Viacom’s $1 billion lawsuit against Google over copyright infringement on YouTube is coming to a head, with a court battle likely to ensue sometime this year. For now, the accusations made by both sides have been released. And they pull no punches whatsoever.

A Brief History Lesson

Viacom Vs Google can be traced right back to May 2005 before YouTube was under the protective wing of Google. A clip from Paramount Pictures’ Twin Towers was uploaded to the site, and Viacom demanded to know who the uploader was.

In October 2006 YouTube made a deal with Viacom to syndicate content. Then Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. February 2007 saw Viacom retract the previous deal and pull everything off the site.

March 2007 saw Viacom sue Google for 63,000 counts of copyright infringement, for which it was seeking $1 billion in damages. Google argues that YouTube is protected under the Safe Harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

BetaNews has the full timeline with many more twists and turns. But it all builds to this point when Google and Viacom’s documents pertaining to the court case have been released. And they make for interesting reading, to say the least.

Google’s Claims

Google claims that Viacom wanted it both ways, continuously uploading its content to YouTube while publicly rallying against it. Google claims Viacom uploaded roughed up versions of videos so they looked stolen, hiring marketing agencies to do the dirty work.

Google claims that Viacom even uploaded many of the clips which it is now suing over. And maintains that it is protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as it removes videos suspected of infringing copyrights.

Google also makes the claim that Viacom was interested in acquiring YouTube at one point.

Viacom’s Claims

Viacom dismisses the DMCA defense as it insists YouTube is more than just a passive content host and is therefore responsible for what videos were being uploaded to the site.

What’s more, Viacom also accuses YouTube’s founders of at the very least turning a blind eye to copyright infringing clips, suggesting that traffic was sought by any means necessary in order to ensure a quick sale. Viacom also claims Jawed Karim (YouTube co-founder) himself uploaded infringing videos, using email correspondence between the founders as evidence.

In essence, Viacom argues that YouTube was “intentionally built on infringement,” and deserves no leniency in court despite the measures put in place to clean up the site since the lawsuit was issued.

Conclusions

The documents feel very much like each side is attempting to score points from the other. And it’s almost inevitable that the case will now end up in court.

The sides have until April 30 to file opposing arguments to each other’s motions, with a trial then set to take place later this year. And it’ll be a trial whose verdict could set a landmark in terms of copyright owners vs. online video sites.

Macedonian bloggers and other new media users offered their own responses to the question “How internet changed your life?”, posed in an article [MKD] on BBC's Macedonian language site.

Darko Buldioski of Komunikacii.net applied a style figure reminiscent of Slavic antithesis to rephrase the question into “If I had no internet…” and posted the following answers:

I would not have…

• …been able to write on my blog, in which I invested much and got much in return :)
• …known that BBC covers this topic, as I don't listen to radio news, I read it all online
• …met a bunch of excellent people with whom I regularly communicate about different subjects
• …ordered various trinkets that my brother transports for me when he comes from America (it's supposedly cheaper there)
• …worked on what I do now, because my work is about Internet.

Linking to the relevant South Park episode - “Over Logging” - Buldioski also invited others to share their thoughts.

Dozens of Twitter users offered their opinions via the hashtag #danemaseinternet [MKD] or “If there was no Internet”…

• …I would have to carry a notebook with me like [the author] Venko Andonovski to record my thoughts [- Sead93]
• …by God I would have dealt with scientific research and as a result I would have found evidence to disprove the Theory of Relativity [- goranmitev]
• …I would never have discovered what life on a farm is like [- lazyvlad]

…and a number of them blamed the internet for not being in shape, lack of muscle mass or excess fatty tissue.

Marjan Zabrcanec considers his blog Golemata slika (The Big Picture) and his Twitter and Facebook profiles his “loudspeakers” for exercising his right to the freedom of speech. He explained [MKD] that he opened his first e-mail account 15 years ago, and that without internet he would not have known “which topics and arguments are used by debaters from all over the world. Research would have been tremendously hard. Now, there's Debatopedia,” and would not have been able to effectively manage his NGO, or offer cheap but powerful internet marketing campaigns for the clients of his current employer.

Vasilka Dimitrovska reckoned [MKD] that without Internet she would have never learned how to blog and use new media to “detect, present and protect cultural heritage,” and influence the public opinion, including appearing on TV.

…I would have remained just one more archeologist in the sea of unknown and anemic archeologists in Macedonia without any attention from the society, and with even less respect.

Ribaro (The Fisherman) responded via a vlog post, with audio in Macedonian and English subtitles.

Viktor Arsovski wrote [MKD] that without Internet he probably would have continued to teach English, and not take part in the founding of IT.com.mk, and…

• I would take our media “for granted,” and not read information from other sources.
• I would have never known that some things in the society can improve.
• I would not get frustrated by watching football (soccer) on [Macedonian TV] Sitel. Now by watching online streaming I know there are quality anchors who explain about the sport instead of talking nonsense. Therefore, even though it sometimes makes me nervous, at least I know that the Internet offers me a choice!

Bloggers who posted on this subject also included Kihu Potru [MKD], who emphasized the Internet's importance in sharing art and establishing connections between artists - from visuals to haiku; Kuzmanov [MKD]; Martin [MKD]; and Dzaman [MKD].

Finaly, some people responded through comments on blogs of others, like Oksimoron, who said [MKD]:

If there was no internet… I would have walked around more, I would have been a better housewife, and would not look silly laughing alone in front of the monitor :-)

Nadezhna said [MKD]:

- I now read more books, and they are much cheaper :)
- Someone listens to my voice (reads my blog).
- The Internet helped me to get a job.

PRoom noted [MKD] that without Internet:

…would not have enrolled into post-graduate studies (found over the Internet)
- I would not have stayed awake till 5 in the morning
- I would not have known many of my current friends
- I would not have been able to book a hotel in Nice
- I would not have been able to surprise my loved ones who are far away with gifts
And for certain I would not have known that one day the Internet will die [MKD] ;)

pcause writes "Silicon Alley Insider has the most damning evidence released in the Viacom/YouTube suit. It seems clear from these snippets that YouTube knew it was pirating content, and did it to grow fast and sell for a lot of money. It also seems clear that Google knew the site contained pirated content and bought it and continued the pirating."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

pcause writes "Silicon Alley Insider has the most damning evidence released in the Viacom/YouTube suit. It seems clear from these snippets that YouTube knew it was pirating content, and did it to grow fast and sell for a lot of money. It also seems clear that Google knew the site contained pirated content and bought it and continued the pirating."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

(Version Française ici).

About five years ago, I wrote a detailed report on how one could have the choice between GNU / Linux and other operating systems in Argentina. that was most surprising for French people, that have always had the greatest difficulties in getting such a choice, despite the remarkable efforts made by the Working Group Detaxe and Racketiciels. It was even possible at that time in Argentina to compare on the website of major retail chains (Fravega, Garbarino, the equivalent of Darty or Boulanger in France) the price for the same machine with another operating system or with a Debian-based, customised Argentinian GNU / Linux, developed by an SME named Pixart (not to be confused with the studio Pixar!).

But starting from 2 years ago, I have seen that it has become impossible to find any longer a single machine with GNU / Linux in retail: worse, we saw some very dubious agreements negotiated under the high patronage of the founder of the multinational software company that monopolises the operating systems market.

One may well ask why: this is not without reminding us of the situation here in France, where after SFR placed on the market more thatn 250000 Netbooks all equipped with GNU / Linux about two years ago, we can not find now a single netbook without Windows (yes, I write the name in full letters now, because I am particularly upset: I wanted to buy one for personal use this Christmas, but despite my efforts, I have not found a single model with a GNU / Linux preinstalled in France).

The few remaining fans of software monopolies like to say that this sudden vanishement proves that the other operating system is superior to GNU / Linux.

Well, I happen to have in my hands right now a copy of the appeal filed against Microsoft by the little Argentine SMEs Pixart, and it is very helpful in understanding what really happened there ... and very likely what is happening here too.

The Windows For The Poor

Microsoft does not usually sit back when it loses market share, and I already noticed back then that Redmond had put in place a strategy to counter the spread of GNU / Linux in emerging markets. In Argentina, already in 2005 they had managed to convince the government to spend taxpayer money on an operation codenamed 'Mi PC', which through a microcredit whose interests were paid by the state, encouraged the public to buy machines that are sold with Windows SE (Starter Edition, they say), better known today as Windows FTP (For The Poor). This edition sports ludicrous limitations like the following: only recognises 256 Mb of RAM (with XP, It's a little short), 80 GB hard disk (ditto), screen resolution was limited to 800x600, no local network, and you cannot open windows for more than 3 applications at once (oh well, if there is something that poor people have in abundance is time, therefore they will only run 3 tasks in parallel, and no more).

This version was sold cheaper than the standard Windows editions , with the aim to compete with GNU / Linux machines, but at that time this move made me laugh quite a bit because the early machines with Windows FTP still costed at least 500 pesos more than the equivalent GNU / Linux systems, which had no such ridiculous limitations: one really had to be poor in spirit to purchase them!

The rear margins (or Market Development Agreements)

What I did not know in 2006 is that the Windows For The Poor was just a first step in the strategy: The second step was to artificially lower the final price of computers running Windows, and financially strangling Pixart, which could not charge anymore its service for pre-installation of custom GNU / Linux on machines manufactured in Argentina.

In reading the appeal filed by Pixart, we learn that Microsoft would have started in 2008 to give back large amounts of money to the whole distribution chain to convince them to buy exclusively Windows, and these sums have been disguised in various forms.

For example, I heard that Microsoft would have payed hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to some distributors, officially for the Microsoft logo to appear on the leaflet advertising the chain. Well, this kind of operation is called 'rear margin' here, and generally corresponds to an abuse of dominant position from retailers who charge abusive fees to small suppliers for purported advertising campaigns that hide forced rebates. But in our case, I have a hard time thinking that a small retail chain in Latin America has a dominant position when facing a multinational that generates profits of billions of dollars a year.

But why, you will say , is Microsoft complicatin its life like this? Was'nt it easier to simply lower the cost of licensing Windows to, say, $ 5, rather than continue to charge $ 100 initially, to repay $ 95 to distributors right after?

Well, no! Because, if we lower the cost of the officially licensed Windows FTP to $ 5, then it must be sold $ 5 everywhere, and we can no longer pretend to charge $ 200 to large customers (such as ministries in Argentina) for the full version .

It is much more interesting to pretend that the cost is 50 or 100 dollars, and find a way to give back 45 or 95 dollars under the table: on one side the illusion is maintained that the price is high and constant, on the other, one can happily strangle competition, by lowering prices only on the competitive segment (the rebate is conditioned, of course, to stopping any sale of the rival product).

The competition law

This wonderful monopolistic invention has one flaw, though: it brutally violates the rules of competition, which are codified, for better or worse, in almost all countries, including Argentina. To function properly, it must be carried out in the greatest secrecy, and stay safe from prying eyes.

But it may well be that this discretion is not going to las much longer: using the laws on competition in Argentina, Pixart filed appeal, describing what it thinks is the strategy followed by Microsoft, and asking the judge to compel Microsoft, and distributors to provide all evidence of purchases, grants, rebates, in short, an account of all financial transaction, even by means of intermediaries, between Microsoft and distributors.

Pixart also suggests that the judge checks whether Microsoft properly pays tariffs for imports of these licenses: it is well known that Microsoft

Child abuse by German cleric among claims causing crisis for Vatican

For Father Rupert Frania it seemed the best way. His parishioners in the Bavarian spa town of Bad Tölz had just learned a terrible secret.

It had been reported that one of their curates was a convicted paedophile, Peter Hullermann. The curate who had officiated at the children's mass. The one who had been with their sons and daughters the year before at a campsite in the mountains over their medieval town.

Frania decided to tackle the issue from an angle. In his sermon at the main mass last Sunday morning, he began with the parable of the prodigal son – and was stopped dead in mid-sentence.

"I cannot listen to that," shouted a man who was soon to have been married by Hullerman. "You just cannot dodge the issue any longer," he continued as other parishioners broke into applause and some began shouting "shut your mouth" at their parish priest.

It was a raucously rebellious start to a week in which the disclosure of hundreds of cases of alleged clerical sex abuse in the Roman Catholic church's European heartlands shook the allegiances of millions and forced their pastors to make unprecedented admissions of guilt and mortification.

In Armagh on St Patrick's Day the primate of All Ireland, Sean Brady, told the congregation in his cathedral that the clergy should admit "the full truth of our sinfulness".

Brady, who in 1975 was involved in the swearing to silence of two young victims of Ireland's most notorious clerical paedophile, was one of scores of prelates bowing their heads in disgrace in the Netherlands, Austria, Germany and the German-speaking parts of Switzerland and Italy.

So far almost 700 new cases have come to light. It was a week of unmitigated calamity for Benedict XVI, who became pope pledging to shore up Christianity in an increasingly secular Europe.

"It is such a big story because everything about it is extreme," says the religious affairs author and journalist Clifford Longley. "It is the worst crisis for the Vatican since the middle ages."

Longley believes the Catholic church is embedded in European history like nothing else. "It claims divine foundation. The pope's title of Vicar of Christ means he still claims to represent supernatural power. It has been loved and hated, with passion and sometimes loathing. It dominated the middle ages, launched the Crusades, triggered the Reformation; the Enlightenment was a direct reaction against it."

The topic of child sexual abuse provokes strong emotions, even more so when people learn of the steps taken to conceal it. Nowhere has this veil of secrecy been lifted higher than in the Irish Republic, the focus of three reports since 1994.

At the start of the millennium the Catholic church in England and Wales commissioned Lord Nolan to investigate priestly abuse. It resulted in measures to improve child protection policies and reporting procedures, but did little or nothing to address or repair the damage of past abuse.

The 2007 Cumberlege commission reviewed the church response to the Nolan report, but only two of its 72 recommendations dealt specifically with historic cases. This oversight is something support groups are all too aware of and there are demands for a UK inquiry.

Graham Wilmer, who runs the Lantern Project which has helped hundreds of sexual abuse victims since 2003, said: "The psychological and emotional damage has affected them throughout their lives. Until they made contact with us, they have had little if any help in dealing with the aftermath."

Wilmer was sexually abused by a teacher at a Catholic school and spent years trying to bring his tormentor to justice. He wants the British government to establish a truth and reconciliation commission to address the issue.

Longley says the scandal "brings into contrast the priest as man of God, symbol of purity and holiness and the sexual abuse of children as the ultimate betrayal of innocence, representing unspeakable evil. And conspiracy in high places to hide the scandal. No novelist could have invented such a plot."

In spite of earning outright condemnation for its clumsy attempts to sweep matters under the carpet, the church will probably overcome these difficult times. Unlike the Anglican Communion, which buckles under the weight of polarised opinion on homosexuality, the Catholic church always emerges, not entirely unscathed, from adversity.

Longley says the church survived nazism, fascism and communism and will outlast the EU, the UN, the US. "Bad though this crisis is, it has survived much worse. At the start of the 16th century the Vatican was little better than a shit-hole."

The question remains why this situation should be judged so grave when the numbers involved are smaller than in the US, where a 2004 report found evidence in support of almost 7,000 allegations.

One possible answer is the cumulative effect of abuse in so many countries. The crisis has spread from the US to Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and now the German-speaking heart of Europe. Not the least of the difficulties is financial. The church has already had to find some $5bn (£3.3bn) in compensation and now faces the prospect of having to fund more compensation, settlements and legal fees at the same time as disgusted Catholics stop their contributions.

Giancarlo Galli, the Italian author of Finanza Bianca, a study of the Vatican's finances, said: "There is nothing less transparent than the accounts of the church. It is known that with all the troubles in the US, the church was very much looking north, across the Alps, and above all to Bavaria, for support."

It has even been suggested that some of the cardinals who elected the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as pope cast their votes with one eye on the material benefits of having a German pontiff.

This is scarcely the first crisis involving what an Australian victims' group, Broken Rites, has termed black-collar crime. But never before has a scandal cast doubts on the judgment and authority of a pope.

So far the debate has focused on his role in the Peter Hullermann affair. Hullermann was transferred to the Munich diocese when Ratzinger was archbishop, ostensibly for therapy. Though known to be a paedophile, he was moved to a parish where he was convicted of abusing another child.

Christian Weisner, the spokesman for the lay movement, Wir sind Kirche, said that in Munich: "People are asking: 'What did [Benedict] know? What did he do?'" Many Catholics in Bavaria and elsewhere were ready to accept the diocese's version – that the decision to reassign Hullerman was made by Ratzinger's deputy. But Weisner added: "The pope is asking for transparency. So he too should be transparent and ask his successor to open the archives for people to see exactly what happened."

The issue of Benedict's responsibility goes far beyond Munich to encompass his subsequent role as pope.

Weisner argues that this pope "learned more about clerical sex abuse than any other bishop or cardinal and has done more to fight it than any other cardinal or pope".

But there is a sharp distinction between his attitude while a cardinal and his activities as pope that could yet leave an indelible stain on the reign of Benedict XVI.

In 2005 he was elected days after declaring that the time had come to sweep "the filth" from his church. By then he had read – and was disgusted by – files on more than 3,000 clerical abuse cases that were channelled to his department by a decree issued four years earlier by John Paul II.

Most of the cases dealt with by the Vatican department in recent years resulted in the accused being removed, if not defrocked.

The problem for Benedict is that, as in many other theological respects, he changed his mind. The US Vatican-watcher John Allen this week published in National Catholic Reporter an extract from the transcript of a conference in Spain that showed that, as late as November 2002, Ratzinger dismissed the American abuse scandals as the result of a "planned campaign" in the media.

By 2002 the then cardinal had signed what critics claim was an incitement to the obstruction of justice. A letter he circulated to bishops the previous year reminded them that internal church inquiries into certain serious offences were covered by what is known as papal secrecy, for which the penalty is excommunication.

"The question is whether Ratzinger's past may trump Benedict's present," wrote Allen.

• Catholicism
• Religion
• Germany

Riazat ButtJohn Hooperguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

In their latest baseless claim that the Obama administration is "[b]uying votes" for its health care bill, right-wing media figures have alleged, citing no evidence, that a Department of the Interior announcement that California's Central Valley will receive greater water allocations was a "bribe" for two congressmen from the region. In fact, the allocation was reportedly increased because El Nino winter rains have "helped replenish the state's biggest reservoir."

Right-wing media baselessly allege Obama admin "bribed" Dem reps with water allocation

Wall Street Journal calls water allocations "the price for Democrats Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa." In a March 19 editorial, the Wall Street Journal conspiracy theory that Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) is facing an ethics investigation because he voted against health care reform; the completely baseless accusation by The Weekly Standard's John McCormack that President Obama is buying Rep. Jim Matheson's (D-UT) vote on health care reform by appointing his brother, Scott Matheson, to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was recently bizarre, ever-shifting claim that the White House was "threatening to close" Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base "to extort" Sen. Ben Nelson's vote.

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

The key issue at the heart of Viacom's case against Google and YouTube, filed in March 2007, concerns whether an Internet service that probably knows that files are traded or shown illicitly or without license there, deserves the "safe harbor" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that protect ISPs from liability for their customers' actions. In a summary judgment motion filed yesterday with US District Court in New York and unsealed this morning, Viacom is bidding to have the judge wrap up the case -- an obvious signal that it believes its case is already strong enough.

As US law stands now, a service such as Grokster or the original Napster (not the Best Buy division that today uses that name) is liable when it intentionally establishes its service for the express purpose of trading in illicit files. It's especially liable when it finds some way to advertise itself for that purpose. An Internet Service Provider such as Comcast or Cox is not liable when its service is used for accessing one of these sites, when it doesn't advertise or offer these services explicitly, and when a customer can access them without direct intervention from the ISP. And a video site such as Veoh is not liable when any measure it might take to stop customers from sharing illicit files may also conceivably infringe upon the free speech rights of other customers who may not be trading such files.

Google, the current owner of YouTube, has been arguing the Veoh case in its own defense. But Viacom's argument -- which courts have been wrestling with for over two-and-a-half years and which we now know today -- is that YouTube is a different, special case. It's more like Grokster, it argues, in that it was founded on the principle of gathering an audience around illicit files.

"Defendants are liable under Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., because they operated YouTube with the unlawful objective of profiting from (to use their phrase) 'truckloads' of infringing videos that flooded the site," reads the opening passage of YouTube's founders single-mindedly focused on geometrically increasing the number of YouTube users to maximize its commercial value. They recognized they could achieve that goal only if they cast a blind eye to and did not block the huge number of unauthorized copyrighted works posted on the site. The founders' deliberate decision to build a business based on piracy enabled them to sell their start-up business to Google after 16 months for $1.8 billion. The Supreme Court in Grokster found no legal or societal justification for such intentional copyright infringement."

FOR MORE:

• Viacom and YouTube: Timeline of pertinent events by Tim Conneally

In a talking points document released today (PDF available here), Viacom cites various e-mails from various YouTube and Google executives, including YouTube founders Chad Hurley (CEO) and Steve Chen (CTO). Assuming these excerpts were not taken out of context, which is possible, they indicate that YouTube's founders were clearly building up a high-audience business with illicit files at their core, with the intention of selling out to somebody as soon as possible.

One excerpt has Chen suggesting that YouTube, apparently during its startup phase, "...concentrate all our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil." Another suggestion, by an unnamed YouTube exec in response to an non-excerpted suggestion -- apparently asking, where should be get all this content -- reads, "Steal it! . . . We have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic. How much traffic will we get from personal videos?"

And one excerpt attributed to Chen suggests that the whole legal process of handling DMCA takedown notices is so long and dragged on, that by the time YouTube should ever comply with one, it would be too late anyway: "But we should just keep that stuff on the site. I really don't see what will happen. What? Someone from CNN sees it? He happens to be someone with power? He happens to want to take it down right away. He get in touch with cnn legal. 2 weeks later, we get a cease & desist letter. We take the video down."

Viacom's argument that Google knows what kind of trafficking goes on via YouTube is substantiated by evidence in the form of e-mails, evidently sent prior to its acquisition of YouTube, from executives objecting to elements of what they perceived to be its business model. One message from Google's then-VP of Content Partnerships David Eun (now with AOL) to CEO Eric Schmidt cautioned, "I think we should beat YouTube . . . but not at all costs. [They are] a video Grokster." And in another excerpt, an unnamed Google executive asks, "Is changing policy [to] profit from illegal downloads how we want to conduct business? Is this Googley?"

Evidence cited in Viacom's motion for summary judgment tells the story of how Google Video failed to be competitive against YouTube, even though its engineers persisted with efforts to filter out illicit content. One memo cited says Google Video may have been throwing out 90% of its uploads, for containing suspected copyrighted material or for being generally indecent.

"But Google's good intentions and compliance with the law were not paying off," Viacom argues. "YouTube was way ahead of Google Video in the race to build up a user base. Google executives understood that YouTube's success was largely due to what they euphemistically labeled its 'liberal copyright policy' of freely allowing infringing material. Losing the user race to YouTube because of the latter's copyright infringement, Google Video executives engaged in a 'heated debate' in 2006 'about whether we should relax enforcement of our copyright policies in an effort to stimulate traffic growth.' A top senior executive, Peter Chane, Google Video's Business Product Manager, argued point blank that Google Video should 'beat YouTube' by 'calling quits on our copyright compliance standards.' Chane specifically advocated switching Google Video to YouTube's 'reactive DMCA only' policy because 'YouTube gets content when it's hot ([Saturday Night Live's] Lazy Sunday, Stephen Colbert, Lakers wins at the buzzer)' and it '[takes us too long to acquire content directly from the [legitimate] rights holder.'"

It is that statement which Viacom appears to present as a smoking gun: a suggestion from a Google Video executive that it should acquire its competitor solely because its allegedly illegitimate business model is more successful than its own, legally compliant one.

In Google's memorandum in support of summary judgment in its favor, filed after Viacom, its attorneys do not take the tack or rebutting Viacom's scorching citations -- which, if substantiated, could theoretically become the basis for future criminal complaints. Instead, Google reiterates the argument that it's a service provider which, like Veoh, is entitled to safe harbor since it looks the other way, and does not actively seek infringing uploads.

Citing the Veoh finding, Google's attorneys argue, "What matters is that Veoh 'established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users...Inasmuch as this is a means of facilitating user access to material on its Web site,' Veoh did not lose the safe harbor 'through the automated creation of these files.' YouTube is indistinguishable from Veoh in these respects."

YouTube, Google argues, did not have direct knowledge of the circumstances whereby the specific content Viacom claimed was infringed upon (much of it from Paramount) was shared with YouTube users. Since Viacom's arguments must, at some point, focus themselves upon the specific infringing of the content in question, the DMCA protects YouTube on that count as well, Google continues. But all that may be moot, Google points on, by virtue of the fact that under current US law, the alleged infringers must have directly profited from their actions. YouTube gains revenue through advertising.

Writes Google, "A service provider loses safe harbor eligibility only if the plaintiff can show both that the service provider had the right and ability to control the alleged infringements and received a financial benefit directly attributable to those infringements...As with knowledge, the DMCA's control inquiry is specific, not general. The analysis focuses on the service provider's legal and practical control over the particular infringing activity at issue. The statute's text makes that clear: The question is whether the service provider has the right and ability to control "the infringing activity" alleged by the plaintiff and to which a financial benefit is directly attributable."

A number of declarations in support of both motions were filed today. One supporting Google was particularly interesting, because it goes to specifically that last paragraph: It's from the owner of a marketing firm who promoted the works of recording artists who appear on MTV, a Viacom property. He claimed that some of the very works Viacom claimed were infringed upon through unauthorized uploading to YouTube, actually were authorized by none other than MTV itself, as part of the promotion of the artists under his contract.

If Google's interpretation of the law is affirmed, and if this gentleman's claims are proven, then this whole case could become history faster than a judge can even say "summary judgment."

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

Researching topics such as health, diet, and (especially) the effectiveness of dietary supplements can be hard and time-consuming. Obscured by thousands of marketing tricks, finding the truth takes days, if not weeks of research.

So, when someone puts in the time to do the research and create an infographic that makes certain aspects of these topics easy to understand, it can be a huge time saver. Read on for some of the best health-related infographics we’ve found online.

As always, consider the figures in these infographics with a grain of salt. No one guarantees that the numbers are correct, and some of them are definitely open to interpretation.

1. Dietary Supplements

This is, without exaggeration, the most amazing and useful infographic I’ve ever encountered. It looks fairly simple, but it took many hours of research to create it, and it is, to my knowledge, the best resource about the actual efficiency of various dietary supplements out there. From the author:

“This image is a “balloon race”. The higher a bubble, the greater the evidence for its effectiveness. But the supplements are only effective for the conditions listed inside the bubble.”

The graphic shows the effectiveness of health supplements on the Y-axis (higher is better), and uses the size of the bubbles to illustrate the popularity of that particular supplement among US adults. Anything below the “worth it line,” doesn’t have enough evidence of medicinal benefit and is probably not worth your time, according to the graphic’s creators, who looked at data from over 1500 studies on both PubMed (US National Library Of Medicine) and Cochrane.org. The infographic effectively combines data on both popularity and medical benefits to create a resource that points out the best health supplements, as well as which ones American consumers believe in the most.

Check out the interactive version, which lets you filter the supplements by function, here.

2. Should You Drink Tap Water?

This is a look at five most and least polluted water systems in America (in larger cities), showing that not all tap water has been created equal.

If you’ve been struggling with the issue of drinking tap or bottled water, this info might help you make a decision. Of course, the data in this infographic, created by GOOD, covers only 10 cities, but it highlights an important point – not all chemicals that can appear in tap water are regulated. The graphic illustrates how many pollutants are found in each water system, how often they’re found, and what type of bacteria exists.

See a much larger version of the image here.

3. Obesity in the USA

Obesity is a known problem in the USA, but which states are affected the most? This is the most recent infographic on the subject we could find, listing obesity rates in all US states, as well as obese and overweight children rates in the USA.

Besides these numbers, this attractive infographic highlights several important points; such as overall high rates of obesity among high school students, as well as the direct and indirect costs of obesity to the US budget.

The full version can be found here.

4. The Cost of Health Care

Right now, one of the most debated topics in the USA is health care reform, and how much the proposed health bill will cost individuals and business. But how much are people paying for health care in other countries around the world?

This infographic, created in a collaboration between GOOD and Way Shape Form, shows the average life expectancy in various countries (indicated by the fullness of the IV bags), as well as several other health-related stats, such as infant mortality rates, and the cost of health care.

See the zoomable version here, or a very big image here.

5. Fatality Rates for Different Diseases

This visualization was created by David McCandless, the creator of the Snake Oil infographic mentioned above. It’s a slightly morbid chart, showing the average fatality rates for known diseases — the size of the bubble indicates how likely you are to die from a given disease (larger is more fatal).

It comes, however, with an optimistic second chart. The X-axis shows the fatality rate, but the Y-axis shows how long the cause of the illness can survive outside of the body in ideal conditions. Lesson: wash your hands!

Know of any other great health-related visualizations or infographics? Let us know in the comments!

Tags: health, infographic, visualization

There have been plenty of efforts to try to curb "cyberbullying," often through laws that try to make it illegal to be a jerk. Unfortunately, the concept of cyberbullying is so vague that this creates tremendous problems and unintended consequences. And, on the whole, it seemed unlikely that any such law could withstand First Amendment scrutiny. However, it appears that the First Amendment isn't always the First Amendment we thought it was.

A California appeals court has ruled that cyberbullying threats are not protected free speech. Now, you can understand why people might like this conceptually. No one likes a bully. But making it against the law to bully is incredibly risky, and almost certainly leads to a very different kind of bullying.

In this particular case, a kid set up a website about himself, and his fellow students posted comments mocking him. It was cruel, though you would think that the simple response would be to take down those comments. Instead, the family went to the police -- who said that the comments "did not meet the criteria for criminal prosecution and were protected speech." The family followed by suing six students and their parents for hate crimes, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Now, there's no doubt at all that the comments were over the line and incredibly mean. However, it looks like there was a perfectly reasonable process outside of the courts to handle this. Apparently, the father of one kid who made some of the worst comments made his son apologize, grounded him and took away his internet access. It seems that wasn't enough. Those who were sued filed an anti-SLAPP motion under California's anti-SLAPP law (one of the strongest in the country), but the judges said that the text was not protected free speech and thus did not fall under the anti-SLAPP provisions. One of the kids, while admitting his own conduct was over the line, said he was just joking around, and trying to top others in responding to the website. The judges, clearly, did not find the joking to be funny. Indeed, it was not funny, but that doesn't mean you should lose your free speech rights.

One judge dissented and argued strongly that not only was this a mistake, but it would have serious First Amendment consequences: I share with the majority the view that R.R.'s post, like many that preceded and followed it, was vulgar, nasty, offensive, and disgusting. But, as Justice Harlan wrote in Cohen v. California... although --the immediate consequence of [free speech rights] may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance[,] . . . [w]e cannot lose sight of the fact that, in what otherwise might seem a trifling and annoying instance of individual distasteful abuse of a privilege, these fundamental societal values [of freedom of speech] are truly implicated.

In concluding that the post was not in connection with an issue of public interest, the majority fails to follow relevant precedent and ignores the substantial evidence that D.C. was a person in the public eye. The majority also creates a broad and groundless exception to the protections of the anti-SLAPP statute, holding that for purposes of the statute, jokes do not constitute communications in connection with issues of public interest.... That is not the law. It also notes that while the "threats" in questions did seem incredibly distasteful, in context with all the other comments, it seems obvious that they were not real threats: Reading the sequence of posts from beginning to end, no reasonable person would foresee that any of it would be taken as a serious threat of violence. No reasonable person would believe that (at least) four people were sincerely threatening to take D.C.'s life. Taken together, all of the posts amount to nothing but a lot of adolescent sex-obsessed hyperbolic derision, sarcasm, and repulsive foolishness In fact, the judge notes that the kid who set up the website didn't seem bothered by the comments, and was apparently more traumatized by his father filing this lawsuit. Maybe the kid should sue his father?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Five years ago, when most BitTorrent sites had only a handful of visitors, ShareConnector was serving eDonkey links to millions of file-sharers every month. This popularity didn’t go unnoticed by the local authorities, who were tipped off by BREIN and started a criminal investigation into the operator of the site, as well as the people behind the site Releases4U.

What followed was more than 5 years of legal battles in both civil and criminal court cases. In the criminal case the operator of ShareConnector came out as the winner in 2007 and was released from all charges.

The court ruled that the authorities failed to provide any evidence to prove ShareConnector was involved in copyright infringement nor enough to prove that it was criminal in nature. In addition, the judge ruled that the initial arrests were unlawful as the evidence provided by BREIN was insufficient.

After this decision ShareConnector came back online. However, this comeback was short lived as local anti-piracy outfit BREIN initiated a civil lawsuit, trying to prevent the operator from keeping the site up and running. This lawsuit was won by BREIN but the ShareConnector operator decided to appeal the ruling.

This week a court announced the verdict of the appeal and it came out negative once again. Although the court ruled that the operator of ShareConnector wasn’t guilty of copyright infringement, it said the site must remain closed for good. The judge ruled that sites that offer hash links (like .torrent links) are facilitating copyright infringement, an unlawful behavior.

The outcome of the case is disappointing to aDI, the operator of the site, who further said that it didn’t surprise him. He had hoped, however, that the ruling in the appeal would be in line with recent cases in Spain where P2P indexing sites were deemed legal.

“The results are just what I expected, so nothing surprising here considering all the similar recent cases with just about the same conclusion we see here. The trend has been set by those ignorant old judges that fail to see the logic, contradicting the rulings from Spain,” said aDi in a response to the verdict.

“Unfortunately this is not Spain, the Dutch legal system is dysfunctional, lacking logic and professionalism. Why does it take more than five years and so many criminal trials to prove a simple fact? How come all the pathetic private organizations whose main interest is money and not the artists, get away with lies and deceptions spreading their propaganda in the media?,” he added.

What remains for the ShareConnector operator is the appeal of the criminal case that will be heard in April. In 2007 he was released from all charges, but after two years the Department of Justice filed the appeal. The charges in this case are membership of a criminal organization and (assisting in) the distribution of copyrighted material. The additional charges of copyright infringement were dropped last week.

In the upcoming trial Dr. Johan Pouwelse will appear as an expert witness on behalf of the defendant. Since downloading copyrighted films and music is not illegal in The Netherlands, he is expected to testify that there are various ways for eDonkey users to disable the upload feature. Whatever the outcome of the criminal trial, ShareConnector will never return.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Today I am pleased to announce two fantastic opportunities for two enthusiastic, motivated and energetic folks to come and join my team for a six month internship. You will join Daniel Holbach, Jorge Castro, and David Planella as team-mates and report to myself as honorary horse-folk, working on awesome solutions to help make Ubuntu an ever more compelling community to be a part of.

This is a fantastic opportunity to work inside a fast-paced, collaborative environment, solving important problems, working with awesome colleagues and adding Canonical as a rocking reference to your resume.

Before we get to the details about the roles, I want to be clear on a few general elements:

• These are internships: they are are not normal full roles.
• Like most internships, these roles are unpaid.
• Each role lasts for six months.
• Working hours are Mon – Fri from 9am – 6pm.

I want to be clear that my team is a fast-paced, hard-working, hectic environment. I am going to work you hard, and you should expect that, but my goal here is to help you squeeze every ounce of opportunity out of your internship. We will have 1-on-1 weekly calls, I will help guide you on what to work on, help you manage your work, solve problems, and be effective in your projects. In other words: when you sign up for your internship, expect a solid six month adventure, but an adventure that will sow the seeds for many great opportunities in the future.

So, I am looking for two roles:

• Ubuntu Community Documentation Author (Internship)
• Ubuntu Community Web Developer (Internship)

Let’s take a look at the job descriptions:

Ubuntu Community Documentation Author (Internship)

Job Title: Ubuntu Community Documentation Author (Internship)

Reports to: Ubuntu Community Manager

Job Location: Home with some travel engagements.

Job Summary: To produce documentation and online materials for the Ubuntu community and new contributors.

Key responsibilities and accountabilities:

• Produce a series of well-written and clear materials about a range of different topics in the Ubuntu community surrounding how to participate.
• Make these materials available on line and ensuring they follow style and quality guidelines.
• Work with the Ubuntu Documentation Team, Learning Team and Ubuntu Manual project to liaise around collaboration and best practise for materials production.
• Promote and raise awareness of this documentation inside and outside the Ubuntu community.
• Identify common needs and requirements for materials, prioritize them and build them into your workflow.
• REQUIREMENTS

Specific Job Skills: Excellent writing skills, strong networking and social networking skills, good relationship building abilities, process driven, able to manage multiple work streams, good prioritisation, independent, willing to travel potentially 25% of their work time, and able to resolve conflict.

Experience: Experience of working with community in Ubuntu and Open Source projects, experience of the upstream/distributor relationship, technical experience.

Key Qualities: Have strong social skills, a good networker and a good technical knowledge of Ubuntu and the Open Source and upstream/downstream development process. Candidates should be process driven, strategically minded and committed. Competent visual design and artistic talent is highly desirable. Other: Candidates should provide evidence of existing experience and work in the Open Source community and suitable references.

Ubuntu Community Web Developer (Internship)

Job Title: Ubuntu Community Web Developer (Internship)

Reports to: Ubuntu Community Manager

Job Location: Home with some travel engagements.

Job Summary: To design and develop web functionality across a range of Ubuntu community infrastructure web properties.

Key responsibilities and accountabilities:

• In conjunction with the team and the community, design new features and solutions for specific needs in our key web properties.
• Develop and implement such features and solutions using a range of appropriate tools.
• Provide solid testing and quality assurance over your work during the development phase and before deployment.
• Triage, fix and deploy bug fixes.
• Work with the community to collaborate together on projects and solutions.
• Report your progress to the team and the wider community.
• Be responsive to changing needs, emergency fixes and feature requests and be reactive to a range of different customers.
• Requirements

Specific Job Skills: Excellent web development skills (Python, Django, PHP, HTML, CSS and Database experience are a must), good experience of Launchpad, Bazaar and Ubuntu community infrastructure, strong networking and social networking skills, process driven, able to manage multiple work streams, good prioritisation, independent, willing to travel potentially 25% of their work time, and able to resolve conflict.

Experience: Experience of working on collaborative web development projects in Python, Django and PHP, strong development experience over a range of projects, experience of working with community in Ubuntu and Open Source projects. Key Qualities: Excellent developer, strong social skills, a good networker and a good technical knowledge of Ubuntu and the Open Source and upstream/downstream development process. Candidates should be process driven, strategically minded and committed. Competent visual design and artistic talent is highly desirable.

Other: Candidates should provide evidence of existing experience and work in the Open Source community and suitable references.

How To Apply

If you are interested in applying for these roles do not contact me directly, you should follow these steps:

• Ensure you have a recent, up to date resume (in PDF or OpenOffice.org format) that outlines your experience, education, your community achievements, technical background and information about your interests and ambitions.
• Send an email to alice.paul AT canonical DOT com with the subject Community Team Internship Application and the following details:

• Specify which role you are interested in.
• Your resume attached.
• A few paragraphs about why you would like to have the role.

Good luck and I will speak to some of you soon in an interview!

Here's one more point concerning the motions filed in the YouTube case by Google and Viacom. We had mentioned in our analysis that Google highlights the details of Viacom's rather large "stealth marketing" campaign to upload videos to YouTube, but Eric Goldman points out that the practices Google uncovered certainly sound like they cross the line of what the FTC says is legitimate: YouTube also scored points for its descriptions of Viacom's stealth marketing practices. Although these facts only help YouTube's legal posture a little, the lawsuit's discovery process has unveiled some non-public information about Viacom’s practices that should be interesting to the FTC and state attorney generals. Viacom's alleged stealth marketing practices are aggressive--close to the permissible line, if not over it. As a result, they might be exactly the kind of consumer misdirection and inauthentic online content that the FTC has been railing against, and we know the FTC is looking for test cases in this area. So, a lawsuit that began as Viacom v. YouTube might morph into FTC v. Viacom. This is one of the known risks of picking a fight--once started, you can't control where it goes. Indeed, Google presents rather detailed evidence of the lengths Viacom went through to fool users into thinking that clips were uploaded by people other than Viacom. Among Viacom's actions:

• Hiring "an army of third-party marketing agents to upload clips on its behalf"
• Having the uploads come from names that are made to look like random users
• Using non-Viacom email addresses to sign up for accounts -- with the company admitting that it wanted to use email addresses that "can't be traced" back to the company.
• Leaving Viacom offices to go elsewhere to do the uploads (such as Kinkos) to avoid connecting the uploads to Viacom.
• Altering the footage of videos to make them appear unauthorized: "so users feel they have found something unique."

While certainly helping Google make the point that it's ridiculous to expect it to know which videos were legit and which were infringing, these also seem to certainly violate the spirit of the FTC's recent guidelines on questionable "stealth" marketing practices. As Goldman notes, if the FTC is looking for a high profile test case, they may have just been handed a ton of useful evidence.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

ARMONK, N.Y., March 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- IBM (NYSE: IBM) today announced more than 200 partners are planning to sell to their customers LotusLive cloud services.  The news comes in just two months since the introduction of the LotusLive partner program as evidence of increasing migratio

There's growing concern that China's overheating real estate market is setting the country's economy up for a big fall. What the evidence really shows, and what you should do with your portfolio as a result.

Really, would you expect anything less from Apple? All sorts of wild tales have emerged about Apple's tight restrictions on developers lucky enough to receive early iPad test units, and no matter how true they might be, we're eating it up with a spoon. According to "people familiar" with the matter sourced by BusinessWeek, there's a 10 page pact for developers to sign, with requirements that include keeping the iPad isolated in a room with blacked-out windows, continuously tethered to a fixed object, photographic evidence of compliance, and of course no bragging to the Twittersphere about your score. Frankly, if the iPad isn't hand delivered to developer offices by a couple guys in well-tailored suits with an iPad briefcase handcuffed between them, we'd be sorely disappointed.

A few developers receiving iPads early, must keep it in room with blacked-out windows and tuck it in every night originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:42:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink 9 to 5 Mac  |  BusinessWeek  | Email this | Comments

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

This week, documents from Viacom's billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube for copyright infringement were published, and the three-year-long-and-counting lawsuit has again been brought to the public's attention. In case you haven't been following the case, here's a quick timeline of the major events that led up to the lawsuit, and those that occurred since the original complaint was filed:

May 24, 2005- Viacom subpoenas YouTube for information about a user who uploaded clips from Paramount Pictures' "Twin Towers."

June 2005- Viacom's board of directors approves a plan to spin off assets, which become known as the new Viacom, Inc. That new company is given control of Paramount, while the core company reforms as CBS Corp.

January 2006- 20th Century Fox sues YouTube to have content from Fox TV shows such as The Simpsons and 24 removed from YouTube.

June 2006- YouTube and NBC partner to create NBC channel on YouTube for Internet exclusives, clips, and trailers.

July 2006- Viacom and NBC Universal back journalist Robert Tur in his suit against YouTube for illegally posting his videos of the 1992 L.A. riots. The legal brief said, "YouTube incorrectly contends that the DMCA permits it to avoid any responsibility for the content on its commercial website and completely shift the burden to content owners to discover and notify it of infringements."

September 2006- YouTube signs content deal with Warner to host the company's music videos.

October 9, 2006- CBS and YouTube announce a strategic content and advertising partnership.

October 2006- Viacom and YouTube reach a content syndication agreement.

October 20, 2006- Google Buys YouTube for $1.65 Billion.

December 2006- Viacom reportedly walks away from negotiations with NBC Universal, CBS Corp., and Fox Interactive about creating a TV-centric YouTube competitor site.

February 2007- Viacom retracts its content agreement with Google, pulls everything off the site.

February 2007- YouTube's pending content deal with CBS halts.

March 2007- Viacom Sues Google for over 63,000 separate counts of copyright infringement seeking $1 billion in damages. YouTube protects itself with the "Safe Harbor" provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

March 2007- Viacom General Counsel Michael Fricklas in a Washington Post op-ed says that YouTube was not just a passive content host, and that it is fully aware of what it does. "If the public knows what's there, then YouTube's management surely does. YouTube's own terms of use give it clear rights, notably the right to take anything down."

May 2007- Google signs YouTube content deal with record label EMI.

May 2007- British Premier League files class action suit against YouTube for copyright infringement, says Google "knowingly misappropriated and exploited this valuable property," when it allowed users to post footage from its football games.

June 2007- YouTube introduces Content ID to help content owners identify if their content is being used, gives them the option to remove unauthorized content, or monetize it.

July 2007- Google CEO Eric Schmidt says Viacom was "built from lawsuits."

August 2007- Google asks Comedy Central personalities Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to testify against Viacom in copyright hearings. Comedy Central is a Viacom property.

October 2007- Viacom joins MySpace, Microsoft, Veoh, and Dailymotion in signing the "Copyright Principles for User Generated Content Services," hoping it will become a sort of "television code" of online copyright protection.

March 2008- Viacom President and CEO Phillippe Dauman says "We've already achieved a number of things with this lawsuit. It took a long time, but because of our actions, YouTube has moved in the right direction. They're where they should have been all along."

May 2008- Google claims Viacom's suit threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression," claims it could have a chilling effect on all Internet communications.

June 2008- New York District Court rules that Google has to turn over user IDs and IP addresses to Viacom. Angry users upload nearly 5,000 "Viacom Sucks" videos to YouTube. Google is later allowed to make this data anonymous.

July 2008- Movie studio Lionsgate partners with YouTube for a branded channel with ad-supported official content from the studio.

October 2008- The McCain/Palin presidential campaign asked YouTube to stop taking down campaign videos that incorporated clips of news broadcasts. YouTube said that it was doing so at the request of broadcasters who objected to the use of their copyrighted footage.

April 2009- Content owners discus "TV Anywhere" plan to tie Web-based video content into cable subscription fees. Viacom CEO Dauman says, "People are used to paying for video subscriptions," sees it as a good idea.

June 2009- "TV Everywhere" network scheme launches.

July 2009- Some claims from the Premier League's 2007 suit against YouTube are dismissed, but claims for "statutory damages for works not registered in the US" are allowed.

September 2009- Google gives individual copyright holders access to the Insight metrics of YouTube videos that contain their intellectual property according to Content ID.

October 2009- Viacom presents "smoking gun" evidence for its case: internal e-mails from YouTube staff that show "actual knowledge" that copyright infringement was taking place on the video sharing site.

November 2009- Google announces YouTube Direct, a system where media outlets can directly communicate with users and arrange rebroadcasting rights on a one-to-one basis.

March 2010- Some of Viacom's "smoking gun" documents go public, company claims "YouTube was intentionally built on infringement."

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

Scotland Yard passes a new file of evidence against a parliamentarian suspected of abusing expenses to prosecutors.

Scotland Yard has passes a new file of evidence against a Parliamentarian suspected of abusing expenses to prosecutors.

An elite group of software developers afforded early access to the iPad must provide photographic evidence that they've complied with a stringent set of requirements before Apple hands one over, but for everyone else, authoring software for the upcoming device can prove to be a shot in the dark.

Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, Vol. 67, No. 3. (1 September 2000), pp. 312-316.

In this communication, evidence is provided that an organic thin-film-transistor (OTFT) can be used as a novel gas sensor. When exposed to chemical species at room temperature, four parameters can be measured: the bulk conductivity of the organic thin film, the field-induced conductivity, the transistor threshold voltage and the field effect mobility. Measurements of these parameters may allow for recognition of molecular species.
L Torsi

Publication Date: 2010 Mar 16 PMID: 20233422Authors: Seabrooke, S. - Qiu, X. - Stewart, B. A.Journal: BMC NeurosciABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Although the mechanistic details of the vesicle transport process from the cell body to the nerve terminal are well described the mechanisms underlying vesicle traffic within nerve terminal boutons is relatively unknown. The actin cytoskeleton has been implicated but exactly how actin or actin-binding proteins participate in vesicle movement is not clear. RESULTS: In the present study we have identified Nonmuscle Myosin II as a candidate molecule important for synaptic vesicle traffic within Drosophila larval neuromuscular boutons. Nonmuscle Myosin II was found to be localized at the Drosophila larval neuromuscular junction; genetics and pharmacology combined with the time-lapse imaging technique FRAP were used to reveal a contribution of Nonmuscle Myosin II to synaptic vesicle movement. FRAP analysis showed that vesicle dynamics were highly dependent on the expression level of Nonmuscle Myosin II. CONCLUSION: Our results provide evidence that Nonmuscle Myosin II is present presynaptically, is important for synaptic vesicle mobility and suggests a role for Nonmuscle Myosin II in shuttling vesicles at the Drosophila neuromuscular junction. This work begins to reveal the process by which synaptic vesicles traverse within the bouton.post to: CiteULike

Michael Scott points us to a very interesting analysis of how to different appeals courts have very different interpretations of our federal anti-hacking law. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was passed by Congress to create criminal sanctions for malicious computer hacking. The problem, of course, is that whenever you have politicians passing laws about technology, they may be a bit vague. So, the way hacking was defined was effectively to say that the perpetrator accessed info "without authorization" or (more troubling) that the activity "exceeds authorized access." Now, it's pretty obvious what's meant by this. If you're breaking into parts of a computer system where you don't belong for nefarious purposes, you're probably violating this law.

But that's not how all courts are interpreting it. The article notes that the Seventh Circuit, in International Airport Centers, LLC v. Citrin, found that an employee violated this law by deleting information on his laptop (which would have presented evidence of a breach of contract by the guy), after he had resigned. Obviously, that's a totally different situation than what the CFAA was intended to cover, but the court found that once he quit, he was no longer authorized to use the laptop, and doing so was effectively hacking. That seems like an extreme stretch of the law. But at least some other courts are following suit: For example, in a case in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the district court relied upon the Citrin decision and held that, even if employees were authorized to access their employer's computer records, they cannot use such authorization (and, hence, their access can become "unauthorized"), if they use the information for their own interests.... The court concluded that the employer sufficiently alleged that the employees "acted without authorization when they obtained [the employer's] information for their personal use and in contravention of their fiduciary duty to their employer." Yes, you read that right. If you use your employer's computer simply to access the company's data for your personal use, you may be guilty of computer hacking. That's quite clearly not what the law was intended to cover.

Thankfully, the Ninth Circuit (which all too often comes out with weird decisions) seems to have gotten this one right: In declining to adopt the Seventh Circuit's interpretation of "without authorization," the court held that a "person uses a computer 'without authorization'... [only] [1] when the person has not received permission to use the computer for any purpose (such as when a hacker accesses someone's computer without any permission), or [2] when the employer has rescinded to access the computer and the defendant uses the computer anyway."... The Ninth Circuit declined to hold that the "defendant's authorization to obtain information stored in a company computer is 'exceeded' if the defendant breaches a state law duty of loyalty to an employer" because no such language was found in the CFAA.... The Ninth Circuit noted that because the CFAA was "primarily a criminal statute," and because there was ambiguity as to the meaning of the phrase "without authorization," it would construe any ambiguity against the government.... Obviously, I agree that this is the proper interpretation of the law -- and stretching the definition of criminal hacking "without authorization" to things like accessing personal information on an employer's computer is dangerous. Of course, with the split rulings, it's likely that eventually this will get to the Supreme Court to sort out, and hopefully they get it right. Or, in the meantime, Congress could clarify the law -- but chances are they'd just make it worse.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

[In this opinion piece, Game Developer EIC Brandon Sheffield takes Electronic Arts and Visceral to task for their competition asking fans to "design a kill" for Dead Space, calling it "incredibly regressive for our industry."]

Here we are in an era of video games coming under intense scrutiny for their violence, and for any hint of sexuality. This is an era in which the Australian and German governments are rejecting the sale of certain games by the handful, Venezuela has banned all “violent” video games with sweeping terms, and psychologists study the effects of violent games on behavior around the clock.

It’s in this climate that EA has chosen to launch its Design a Kill for Dead Space 2 contest, which to me runs second only to Acclaim’s attempt to buy ad space on tombstones in terms of irresponsibility.

Here’s the text from the press release, describing the contest:

"Have you ever played a video game and thought ‘wouldn’t it be cool if...’ Well, Visceral Games announced that fans of the critically-acclaimed Dead Space franchise can make their “what if” dreams a reality. This is their chance to design a kill and get it in the game. Players can submit ideas via text, video or still images.

Since the contest began last week, there are over 1,000 entries already, so the cooler the kill, the better chance it has of winning a place in the upcoming Dead Space 2 video game. To prove to the Visceral development team that they have the right stuff, players have to demonstrate Isaac Clarke defeating or dismembering various Necromorphs including the Slasher, Lurker, or Leaper using their own signature kill.

The grand prize winner will not only have an opportunity to have their dismemberment move recreated in the game but they’ll also win the opportunity to have their likeness modeled onto a non-player character in the game."

Where To Draw The Line?

I don’t believe we should shy away from violence in games – violence is a part of life, and can make for very interesting scenarios in games. And it’s no secret that a large majority of fun video games are based on conflict, much of which is combative. But I also believe that asking fans to think as hard as they can about an innovative way to kill someone is a very regressive thing for our industry.

Just think for a second about what EA is actually asking people to do. Yes, this is what many of us do every day – there are those of us who design combat and combat scenarios for a living. But asking fans to do it is just too much.

First, it’s acknowledging that games can inspire fans to think of ways to kill. Second, through promotion, the contest is saying this is a good thing to do, or that it would be fun, posing ‘wouldn’t it be cool if...’

Third, it’s implied that this is a proper way to enter the industry (that’s part of the implication, that this design will be your foot in the door). That really hammers home the misconception that all we do is think of ways for things to kill each other.

Fourth, it asks for documented evidence of this fan violence. EA must certainly have plenty at this point, with over 1,000 submissions, which anyone will be able to view once the competition is over at the official Facebook page.

Fuel For The Fire

Many in the mainstream media, parent-advocate groups, and in the public opinion at large consider the game-playing population to be mostly children. And for better or for worse, it’s likely that a number of children have in fact played the M-rated Dead Space. This kind of contest is amazing fodder for the groups that want to limit and restrict games, and it’s hard to believe EA or Visceral would not be aware of this.

If they are not aware of the regressive nature of this competition, as the video on the official page seems to suggest, that is incredibly unconscious, and certainly indicative of the immaturity of our industry. This seems like the sort of thing you should really think through. Perhaps we’re all so desensitized to violence in this industry that they did not think about it in this light.

If the intention is to get the contest to stir up controversy, well I suppose they may achieve their goal. If the mainstream media does get wind of the competition, and they get hold of even one video of a kid doing a “brutal kill” on his brother, the shitstorm begins. I do not think the results of this storm will be positive for anyone.

Little To Smile About

One of the images that accompanies the press release (above) shows a sample entry from an actual fan, in which all the descriptions of actions are accompanied by smiley faces, such as "knee in the head ^^." This description comes after the one that says "grabs the head and shoot in the neck."

You could argue that since the creatures you kill are not human, this is not so bad. I would disagree. They are humanoid enough, and asking fans to figure out a way to kill anything is enough to cause a horrified gut reaction in any parent or politician that may see it. A company as large as EA cannot simply make the “games are just fun” excuse. I do not believe this is an overreaction. I believe the reaction from those outside the game industry would be magnitudes above what I write here.

You could argue I’m bringing more attention to this contest by mentioning it here, and you’d be right. I think we have to take these things to task when we see them, and I can only hope that if an intrepid journalist is researching this “brutal kill” phenomenon they might see this article and pause before decrying the entire industry as actively breeding violence in its players.

Know that the assumptions and drives of one marketing campaign do not reflect the majority. There are those among us who recognize that this is regressive, and I would caution any game company against taking this sort of action in the future.

Court documents in the $1 billion lawsuit between Viacom and YouTube were unsealed today, finally shedding some light on key questions: did Viacom have "smoking gun" evidence that YouTube was deliberately profiting from 62,637 Viacom clips that were watched more than 507 million times on the site? Was Google aware of the copyright infringement problems when it purchased YouTube in 2006? Were YouTube's own founders involved in uploading unauthorized materials?

On all three counts, Viacom says yes—and it offers up a host of e-mails to prove it:

Read the comments on this post

Court documents in the $1 billion lawsuit between Viacom and YouTube were unsealed today, finally shedding some light on key questions: did Viacom have "smoking gun" evidence that YouTube was deliberately profiting from 62,637 Viacom clips that were watched more than 507 million times on the site? Was Google aware of the copyright infringement problems when it purchased YouTube in 2006? Were YouTube's own founders involved in uploading unauthorized materials?

On all three counts, Viacom says yes—and it offers up a host of e-mails to prove it:

Read the comments on this post

In anticipation of the upcoming immigration marches, Media Matters for America has compiled a review of the hateful and outrageous right-wing rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate in 2006.

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrant-rights marchers, immigrants are seeking to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrant rights marchers are "racis[t]"

Right-wing rhetoric: Pro-immigration marchers should be arrested or deported

Right-wing rhetoric: Stoking fears over displays of the Mexican flag

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigration is an "invasion"

Right-wing rhetoric: U.S., Mexico are in a state of "war"

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrants are fundamentally altering American culture or way of life

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigration reform is part of plot to institute "North American Union"

Other hate speech and outrageous rhetoric

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrant-rights marchers, immigrants are seeking to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico

"Reconquista" is a discredited smear used by the right to generate fear of Latino immigrants. During the 2006 immigration debate, right-wing media repeatedly advanced the discredited smear that Mexican-Americans and Mexican citizens -- particularly "illegal aliens" -- are plotting to take over the U.S. Southwest for Mexico.

Dobbs referred to potential "army" of "illegal alien" "invaders" taking over Southwest. During an April 2006 broadcast of his now-defunct CNN show, Lou Dobbs introduced a report by stating: "There are some Mexican citizens and some Mexican-Americans who want to see California, New Mexico and other parts of the Southwestern United States given over to Mexico. These groups call it the reconquista, Spanish for reconquest. And they view the millions of Mexican illegal aliens in particular entering the United States as potentially an army of invaders to achieve that takeover." Correspondent Christine Romans reported, "Long downplayed as a theory of the radical ethnic fringe, the la reconquista, the reconquest, the reclamation, the return, it's resonating with some on the streets," and went on to say: "A lot of open borders groups disavow it completely. But the growing street protests in favor of illegal immigration, Lou, are increasingly taking on the tone of that very radicalism." [CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, 4/31/06]

CNN reporter referenced "the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour," used "Aztlan" graphic sourced to hate group. Lou Dobbs Tonight correspondent Casey Wian characterized then-Mexican President Vicente Fox's trip to Salt Lake City, Utah, as a "Mexican military incursion" and claimed that "[y]ou could call" Fox's trip to the United States "the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour." During Wian's report, CNN featured a graphic of "Aztlan" that was sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens -- an organization whose "Statement of Principles" reads: "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called 'affirmative action' and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 5/23/06]

Malkin: "[T]he vast majority of mainstream Hispanic politicians" embrace "the intellectual underpinnings of reconquista." On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin declared that protesters in Los Angeles were "people who believe that the American southwest belongs to Mexico, that we don't have a right to enforce our borders, and who do nothing more than try to sabotage our sovereignty." Malkin later added that "the kind of quote-unquote 'pride' that a lot of these illegal alien activists are touting now goes much further than just being proud about one's heritage and one's roots. The idea, the intellectual underpinnings of reconquista, are embraced by the vast majority of mainstream Hispanic politicians." [Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 3/30/06]

Wash. Times editorial: Protesters approve of "reconquista" agenda. A Washington Times editorial accused Latinos who protested against a proposal to restrict immigration of either supporting or having given "tacit approval" to the "reconquista" agenda of "Hispanic radicals," which the editorial said was the "reconquering of Mexican land lost during the Mexican-American war." [The Washington Times, 3/30/06]

Fox's Gibson suspicious that Latino advocacy groups are set on "retaking old Mexico territories ... by pure birth rate." While saying that he was citing an internal email from the National Council of La Raza, John Gibson claimed on his Fox News show that he was suspicious that advocacy groups like the NCLR favor "the so-called reconquista," which Gibson described as the "retaking of old Mexico territories, which are now part of the United States, by pure birth rate." Gibson also asserted that the NCLR "is a group dedicated to the betterment of the race," adding, "good, but try being American while you are at it, guys." [Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, 4/3/06]

O'Reilly: Purported immigrant protest "organizers" have hidden "hardcore militant agenda" to take back American Southwest. On his radio show, O'Reilly said that the "organizers" of immigrant rallies have a "hardcore militant agenda of 'You stole our land, you bad gringos.' " O'Reilly said that the "slogan" of the demonstrations' organizers was "[W]e didn't cross the border, the border crossed us," and that this meant that the organizers believed that Americans "stole [their] land." The organizers' hidden "agenda underneath," said O'Reilly, was that "now, we're going to take it back by massive, massive migration into the Southwest." [Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 5/1/06]

Buchanan: "Chicano chauvinists and Mexican agents" want to "take back through demography and culture what their ancestors lost through war." In his book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, published in August 2006, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan wrote: "Chicano chauvinists and Mexican agents have made clear their intent to take back through demography and culture what their ancestors lost through war." He also wrote that the United States must keep "Americans of European descent" from becoming the "minority" in order to "survive[]." [State of Emergency (Thomas Dunne Books)]

Malkin: "[W]e saw ... that supposed fringe" that favors reconquista "come out into the mainstream." O'Reilly said to Malkin, "So I know that there's an undercurrent of militancy that says, 'Hey, this is our territory. You stole it from us in the Mexican-American War. We're going to take it back now by illegal immigration.' But I think that's a fringe, nutty group, not the mass of millions that we have." Malkin replied: "Well, I guess I disagree with you there, Bill, because I mean, we saw in April and May of this year [2006] that supposed fringe come out into the mainstream. And it wasn't just a dozen folks who are ensconced in the ivory tower who believe that the Southwest is Aztlan and it belongs to them." O'Reilly later asked her: "You think that this massive immigration to the United States, 15 million strong, is a part of a plan to bring back territory to Mexico?" Malkin responded: "Well, I take the Mexican government at its word when it says that is exactly its plan." [The O'Reilly Factor, 8/23/06]

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrant rights marchers are "racis[t]"

Malkin: "[M]ilitant racism from another protected minority group was on full display" from "Latino supremacists." In her syndicated column, Malkin wrote of immigration rallies, "Well, this weekend, militant racism from another protected minority group was on full display. But you wouldn't know it from press accounts that whitewashed or buried the protesters' virulent anti-American hatred." Malkin also wrote: "Apologists are quick to argue that Latino supremacists are just a small fringe faction of the pro-illegal immigration movement (never mind that their ranks include former and current Hispanic politicians from L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to former California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustamante)." [Creators Syndicate column, 3/29/06]

Savage: "[B]rown supremacists" are "behind these protests." On his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said: "So, it seems to me that there's a certain group of immigrants that's not very happy and they're all Hispanic. I don't see any other racial group out there in the streets, do you? Now, that's very interesting. I'm not allowed to raise the issue or the specter of brown supremacists behind these protests. Don't tell me this is all about compassion for immigrants, because it is not at all only about compassion for immigrants. They are trying to provoke the takeover of the United States of America." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 4/11/06]

Right-wing rhetoric: Pro-immigration marchers should be arrested or deported

Fox's Asman wondered whether marches are a perfect chance to "round up these lawbreakers and ship them out." Guest-hosting Fox News' Your World, David Asman discussed nationwide protests of immigration reform and wondered: "With so many illegals hitting the streets, is this the perfect time to round up these lawbreakers and ship them out?" As Asman spoke, the on-screen text read: "Round 'Em Up?" Later, the text read: "Perfect Chance to Arrest Illegal Immigrants?" [Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/10/06]

Smerconish: "[L]aw enforcement ought to step in" at immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" undocumented immigrants. Guest-hosting MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Philadelphia-based radio host Michael Smerconish suggested that "maybe law enforcement ought to step in" at pro-immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" undocumented immigrants. Smerconish wondered why there was "zero discussion" of "gathering them up" at the demonstrations, when "[a]ll I keep hearing is how would we ever find them?" [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 4/10/06]

Doocy suggested "round[ing] them up right then, when they're saying, 'Hey, I'm right here.' " On Fox & Friends, syndicated radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller announced that he was "having a big rally here in Chicago" for a "group" that he said was "pro-illegal murder and illegal car thieves." Muller added: "We're just getting together, and we're going to be out on the street. We're for illegal murder and illegal car thievery. So, we just like illegal stuff." Muller added: "I just like illegal murder and illegal car thieves. So, you know, it's illegal, but -- and, in fact, all the people who have done it are going to be out there on the street, and hopefully, none of the cops will come arrest us." Co-host Steve Doocy then said: "Yeah, you wouldn't want to round them up right then, when they're saying, 'Hey, I'm right here.' " [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 4/3/06]

Right-wing rhetoric: Stoking fears over displays of the Mexican flag

Media figures attacked Mexican-flag wavers, but not those waving Irish, Italian, or Israeli flags. Following immigration rallies, media figures criticized demonstrators for carrying Mexican flags, but the same media figures had not complained about people waving other nations' flags, such as Irish flags at St. Patrick's Day events, Italian flags at Columbus Day events, or Israeli flags at Israel Day events. Some commentators even dismissed the comparison. For instance, National Review editor Rich Lowry called the Mexican-flag waving "more ominous" than the St. Patrick's Day or Columbus Day displays.

Savage: "[B]urn the Mexican flag!" On his radio show, Savage urged his listeners to "burn the Mexican flag" in opposition to undocumented immigrants, telling them to "[b]urn a Mexican flag for America, burn a Mexican flag for those who died that you should have a nationality and a sovereignty, go out in the street and show you're a man, burn 10 Mexican flags, if I could recommend it. Put one in the window upside down and tell them to go back where they came from! And if that's a little to xenophobic for you, ask yourself why the xenophobes from Mexico wave their flag in your country." [The Savage Nation, 3/27/06]

Fox News: Waving Mexican flag shows "antagonistic edge," waving U.S. flag "just a cover" and "a ploy to win America's support." Asman cited demonstrators' use of Mexican flags as evidence of "an antagonistic edge" and suggested that the use of U.S. flags and signs written in English at pro-immigration demonstrations was "just a cover" by the demonstrators to conceal their "real intention, which is to keep things as normal among illegal immigrants in the country." Similarly, Neil Cavuto suggested that the pro-immigration demonstrators' U.S. flags were "just a prop" and "just a ploy to win America's support." [Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/10/06; 4/11/06]

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigration is an "invasion"

Buchanan: Illegal immigration is "an invasion of the United States of America" and "[t]he whole world is coming." On MSNBC's Hardball, Buchanan claimed that the influx of undocumented immigrants into the United States is "not immigration" but "an invasion of the United States of America" that is "coming not only from Mexico," but "from the whole world." He reiterated: "The whole world is coming." [MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, 5/15/06]

Savage: "This is an invasion by any other name." Savage said, "We, the people, are being displaced by the people of Mexico. This is an invasion by any other name. Everybody with a brain understands that. Everybody who understands reality understands we are being pushed out of our own country." [The Savage Nation, 3/27/06]

Buchanan: "This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history." In State of Emergency, Buchanan wrote of immigration: "This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history." He also wrote: "We are witnessing how nations perish. We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the deconstruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted." [State of Emergency]

Right-wing rhetoric: U.S., Mexico are in a state of "war"

Tancredo: [W]e are at war with Mexico, in a way." On Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, WorldNetDaily.com columnist Tom Tancredo -- then a Republican congressman from Colorado -- said, "[I]n a way, we are at war with Mexico, in a way. I'll say it in this way: Mexico is aiding and abetting an invasion of this country. They are part of the problem. They are doing what they are -- in fact, they are creating situations along that border using their own military to protect drug trafficking into the United States, pushing their own people into the United States for a variety of reasons. It is an invasion. It is an act of aggression." [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 6/26/06, transcript from the Nexis database]

Beck sidekick Gray: "[W]e are in a war with Mexico right now." Pat Gray, who is now a co-host of Glenn Beck's radio show, appeared on Beck's then-CNN Headline News show and claimed that "we are in a war with Mexico right now." After Beck agreed that "we better wake up soon," Gray responded: "[O]r we're going to wake up dead." [CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, 9/25/06]

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrants are fundamentally altering American culture or way of life

O'Reilly claimed to have exposed the "hidden agenda" behind the immigrant rights movement: "the browning of America." O'Reilly claimed that during his Fox News show, guest Charles Barron, a New York City councilman, had revealed the "hidden agenda" behind the current immigration debate. O'Reilly told his radio listeners: "[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America." But in the interview, Barron at no point claimed that he and other advocates for immigrant rights are motivated by a desire to force white Americans into the minority -- despite O'Reilly's repeated efforts to provoke such an acknowledgment. [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 4/12/06]

Beck: "[I]llegal immigrants are attacking our culture, and our way of life." On his then-CNN Headline News show, Beck said, "[A]t the very least, illegal immigrants are attacking our culture, and our way of life. They are not melting into our melting pot -- they're here for the cash." He later said, "I mean, we've got all these threats coming in from overseas, but the simplest way is for us to lose the culture of the West is just to do nothing and let illegal immigrants not melt in and take the culture away from us." [Glenn Beck, 8/24/06]

Buchanan: "They're not welcome to come here and insult the symbols of our country, and that's what these outsiders have done." On Scarborough Country, Buchanan said that a Spanish-language version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is "a provocation and an insult" and that immigrants are "not welcome to come here and insult the symbols of our country, and that's what these outsiders have done." Buchanan then said that the Spanish recording is "a good thing in this sense: The American people are awakening to the character of these people." [Scarborough Country, 5/1/06]

Matthews: Republicans "have a right to fear" a "cultural change" that would result in their hometowns "becom[ing] overwhelmingly Mexican." On Hardball, Matthews claimed that House Republicans who had passed a bill that would apparently have criminalized undocumented immigrants, their employers, and those who provide aid to them "have a right to fear" a "cultural change" that would result in their home states and towns "becom[ing] overwhelmingly Mexican." Matthews was responding to a suggestion by guest Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now, that "the Republicans who passed the House bill" are "afraid" that the United States will soon have "a majority Latino population." Matthews later said, "It's not my point view necessarily," before suggesting that "90 percent of this country" agrees with the "viewpoint" that "I didn't move to Mexico; Mexico moved to me, and I'm complaining about it." [Hardball with Chris Matthews, 3/30/06]

O'Reilly: "[Y]ou're on a nice block ... and then the house next to you is turned into an illegal alien Club Med." On his radio show, O'Reilly said:

You've got the folks who don't have emotion invested in it, other than the farmers down and the ranchers down on the border are going -- as the lady just called up, [caller] -- say, look, I got garbage in my -- on my ranch every day. I mean, I'm under siege. They have emotion invested in it. But those of us up here don't.

Unless you live in a town, like Farmingville, Long Island -- we went over this before -- where you bought a house, you spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars, you're on a nice block, your kids are happy, and then the house next to you is turned into an illegal alien Club Med. And this happens all over the country. [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 3/27/06]

Buchanan: "I think what's coming is the complete balkanization of America." On Hardball, Buchanan said, "I think what's coming is the complete balkanization of America, and I'm afraid it's going to be by ethnicity and culture, and language, and every other way. ... And so, then, it's not like the country you and I grew up in, Chris, whereby we were monocultural. We were monocultural." [Hardball, 6/5/06]

O'Reilly wondered whether children of Mexican immigrants in U.S. "have any kind of traditional value system" or are "setting up Acapulco North." On his radio show, O'Reilly wondered whether children of legal and undocumented immigrants from Mexico who are attending school in the United States "have any kind of traditional value system at all, vis-à-vis what America used to be," or whether they are "taking their Mexican values, because most of them are Mexicans, and, you know, basically setting up Acapulco North." [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 8/15/06]

Buchanan: "You're going to have a giant Kosovo in the Southwest, which de facto is going to secede." On Scarborough Country, Buchanan said: "[Y]ou cannot absorb 40 to 60 million more people. You're going to have a giant Kosovo in the Southwest, which de facto is going to secede from this country." [Scarborough Country, 6/5/06]

Buchanan: Immigration will turn U.S. into "a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities." On CNN's The Situation Room, Buchanan warned that "[w]e'll become a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities." He continued: "The problem with the immigration, basically -- let's take Mexico -- is these folks are breaking the law, first. Secondly, they're coming in huge numbers, like no other group before. Third, they're from a contiguous nation. Fourth, 58 percent of Mexicans believe the Southwest belongs to them. Fifth, the Mexican government is pushing them in here, and it's got a political and ideological agenda." [CNN's The Situation Room, 8/28/06]

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigration reform is part of plot to institute "North American Union"

"North American Union" is an absurd conspiracy theory. Right-wing media, including Dobbs, have obsessively warned that elements in the U.S. government are secretly plotting to merge the United States with Mexico and Canada in a "North American Union" similar to the European Union. During the June 21, 2006, edition of his CNN show, Dobbs stated that "the Bush administration is pushing ahead with a plan to create a North American union with Canada and Mexico" and later asked: "Do you think, our question is, maybe somebody should take a vote if we're going to merge Canada, Mexico and the United States as the leaders of the three countries are attempting to do with the security and prosperity partnership? Yes or no. Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com." Dobbs' CNN colleague Suzanne Malveaux later described the North American Union rhetoric as "conspiracy theor[y]." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 6/21/06]

Corsi: "North American Union ... was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy." Jerome Corsi, co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, wrote in a column that "President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy. Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico." [HumanEvents.com, 5/19/06]

WND's Farah linked Bush guest-worker proposal to plan by "one-worlders" to merge U.S., Mexico, Canada. Appearing on a radio show, WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah claimed that the "one-worlders" of the Council on Foreign Relations have a plan to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada by 2010 and suggested that Bush's proposed guest-worker program is part of this plan. Farah said, "Sometimes, the conspiracies are right." [American Family Radio's Today's Issues, 4/4/06]

Buchanan: Vicente Fox's "ultimate goal" is making Mexico and U.S. "basically part of the North American Union." On Lou Dobbs Tonight, Buchanan said, "The government of Mexico is pushing its poor and unemployed into the United States to ease social pressure on itself. Secondly, they get $16 billion in remittances back to Mexico. Third, it is awoken to the idea that it can reannex the American southwest, which it used to hold, linguistically, culturally, ethnically and socially, not militarily by pushing all these people in there and creating a gigantic fifth column in America." Buchanan added: "The ultimate goal of Vicente Fox is the erasure of the border between the United States and Mexico. He has said as much and to make the two basically part of the North American Union in which Mexico will get ... a constant flow of cash from the wealthy USA and La Reconquista is the objective." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 9/5/06, Nexis transcript]

Other hate speech and outrageous(...)

Established in 1998, Agava is one of Russia’s top 5 web hosting companies employing around 300 people. Last night, police investigators arrived at a datacenter where Agava has some of its operations.

The investigators had a self-awarded warrant which allowed them to conduct a search in order to retrieve evidence located on servers used by Agava client iFolder.ru, a large file-hosting service and Russia’s 51st most-visited site

The police had been working on an investigation into an individual who used iFolder to upload child pornography a while ago. The person was caught by the police, but investigators wanted to search to see if he had uploaded more material.

Agava employees offered their full co-operation in assisting them to find the data in question. However, the police turned down the offer and insisted they were going to seize all of Agava’s servers, more than 100 in total, and waited for several hours for a vehicle to come and collect them.

In the end the mass seizure did not take place but police did cut the power and seal them all off. Some of those affected are Agava’s primary DNS servers, but fortunately their secondary units were unaffected.

“Agava considers this unprecedented event as putting in jeopardy and dimming the future of every business in RuNet,” said the company in an announcement. “We are determined to challenge and overcome the excessive and destructive actions we encountered, to protect our customer’s interests. We thank our clients in advance for their patience, and for media and other support they provide us with.”

Even though the police have stated they have no problem with iFolder continuing its operations, the investigation has rendered the site completely non-operational. On a normal day, 180,000 people upload or download from the service resulting in 1.5 million pageviews. Total users per month is around 4.3m.

This action against iFolder follows the unilateral decision to seize the domain name of Russia’s biggest torrent site, Torrents.ru.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Focus is on "system sellers" Natal, Move.

GameStop's big boss Dan DeMatteo has said he's heard nothing about a new Wii nor a new Xbox 360. His comments were made days after convincing evidence was found of a Slim-style Xbox 360 redesign.

"We've heard the rumours like you have, of a Nintendo Wii upgrade early next year, but it's just that: a rumour. We don't have any confirmation on anything there," DeMatteo told investors during a Q4 2009 earnings call this afternoon.

"And we have nothing in our financial plans for anything different - either price change or new upgrade - of either the PS3 or the 360. I wouldn't be surprised if their total focus was on the new motion-detection devices, etcetera."

Read more...

HotAir.com blogger Cassy Fiano criticized President Obama for standing by a provision in the health care bill that provides funding for states that have suffered natural disasters and stated, "I just don't see how disaster relief has anything to do with health care." In fact, the funding is tied to health care because it would fix gaps in federal Medicaid payments that some states -- such as Louisiana and Hawaii -- have experienced as a result of recent disasters.

HotAir.com: "I just don't see how disaster relief has anything to do with health care"

From Fiano's March 17 HotAir.com post:

This moment, from Bret Baier's interview on Fox News with Obama, might just be one of the biggest "WTF?!" moments from Obama's presidency yet. Obama is either completely making things up, living in an alternate reality, or really, really confused.

Actually, my guess is that's it's probably a combination of all three.

OBAMA [video]: I'll give you some exceptions, though. Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions of dollars -- millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana obviously went through Katrina, and they're still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that. ... That also -- well, I'm giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that's not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe.

Apparently, there was a devastating earthquake in Hawaii that we all somehow missed.

Oh, wait, no. That's right. There was no earthquake, and Obama is just totally clueless, as usual. In fact, the last earthquake in Hawaii to cause any deaths at all was in 1975, and two people died.

In any case, why is he using this argument, anyways? He's turned this health care bill into a one-size-fits-all solution for everything. Not only will it fix our health care, but it will apparently create jobs and give disaster relief around the country!

Maybe I'm the only person who doesn't get it, but I just don't see how disaster relief has anything to do with health care. This is just more evidence that Obama is just talking out of his you-know-where now. He's become this desperate. And you know, I say good. That means we're getting to him, and now's the time to push even harder.

Health care bill provision fixes Medicaid gap caused by recent natural disasters

Funding would fix FMAP rates for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." The Senate bill as passed includes a provision -- often referred to as the "Louisiana Purchase" by conservative media -- that would adjust the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." The bill requires that it only applies to states "for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster" and "determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government."

The Department of Health and Human Services states that FMAP is "used in determining the amount of Federal matching funds for State expenditures for assistance payments for certain social services, and State medical and medical insurance expenditures. The Social Security Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to calculate and publish the FMAPs each year."

Times-Picayune: Temporary post-Katrina spending "spiked" per capita income "long enough" to skew Medicaid funding formula, causing state Medicaid funding shortfall. The Times-Picayune reported on January 22 that "FMAP refers to the percentage of a state's payments under Medicaid that are covered by the federal government. Louisiana usually gets a higher match because of how poor the state is, but because of all the recovery and rebuilding money that poured in after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, state per capita income spiked long enough to throw the formula out of kilter and threaten to blow a hole [in] the state budget. [Sen. Mary] Landrieu's fix was, according to state officials, only the beginning of a solution for a huge Medicaid shortfall the state is facing." The article stated that Landrieu said "attaching the Medicaid provision to a health-care bill made sense, and there is no obvious and feasible legislative alternative."

Jindal: "If not corrected in Washington, D.C.," FMAP problem will cost $500 million a year. Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's fiscal year 2010-2011 budget proposal says that the "Louisiana state government faces significant, multi-year budget challenges, compounded by a faulty federal FMAP formula that, if not corrected in Washington, D.C., will cost the state approximately $500 million a year in Medicaid funding, impacting services for the poorest in our state, and often those who need care the most." The proposal also says that "[w]hile there is discussion in Washington about extending the enhanced federal Medicaid match rate for six months for all states, without a permanent fix to Louisiana's faulty FMAP calculation, combined with the loss of federal stimulus funding, Louisiana will still face a projected $1.7 billion shortfall for FY 12."

HotAir post oblivious to 2006 Hawaii earthquake

Hawaii was declared a disaster area following earthquake. During the Fox News interview cited by HotAir, Obama stated that Hawaii could benefit from the health care bill provision that helps Louisiana deal with the FMAP problem. The HotAir post responded: "Apparently, there was a devastating earthquake in Hawaii that we all somehow missed. Oh, wait, no. That's right. There was no earthquake, and Obama is just totally clueless, as usual." In fact, a magnitude 6.7 earthquake hit Hawaii on October 15, 2006, as Media Matters for America noted. At the time, President Bush "declared a major disaster exists in the State of Hawaii and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts in the area struck by an earthquake." USA Today also reported that Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle also issued a disaster declaration for the state, after reports of damaged buildings, landslides, and power outages.

Times-Picayune: Hawaii might also be eligible for aid under health care reform. The Times-Picayune reported on February 23 that the provision "was intended as a one-time, partial fix for a sharp drop in federal Medicaid money coming to the state because of a temporary surge in per capita income in Louisiana as recovery dollars flooded into the state in the wake of Katrina and Rita." The article noted that Hawaii could also be eligible for aid under the Senate health care reform bill:

In order to qualify, a state would have to face an FMAP decline of a magnitude that would only include at this time three states: Louisiana, North Dakota and Hawaii. The legislation also requires the state be one that experienced a major disaster in the past seven years in which every county or parish in the state was eligible for FEMA public assistance. That would eliminate North Dakota, leaving only Louisiana and Hawaii, where all four of its counties were eligible for aid after the 2006 earthquake.

Hawaii officials reportedly pursuing FMAP funding. A March 11 Times-Picayune article quoted a Hawaii Department of Human Services spokeswoman as saying they are "optimistic we will find a way to get the FMAP provision," amid some confusion over whether Hawaii will ultimately qualify for the fix.