Record labels unhappy with court win, say ISP should pay more for user piracy

The big three record labels notched another court victory against a broadband provider last month, but the music publishing firms aren’t happy that an appeals court only awarded per-album damages instead of damages for each song.

Universal, Warner, and Sony are seeking an en banc rehearing of the copyright infringement case, claiming that Internet service provider Grande Communications should have to pay per-song damages over its failure to terminate the accounts of Internet users accused of piracy. The decision to make Grande pay for each album instead of each song “threatens copyright owners’ ability to obtain fair damages,” said the record labels’ petition filed last week.

The case is in the conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. A three-judge panel unanimously ruled last month that Grande, a subsidiary of Astound Broadband, violated the law by failing to terminate subscribers accused of being repeat infringers. Subscribers were flagged for infringement based on their IP addresses being connected to torrent downloads monitored by Rightscorp, a copyright-enforcement company used by the music labels.

The one good part of the ruling for Grande is that the 5th Circuit ordered a new trial on damages because it said a $46.8 million award was too high. Appeals court judges found that the district court “erred in granting JMOL [judgment as a matter of law] that each of the 1,403 songs in suit was eligible for a separate award of statutory damages.” The damages were $33,333 per song.

Record labels want the per-album portion of the ruling reversed while leaving the rest of it intact.

Keep reading

German Economics Minister renews calls for widespread internet censorship, claims that an “axis of autocrats” is using domestic “populists” to poison democratic discourse via social media algorithms

Our Green Minister of Economic Affairs, Robert Habeck, is increasingly a deranged and dangerous man, obsessed with unusual conspiracy theories. He believes that an “axis of autocrats” have instrumentalised TikTok and X to wage “hybrid warfare” on liberal European democracies. Specifically, he holds that these autocrats are directing domestic populists to poison public discourse with the help of Evil Algorithms. To beat back this nefarious influence, the European Union should comprehensively regulate – that is, censor – social media. Once again, we must much abridge central democratic freedoms, like the freedom of expression, to protect democracy from itself.

Habeck has been saying things like this for a while now, but his ominous Saturday speech in the Schinkel Church at Neuhardenberg Castle broke new ground in both detail and emphasis. Habeck’s remarks followed the twin political catastrophes of Trump’s election and the collapse of the traffic light coalition, and they came just as Habeck announced his intention to stand as Chancellor candidate for the Green Party. This was just not any speech, in other words, but rather a major policy statement by one of Germany’s most prominent politicians in advance of the approaching elections.

Habeck will never be Chancellor, but chances are high that the Greens will return to government when we vote again in February, and Habeck is a dominant voice in his party. Green policy statements also bear significance extending well beyond Green circles, reflecting as they do the general political outlook of the German elite. Demoralised by Trump’s election and their growing domestic unpopularity, our rulers are determined as never before to find some way of shutting up those inconvenient people who disagree with them. If only they can get us to stop sharing our unfiltered views on the internet, we can get back to the halcyon days of 2019 again, when the child saint Greta Thunberg was leading the children of the world on a glorious crusade against carbon dioxide and the Greens were polling stronger than ever before.

Keep reading

All The World’s a Stage: Everything Is Fake

No wonder we’re restless, teetering on the edge, frustrated by our addictions to fakery and excess, starved for what cannot be marketed or made profitable, so it no longer exists except in the shadows.

Everything is staged, and therefore fake. Given the near-zero cost of posting content in the digital world, everyone discovered that staging wasn’t limited to high-end political events, parades and Hollywood sets; since all the world’s a stage, everything could be staged, from every selfie on social media to every video on YouTube to every public display.

With staging comes spectacle, with spectacle comes self-serving artifice, and with artifice comes excess. The captivating idea of staging is by mimicking authenticity, we manifest an implicitly self-serving purpose: we stage the film to mimic “real life” to entertain the audience, and by this means reap a fortune.

By staging a political event, we rouse blood lust to serve our ascension to power. By staging a selfie in a swank bar sipping a costly cocktail, while home is a shared room in a squalid, overpriced flat, we serve our desire for a digitally distributed simulacrum of a status we cannot possibly achieve in our real lives.

Now that everything is staged, the competition to get noticed in a sea frothing with endless scrolls of “content” demands excess. Everything is now so sensationalized that we are desensitized to it all. As a result, everything distills down to self-parody, rendering parody impossible, for everything is already a parody of itself.

Mimicking authenticity to make the sale is now so embedded, so ubiquitous, that irony is also lost: we are living in a Philip K. Dick story come to life in which young women fabricating fake lives of glamor and luxury to boost their visibility are now competing with digitized imaginary young women that are idealized versions of the sexually compelling female.

Now that engagement is the coin of the Attention Economy realm, traditional media and social media have merged: everybody’s competing for engagement because that’s everyone’s source of income. Never mind that the Big Tech platforms skim the bulk of the engagement revenues and a handful of influencers reap the majority of what’s left; the mob is furiously dedicated to the task of picking up the pennies scattered in the sand-covered floor of the Coliseum.

In my view, engagement is the polite term for addiction, the core value proposition in Addiction Capitalism. As every dealer knows, there’s no more reliable source of revenue than a junkie with a monkey on his back, and encouraging addiction to screens is astoundingly profitable.

The fevered competition for eyeballs / visibility has generated a self-reinforcing feedback of faking authenticity better than other spectacles. The goal isn’t to present “real life,” what would be the point of such absurdly uncompelling, boring anti-spectacle?

The goal is to stage the mise en scene so cleverly that it really looks real: the rural kitchen in all its handmade glory, the “real food” lovingly prepared with simple tools, or the high-wire emotions of the indignant, filled to the brim with passionate intensity, planning their role when the rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.

But authenticity cannot be profitably milked for long; we caught on long ago. The transformation into sensationalized, self-parodying staging makes a mockery of authenticity, and as everyone crowds onto the world stage seeking visibility and the money the right staging brings, authenticity dissipates into dark energy, present but invisible, undetectable, a fleeting shadow lost in the churning wake of spectacle.

Keep reading

What Happened to Internet for All?

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris campaigned on a promise to connect Americans to high-speed internet. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act set aside $42.5 billion to the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. “What we’re doing is, as I said, not unlike what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did when he brought electricity to nearly every American home and farm in our nation. Today Kamala and I are making an equally historic investment to connect everyone in America to high speed internet, and affordable high speed internet, by 2030,” Biden stated. To date, no one has been connected to the internet under this program.

Biden is correct that he has acted like Roosevelt insofar as creating countless social programs and encouraging Americans to become dependent on the welfare state.  The $42.5 billion actually rises to $90 billion when we factor in the Affordable Connectivity Program. Kamala Harris was tasked with overseeing the Internet for All initiative, but she has done absolutely nothing to help the program progress. “While Republicans in Congress have refused to help us revive this program, our Administration is refusing to let them stop us from delivering for families across America,” Harris stated this past June.

Harris believes she could solve the problem if endless funds were made available. She did nothing with the initial investment and continues to ask for more funding despite having nothing to show for the BILLIONS invested in these Build Back Better programs. We recently saw the same fiasco with FEMA misplacing billions, claiming its budget toppled, and then blaming the Republicans for not blindly handing them more funding.

Harris consistently factors in race to her social programs and has supported the Digital Equity Plan than will prioritize internet access to minorities first. Divide and conquer.

Keep reading

Archive.org, a repository of the history of the Internet, has a data breach

Archive.org, one of the only entities to attempt to preserve the entire history of the World Wide Web and much of the broader Internet, was recently compromised in a hack that revealed data on roughly 31 million users.

A little after 2 pm California time, social media sites became awash with screenshots showing what the archive.org homepage displayed.

It read:

archive.org

Have you ever felt like the Internet Archive runs on sticks and is constantly on the verge of suffering a catastrophic security breach? It just happened. See 31 million of you on HIBP!

HIBP is short for Have I been Pwned, the authoritative site for breach notifications that helps people protect their accounts after they’ve been compromised.

The message didn’t last long. Soon after it appeared, archive.org, when it loaded at all, displayed a message saying the site was temporarily down. Later, the site returned. Archive.org’s Brewster Kahle said on the social media site X that the archive had come under a DDoS attack.

Now, Have I Been Pwnd is reporting that archive.org was hacked. HIBP said the compromise occurred last month and exposed 31 million records containing email addresses, screen names, and bcrypt-hashed passwords.

Keep reading

Opt Out: How to Protect Your Baby’s Photos on the Internet + More

The Guardian reported:

You’ve got the cutest baby ever, and you want the world to know it. But you’re also worried about what might happen to your baby’s picture once you release it into the nebulous world of the internet.

Should you post it?

“Everyone has had parents share embarrassing baby photos with friends. It’s a cringe-inducing rite of passage, but it’s different when that cringe is felt around the world and can never be deleted,” said Albert Fox Cahn, director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.

I’ve described my own concerns about my newborn’s privacy in the past. Tech companies are not transparent about what they do with our data and our pictures.

They might use the photos to train their latest AI models. That’s enough for me to try to err on the safe side of the do-I-post-pictures-of-my-child spectrum. I only share pictures of him via text or with his face turned away. Other parents might be more concerned with, for example, online predators.

I reached out to a few experts to help you figure out what the best move might be for you, depending on what you’re most concerned about. They all said that the most powerful protection is, of course, abstinence. Just don’t post or digitally store your kids’ pictures, and you’re golden. Is that realistic on a day-to-day basis?

The experts agreed: no. We all have to reach a happy medium.

Keep reading

Is your “private” VPN service controlled by Israel?

The group Palestine Declassified has put together a video report explaining that many of the world’s top VPN (virtual private network) services are controlled by a Zionist-controlled company called Kape Technologies.

The report suggests that Israel exploits technology used by millions of people, i.e., VPNs, to target individuals and conduct mass surveillance. What you think is private may actually be getting tracked by the Israeli government, according to the accusations leveled in the report.

Concerning Kape, the following “top brands” are listed on the company website as falling under the same umbrella of control:

• ExpressVPN

• Private Internet Access

• CyberGhost VPN

• Intego Antivirus

• Webselenese

Israeli businessman Teddy Sagi owns Kape. And according to Palestine Declassified, Sagi has an extensive background in working covertly with Israel Defense Forces (IDF), also known as the Israeli military, on secret projects – check out the report below:

Keep reading

The Digital Puppeteers: Big Tech’s Influence On Society

Tech companies have revolutionized the modern age, allowing for transcontinental communication, instant access to information, and unprecedented connectivity between people worldwide. But this revolution has come at a cost; these companies have undue influence over our lives, possessing the capability to shape public discourse, consumer behavior, and even political outcomes.

The scale of Big Tech’s market dominance is staggering. Google controls 81% of all general searches and Meta’s Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp collectively boast 3.27 billion daily active users. Amazon commands almost 50% of all U.S. e-commerce. These figures demonstrate how a handful of companies can wield unprecedented power over our digital lives.

This concentration of power allows Big Tech firms to design markets in ways that benefit themselves and stifle competition. It can result in higher prices for consumers and reduced innovation as smaller competitors are squeezed out.

The impact of this monopolistic control extends beyond economic concerns to the sanctity of our democratic discourse. As these platforms have become the de facto public squares of the digital age, their content moderation policies and algorithmic decision-making wield enormous influence over what information reaches the public.

Big Tech’s selective censorship has become increasingly apparent, with conservative voices often bearing the brunt of content moderation. In 2020, a New York Post exposé on Hunter Biden’s laptop was suppressed on both Twitter and Facebook. After the first Trump assassination attempt, Google intentionally omitted search results which referenced the attack, despite providing suggestions for historical assassination attempts on other presidents. These incidents highlight the growing concern over Big Tech’s power to shape public discourse through selective content moderation

At the core of this issue lies Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which shields interactive computer services from liability for content posted by users. While originally intended to promote free speech online, this provision has become a double-edged sword. It allows platforms to avoid responsibility for harmful or false content while simultaneously giving them broad discretion to censor or promote content as they see fit.

Keep reading

Big Tech-Government Collusion: Biden-Haris Admin, Meta, Google, and Others Launch AI Partnership to Combat “Disinformation” and “Hate Speech”

The current US White House seems to be exploring every possibility that might secure another avenue for what opponents (and quite a few lawmakers) refer to as “collusion” with (Big) Tech.

A new scheme has just been announced, that revolves around the “AI” and “disinformation” buzzwords, and includes the US State Department, Meta, Anthropic, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Nvidia, and OpenAI.

Looks like quite an “ensemble cast” – or “usual suspects” – right there.

It’s called, Partnership for Global Inclusivity on AI, and it was announced by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken along with a decision to bankroll programs “identifying disinformation using AI” with $3 million.

We obtained a copy of the report for you here.

Keep reading

Policing the Narrative

The Deep State has struck again. The Biden Administration’s intrepid Department of Justice (DOJ), ever-vigilant in its quest for Russian bogeymen, has proudly announced the seizure of 32 internet domains. Their purported crime? Daring to challenge the regime’s approved narratives.

According to the allegations, Russian entities such as Social Design Agency (SDA), Structura National Technology, and ANO Dialog operated these domains under the guidance of the Russian government. These “Doppelganger” campaigns reportedly sought to reduce international support for Ukraine, promote pro-Russian policies, and influence voters in U.S. and foreign elections, including the upcoming 2024 U.S. Presidential Election.

The methods allegedly used in these efforts include cybersquatting (registering domain names closely resembling legitimate news sites), creating fake media brands, deploying paid influencers, utilizing AI-generated content, running social media advertisements, and producing bogus social media profiles that impersonate U.S. citizens or non-Russian individuals. According to the DOJ, these campaigns target audiences across several countries, including the U.S., Germany, Mexico, and Israel.

The U.S. Treasury Department has designated ten individuals and two entities connected to these activities, stating that their actions violate U.S. money laundering laws, criminal trademark laws, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The FBI spearheads the investigation while various U.S. Attorney’s offices and Justice Department divisions manage the prosecutions.

Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks of “Russian government propaganda,” but what’s the real propaganda here? Is it the belief that endless proxy wars and foreign election interference are in America’s best interest? Or the idea that our intelligence agencies aren’t actively shaping public opinion?

The authorities speak of “malign influence” and “disinformation,” but what they fear is the truth—about our political class’s corruption, the American economy’s decline, and the regulation of what people read and discuss.

Make no mistake: This isn’t just about Russia or “protecting democracy.” The real threat isn’t some shadowy Russian troll farm.

Keep reading