It appears the recent arrests and shut-down of popular file sharing site MegaUpload may be making other sites question their positions after another popular file sharing site, FileSonic, has appeared to have bowed to pressure about illegal file sharing on its network, now only allowing personal upload files to be retrieved.This message now appears on the site:“All sharing functionality on FileSonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally.”Whether this could be the beginning of the end for other popular file sharing sites like Fileserve, Mediafire or Rapidshare is yet to be seen.MegaUpload was shut down on Friday morning and several people involved with the site were charged with violating piracy laws. The site was accused of costing copyright holders over $500 million in lost revenue from pirated music and other content. The shut-down came only a day after websites such as Wikipedia and Reddit shut down services in protest of proposals (SOPA/PIPA) intended to stop online piracy.MegaUpload, which launched in 2005 and is one of the most popular “locker” services on the Internet, lets users anonymously transfer large files — and has generated $175 million in income for its operators through subscription fees or advertising.Hacktivist collective Anonymous retaliated by taking down a number of music, film, copyright and government websites, inlcluding Universal Music and BMI (which is responsible for collecting license fees on behalf of songwriters).
http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/filesonic-another-file-sharing-site-goes-down/
Is it legal to stop people from selling their used games?By Kyle Orland | Published about 24 hours agoIs it legal to stop people from selling their used games?If a platform holder wants to make your used games as useful as this disc fragment, that's their legal right.Recent stories about potential technical efforts to limit the future playability of used games, as well as commercial efforts to limit the content included with used copies, got us wondering: is it actually legal to hinder someone from reselling a game (or piece of a game) that they legally bought in the first place?At first glance, such efforts would seem to fall afoul of the first-sale doctrine. First established in a 1908 Supreme Court case and codified into law in 1976, the doctrine basically gives the initial purchaser wide-ranging rights to the use of the product they've bought, including the right to sell it to a new owner.So if a retail game comes with online-activated DRM or some other method for preventing a second owner from playing, doesn't that go against this longstanding legal principle? Probably not, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation Intellectual Property Director Corryne McSherry. While the first-sale doctrine says a company can't stop you from selling, giving away or even breaking your legally purchased software, "I don’t think it is binding on others to assist you in doing all of those things," she says."I think the first-sale doctrine... would say you have a right to sell your old game... and you have the right to purchase a used game... but the first-sale doctrine doesn’t require somebody to build a used book store, if you know what I mean," she continued. In other words, just because you can sell a used game doesn't mean the platform maker has to make it easy, or even possible, for the new owner to play it.It's an odd distinction, and one that's dictated by the still legally murky world of the End User License Agreement. Most software these days, including games, comes with such a EULA, saying the initial purchaser is just a licensee and isn't allowed to resell that license to a new owner. This is how digital download services like Steam and Xbox Live Marketplace can legally prevent you from reselling digital copies of their titles.How do the courts deal with the conflict between these EULAs and the consumer's legislatively granted first-sale rights? The case law regarding the subject is a bit unsettled, but the trend seems to be going in a decidedly consumer-unfriendly direction. "Assuming you actually agree to [the EULA], even if you didn't read it, courts tend to treat those contracts as binding," McSherry says. "There's a tension there — have you contractually waived your first sale right? — but unfortunately recent cases have not been really positive in that direction."Of course, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's a good idea, for a variety of economic and consumer relations reasons. But if companies are going to be prevented from scaling back a used game's value, it will likely be because of public pressure, and not legal pressure."I think a company is free to design its games the way they want to design their games," McSherry says. "To me, it's less of a legal question and more of a question of business and public policy."
orrent search engine BTJunkie voluntarily shuts downBy Mark Brown, wired.co.uk | Published about an hour agoTorrent search engine BTjunkie is the latest file-sharing service to fall on its sword in the wake of the Megaupload sting. Junkie, one of the largest BitTorrent indexes, decided to shut down voluntarily.A statement on the website reads, "This is the end of the line my friends. The decision does not come easy, but we've decided to voluntarily shut down. We've been fighting for years for your right to communicate, but it's time to move on. It's been an experience of a lifetime, we wish you all the best!"The site was never directly targeted by copyright holders, an unnamed BTJunkie founder told TorrentFreak. However, the site was reported to the US Trade Representative (USTR) in 2011, the RIAA and MPAA listed the torrent index as a 'rogue' site, and Google censored the search term.Despite avoiding legal attention so far, the site's founder told TorrentFreak that the legal action against file-sharing sites Megaupload and The Pirate Bay played an important role in its closure.Online storage locker Megaupload was seized and shut down by the US Department of Justice in January 2012, for allegedly breaching copyright infringement law. The site's staff members were arrested and founder Kim Dotcom was recently been denied bail.Meanwhile, the founders of The Pirate Bay were arrested for copyright infringement in 2009. This month, the supreme court of Sweden made the ruling final, and announced that the founders will not be able to appeal their months-long prison sentences or combined fines of 46 million kronor (around $6.83 million).In response to Megaupload's shutdown, a raft of popular Web lockers have neutered the ability to share files with others. FileSonic, FileServe and Uploaded.to all cut off file-sharing in the days after Megaupload was seized.The Pirate Bay, on the other hand, moved its domain name from .org to the Swedish .se. A Pirate Bay insider told TorrentFreak that this was to prevent US authorities from seizing the popular domain.
Dangerous tweets: Arrested, fined in 140 characters or lessBy Nate Anderson | Published about an hour agoDangerous tweets: Arrested, fined in 140 characters or lessEvidence of grave robbery and terrorism?In 2010, South Yorkshire police showed up at the workplace of 26-year old Paul Chambers and arrested him. His crime: posting a frustrated joke to Twitter after his girlfriend's flight was delayed due to snow at the local airport.“Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed," he wrote. "You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”This was perhaps unfortunately phrased, but was it "menacing"? Even police didn't think so. As Chambers's lawyer describes the chain of events leading to his arrest: [The tweet] was not sent to the airport, and when it was found in a search some days later it was graded as “non-credible” by the airport security manager. However, the process in place meant that it was referred to the airport police, who did nothing, and then to South Yorkshire police, who arrested Paul at his workplace for a suspected "bomb hoax." The police in turn realised after interview that it was intended as no more than a joke; but they had to refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision. The CPS agreed that it was not a bomb hoax offence, but they decided it was in the public interest to prosecute Paul under section 127. This seems the first time... that this offence had been used in respect of an internet communication.Chambers was fined £400 plus costs (now over £3,000). But he has appealed the case, which was heard in London this week, and the ruling will set precedent as the first time an appellate court has considered this sort of issue related to social media.The UK isn't the only government not sure how to handle tweets. Two weeks ago, British tabloid The Sun interviewed a man and woman who had been sent back home after long flights to California, where Homeland Security agents pointed to a recent tweet from the man saying, "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America."If it all seems a bit over the top—what person actually out to "destroy America" would write such a thing publicly, on Twitter, and in English?—it could be far worse if you live in Saudi Arabia.
