WebProNews

Tag: SOPA

  • Hood Backs Off Of Google Investigation

    Last week, Google said it was “deeply concerned” about reports that the MPAA has been secretly leading a campaign to revive SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) and help “manufacture legal arguments” in connection with an investigation by Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood.

    Google started its own “ZombieSOPA” campaign:

    Google even went so far as to sue Hood, saying a subpoena he sent to the company violated its First and Fourth Amendment rights. Hood has since backed down, as Ars Technica reports.

    Hood also said in a statement he’s calling a “time out” on the investigation, and that he wants to negotiate a “peaceful resolution”.

    Image via Google

  • Google Slams MPAA For Trying To Resurrect SOPA, Censor The Internet

    Google Slams MPAA For Trying To Resurrect SOPA, Censor The Internet

    Google says it’s “deeply concerned” about reports that the MPAA has been secretly leading a campaign to revive SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) and help “manufacture legal arguments” in connection with an investigation by Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood.

    Google is referring to the campaign as “ZombieSOPA,” and has started a campaign of its own:

    SOPA was defeated nearly three years ago in no small part thanks to widespread protest from Internet users and websites (115,000 of them).Opponents maintained that the legislation would have led to widespread censorship. According to Google, Congress received over 8 million phone calls and 4 million emails in protest of SOPA in a single day. That’s in addition to 10 million petition signatures.

    In a blog post, Google walks through some of the recent reports, and writes:

    Even though Google takes industry-leading measures in dealing with problematic content on our services, Attorney General Hood proceeded to send Google a sweeping 79-page subpoena, covering a variety of topics over which he lacks jurisdiction. The Verge reported that the MPAA and its members discussed such subpoenas and certainly knew about this subpoena’s existence before it was even sent to Google.

    Attorney General Hood told the Huffington Post earlier this week that the MPAA “has no major influence on my decision-making,” and that he “has never asked [the] MPAA a legal question” and “isn’t sure which lawyers they employ.” And yet today the Huffington Post and the Verge revealed that Attorney General Hood had numerous conversations with both MPAA staff and Jenner & Block attorneys about this matter.

    The company says it has “serious legal concerns about all of this.” It also points to a quote from the MPAA’s website about how the organization aims to preserve free speech, but is trying to censor the Internet.

    Image via Twitter

  • The MPAA, RIAA Target Google Again

    By now, it’s pretty clear the governing bodies behind the entertainment industry will not be happy unless Google turns over their search engine index over to the RIAA and the MPAA, allowing them to remove whatever infringing content they see fit. With that in mind, imagine using a search engine that’s been sanitized by these entities. Every first-page result would be geared toward directing users to sites where they can spend money on entertainment content, and YouTube would probably be demoted to results pages that normally go unseen by the public.

    The latest misguided attempt to blame Google for not singlehandedly eliminating piracy from the world, thanks to the power of their infringement enabling search engine. As pointed out by TechDirt, the latest attack comes in the form of a two-pronged approach by the MPAA and the RIAA.

    The MPAA’s salvo comes in the form of a new study, one that appears to have doubters within the study itself. While the results haven’t been made public, TechDirt has apparently seen it, and offers the following criticism:

    Amusingly, even the MPAA’s own “talking points” on the study (which a friendly bird in Congress passed along) more or less admit that the study is incredibly weak.

    Without seeing these statements, confirmation of their intent is impossible, but further data in the study certainly gives that point of view legs to stand on:

    The key number, which the MPAA does its best to bury is that search engines “influenced” only 20% of the times when consumers accessed infringing content.

    So the very search engine the MPAA is railing against only influences 20 percent of Internet piracy? If these are truly the results of the MPAA’s study, one would think they would alter their approach. Alas, no. The MPAA appears as if its prepared to go down with this sinking ship, something the following quote from the aforementioned talking points reveals quite clearly:

    Search engines bear a huge responsibility for introducing people to infringing content.

    The MPAA’s study falls further on its face when it contradicts itself with the following revelation:

    Take Google’s algorithm change as an example — they held this up last summer as a step that would have meaningful impact and unfortunately we see in the data here that it hasn’t.

    So even after Google implemented the changes suggested by these entities, it didn’t completely eliminate infringing sites from Google’s index; and this is somehow Google’s fault, even though they complied with the suggested algorithm alterations? And then there’s the Google transparency report system that removes infringing content on a regular basis. Nevertheless, that’s not enough for the MPAA, and so, they commissioned another “Piracy will destroy everything” study.

    As for the RIAA’s attempt to pin the tale on Google, they went before Congress to seemingly single Google out. The statement that stood out, as highlighted by TechDirt:

    If ISPs can be considered the gateway by users to rogue sites online, search engines may be considered the roadmaps or, more directly, the turn-by-turn directions and door-to-door service to these sites. There can be no doubt that search engines play a considerable role in leading users to illicit services and can be a key part of addressing infringing activity online.

    Actually, as the MPAA study shows, there can be plenty of doubt; unless, of course, 20 percent is really something to waste the public’s time over. In other news, who knew music piracy was still a thing?

    [Lead image courtesy]

  • Google Has Some Thoughts On What You Can Do To Help Stop Bills Like SOPA

    Google Has Some Thoughts On What You Can Do To Help Stop Bills Like SOPA

    One of the most valuable allies in the fight against SOPA last year was Google. The search giant gave millions of Internet users the tools necessary to contact their representatives to voice their opposition to the bill. Now Google is back giving tips on how developers and users can influence tech policy.

    During Google I/O 2013, Derek Slater, Jen Pahlka and others hosted a session titled “Beyond SOPA: What You Can Do To Influence Tech Policy:”

    From SOPA/PIPA and CISPA, to immigration and patent reform, government is taking a renewed interest in the Internet and the businesses we’re building on it — in some cases, there is even a new focus on the use of technology which can solve government problems.

    As a result, government is looking for input from our community of entrepreneurs and developers about what our needs are as a community, and how they can build better public policy in our interest.

    So, what are the most efficient, easy ways for you to get involved? Join us for a panel of some leaders in the Internet advocacy space to learn how you, as a developer, can get more involved in creating better policies that can affect your business.

  • For What It’s Worth, The House Thinks The Government Shouldn’t Control The Internet

    Does the government want to regulate the Internet? It really depends on who you ask. Internet freedom fighters say legislation like SOPA and CISPA are thinly veiled attempts to regulate the Internet. The government, however, claims that it’s strictly taking a hands-off approach.

    The House reaffirmed its hands-off approach in legislation it passed yesterday evening. The bill, H.R. 1580, is titled “To affirm the policy of the United States regarding Internet governance.” If you couldn’t tell from the title, it’s simply a resolution saying that the United States will continue supporting the multi-stakeholder approach in regards to Internet development.

    It’s encouraging then that the bill was passed unanimously. Of course, no congressman would be caught dead voting against the bill as it would suggest that they were in favor of some rather unpopular suggestions made during a U.N. meeting on Internet governance late last year.

    The bill’s sponsor, Greg Walden, praised the multi-stakeholder approach to the Internet on the House floor last night, and confirmed that the bill is meant to send a message to other governments:

    “Government’s hands-off approach has enabled the Internet’s rapid growth and made it a powerful engine of social and economic freedom. This bipartisan bill is designed to combat recent efforts by some in the international community to regulate the Internet, which can jeopardize not only its vibrancy, but also the benefits that it brings to the entire world.”

    Now, this is a good thing. It’s nice to see that at least the House is all for an Internet free from government control, but it’s unfortunate that the House sees a difference between control and intervention. SOPA, PIPA and CISPA wouldn’t hand over control of the Internet to the government, but it would give the government untold powers to intervene.

    It’s much the same argument that countries like Saudi Arabia and China made during the ITU conference last year. They weren’t arguing that the Internet be placed entirely under their control. Instead, they argued that they should be given power over their corner of the Internet to intervene when things got out of control. Granted, CISPA and SOPA were never advocating something like the Great Firewall of China, but they could spiral into something similar if allowed to take effect.

    In short, the Internet is a precious resource that has flourished thanks to the current multi-stakeholder model. It’s encouraging to see the U.S. government continue to recognize this, but it’s high time the U.S. government also recognizes that its attempts to regulate the Internet would violate the very legislation the House passed last night.

    [h/t: The Hill]

  • Anonymous Organizes CISPA Blackout, Not Many Web Sites Show Up

    The SOPA blackout protest was something else. Google, Wikipedia, Reddit and other major online players blacked out part or all of their Web sites in opposition to a proposed bill that would have given the U.S. government unchecked power to regulate the Internet as it saw fit.

    Likewise, CISPA gives the government and corporations the ability to share your private information without a warrant and without much oversight. The bill has been met with some resistance, but not enough. The House passed it with relative ease, and now the fight will go to the Senate. Now everybody’s favorite (or most hated) hacktivist group wants to send the Senate a message with a blackout of its own.

    Last week, Anonymous announced that it was organizing a CISPA blackout similar to the SOPA blackout of early 2012. Anonymous had hoped to coerce a number of Web sites into going dark today, but it only managed to get a little over 400 volunteers.

    Getting over 400 Web sites to go dark for a day is no small feat, but it just doesn’t compare to the thousands that went dark in protest of SOPA.

    Of course, a CISPA blackout could be effectual if Web sites frequently visited by millions of Internet users went dark. Unfortunately, the heavy hitters behind the SOPA blackout (i.e. Google, Reddit, Wikipedia) are refusing to go dark today in protest of CISPA. There are probably a number of reasons for this, but we can only guess at a few of them.

    For starters, CISPA isn’t an immediate threat to companies. SOPA would burden Web sites with the responsibility of policing their own content. CISPA encourages companies to share private customer data with the government while granting them complete immunity from legal recourse. CISPA may not present any immediate threat to Internet companies, but Rep. Jared Polis argued last week that it would cause some pretty serious damage all the same:

    “[CISPA] directly hurts the confidence of Internet users. Internet users – if this were to become law – would be much more hesitant to provide their personal information – even if assured under the terms of use that it will be kept personal because the company would be completely indemnified if they ‘voluntarily’ gave it to the United States government.”

    The other thing standing in the way of an organized CISPA blackout is the organizers themselves. Even among anti-CISPA Web sites like Mozilla, Reddit and others, Anonymous isn’t exactly well-liked. The group’s intentions may be pure this time around, but there’s an argument to be made that CISPA was crafted in response to attacks from Anonymous and other hacking groups.

    Anonymous’ planned blackout isn’t a failure, but it isn’t much of a success either. That being said, it at least shows that large groups of people are in opposition to CISPA. It might not be opposed by the teenagers who use Wikipedia to write term papers, but those in the tech community are rightly concerned about the overly broad legislation. It’s unfortunate then that Congress seems to think that only 14-year-olds living in their basements are the only ones opposed to CISPA.

    [h/t: RT]

  • Let’s Not Forget The Fall Of SOPA And The Might Of A Unified Internet

    Let’s Not Forget The Fall Of SOPA And The Might Of A Unified Internet

    The fall of SOPA was, by far, one of the most interesting events of 2012. It showed that the Internet can and will be an unstoppable force when faced with a threat that targets its very core. Now let’s relive those events so that we may know why we fight for the Internet and the freedom it brings.

    Vimeo user Sam Mularczyk created a video that recounts the events that led up to the fall of SOPA. It’s a great history refresher for those of us who have already forgotten what made the SOPA protests such a significant event.

    The Fall Of SOPA from Sam Mularczyk on Vimeo.

    The end of the video mentions that the Internet still faces threats at the hands of other treaties and bills like ACTA, TPP and CISPA. Some of these have already been shelved thanks to other massive protests, but others are still moving full steam ahead under a veil of secrecy. To defeat these bills, we may need another protest on the same scale of the SOPA blackout, but that’s not likely to happen.

    In short, the Internet is consistently under threat by groups that would seek to undermine it for control or personal gain. The only way to stop it is to use the Internet as it was intended – a communication platform that allows those of similar minds to band together. There’s not always going to be a blackout that spurs Internet users to action, but reminding ourselves of what can be accomplished when we band together may just be enough to shelve other threats to the Internet that are likely to emerge in 2013.

    [h/t: Boing Boing]

  • Aaron Swartz’ Loved Ones: Suicide Product Of Justice System

    Aaron Swartz’ Loved Ones: Suicide Product Of Justice System

    As you may know, Aaron Swartz, who developed RSS 1.0 and founded Infogami, which merged with reddit in the popular social news site’s early days, was found dead after hanging himself at 26 years old.

    Swartz had been in some legal trouble, after being arrested in 2011 for allegedly downloading millions of documents from JSTOR with intent to distribute them. It’s looking more and more likely that this incident ultimately led to his suicide, with Swartz losing hope just days before killing himself. The Wall Street Journal reports that his hopes for a deal with federal prosecutors, who threatened to put him in prison for 30 years, fell apart before his suicide.

    According to the report, Swartz’s lawyer had initially discussed a plea bargain with Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann back in the fall, but was told that Swartz would have to plead guilty on every count, and that the government would insist on prison time. When the two lawyers spoke just this past Wednesday, the situation remained unchanged. The Journal also spoke with Swartz’s girlfriend:

    With the government’s position hardening, Mr. Swartz realized that he would have to face a costly, painful and public trial, his girlfriend, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, said in an interview Sunday. The case was draining his money, and he would need to ask for help financing his defense; two of his friends had recently been subpoenaed in the case. Both situations distressed him, she said.

    A Tumblr has been set up to honor Swartz’s memory, and provide a way for his family and friends to share their memories. On that, an official statement from his family and partner was released. That says:

    Our beloved brother, son, friend, and partner Aaron Swartz hanged himself on Friday in his Brooklyn apartment. We are in shock, and have not yet come to terms with his passing.

    Aaron’s insatiable curiosity, creativity, and brilliance; his reflexive empathy and capacity for selfless, boundless love; his refusal to accept injustice as inevitable—these gifts made the world, and our lives, far brighter. We’re grateful for our time with him, to those who loved him and stood with him, and to all of those who continue his work for a better world.

    Aaron’s commitment to social justice was profound, and defined his life. He was instrumental to the defeat of an Internet censorship bill; he fought for a more democratic, open, and accountable political system; and he helped to create, build, and preserve a dizzying range of scholarly projects that extended the scope and accessibility of human knowledge. He used his prodigious skills as a programmer and technologist not to enrich himself but to make the Internet and the world a fairer, better place. His deeply humane writing touched minds and hearts across generations and continents. He earned the friendship of thousands and the respect and support of millions more.

    Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy. It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s office and at MIT contributed to his death. The US Attorney’s office pursued an exceptionally harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30 years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had no victims. Meanwhile, unlike JSTOR, MIT refused to stand up for Aaron and its own community’s most cherished principles.

    Today, we grieve for the extraordinary and irreplaceable man that we have lost.

    Swartz had been using an MIT network for his alleged downloading of JSTOR articles, and MIT put out a letter to its community on Sunday about its role in the ordeal. In that, L. Rafael Reif writes:

    Although Aaron had no formal affiliation with MIT, I am writing to you now because he was beloved by many members of our community and because MIT played a role in the legal struggles that began for him in 2011.

    I want to express very clearly that I and all of us at MIT are extremely saddened by the death of this promising young man who touched the lives of so many. It pains me to think that MIT played any role in a series of events that have ended in tragedy.

    I will not attempt to summarize here the complex events of the past two years. Now is a time for everyone involved to reflect on their actions, and that includes all of us at MIT. I have asked Professor Hal Abelson to lead a thorough analysis of MIT’s involvement from the time that we first perceived unusual activity on our network in fall 2010 up to the present. I have asked that this analysis describe the options MIT had and the decisions MIT made, in order to understand and to learn from the actions MIT took. I will share the report with the MIT community when I receive it.

    Aaron Swartz was known for a lot of things, and among them were his contributions to the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement, a cause for which he founded DemandProgress.org. Here’s a keynote from Swartz at F2C2012, called “How We Stopped SOPA” (via BusinessInsider on YouTube):

    DemandProgress.org is calling on those seeking to make donations in his name to consider doing so by giving to GiveWell, which the organization says Swartz had a “deep respect” for.

    Related: Anonymous Hacks MIT In Honor Of Aaron Swartz, Academics Protest With #PDFTribute

    Lead image: DemandProgress.org

  • Aaron Swartz Found Dead After Committing Suicide

    Aaron Swartz Found Dead After Committing Suicide

    Aaron Swartz, who is credited with developing RSS 1.0, and founding Infogami, which merged with Reddit in the popular site’s early days, was found dead in a Brooklyn apartment. According to various reports, police say he committed suicide by hanging. He was only 26 years old.

    In 2011, Swartz was arrested for the alleged systematic downloading of millions of documents from JSTOR with the intent to distribute them. According to The Tech, he was allegedly using the MIT network and a laptop hidden in a basement closet in an MIT building. He pleaded not guilty just this past September.

    Swartz had worked for Avaaz Foundation founded DemandProgress.org to help combat SOPA/PIPA.

    Philipp Lenssen at Google Blogoscoped has an interview with Swartz from 2007 in which he talks about his time at reddit, and his exit from the company:

    For Christmas, I went with some friends to Europe. Towards the tail end of the trip I caught a cold and holed up in my old apartment in Boston for a week. I headed back to San Francisco over the weekend and when I came in Monday morning I was asked to leave. I spent a little while trying to figure out what had gone on, but without too much success. Eventually, I decided that I should just accept this as an opportunity. And not look a gift horse in the mouth too hard.

    I was with the Reddit team back when we were coming up with the idea, in the months before the first Y Combinator Summer Founders Program started. We eventually began working together full time around that November and started a port of the site from Lisp to Python shortly after that.

    There were three founders – me, Steve, and Alexis. Steve and I did the programming and Alexis handled promotion and customer service and office management and business development and the myriad of other tasks that came up. Christopher Slowe also worked with us part-time as he finished up his physics Ph.D at Harvard.

    It was an exciting time, but working at an office job was quite different.

    Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Land remembers Swartz as one of the earliest Google bloggers, indicating that he was the first person to have a blog exclusively about Google, called the Google Weblog.

    Swartz’s trial was scheduled to begin in April.

  • The Free Internet Survived 2012, But Will It Be That Lucky Next Year?

    2012 was a dangerous year for the free Internet. Lawmakers and global stakeholders all took a shot at policing and regulating the Internet over the past year to no avail. That doesn’t mean they’ve given up, and 2013 could prove disastrous if certain parties have their way.

    To that end, it would be advantageous to look back on all the bills, treaties, etc that threatened the Internet in 2012. As they say, those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Internet freedom fighters will have to learn from tactics employed this year to recognize threats to a free Internet before they even emerge.

    Were you concerned for the free Internet in 2012? Do you think next year will be worse or better? Let us know in the comments.

    The first battle over the free Internet came in January as the much debated SOPA and PIPA came up for vote in Congress. The bills were designed to combat copyright infringement online, but the powers granted to the government to do so were sweeping and overly broad. SOPA in particular gave government the power to censor Web sites on the DNS level thereby removing them from general access to most users. Potential for abuse was high and many feared that the bill would be used to destroy innovation and protect legacy businesses that have yet to adapt to how the Internet does business.

    Worryingly enough, it looked like both bills would actually see smooth sailing through both the Senate and the House. Then the Internet banded together and launched a blackout campaign that saw many popular sites like Wikipedia going dark to show people what a world with SOPA could potentially look like. The tactic worked as thousands of concerned citizens called their representatives telling them to vote no on SOPA and PIPA. The bills were finally taken off the table for good in October.

    After the threat of SOPA and PIPA subsided, a new threat emerged. It had free Internet proponents even more concerned as it was as international treaty that sought to rewrite international law in favor of large corporate interests. The treaty was called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA for short, and it contained a number of worrying implications. The most concerning part of the treaty was that it would require ISPs around the world to “monitor and censor online communications.” It was not only a threat to free speech on the Internet, but a major threat to online privacy as well.

    After many parts of the treaty were leaked, citizens in countries across Europe took to the streets to protest. The protests worked as many countries refused to ratify the treaty and it was finally dealt a death blow in July as the European Parliament voted against it. The treaty was officially shelved, at least in Europe, earlier in December.

    All the previous treaties and bills only sought to remove copyright infringing material from the Internet. It’s bad, but it could be worse. Our friends in Washington took on that challenge when lawmakers introduced CISPA and CSA – two bills that aimed to tackle cybersecurity, but threatened to violate any privacy that U.S. citizens may have online. CISPA was definitely more worrisome as it had the support of those who opposed SOPA just a few months prior. The new bill garnered support because it made it easier for companies to share information with government bodies without having to worry about lawsuits from those whose information was shared without consent.

    Like the previous bills thus far, both were killed before getting very far. CISPA was able to pass the House, but its Senate counterpart, CSA, was killed time and time again. The latest attempt for passage happened in mid-November with the bill being officially killed for the last time.

    The biggest threat by far, however, happened earlier in December when delegates around the world met to discuss an update to a decades old telecommunications treaty. The ITU, or International Telecommunications Union, was met with skepticism as some felt less than scrupulous members of the global community would use the meeting as an opportunity to seize control of the Internet. They did not disappoint as China, Saudia Arabia and others introduced a last minute change to the treaty that would have given them more power over the Internet. The treaty was rejected by the U.S. and much of Europe though, and it was unceremoniously killed.

    Do you think these were legitimate threats to the free Internet? Were Internet freedom proponents blowing the potential threat of these bills and treaties out of proportion? Let us know in the comments.

    As the above illustrates, 2012 was one hell of a year for Internet censorship and regulations. All of it was defeated, however, and tired Internet freedom fighters can rest easy knowing that the Internet is no longer under attack, right? Wrong. 2013 is shaping up to be an even worse year for proposed Internet regulation as various treaties and bills from 2012 are sticking around into the new year while new treaties and bills will obviously be proposed in due time.

    Speaking of relics from 2012, TPP is a prime example of a trade agreement that refuses to die. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is much like ACTA, but it seeks to establish better trade relations between the U.S. and Southeast Asia. It’s similarities to ACTA don’t end there, however, as the treaty is negotiated in complete secrecy without any input from the public or Congress. In fact, many members of Congress are lobbying to have the USTR make negotiations more transparent since they have the constitutional right of approving treaties.

    So, where does TPP stand in 2013? It could go either way to be honest. We keep hearing tales of how the treaty is constantly on its last legs as Southeast Asian countries are starting to realize it’s not good for their economy, but the secrecy in which it’s being negotiated makes it hard to tell just how close it is to either death or ratification.

    Another worrisome trade agreement to look out for in 2013 is CETA – the Canada-European Union Trade Agreement. It doesn’t directly affect the U.S., but the treaty’s passage could spell trouble for the free Internet around the world as the treaty contains much of the same language that made ACTA so horrible. If ratified, the treaty could be seen as proof that ACTA wasn’t so bad and new attempts to ratify similar treaties could take hold around the world.

    The last relic left over from 2012 is Clean IT – an European Commission project that seeks to censor the Internet in the name of protecting citizens from terrorism. The concern is that the project does little to actually stop terrorism and does everything in its power to use the Internet to monitor citizens in everything that they do. What’s worse is that the project turns people into Internet vigilantes where they can submit content that they feel is terroristic or otherwise “bad” to have it removed and those who fail to report any “bad” material would be punished.

    As you can see, 2013 is already looking pretty grim and these are just the leftovers from 2012. There’s bound to be more laws, treaties and projects introduced in 2013 that will make SOPA, ACTA and others look like bastions of Internet freedom in comparison.

    The free Internet has been a major force of change in the world, and some clearly don’t like that whether they be a legacy business that refuses to adapt or a world power that wants to subjugate its citizens even in the digital world. Either way, the Internet has proven to be resilient to any threats against it thus far and 2013 may prove to be its biggest test yet. It will be fascinating to see how the Internet and those who use it respond.

    Do you think the Internet will survive 2013? What are you most concerned about in the coming year? Let us know in the comments.

  • SOPA Returns As A Poorly Executed Extortion Virus

    SOPA Returns As A Poorly Executed Extortion Virus

    Remember SOPA? The Internet really dodged a bullet there when the largest Web protest ever killed the bill. There have been rumors that it would be back, despite MPAA CEO Chris Dodd denying any such thing. Well, Dodd was wrong as SOPA is back, and ready to take your money.

    Wait, what? Why does SOPA want your money? Well, it’s not really SOPA. It’s a ransonmware virus that’s using SOPA to scare people into giving them money. Ransomware is a particularly nasty virus that essentially holds your data hostage until you pay up. Here’s what you’ll see if you come across this particular piece of malware:

    SOPA Extortion Virus

    The worst part about these scams is that paying won’t solve anything. They want your money and your data. By paying, you’re just giving them access to both. Thankfully, these kind of viruses are also incredibly easy to remove. There are many ransomware removal walkthroughs available, but this one from YooCare has proven to be the easiest to follow.

    As always, these kind of viruses can not effect you unless you visit a malicious site or download a virus-ridden file. Use common sense when browsing the Internet and avoid sites that seem suspect. Also, you should only download files from trusted sources. That RapidShare link promising beautiful babes may be tempting, but it’s probably a virus. It could even be this one.

    [h/t: TorrentFreak]

  • SOPA And PIPA Are Not Coming Back

    SOPA And PIPA Are Not Coming Back

    SOPA and PIPA were a major threat to the Internet. Only those in the entertainment industry denied the claim as they pushed for stricter control of the Internet. The two bills eventually spurred the single largest Internet protest as countless Web sites, including Wikipedia, went dark. The bills were soundly defeated, but do they ever have a chance of coming back?

    MPAA CEO Chris Dodd was a speaker at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club on Tuesday night where he spoke at length about SOPA, PIPA, and what Hollywood’s doing to help combat piracy. He also spoke at length with Wired after the talk to further clarify what he thought about the Internet movement against the two anti-piracy bills from earlier this year, and other subjects.

    First of all, Dodd was adamant that SOPA and PIPA are dead. During his interview with Wired, he said that the “legislation is gone. It’s over.” He did say this was his own opinion though. Lawmakers could introduce a similar bill next year.

    As for the Internet’s reaction and subsequent protest, he said that he’s never seen a bigger protest to proposed bills in his life. He also said that the protest “changed forever how people are going to address their elected representatives.” He even went on to call it a “transformative event.”

    After the talk, Dodd provided some more details on the secretive six-strike policy that the MPAA and ISPs are implementing across the country. He says that Internet users will not receive any kind of punishment for the first three offenses, but will be subject to various “mitigation measures” after their fourth offense. These include speed throttling and redirects, but it’s still unclear if ISPs can cut off service altogether for repeat offenders.

    On a final note, it seems that Dodd is ready to start working with the tech sector instead of pushing through ill-conceived legislation. He said that he’s not interested in pursuing a legislative solution, but rather teaming up with the tech industry to educate consumers about piracy and its effects on the marketplace. The fruits of Dodd’s labor can already be seen in Google’s recent algorithm update that adds copyright removal notices to their ranking signals.

  • Anonymous Own3r Continues To Mess With GoDaddy, Links To Anonymous Message [Updated]

    In case you haven’t been following, GoDaddy suffered a major outage on Monday, temporarily shutting down numerous sites across the web. Anonymous member Anonymous Own3r claimed responsibility for an attack on GoDaddy early on, and has been tweeting about the ordeal ever since.

    This morning, GoDaddy put out a statement saying that it had not been hacked, and blamed the outage on internal issues. Anonymous Own3r’s response to that was:

    Anonymous Own3r later tweeted, “I think I will have to bring down godaddy.com again, so this way they would admit instead of hiding the attack.”

    Since then, it’s been a series of tweets including one linking to the following Anonymous message to GoDaddy:

    Anonymous Message: GoDaddy

    ————–>Follow @AnonOpsLegion / @AnonymousOwn3r on Twitter<-------------- ============================================================== Hello Citizens of the world, We are Anonymous. Dear brothers and sisters. Now is the time to open your eyes and expose the truth! It has come to our attention that Go Daddy, an Internet domain registrar and web hosting company has gained the attention of anonymous and the world yesterday as it was experiencing "intermittent outages." As silly as it seems, many members of anonymous are still puzzled whether it was truly an Anonymous member or a government entity is still unknown. However, many of us have concluded that Go Daddy was taken down because of its support for SOPA, the "Stop Online Piracy Act." Go Daddy has committed many blatant attempt to destroy the Civil rights of the Ninety Nine percent. Political website that contained stinging criticism of the Obama administration have been removed by Go Daddy because it was, in there words, "maliciously harmful to individuals in the government." Therefor Anonymous asks the ninety nine percent to boycott Go Daddy and remove there hosting to another domain name servers. Anonymous would like to point out that Go Daddy who is, currently running millions of sites around the world, is actively putting SOPA, a bill that was petitioned by four point five million people, into effect. Manchurian Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, has already committed many acts of destruction against the constitution of the United States claiming it as an "Imperfect document" and he has already signed such unconstitutional bills as NDAA "national defense Authorization Act"and Executive order NDRA "National Defense Resources Preparedness." These bills are violations to our constitutional and civil liberties. People of the world, Our internet freedom is dwindling because of government tyranny. For the love of all our future and humanity, wake up and open your eyes before the United States of America follows in the footsteps of Communist China. We are Anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. we do not forget. Expect us. See: http://www.infowars.com/obama-truth-team-orders-godaddy-to-shut-down-website/ [Obama Truth Team Orders Go Daddy To Shut Down Website] and http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03/godaddy-silence/ [Go Daddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site]

    Other recent tweets include:

    No word on any of this from GoDaddy since the statement. There is talk on Twitter that the code he uploaded is fake.

    Update: GoDaddy VP, Public Relations, Elizabeth Driscoll, tells WebProNews:

    The “source code” released on Twitter is not Go Daddy source code. It is code from a 2010 app called ttpython. To see where the files originated, you can visit http://code.google.com/p/ttpython/source/browse/#svn/trunk/godaddy.

    For more coverage, see this page. You can see both the latest tweets from AnonymousOwn3r and from GoDaddy from one page here.

  • Reddit Launches Bus Tour to “Promote the Open Internet”

    Reddit Launches Bus Tour to “Promote the Open Internet”

    Emboldened by the part it played in combating the SOPA legislation earlier this year with an “internet blackout,” Reddit has officially announced that it is taking to the road with a bus tour in support of the open internet.

    In a post over at the Reddit blog, Reddit GM Erik Martin today announced the Internet 2012 Bus Tour. Martin, Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, and other Reddit staff will board a half red, half blue bus and tour across the Midwestern U.S. From the blog post:

    This isn’t just about Silicon Valley and big web companies. Start-ups, local governments, small businesses and web savvy individuals across the country are using the platform of the Open Internet to start new businesses, learn new skills, earn extra income, and make their budgets go further. If you have a story like this, please post it to /r/Internet2012. The Internet 2012 Bus Tour will collect, document and share these stories from the American heartland. We will have 10 journalists from major outlets on the bus, as well as our own documentary crew to capture and tell these stories.

    In order to finance the tour, a fundraiser has been started on IndieGoGo. Perks for the fundraiser include a DRM-free download of the documentary, posters & stickers, a phone call/drunk dial from the tour, having your name on the bus, a ride on the bus, or your very own tour stop (for $36,000).

    A partial itinerary of the tour is already complete, and it starts on October 3 at the Presidential Debate in Denver, CO. From there the bus will make a stop each day, going to Boulder, Co; Lincoln, NE; Des Moines, IA; Iowa City, IA; Kansas City, MO; and Lexington, KY, where an event will take place on “The Future of Local Communities” with Drew Curtis‘ FARK. The last currently scheduled day will see the tour stop in Danville, KY, where the Vice Presidential debate will take place.

    The tour organizers are currently collecting stories of how the open internet has helped local communities over on the tour’s main subreddit. One of the first posts to that subreddit happens to be the trailer for the bus tour, seen below, which includes more details about the tour.

  • Former MPAA CTO Changes His Mind On SOPA

    Former MPAA CTO Changes His Mind On SOPA

    SOPA is dead, and it’s probably not coming back. The MPAA now realizes that a bill like that just isn’t going to fly. They need to be sneakier and use methods that bypass public scrutiny – like TPP. That being said, SOPA is still on the minds of many people as one of the few things that has ever come close to destroying the Internet as we know it.

    One figure who is still thinking about SOPA is Paul Brigner, former Chief Technology Officer for the MPAA. He was CTO for the group while SOPA was being debated and ultimately killed by the largest online protest movement in the history of mankind. During that time, he defended SOPA and said it was a good way to stop online piracy.

    It seems that in the seven months since SOPA has been dead, Brigner has had a change of heart. He’s now working for the Internet Society, a group that was part of the protest movement against SOPA. Being with the group has apparently changed his mind on the matter. He even wrote a letter to the White House explaining why the Internet is so important:

    We are also of the opinion that any enforcement attempts – at both national and international levels – should ensure and not jeopardize the stability, interoperability and efficiency of the Internet, its technologies and underlying platforms. The Internet – a network of networks – is based on an open and distributed architecture. This model should be preserved and should surpass any enforcement efforts.

    It’s nice to see some more influential people coming out against SOPA and even changing their mind on the bill. He might be a little late to the party, but it’s appreciated nonetheless. It’s especially appreciated that the letter is also meant to help shape future IP enforcement policy. It seems that Washington is actually looking for input from those “nerds” that they neglected to even acknowledge when SOPA was first being debated.

  • Guess Who’s Back? SOPA And ACTA Are Sneaking Into Law Behind Your Back

    Guess Who’s Back? SOPA And ACTA Are Sneaking Into Law Behind Your Back

    The Internet has won the fight. SOPA and ACTA are both dead after having been eviscerated by the combined powers of the world coming together to fight for what they believe in – basic digital human rights. We can now rest easy knowing that the war has come to an end. Politicians would never think to bring them back, even under the guise of innocuous trade agreements and IP bills, right? Right?

    Unfortunately, the war is not won and it’s looking like the war will never end. SOPA and ACTA are both back in new forms that are even harder to kill than before. I can understand SOPA being back as it’s been dead for a while, but are they really trying to push through ACTA right after it was defeated in the European Parliament? The answer is an astounding yes and the tactics that politicians are employing to regulate the Internet are pretty terrifying.

    Does the return of SOPA and ACTA surprise you in the least? Will we ever end the war against Internet legislation? Let us know in the comments.

    Let’s start with the return of SOPA. It’s important to point out now that SOPA is not returning in full just yet. I don’t think that Rep. Lamar Smith would be foolish enough to propose SOPA again after such a big defeat in January. So what part of the bill is he trying to push through? The IP attaches part that expands the power of the U.S. copyright diplomats. These people, according to techdirt, go around the world forcing other countries to make their IP laws just as ruthless and unforgiving as they are in the West.

    Well, that doesn’t sound so bad. I mean, at least it doesn’t affect the Internet in any major way. You forget that IP protection now affects the Internet in a very big way. The U.S. is pushing for some of the strongest regulations against online piracy with a six-strike rule to be implemented this month by major ISPs. By forcing foreign countries to follow these same draconian laws, it prevents us from being able to work together on a compromise that protects artists and the freedom that the Internet provides. The current plan only protects rights holders and the big wigs running the show.

    As we reported on yesterday, the worst part about the new Intellectual Property Attache Act is that it expands the role of the IP attaches into their own agency. They are currently housed under the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Being let loose on their own with no oversight could have damaging implications in the fight for fair IP laws.

    Another worrying factor is that Rep. Darrell Issa, opponent of SOPA, has signed on as a co-sponsor of the IP Attache Act. His spokesman told TechCrunch that he supports the bill because it protects American interests in foreign countries. He does, however, say that he will work to amend the bill before it goes before the committee to include protections like fair use. Whether he accomplishes that remains to be seen, but don’t get too optimistic.

    Does the IP Attaches Act sound like SOPA to you? Are people getting worried for no reason? Let us know in the comments.

    SOPA being forced through the legislature is bad, but it’s nowhere near as bad as the secret ACTA alternative that’s currently being pushed through as another treaty. We were recently made aware of CETA (Canada-EU Trade Agreement) through a leak and it contains all the rotten parts of ACTA that we all thought were killed when the European Parliament voted it down.

    Before ACTA died, EU Commissioner, Karel De Gucht, promised that the treaty would be passed one way or another. His main goal is to bring the treaty before the European Court of Justice to see if the treaty infringes upon any basic human rights protected by the European Union. De Gucht doesn’t want to wait for a court ruling, so he’s going to use Canada to get what he wants.

    The tactic, according to Michael Geist, is that the EU will pass CETA with Canada and then claim that ACTA was perfectly acceptable the whole time. I mean, Canada likes the provisions that are in CETA and so why do you hate it? It’s a clever tactic and one that might work. That’s the scary part as all the worst parts of ACTA are present in CETA. Even if ACTA doesn’t get brought up again, the EU and Canada would be bound by a treaty that contains all that nastiness.

    Fortunately, the outcry against CETA has moved the European Commission to remove some of the more inflammatory parts of the bill. The provisions in CETA that would require ISPs to remove content and disclose subscriber’s personal information have been removed according to a Tweet from the European Commission’s John Clancy.

    Unfortunately, those are just two of the numerous provisions from ACTA that are still in CETA. The fact that the EU or Canada will not release the current text of the bill is also a bad sign. It’s been a trend to hide controversial or damaging bills until they’re ready to pass, but leaks like this help the public to become aware of the issues at stake. Geist suggests that the EU reveal the current draft to allow input from the citizenry. I agree, but it would be even better if countries were left to their own devices on how best to approach IP laws instead of trying to create a universal standard that only works for the top of the chain.

    Do you think that these new bills present a threat to the Internet? Does CETA herald the return of ACTA? Let us know in the comments.

    [Image Credit]

  • The Ghost Of SOPA Has Come Back To Haunt Us In New Bill

    The Ghost Of SOPA Has Come Back To Haunt Us In New Bill

    It was pretty awesome to see the Internet come together to beat back SOPA and PIPA. It was one of the defining moments of the Internet, but many people knew it wasn’t over. Like the end of a particularly good film, the villain vows he will return for a sequel as he is cast into oblivion. Unfortunately, Rep. Lamar Smith just said SOPA three times and now a part of it is back in a new bill he’s sponsoring.

    The bill is called The Intellectual Property Attache Act and it gives more power to IP attaches. According to TechDirt, these are the people who work with foreign governments to expand IP rules and enforce American copyright around the world. At face value, this sounds like a good thing. There are plenty of foreign countries that still deal in physical counterfeiting and piracy. An expansion to IP attaches might make their job easier.

    Unfortunately, things are never that simple. The exact same expansion was presented in SOPA, but now it’s worse. The bill moves the IP attaches out of USPTO jurisdiction into their own agency. Their role under this new agency would be “to advance the intellectual property rights of United States persons and their licenses.” It wouldn’t be so bad if the bill was about working with other countries to create their own IP rules, but this is all about expanding American IP law to every other nation.

    The worst part about this bill is that nobody knew about it until it was too late. We only knew about it on Monday and now it’s on the fast track through committee. If it’s anything like CISPA, they will push through a vote without considering any amendments to the legislation.

    Another worrying aspect is that Rep. Darrell Issa, defender of the Internet and SOPA hater, is signed on as a sponsor for the bill. Issa was one of the strongest opponents to SOPA and PIPA when they were being trotted around in January and now he’s in support for what is essentially a chunk of what he was against. What gives? Speaking to TechCrunch, a spokesman for Issa said that the SOPA hater supports the bill because it helps “American individuals and companies that are experiencing intellectual property infringement in certain foreign countries.” He does, however, say that he will push to amend the bill with “clear IP exceptions like fair use” before it’s marked up.

    To be honest, we could be over thinking this. The Internet seems to get pretty jumpy whenever Rep. Smith is brought up anymore and SOPA is still fresh in the minds of many people. Of course, it doesn’t help when the bill in question takes its cue straight from parts of SOPA. Will Rep. Smith try to push through other parts of SOPA in other bills if we let this one slide?

  • Is Japan Making YouTube Illegal For Japanese Citizens?

    So the Japanese government did something a little sneaky while its public was distracted by the arrest of a cult member who wanted to gas Tokyo’s subway system; something that could impact all Japanese citizens, even if they aren’t in Japan when they potentially violate certain copyright law revisions.

    As pointed out by Japanese attorney Toshimitsu Dan, the revisions introduced by the Japanese government focus directly on the ripping, sharing, and downloading of copyrighted content. As Dan explains, Japanese citizens will be effected in the following ways:

    1. Ripping and copying of copy-protected and encoded materials like DVDs and games is no longer considered “for personal use” and is punishable.

    2. The sale of software and hardware that circumvents copy protection and access protections is forbidden.

    3. The intentional download of illegally uploaded materials is now punishable.

    But how does this effect YouTube, you ask? Pay attention to the third revision Dan discussed and consider how you watch YouTube videos. When you click play, the content is downloaded to your computer, and even though it’s on a temporary basis, it will fit the definition of copyright violation, as defined by the Japanese government. Not only that, but as Dan points out, the wording of these revisions makes them so that they apply to all Japanese citizens, even those who aren’t actually living in Japan, or as The Escapist puts it:

    …when the law comes into force in October, it will be illegal for Japanese citizens to watch protected material via YouTube – even if they happen to be doing it in Los Angeles.

    Not only that, but punishment for violating these soon-to-be enacted revisions includes a hefty fine ($25,000) and potential prison time of up to two years. The Escapist also points out a lack of social awareness from some Japanese citizens concerning such laws, and the only ones who on top of these proceedings belong to a frowned-upon subculture called otaku.

    In other words, don’t expect a mass uprising of protest against these copyright law revisions, and, come October, if you’re a Japanese citizen, you’ll need to be very careful with how you use YouTube.

    [Lead image courtesy]

  • The Netherlands Shoots Down ACTA

    We here in the U.S. have been far too focused on CISPA lately and for good reason. It has the potential to encroach essential freedoms all in the name of stopping cyber attacks. We must not forget our friends in Europe, however, who are fighting against an equally, if not more, disastrous ACTA. While news on ACTA has been slow to surface, today’s news is about as good as it gets.

    A Google translated page for WedWereld shows a report that says the Dutch House of Representatives has put their weight behind the anti-ACTA movement. They have issued a motion to the state cabinet to reject ACTA. It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean the Netherlands will skip out on ACTA, but it does show that many in government are displeased with the treaty.

    As we’ve explained before, ACTA is essentially SOPA on an international scale. It allows for many of the same functions that SOPA would have allowed, but it also features some other dangerous wording that could even threaten access to cheap medicine. Signings of the controversial treaty has already been delayed or outright stopped in countries like Germany and Bulgaria thanks to massive displays of unrest.

    With the Netherlands now seemingly joining the anti-ACTA movement, it remains to be seen if the treaty will actually live through this year. The European Parliament seems set on passing ACTA, but the backlash from the citizenry has been enormous. If ACTA is passed, it wouldn’t be the first time that governments ignored the voices of their citizens. It also wouldn’t be the first time governments have faced the collective wrath of a citizenry scorned.

    It’s going to be interesting to watch Europe over the next few months with the final vote on ACTA coming in the next few weeks. The current European debt crisis is already driving unrest to an all time high. I highly doubt Europe could contain the unrest caused by its delegates ratifying ACTA.

    While we’re waiting to hear more on ACTA, the Netherlands pulled off another feat today that should make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The House of Representatives have also passed a motion that would see any future Internet regulation treaties or laws to be automatically rejected. It’s these kind of stories that let you see who the real champions of Internet freedom are. Looking at you, England.

    [h/t: Slashdot]

  • Lamar Smith Greeted With “Don’t Mess with the Internet” Billboard

    In case you’ve already forgotten who Lamar Smith is, take a moment to remind yourself. If that’s too much reading, in short, he was one of the primary sponsors of the SOPA bill that rocked the Internet a couple of months ago.

    While most Internet users have moved on to whatever’s currently trending, thankfully, some haven’t forgotten the damage Smith’s bill tried to cause. Take the “Fight For The Future” movement, for instance. Backed by a successful crowdfunding process, the group placed a friendly reminder outside of Smith’s San Antonio office, telling him essentially to keep his hands off of the Internet in the form of an awesome billboard, which leads this article.

    As indicated, the billboards were paid for by the crowdfunding venture, which was so successful, the organization was able to afford two billboards, both of which sport a nifty “PAID FOR BY THE INTERNET” reminder, just so Smith knows who he’s up against. The second billboard is being displayed in Austin, Texas, also near one of Smith’s offices. There’s a Google Map embed showing interested parties where exactly the billboards are:


    They’ve also included additional images of the billboard from what looks like the Austin, Texas placement. Personally, it’s hard not to appreciate the fact that the billboard space is provided by Lamar Advertising. Isn’t it ironic, don’tcha think?

    Internet Billboard

    For those that want to go all out in their support of the FFTF movement–guilty–there’s also a Breadpig-designed t-shirt for you to acquire. 10 percent of proceeds from the shirt sales goes to “support Fight for the Future and the Internet Defense League.”

    One wonders if Smith even notices these billboards. If he does, does he understand the message being posted?

  • Chris Dodd Hints That Piracy Isn’t Theft, Still Wants SOPA

    Chris Dodd Hints That Piracy Isn’t Theft, Still Wants SOPA

    Chris Dodd has all the makings of an effective politician, if, for nothing else, his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Take, for instance, his current stance on both SOPA and piracy.

    In an interview with Variety.com, Dodd revealed an interesting, change-is-possible thinking when discussing the MPAA’s approach to piracy. From his perspective, perhaps the MPAA’s wording was to harsh. In fact, he suggested a different approach regarding the mindset concerning piracy by saying:

    He said Saturday that the industry will need to take a far more nuanced approach to promoting future antipiracy legislation.

    “We’re going to have to be more subtle and consumer-oriented,” he added. “We’re on the wrong track if we describe this as thievery.”

    Now, does this mean Dodd doesn’t view piracy as theft or is this simply a change in strategy in an attempt to woo support for future editions of SOPA? Judging by the “promoting future antipiracy legislation” portion, it suggests very clearly that the war on piracy is far from over, at least from the MPAA’s perspective. It seems as if the change in the way the piracy is described is meant to suggest a softer stance towards file sharers, but it also rings as if he’s suggesting a lighter approach–not calling content pirates thieves–will garner more support from the public, and, more importantly, the tech industry.

    A quote concerning Google’s stance on SOPA demonstrates this rather well:

    But Internet companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter campaigned effectively against the legislation, mobilizing users on grounds that the new rules would impede the free flow of information on the Internet.

    “Google chose wisely by making Hollywood the enemy,” Dodd said ruefully.

    Another thing that might help get the tech industry on board is craft future versions of SOPA in such a way that it doesn’t potentially break the Internet.

    That being said, the fact that Dodd suggests a change in the approach to piracy, while mentioning the role consumers play can be categorized as potential hope. The idea of embracing the Internet as a primary vehicle for content delivery, even first-run movies, is a step in the right direction. The Oatmeal’s take on watching Game of Thrones perfectly demonstrates the position many consumers find themselves in before resorting to file sharing.

    Who knows, maybe somebody forwarded that particular comic to Dodd’s email and he got the message. But then again, maybe he’s just trying a more subtle approach to generate support for future versions of SOPA, which remains very much on his mind:

    “I can’t say anything to [US Senators] about this for another seven months, but I think my colleagues understand how important this is,” he said.

    Just make sure you don’t call piracy theft.