.

>>>

Internet addressing agency loses its own addresses - Associated Press

This doesn’t sound good: The nonprofit agency in charge of the Internet’s addresses recently lost track of its own. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, said it happened when an Internet registration company it oversees got fooled into transferring the domain names to someone else. The attack was quickly noticed, and ICANN’s domain names were restored within 20 minutes. However, because many Internet directories retain information for a day or two, visitors could have been redirected to an unauthorized site for longer.

>>>

Google faces ‘Street View block’ - BBC

Google’s plans to launch a mapping tool in the UK could be referred to the Information Commissioner. Street View matches photos of locations to maps, including passers-by who were captured as the photograph was taken. Privacy International, a UK rights group, believes the technology breaks data protection laws. “In our view they need a person’s consent if they make use of a person’s face for commercial ends,” said Simon Davis of the group.

>>>

Doherty to write autobiography - Ireland Online

British rocker Pete Doherty is reportedly set to lay bare the details of his stormy relationship with ex-girlfriend Kate Moss in a new autobiography. Babyshambles frontman Doherty has teamed up with author and ex-drug addict Sean Boru to write the “intensely personal biography” which will focus heavily on the 29-year-old’s tumultuous relationship with the supermodel.

>>>

Google Changes Home Page, Adding Link to Privacy Policy - New York Times

The word “privacy” now appears on Google’s home page, with a link to the company’s privacy policy. With that one word, the Web search giant heads off the growing controversy over whether its previous practice ran afoul of a California law, the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003, which requires the operator of a commercial Web site that collects personal information to link to its privacy policy from its home page.

>>>

[OT] Japan asks: anybody out there? - Reuters

Japan’s biggest astronomical observatories are teaming up for a fresh quest to find out if there is life in outer space. They’re aiming to pursue their investigation by marshalling their combined resources to view intensively one small area of space over a short period of time.

Slashdot it!

Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

p2pnet headline roundups, July 4, 2008

p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Once upon a time, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA could pass just about anything it wanted through the US civil court system with barely a murmur from judges hearing the cases.

But those days are long gone. Now, the courts are dropping the tendency to accept RIAA ‘evidence’  at face value, instead demanding proof.

In the latest setback for the RIAA, “In the Western District of North Carolina, in Elektra v. Does, the Raleigh, North Carolina, case targeting NC State students, District Judge Louise W. Flanagan has issued a ruling indicating that she is going to take a ‘fresh look’ at the RIAA’s John Doe cases, and has stayed the subpoena which the RIAA served upon the university,” says Recording Industry vs The People, going on >>>

The ruling came in response to two John Does’ motions to dismiss the complaint, strike the Carlos Linares declaration, and quash the subpoena.

Judge Flanagan held as follows:

Plaintiffs have filed nearly identical complaints against this defendant, and others named as defendants in the prior pending action, and many of these actions have been assigned now to me. In this case, and one other, bearing court file number 5:08-CY-116, defendant has moved to dismiss, to strike plaintiffs’ affidavit,to quash subpoena,and to stay enforcement of the subpoena addressed to North Carolina State University.

In furtherance of dismissal, defendant in court file number 5:08-CY-115 seeks the court where plaintiffs’ agent is asserted to have engaged in criminal activity, to strike “the second-hand [Carlos] Linares Declaration and Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 that it supports,” and, where “[t]he remaining bare allegations are not enough to survive the Twombley standard,” to dismiss the action. Similar argument is offered in court file number 5:08-CY-116. Urging First Amendment anonymity interests, defendant in each case seeks for the court to quash the subpoena at issue. In the interim, prior to decision on the motions, defendant in each case seeks the court to relieve North Carolina State University of any responsibility to respond to the subpoena.

In all cases before this court, the undersigned has allowed plaintiffs’ expedited motion for discovery. Several of the cases assigned to me, all originating out of the prior pending action, recently have been closed upon voluntary dismissal.

For good cause shown, the motion to stay enforcement of subpoena addressed to North Carolina State University, served upon David Drooz, Associate General Counsel, is ALLOWED pending decision on remaining motions.

While motion to dismiss was raised on behalf of defendants denominated as Does #1,#18, #19, #26, #31, #33, #35, and #38, and denied, it is unclear whether defendant in either court file number 5:08-CY-115 or court file number 5:08-CY-116, were among those Does in the prior action, and, moreover, the basis for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12 is argued in these cases on grounds not fully raised in court file number 5:07-CY-298. Accordingly, a fresh look at the arguments in support of and in opposition to the motion to dismiss before the court,and attendant motionto strike, is called for. The court refers pretrial motions pending in this case to Magistrate Judge James E. Gates, for decision on the motion to quash and for memorandum and recommendation on the motion to dismiss and attendant motion to strike.

Stay tuned.

. .Stumble It!

Recording Industry vs The People - North Carolina court to take a “fresh look” at the NC State “John Doe” cases, July 4, 2008

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

Judge to take a 'fresh look' at RIAA case

p2pnet news | Products:- Pali Capital’s Rich Greenfield isn’t overly impressed with Google’s MySpace search algorithms.

“When a Myspace user does a people search for ‘Dan,’ we are pretty sure they are not looking for DNA testing kits,” he says on the Pali site, going on:

“When someone types in ‘Richard,’ they are not looking for how to get rich quickly and when someone types in ‘Beth,’ we are positive they are not looking for Pottery Barn bath products.”

His observations come in a post in which he says everyone’s blaming social networking, “as the culprit for Google’s Myspace monetization problems (meaning people are not thinking about ads when using social networks)”.

But, “the real problem is Google itself and its search algorithms for social networking (Yes, Google does not do everything right),” he goes on.

Note, he says, Myspace recently updated its user interface and improved search, “allowing a user to easily perform five basic searches (Myspace people search, search all of Myspace, search the web, search Myspace music or TV).”

That prompted Greenfield to try Dan, Dan Stone, Richard, Beth and Chris —- with interesting results, as pointed out in the intro.

. .Stumble It!

Pali -Google’s Algorithms for Myspace Search Need to Improve…A Lot, July 3, 2008

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

Pali unimpressed by Google MySpace search

p2pnet news Music | Politics:- Possible changes to European music royalty laws might dissuade new musicians from creating new music, say two not-so-golden oldies.

The European Commission is trying to decide whether or not to, “end the monopoly of performing rights societies, which collect royalties for artists,” says the BBC.

But, “Music stars are worried that changes may mean a reduction in the amount record companies pay to music authors,” says the story.

Among them are France’s Shahnour Varenagh Aznavurjian, aka Charles Aznavour (left), and the Bee Gees’ Robin Gibb, aka Robin Gibb, who, “yesterday threatened to ‘declare war’ and pull their works off the airwaves if the European Union proceeds to change the way music royalties are collected,” says the Financial Times, going on >>>

The European Commission’s antitrust arm is believed to be pushing for a decision which would declare certain reciprocal arrangements between national music royalty collecting societies for the re-transmission of music by cable, satellite and the internet to be anti-competitive and illegal.

This widely leaked finding, which has already been vetted by national competition authorities, would need to be approved by the European Commission before it could take effect. Yesterday, an official said that the Commission could make a decision later this month.

Gibb, representing the European Composer and Songwriter Alliance, “argued that if major online services are able to negotiate lower regionwide fees, artists may get less for their songs despite seeing them distributed more widely,” says the New York Times, quoting him as stating:

“On a fundamental scale it’s a human right that someone who writes a piece of work should have control of it.”

A change, “could discourage newer songwriters from producing tomorrow’s hits,” he states.

Says the BBC:

“At the moment, most composers and songwriters sign up to their domestic collecting societies, which collect money from commercial music users on their behalf. On an international level, each national European collecting society has a relationship with the other 25 representative bodies.

“Commercial companies which want to distribute music across Europe normally have to sign deals with a number of these societies across the EU zone.

“In practice it means that if a French radio station plays music by a UK artist, the French national collecting society collects the revenue. It then passes it to the UK’s national society, MCPS-PRS, which subsequently distributes it to the writer.

“Critics believe that this process is too complex and gives the societies undue influence over music rights and distribution.”

[Charles who? Robin who?]

. .Stumble It!

BBC - Stars back music copyright system , July 3, 2008
Financial Times - Songwriters threaten ‘war’ over plans to alter royalties collection, July 4, 2008
New York Times - E.U. Hears From a Bee Gee, July 4, 2008

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

Aznavour, Gibb, threaten royalties 'war'

p2pnet news | Celebrities:- Larry Harmon, the most recent incarnation of Bozo the Clown, has died at the age of 83.

“Created as a character in 1946 by Alan W. Livingston who produced a children’s storytelling record-album and illustrative read-along book set which Livingston called a ‘Record Reader’, the first of its kind, titled Bozo at the Circus for Capitol Records,” says the Wikipedia, continuing >>>

Pinto Colvig portrayed the character on this and subsequent Bozo read-along records. The albums were extremely popular and the character became a mascot for the record company and was later nicknamed “Bozo the Capitol Clown.” In 1949, Capitol and Livingston began setting up royalty arrangements with manufacturers and television stations for use of the Bozo character. KTTV-TV in Los Angeles began broadcasting the first show, Bozo’s Circus, featuring Colvig as Bozo with his blue-and-red costume, oversized red hair and classic “whiteface” clown makeup on Fridays at 7:30 p.m.

In 1956, Larry Harmon, one of several actors hired by Livingston and Capitol Records to portray Bozo at promotional appearances, formed a business partnership and bought the licensing rights (excluding the record-readers) to the character when Livingston briefly left Capitol in 1956.

He renamed the character “Bozo, The World’s Most Famous Clown” and slightly modified the voice, laugh and costume, says Wikipedia.

“Aside from making countless personal appearances as the character throughout the years, Harmon trained over 200 Bozos, marketed a variety of Bozo merchandise and even helped hatch a cartoon,” says E! Online, adding:

“Bozo became so ubiquitous in pop culture that the name ended up coming to define zany, foolish behavior. He and his TV show also served as an early inspiration for Krusty the Clown’s hijinks on The Simpsons.”

. .Stumble It!

E! Online - Larry Harmon, aka Bozo the Clown, RIP, July 4, 2008

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

Bozo the Clown is dead

p2pnet news P2P | Freedom:- Viacom says it hasn’t asked for, and won’t be getting, “any personally identifiable information of any user”.

“Screw you, Viacom,” posted Stan Schroeder on Mashable, “responding angrily to the news judge Louis L. Stanton has ordered Google to hand IP addresses and other YouTube user data over to Viacom,” p2pnet said yesterday.

Now, “Any information that we or our outside advisors obtain - which will not include personally identifiable information - will be used exclusively for the purpose of proving our case against You Tube and Google, will be handled subject to a court protective order and in a highly confidential manner,” Viacomn promises in a statement in response to the YouTube user data controversy, says Deep Links.

Viacom begins >>>

It is unfortunate that we have been compelled to go to court to protect Viacom’s rights and the rights of the artists who work with and depend on us. YouTube and Google have put us in this position by continuing to defend their illegal and irresponsible conduct and profiting from copyright infringement, when they could be implementing the safe and legal user generated content experience they promise.

In addition, says Kurt Opsahl in the Deep Links post, the New York Times reports >>>

Google and Viacom said they had had discussions about ways to ensure the data is further protected to assure anonymity.

“We are disappointed the court granted Viacom’s overreaching demand for viewing history,” Catherine Lacavera, Google’s senior litigation counsel, said in a statement.”We are asking Viacom to respect users’ privacy and allow us to anonymize the logs before producing them under the court’s order.”

Michael Fricklas, Viacom’s general counsel said: “We are investigating techniques, including anonymization, to enhance the security of information that will be produced.”

Mr. Fricklas added that Viacom would not have direct access to the information Google produces, and that its use would be strictly limited. Viacom would not, for example, be able to chase down users who illegally posted clips from “The Colbert Report” on YouTube.

“The information that is produced by Google is going to be limited to outside advisers who can use it solely for the purpose of enforcing our rights against YouTube and Google,” Mr. Fricklas said.”I can unequivocally state that we will not use any of this information to enforce rights against end users.”

It is encouraging to see that both Viacom and Google are responding to the important privacy interest raised by the court’s order. We plan to continue discussions with the parties on ways to protect the privacy of the YouTube users and ensure that their rights under the Video Privacy Protection Act are given effect.

Stay tuned.

. .Stumble It!

p2pnet - Screw you, Viacom, July 3, 2008
Mashable - Again, One Clueless Person Destroys the Privacy Of Millions, July 3, 2008
Deep Links - Viacom’s Statement on YouTube User Data Controversy, July 3, 2008

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

'We won't get personal user data': Viacom

p2pnet news | TV:- She’s already changed her name once.

Will she soon change it again?

To Miledonna, maybe?

heh

Miley ‘Hannah Montana’ Cyrus who, says the Daily News, “describes herself as the ‘coolest person ever’,” wants to be the new Madonna.

“Really, I think I’m chill,” she says in the story.

She’s, “convinced she will be able to ape the Holiday hitmaker by constantly changing her image,” says newKerala, adding >>>

“Madonna always reinvents herself, and that’s what I want to do,” Contactmusic quoted her, as saying.

“Whatever comes my way that sounds good, that’s what I want to do. Whether it’s designing clothes or photography or whatever.”

Will she take Lucas Till on her journey, do you think?

.

. .Stumble It!

changed her name once - Miley Cyrus changes her name, March 18, 2008
Daily News - ‘Hannah Montana’ star Miley Cyrus loves … herself!, July 3, 2008
Madonna - Is Alex Rodriguez scoring with Madonna?, July 4, 2008
newKerala - Miley Cyrus determined to be the next Madonna, July 4, 2008
Lucas Till - iley Cyrus picks Lucas Till as ‘love interest’, July 3, 2008

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

Miley Cyrus wants to be new Madonna

p2pnet news | Advertising:- In the p2pnet story on Rogers’ effort to roger Canadians, “consumers aren’t taking it lying down and as various entities and individuals are finding to their cost, what the Net bringeth, the Net can also taketh away,” we posted.

“Two online petitions are currently running …”

One, Rogers Canada iPhone Data Plan, states:

“We, the future users of the Apple iPhone, living in Canada, would like to see an unlimited data plan at a reasonable price, comparable to those seen in the United States, prior to the Q4-2007 release of the iPhone in Canada.”

The other, ruinediphone.com, was asking for $2 donations to “get more bandwidth, more exposure and more impact”.

We thought that didn’t smell right and, “Admittedly, ruinediphone was going up and down like a yo-yo,” we posted.

“But $2?”

Now, “Breaking News,” posts the so-called petition site, going on >>>

Oilchange.com has acquired ruinediphone.com.
Oilchange.com is going to do their part to help Canadian cell phone users.
Check back frequently for updates.

How much did  Oilchange pay for the site and what will it do with the $2 donations (if any) pulled in by the original owners?

Meanwhile, under the new ownership, at least ‘ruined’ is no longer asking for $2 donations.

===============

Update >>>

I was wrong about the American involvement and I’ve changed the headline, removed the first paragraph and references to eNom.

As Spike points out below, eNom is no more than the registrar and I  apologise to it and to Oilchange which, as Spike says, is based in Toronto, Canada.

The story originally led off with: “Is it just me? Or is this an attempt to by an established American company to remotely, and cynically, exploit and ‘monetize’ a genuine Canadian protest?”

Jon Newton - p2pnet

. .Stumble It!

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

Oilchange buys Rogers 'petition site' ruinediphone

p2pnet news | Politics:- A Google map is being used, without attribution and without copyright notice, says a p2pnet Reader’s Write, referring to Beaver’s posts on Michael Geist’s site.

So?

Well, the guy committing this dastardly act of copyright violation is no less a personage than Canadian federal industry minister Jim Prentice, who’s currently doing his best to promote a new Canadian Copyright act which blatantly ignores the wants and needs of Canadians in the best interests of various American cartels, with the entertainment industry up front.

“But,” says the comment post, “the [Google] terms do not allow this,” to wit >>>

For individual users, Google Maps, including local search results, maps, and photographic imagery, is made available for your personal, non-commercial use only. For business users, Google Maps is made available for your internal use only and may not be commercially redistributed.

You may not delete or in any manner alter the copyright, trademark, or other proprietary rights notices appearing in map information, including photographic imagery.

Is Prentice now liable for $20,000 for uploading this map to his site? - wonders Beaver, adding:

“He is clearly violating the license given to him by Google (unless he entered into a separate agreement, which I doubt).”

Definitely stay tuned.

Jon Newton - p2pnet

. .Stumble It!

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

Is Canadian minister violating Google copyright?

p2pnet news | RIAA News | P2P:- Risking p2pnet’s sanctity (thanks, Viacom) in her endless search for YouTube videos to awe and inspire you, my daughter, Emma, came across Peter Coffin’s hilarious satire, The RIAA Lawsuit Conspiracy.

When I checked it out last night, it’d racked up some 3,320 or so visits but when I went there at 6:20 AM this morning, it was at 3,324.

But the low number was because it’d been taken down by order, I have little doubt, of Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), or associates.

Now, all you see is, “We’re sorry, this video is no longer available.”

Aw shucks \:

But wait!

This is the Net and no matter how hard The Powers that Used To Be try to stop us from seeing stuff they don’t want us to see, and hearing stuff they don’t want to hear, it’s out in CyberSpace somewhere, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to find it.

Thus, I quickly found other posts of Coffin’s corporate music industry video lampoon.

The example below is on DailyMotion and to give you a taste >>>

Someone’s deactivated the Digital Rights Management! We’re selling songs without protection!

—- says the guy in a white lab coat

Well, that was actually ———— us. And what the hell are you talking about your laboratory running tests and what are you wearing a scientist coat for!? You’re a LAWYER!

—- says the suit-behind-the-desk.

Because no one calls the scientist a liar unless they’re talking about, evolution or manufactured climate change

—- says the guy in a white lab coat

And it gets funnier. And a lot more pointed.

The message to the RIAA and the MPAA and all the other so-called trade organisations set up by corporate cartels to flim-flam us cash cow consumers?

Better watch out !!!

(Cheers, Emma )

Jon Newton - p2pnet

. .Stumble It!

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

RIAA tries, and fails, to shaft video lampoon

p2pnet news Celebrities | Music:- Can it be true?

Is Yankees baseball star Alex Rodriguez scoring with corporate music star Madonna?

Yup, says the New York Daily News. “He went to her concert, she went to his game,” it says, going on:

“Now reports of late-night tete-à-tetes between A-Rod and Madonna have sparked talk they’re rounding the bases.”

Rodriguez is, “reportedly so close to the Material Mom that he visited her Manhattan pad right after his wife, Cynthia, gave birth to their second child,”the story declares. And, “At a United Nations benefit in February for Madonna’s Raising Malawi charity and UNICEF, Rodriguez was spotted again with the pop superstar,” says the New York Daily News, going on to quote her as saying to her daughter, Lourdes:

“This is Alex. He’s a baseball player.”

Well, that settles it then. There’s something going on, No question.

But perhaps not.

“Maybe you can come and see me play sometime,” A-Rod “offered to the underwhelmed girl,” says the story, adding:

“She’s not that into baseball,” explained Madonna.

Now you know.

. .Stumble It!

New York Daily News - Report: Alex Rodriguez in late-night visits to Madonna’s apartment, July 2, 2008

p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media

Is Alex Rodriguez scoring with Madonna?

p2pnet news Mobiles | Advertising:- The Bell Canada decision to use the Samsung Instinct touch-screen mobile to grab control of the Canadian smartphone market might not be as productive as the companies undoubtedly hope.

The mobile is central to a Bell marketing plan designed to set it up against Rogers, which is suffering serious blow-back after having tried to sell deeply flawed and inflexible ‘Flexible Price’ mobile packages for the iPhone 3G range.

They come in at $60 for 400MB, rising to $115, “And none of them include unlimited use,” p2pnet posted.

Now Bell is planning to offer Instinct, “with the option of an unlimited data plan, upping the ante in its battle for the Canadian smartphone market,” says the CBC.

OK. So it’s wisely reading the writing on the wall. Isn’t that smart marketing?

It is, but for the fact Bell Canada is now a pariah in the eyes of a substantial portions of the Canadian buying public and anything it touches is consequently tarnished.

“Bell said Thursday it would offer the Samsung Instinct, which includes many of the features found on Apple Inc.’s iPhone, on Aug. 8,” says the story, going on:

“The phone would be available with a range of data and voice plans, including a $10 add-on data plan offering unlimited internet access. The announcement comes just eight days before Rogers Communications plans to launch the iPhone. Rogers is already taking heat from potential customers over data rate plans it announced for the iPhone.”

Indeed. It’s promoted the launch of two anti-Rogers online petitions, for instance.

Meanwhile, “Unlike the iPhone, the Instinct cannot access the internet through a Wi-Fi connection,” the CBC goes on, “but it has many features in common with the iPhone, including a touch-screen interface and HTML web browsing.”

Bell spokesperson Jason Laszlo of bandwidth throttling fame, “said the unlimited data plan includes web browsing, web-based e-mail and downloads” as well as “Other services”.

But under the Bell plan, Suamsung’s Instinct can’t be used as a tethered device to offer roaming access for laptops, says the story adding:

“Last year tethering was at the centre of a controversy for Bell Canada after a Calgary man got a bill of nearly $85,000 for using his phone plan to connect to a computer and surf the internet, which drew substantial additional charges. Bell later dropped the amount owing to $3,423.”

Fine. But how has Bell removed the gloss from the Instinct?

Bell Canada is central in a fierce and growing cross-Canada bandwidth throttling, net neutrality, battle between itself, its clients and smaller client ISPs and as the battle continues, its own services, and anything it touches, are becoming taboo, with all that implies.

It’s impossible to accurately gauge exactly how much effect the huge amount of ongoing negative publicity surrounding Bell Canada will have on it and products associated with it, but inevitably, it’ll be significant.

Stay tuned.

. .Stumble It!

serious blow-back - Online Canadians reject Rogers iPhone plan, July 2, 2008
p2pnet - Rogers Canadian iPhone rip-off, June 28, 2008
CBC - Bell to offer smartphone with unlimited data plan, July 3, 2008
bandwidth throttling fame - Bell Canada and the Lemming tale, May 15, 2008
bandwidth throttling, net neutrality, battle - p2pnet traffic shaping digest, April 19, 2008