news.com
As of Tuesday, the toll for film piracy in New York is now a misdemeanor "that carries up to six months in jail and penalties of up to $5,000". Because the illegal videotaping of movies in theaters and bootlegging attribute to 40% of film piracy annually, Mayor Michael Bloomberg responded by enacting more serious consequences for the crime.
Since bootlegging accounts for billions of dollars the movie industry is robbed of on a yearly basis, I'm not sure why it has taken so long for state governments to respond. Home-recorded movies have been around for years, and only now is NY cracking down on the copyright infringers. Moreover, this legislation has come at a time when, in my opinion, the move towards laws prohibiting Internet downloading should be the main focus. Bit Torrent software allows millions of users to get, not only single movies, but also entire seasons of TV shows, and the consequences for people uploading and downloading are lacking. It seems that the approach is to focus on agreements with production companies to sell the rights to use their material, with a fee of course, rather than punishing the illegal file-sharers themselves. Congress has already dropped the ball on controlling in-theater tapings, and policy needs to be enforced sooner than later to prevent that mistake for the illegal distribution of media via the Internet.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Music industry wins UW IDs in file-sharing case
Wisconsin State Journal
With the increasing issue of illegal file sharing and downloading, it is no surprise that the RIAA is cracking down on policy. The University of Wisconsin was forced to give the names and contact information of fifty-three students allegedly responsible for 24,977 shared music files. Past file-sharing lawsuits have ended in "default judgments or stipulated settlements [...] ranging between $5,000 and $15,000", a price that would make any student reconsider the whole process.
In researching this topic for my final paper, I found a list the RIAA and MPAA published this February, ranking the top twenty-five Universities who have received warnings about students illegally downloading files. Among the list of "the most piracy-ridden schools in higher education" sits UMass at number six for music file sharing and number nine for film and TV show downloads.
From students' perspectives, it seems that most know file sharing is wrong but do not care. The media industry has tried several different approaches to control the issue, including the ridiculous slogans like 'You wouldn't steal a car, would you?', or even temporarily removing Internet access. All of the campaigns have been unsuccessful until now, and the RIAA and MPAA are imposing heavy fines on offenders. I think, if strictly enforced, this may work in scaring people, particularly college and high school students, into actually purchasing music, movies and shows.
With the increasing issue of illegal file sharing and downloading, it is no surprise that the RIAA is cracking down on policy. The University of Wisconsin was forced to give the names and contact information of fifty-three students allegedly responsible for 24,977 shared music files. Past file-sharing lawsuits have ended in "default judgments or stipulated settlements [...] ranging between $5,000 and $15,000", a price that would make any student reconsider the whole process.
In researching this topic for my final paper, I found a list the RIAA and MPAA published this February, ranking the top twenty-five Universities who have received warnings about students illegally downloading files. Among the list of "the most piracy-ridden schools in higher education" sits UMass at number six for music file sharing and number nine for film and TV show downloads.
From students' perspectives, it seems that most know file sharing is wrong but do not care. The media industry has tried several different approaches to control the issue, including the ridiculous slogans like 'You wouldn't steal a car, would you?', or even temporarily removing Internet access. All of the campaigns have been unsuccessful until now, and the RIAA and MPAA are imposing heavy fines on offenders. I think, if strictly enforced, this may work in scaring people, particularly college and high school students, into actually purchasing music, movies and shows.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Pew study finds teens limit social-networking data, access
SiliconValley.com
In a phone study conducted last October through November, 935 teens were surveyed on their use of social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. The study reported that only 55% of teens ranging from twelve to seventeen-year-olds actually have online profiles, and of that percent only a third post their full names and email addresses. Moreover, younger teens seem to be staying away from the site, something the article attributes to the age requirements on the networking sites.
In response to this article, I was interested to learn how difficult it is to find someone who does not put their full name on their profile. Since Facebook is typically viewed as the safer of the two sites, I started there by creating a fake profile of an Amherst Regional High School student. Once you're in the network, you can search anyone in the HS, alum or current students. Of the results, only four of the first 150 did not put their full name; however, I was unable to find more information on those few people. On the other hand, people can be messaged directly on the site, and since it is very easy to join a network, it is up to the users not to respond to people they don't know.
It is my opinion that the results of this survey are a false attempt to make people believe that these sites are less concerning than they actually are, reporting that "teens, particularly girls and younger teens, have gotten the message about protecting themselves on social networks". Another article sent out in the BNA highlights email discussed how online predators are becoming increasingly vulgar, and the matter of increasing membership to these networks is thus an even more serious issue. The survey results were most likely skewed by the twelve-year-olds questioned, and it would be interesting to see the difference in statistics had the results been grouped by age or class year.
In a phone study conducted last October through November, 935 teens were surveyed on their use of social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. The study reported that only 55% of teens ranging from twelve to seventeen-year-olds actually have online profiles, and of that percent only a third post their full names and email addresses. Moreover, younger teens seem to be staying away from the site, something the article attributes to the age requirements on the networking sites.
In response to this article, I was interested to learn how difficult it is to find someone who does not put their full name on their profile. Since Facebook is typically viewed as the safer of the two sites, I started there by creating a fake profile of an Amherst Regional High School student. Once you're in the network, you can search anyone in the HS, alum or current students. Of the results, only four of the first 150 did not put their full name; however, I was unable to find more information on those few people. On the other hand, people can be messaged directly on the site, and since it is very easy to join a network, it is up to the users not to respond to people they don't know.
It is my opinion that the results of this survey are a false attempt to make people believe that these sites are less concerning than they actually are, reporting that "teens, particularly girls and younger teens, have gotten the message about protecting themselves on social networks". Another article sent out in the BNA highlights email discussed how online predators are becoming increasingly vulgar, and the matter of increasing membership to these networks is thus an even more serious issue. The survey results were most likely skewed by the twelve-year-olds questioned, and it would be interesting to see the difference in statistics had the results been grouped by age or class year.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Thailand orders popular political Web forum to close
SiliconValley.com
Yesterday, April 9th, Thailand demanded that "one of the country's most popular chat sites to shut its political forum because of postings deemed insulting to the revered monarch." The site, pantip.com, criticized a number of government issues including the monarch and military, and was closed for concerns over what the government felt to be national security issues.
Moreover, the Thai government is demanding the removal of videos posted on YouTube that criticize the country's king, an action that over 1,00 people have since posted messages about. While YouTube is refusing to take down the media, Google is currently trying to resolve the issue with Thailand officials. Although pantip.com is operating under the legislation of the Thai government, YouTube is governed by American laws. Thus, the issue at hand is the conflicting rights to freedom of expression. Should YouTube be able to post media bashing another country's leader considering the videos are viewable globally? Which country's laws should apply here?
I think in the case of political figures, such as Thailand's king, or even our own George Bush, laws of slander and the like often do not apply. I'm not sure why it is okay to fabricate stories or post falsities about an individual when they are in a position of power, yet the average citizen would not stand for the same treatment. We are very protective of our own rights, yet expensing that of other individuals for humor's sake is okay. Nonetheless, I honestly could care less about the mocking of national leaders, or even our own president for that matter. A lot of the stuff posted by users of the site is very entertaining, and trampling the rights of others should apply to the King of Thailand and average Joe alike.
Yesterday, April 9th, Thailand demanded that "one of the country's most popular chat sites to shut its political forum because of postings deemed insulting to the revered monarch." The site, pantip.com, criticized a number of government issues including the monarch and military, and was closed for concerns over what the government felt to be national security issues.
Moreover, the Thai government is demanding the removal of videos posted on YouTube that criticize the country's king, an action that over 1,00 people have since posted messages about. While YouTube is refusing to take down the media, Google is currently trying to resolve the issue with Thailand officials. Although pantip.com is operating under the legislation of the Thai government, YouTube is governed by American laws. Thus, the issue at hand is the conflicting rights to freedom of expression. Should YouTube be able to post media bashing another country's leader considering the videos are viewable globally? Which country's laws should apply here?
I think in the case of political figures, such as Thailand's king, or even our own George Bush, laws of slander and the like often do not apply. I'm not sure why it is okay to fabricate stories or post falsities about an individual when they are in a position of power, yet the average citizen would not stand for the same treatment. We are very protective of our own rights, yet expensing that of other individuals for humor's sake is okay. Nonetheless, I honestly could care less about the mocking of national leaders, or even our own president for that matter. A lot of the stuff posted by users of the site is very entertaining, and trampling the rights of others should apply to the King of Thailand and average Joe alike.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Jail time increased for online sexual predators
boston.com
Despite efforts, or lack thereof, to keep kids off of MySpace and Facebook, most teenagers today have an account with at least one of these sites, posting pretty much everything a stalker or pedophile would want to know. This in mind, one of the major concerns surrounding these sites has been the threat posed by online sexual predators. In the midst of connecting people through hundreds of networks nation-wide, there have been several cases where minors have fallen victim to sexual predators, for which the punishment was initially 30-90 days in jail. As the number of users and offenders have increased, the sentence has also increased to an average one year for a first offense.
To start, parents are ridiculous. I know most kids have easy access to computers and can get online to make an account, but c'mon...give your sons and daughters a sense of self-respect so they're not posting vulgar pictures of themselves on the Internet, and right next to their contact information nonetheless. Moreover, these sites should be required to extensively monitor the operations on this site. It is VERY easy to create a fake profile or lie about your age, something that makes users more vulnerable, and while the site does not allow pornographic images, there needs to be stricter regulations to monitor images.
While it is good to see that the punishment for online sexual predators are becoming more serious, it seems that this issue is being dealt with mostly in the aftermath. Why has there not been more legislation imposing more regulations on these sites to prevent these problems in the first place? It seems that the current solution has been to educate teens on not meeting with someone you only know online, rather than allowing users to provide so much personal information in the first place, something that should change in the near future.
Despite efforts, or lack thereof, to keep kids off of MySpace and Facebook, most teenagers today have an account with at least one of these sites, posting pretty much everything a stalker or pedophile would want to know. This in mind, one of the major concerns surrounding these sites has been the threat posed by online sexual predators. In the midst of connecting people through hundreds of networks nation-wide, there have been several cases where minors have fallen victim to sexual predators, for which the punishment was initially 30-90 days in jail. As the number of users and offenders have increased, the sentence has also increased to an average one year for a first offense.
To start, parents are ridiculous. I know most kids have easy access to computers and can get online to make an account, but c'mon...give your sons and daughters a sense of self-respect so they're not posting vulgar pictures of themselves on the Internet, and right next to their contact information nonetheless. Moreover, these sites should be required to extensively monitor the operations on this site. It is VERY easy to create a fake profile or lie about your age, something that makes users more vulnerable, and while the site does not allow pornographic images, there needs to be stricter regulations to monitor images.
While it is good to see that the punishment for online sexual predators are becoming more serious, it seems that this issue is being dealt with mostly in the aftermath. Why has there not been more legislation imposing more regulations on these sites to prevent these problems in the first place? It seems that the current solution has been to educate teens on not meeting with someone you only know online, rather than allowing users to provide so much personal information in the first place, something that should change in the near future.
Monday, March 26, 2007
yahoo news
Symantec Corporation, an anti-virus firm, reported that 70 percent of all emails coming from Asia are spam. The company claims that China leads the continent with 30 percent of that total, and the almost 90 percent of emails sent from the Philippines are spam as well.
I would never have considered Asia to be the leading sender of spam mail. With such high restrictions on Internet use, as well as the underdeveloped technological resources in most parts of the continent in comparison with other countries, I don't see why so much junk mail is coming from Asia.
Nonetheless, the general problem with excessive spamming seems to be the bigger picture here. It is as if nothing is being regulated to stop spamers, and the only defense for email account holders are filters. Still, this leaves the problem of accumulated space junk mail takes up in accounts, as well as the hassle of having to delete so many messages. Moreover, once you open a spam email, it's as if there's no way of ever stopping them from coming. We need better ways to deal with spam mail where junk messages will be denied acceptance in the first place.
Symantec Corporation, an anti-virus firm, reported that 70 percent of all emails coming from Asia are spam. The company claims that China leads the continent with 30 percent of that total, and the almost 90 percent of emails sent from the Philippines are spam as well.
I would never have considered Asia to be the leading sender of spam mail. With such high restrictions on Internet use, as well as the underdeveloped technological resources in most parts of the continent in comparison with other countries, I don't see why so much junk mail is coming from Asia.
Nonetheless, the general problem with excessive spamming seems to be the bigger picture here. It is as if nothing is being regulated to stop spamers, and the only defense for email account holders are filters. Still, this leaves the problem of accumulated space junk mail takes up in accounts, as well as the hassle of having to delete so many messages. Moreover, once you open a spam email, it's as if there's no way of ever stopping them from coming. We need better ways to deal with spam mail where junk messages will be denied acceptance in the first place.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Internet gambling charges settled
KATC.com
Charges were dropped against online gambling company Sportingbet PLC and its chairman. The company operates out of England where online gambling is legal, but was prosecuted for violating anti online wagering laws in Louisiana. After a 400,000 dollar settlement, the case was settled.
Being that Louisiana is one of the few states that has prohibited online banking, it is no surprise that the Sportingbet case was one of the first of its kind since the 1997 ban. I don't see the difference between online gambling and playing tables at the casinos, other than enforcing the age restrictions. Moreover, with so few places enforcing the laws, how does jurisdiction apply? Since the company was located in England where their particular service is legal, and they are capable of running the company from that region, which laws apply?
I don't see online gambling as the threat that people make it out to be. If companies put a cap on wagers and limit users to a certain number of hours, I don't see the harm in online gambling. As far as addiction and abuse go, I think it would be much easier to limit people from excessive online gambling than actually gambling. There can be restrictions set on the hours the business operates, as well as limitations put on the money invested and withdrawn. Overall, I think the practice can be safe and fun with the proper regulations.
Charges were dropped against online gambling company Sportingbet PLC and its chairman. The company operates out of England where online gambling is legal, but was prosecuted for violating anti online wagering laws in Louisiana. After a 400,000 dollar settlement, the case was settled.
Being that Louisiana is one of the few states that has prohibited online banking, it is no surprise that the Sportingbet case was one of the first of its kind since the 1997 ban. I don't see the difference between online gambling and playing tables at the casinos, other than enforcing the age restrictions. Moreover, with so few places enforcing the laws, how does jurisdiction apply? Since the company was located in England where their particular service is legal, and they are capable of running the company from that region, which laws apply?
I don't see online gambling as the threat that people make it out to be. If companies put a cap on wagers and limit users to a certain number of hours, I don't see the harm in online gambling. As far as addiction and abuse go, I think it would be much easier to limit people from excessive online gambling than actually gambling. There can be restrictions set on the hours the business operates, as well as limitations put on the money invested and withdrawn. Overall, I think the practice can be safe and fun with the proper regulations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)