Following Up for the Week Ending 8/25/2010

TCLP 2010-08-08 News

This is news cast 221, an episode of The Command Line Podcast.

In the intro, my thanks to Mike for his donation for which he has earned a merit badge. A final reminder there will not be a feature cast this coming week, I’ll be out in San Francisco for most of the week. Also, a quick review of George Mann’s “The Osiris Ritual“. I reviewed his first novel, “The Affinity Bridge”, earlier in the Summer.

This week’s security alerts are RFIDs can be provably read at over 60 meters and an algorithmic attack on reCAPTCHA.

In this week’s news an algorithm to improve the energy efficiency of mesh networks, concerns over a citizen vigilante group monitor ISPs though the groups claims may be overstated, Google ends Wave development though is dedicated to learning from its failure in this case probably from its complexity despite adding more resources and opening up to more users, and unpacking what exactly went on between Google and Verizon especially as they deny claims of an anti-neutrality pact (even on Twitter). Odds are good they are still meeting and talking to some end which may be why the NYT is sticking to its story. Cringely has the most intriguing guess at their possible goal.

Following up this week EFF offers assistance to targets of the US Copyright Group and the FCC ends closed door discussions on its net neutrality plan.


View the detailed show notes online. You can also grab the flac encoded audio from the Internet Archive.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Following Up for the Week Ending 7/25/2010

More Information Supporting Copyright Infringement Profiteering

A couple of items crossed my feeds that bolster the strengthening trend of 3rd party lawyers issuing demand letters and pushing for settlements not as a means of deterring piracy but solely as a source of profit.

First is the astonishing disparity between what the RIAA paid its lawyers and what they actually recouped. As Ray Beckerman explains, they paid more than $16,000,000 and recovered only $391,000. Admittedly, their motives were more complex than recovering losses, as they tried to explain repeatedly they undertook their suits to send a message to file sharers. Still, given that they often trot out the tired rhetoric about their artists starving as CD sales plummet, this seems criminally irresponsible. I am sure that sixteen million could have helped those poor, suffering creatives being impoverished by the Internet.

Mike Masnick at Techdirt has a very informative infographic exploding how much money typically goes to whom in the music industry. This lop sided distribution could easily be used to bolster any number of rationales for a law firm looking to undertake its own massive demand and settlement campaign. They could offer a share of the proceeds to the impoverished band or seek healthy up front fees from the labels on promise of a juicy return. Clearly the model of profiting directly from punishing infringement isn’t any stranger than what is already going on with the business model of the big labels.

Following Up for the Week Ending 7/11/2010

Following Up for the Week Ending 7/4/2010