CNET sued over LimeWire, blamed for "Internet Piracy Phenomenon"

Alki David, the wealthy film producer and entrepreneur behind sites like FilmOn, announced last year in aYouTube video that he intended to sue CNET and its

owner, CBS, for providing hundreds of millions of downloads of LimeWire P2P software over the last decade. Today, he made good on his threat, rounding up some rap and R&B musicians to join his case.


The plaintiffs argue that CNET had "direct participation in massive copyright infringement on peer-to-peer systems, such as LimeWire, that are used to copy and distribute songs, films and other artistic works," and that CNET's Download.com was the "main distributor" of the software. P2P software isn't illegal, though companies that use it to induce or encourage copyright infringement can be held liable. The principle, most famously articulated by the US Supreme Court in the Grokster shutdown, was extended to LimeWire last year when a federal judge shut down most of the company's activity.


I think this law suite is just another example of how the music industry is trying to hold on to the scraps of their former business. Suing CNET a desperate move to try to make money. CNET distributed fully legal software and never broke any laws. If you can make the connection to CNET and internet piracy then why not just Blame Apple or Mircosoft? Why does Apple allow illegal down loads on there OS?


There biggest argument is comparing them to selling guns. But guess what, no gun company has every been sued for making guns so it is a stupid analogy.

Breaking Law News!! The End of Class Action lawsuits?

Breaking Law New!!  The End of Class Action lawsuits?

The Supreme Court began a new term last month, and, as usual, its docket is filled with high-profile cases. Sometimes, however, the cases that are the most important keep the lowest profiles. That's true this term. This week, the court will hear what could be its most important case in years, and I'll bet you have never even heard of it.

Earlier this the Supreme Court rules that AT&T's terms of agreement, that states that they are exempt from class action lawsuits, will be upheld.  Basically they are talking about that annoying Terms of Service Agreement that agree too when you buy anything or and also that agreement you have to click when using anything on your computer.

AT&T snuck in a clause that stated that by using there products you are agreeing to waiver the right to sue them in a class action lawsuit.  This is illegal in most states and was turned down in all lower level courts un till it was taken to the supreme courts and was quickly overturned.

This is a huge case because they basically just got rid of class action law suits and have thrown out a large chunk of the legal code.  It is as if AT&T just magically wrote down that you cannot sue them and it become law.  So now the law is that you cannot sue AT&T because AT&T does not want you to sue them.  And now that this case was won every single companies will out the same thing in any of there documentation.

This does not only apply to computer related companies just because you did not actually read or sign anything.  When you buy anything on the market you are implying that you agree to there terms of service.

This is new pro large business and very bad for the consumer and will only make the price of living keep rising.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/04/28/idINIndia-56621320110428

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-consumer-class-actions-2011-04-28

In memory of Carl Sagan

I remember as a young child watching the Carl Sagan series Cosmos and i can remember that changed my life and expanded my view of the entire world.  Now the entire Cosmos series is streaming on Netflix and even though it was made in the 80's the content really hold up.  I it not only about outer space but he talks about the role of life and humans in the universe.

One great thing that he points out is about life in the universe.  Given the vastness of space and the time the universe has been around there must be life on other planets.  But here is the thing we are separated not only by distance but we are separated by time.  Even if there was plant with life on it across the universe right now and we launched a ship to go there, by the time we get there they may be all extinct or the planet may nat even exist anymore.

I would go as far to say that he is anti religion even though he does not say that directly.   He points out that how the dark ages and the rise of the western religions as held back societies potential.  The dark ages are called that because of the information black out.  Nothing was being learned and science was looked at as bad and all the Knowledge of Greeks and Romans was lost.  The ancient Greeks and Romans embraced  philosophy and science and promoted learning. Then from the start of the first century until  almost 2000 years later when Galileo and the people that came afterward that help society come out of the dark ages and look to the future.

Ok now what does that mean?  Well if you look at all the technology around us we can see that technology grows exponentially when it is free to evolve and move forward.  Just imagine how far we will advance in the next 1000 years.  What if science could get back that lost 1000 years of the dark ages?  What would our world be like to day?  What if scientist have figured out electricity 1000 years ago? We could have all had computers 1000 years ago if the power that be embraced science. and today we would live in a world that is a thousand year in our future.

Of course they know where you are!

If you were ever under the impression that the location of your cell phone is unknown then you have little comprehension of how cell phones work.

In the last weeks there have been a loud uproar and even a few law suites about cell phones keeping location tracking data.  Many people think that the phone companies should not have access to the location of the user.  But of course they know exactly where you are  they are beaming a signal from outer space to hand.  They know exactly where you are at all times. it is the nature of the technology.

And especially with iphones and android phones that use the internet and use apps that clearly uses your geo data knowing your location is essential.  And the fact is you can easily turn off any saved location tracking.  And in i phones apps when you start apps that track location it clearly asks you before it runs.

So the fact that people are trying to sue google and apple for tracking their location is absolutely ridiculous


more reading

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/google-faces-50-million-lawsuit-over-android-location-tracking.ars

Tit for tat? Samsung sues Apple

While Apple is busy suing Samsung over Trade Dress infringement, Samsung decided to slap Apple with a law suit of there own and it is for a completely different reason.  Samsung is one of the lead suppliers of hardware for Apple.  Samsung is suing Apple for patent infringements on cell phone hardware.

The Samsung lawsuits don't directly respond to the Apple suit. Instead, they accuse Apple of violating patents covering cellphone transmission technologies.


I know this is getting all very confusing with everyone suing everyone from different angles.

They should both just drop there suites and call it even.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983704576277863329446914.html#ixzz1KXWFikXt

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/04/tit-for-tat-samsung-sues-apple-in-europe-asia.ars

Apple sues Samsung

Apple sued Samsung yesterday, the latest in a long line of IP lawsuits against Android device manufacturers. The case is remarkable for several reasons, not least because Samsung is one of Apple’s critical component suppliers: the Korean giant manufactures everything from DRAM and SSDs for MacBook Pros to the A4 and A5 processors in the iPhone, iPod touch, Apple TV, and iPad. That relationship doesn’t seem to have softened Apple’s tone; the company’s complaint bluntly says “Instead

of pursuing independent product development, Samsung has chosen to slavishly copy Apple’s innovative technology, distinctive user interfaces, and elegant and distinctive product and packaging design, in violation of Apple’s valuable intellectual property rights.” Oh boy.

Hardware and software trade dress claims

• a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded; 
• the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders; 
• as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width; 
• as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width; 
• a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface; 
• a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and 
• a bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed 

This law suit is a bit tricky to understand. You cannot claim a design that has is critical to a function. Basically you can only copy-write a design that is purely artistic and does not have anything to do with function. Apple is claiming that samsung is trying to confuse the buyers into thinking there product is the same as an iphone.

Samsung is claiming that these feature have become industry standard and is crucial to the function of the phone and is not purely a design ripoff.

So what do you think? As for the overall design of a full touch screen i think is industry standard just as all flat screen tv's look basically the same. The only real claim i think they have is about the itunes icon.

Internet Patent Trolls

In the 90's when the internet was getting started there where a few smart business men who tried to get ahead of the game and patent ides and concepts that were not even developed.  Sounds good right?  But what has happened was they were granted patents on very general concepts and on the technology that implements them.

What does this mean let me give you a few examples.  There is a legal battle right now over Amazon.com feature of "One Click Purchase". There are a few companies that claim they own the rights to this "One Click Purchase" because they thought of the idea. They did not create not the programming code or actual method of implementation and technology to do it.  Just the idea.   That is just ridiculous because you cannot patent the Wheel or a car with 4 wheels and 2 doors.  These are just general concepts and cannot hold a patent.  You cannot patent a Television. you can patent the way you make a television and the technology  and materials used.  But you cannot patent the concept of a television.

The reason these type of patents were allowed because at the time of the filling the technology did not even exist and we did not for see the future business model that the internet would become.

Another example of a patent troll is a company that claims the right to internet podcasts.  They don't claim the name 'podcast' they do not claim the technology that creates and distributes the podcast.  They claim to hold the patent on the idea of  "episodical content automatically downloaded to your computer".  That is such a broad concept that is is criminal to claim you own that idea.  That is as if I patent the idea of a flying car and the wait around for someone else to actually make one then claim i came up with the idea and i should get the credit.

These type of frivolous lawsuits may not hurt big companies like Apple and Amazon because they can afford to fight it legally.  But this will effect the ability for small business to start up because these type of litigation can cripple a small company.  So in the vain of net neutrality and open internet we need to follow the path to further innovation.

Analog Film Photography

In the world of photography these days all the rage is digital, more megapixels, more memory.  This article is not about how digital is bad just that we forget how good film could be.  Even the highest end 30,000 dollar digital camera is only trying replicate film.  It does not mater how many megapixels a camera has because technically a 35mm frame has no pixels or infinite pixels(depending how you look at it) because it is analog. A movie is projected from a 35mm frame to a 100 screen with little to no loss.  And most professional commercial photographers still use film because of the quality.

I started to buy the latest and greatest digital photography equipment about 10 years ago.  And all that equipment are starting to become out of date.  So instead of starting to buy new equipment I took a look back at all the film and analog equipment that i had.  And the fact is that all the good film camera equipment i had were still just as good and relevant today.  And combining the artistic values of analog film camera and the ease work flow with modern scanners and computers i have found a very creative and satisfying way to look at photography.

I think art is problem solving, and a good artist is constantly trying to make decisions of what they want and solve the problem of achieving there vision.  Whether it be painting, sculpting or photography the whole process is problem solving.  I think when something I am doing becomes easy and cookie cutter in style it get board with it and don't feel the artistic value of it.


Here is a link to some of my Analog film photography.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ornellas

So me and a few of my friends are starting to put on some Analog Photography Art Exhibition to get the word out there that photography is back and in effect. You can check out our show here.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ornellas/sets/72157624792132174/

Here is a good how to vid of developing film. The first time you do it will seem daunting but after you do it a few times it you can do it in the dark.


So get out there and start shooting

I am an Internet Pirate

I am a Internet pirate.  I can and will download any thing and everything that exist in digital form.  Am I a criminal?  Maybe. Will i stop? No.

So we all know the big argument over Internet file sharing. I’m just gonna give you my perspective on the whole situation.  I want to point out that i do not think that everything should be free or people should not be paid for there intellectual property. Only that the old economic model has gone way to New Media.

First lets talk about the Music industry.  for about the last 100 years  music industry basically worked like this.  The record company would pay millions of dollars for equipment and studios to make and record the music.  Then they would have to pay millions more to actually produce the media(cd,tape,record, etc.) then pay for publicity.  And if an artist sold big then they all made a lot of money.  But now with the advances in technology and the drop in price of consumer electronics an artist can afford to produce and record their own music with out old expensive equipment. Also with the Internet revolution and the move toward online purchasing, there is no need to pay for publication and you can advertise at a fraction of the price.  All this cuts out the middle man completely.  And the middle man is the record company.  So it is hard for these large corporation that ran a monopoly for so long to realize that the industry has passed them by.  And I understand why they are fighting so hard to save the industry.  Imagine if they told you that not only are you fired from your job at that company but that your type of job does not even exist anymore.  And this has happened a thousand times before and will happen again.  I’m sure there are people that would love to sell railroad tracks, but guess what, we don't need that anymore.

Also the choices made by the Music Industry, specifically how they chose to distribute their product on CD’s, is what lead to their down fall.  Until recently copying music seemed to be completely OK with the Music Industry.  They sold use blank tapes, tape recorders, every radio and tape deck had a record button.  You could record right off the radio.  So it is not the Copying of the music they are mad at it is the ease of doing it that is the problem.  When the music industry decided to use CD’s to distribute music they took the cheapest easiest way.  The Music industry did not develop there own media and went to an open source media format that was created by the Computer industry for data storage.  Thus a CD cannot be protected can be read from any computer and copied instantly.  In comparison to another industry that had to make the same decision, The Video Game companies.  They had the same problem, they had to chose between putting the games on DVD’s which is open source like  CD or investing in there own type of proprietary media.  You cannot put a XBOX game in a computer and copy it.  It is not  DVD, it is there own proprietary disc.

A computer is just a device that can rapidly calculate and replicate data.  Thus making it available for the masses.  The comparison I like to make abou the use of technology is about car companies. The reason cars are so expensive is because most people do not have the knowledge and the skills to make there own car from scratch.  If a custom car builder gets metal and makes a car that looks exactly like Lamborghini and does dot sell them for a profit it is totally legal and Lamborghini has no legal rights to do anything.

What will happen when we have the technology to have our own little robotic arm and program it to do what ever we want.  Not far off from the computers we have today.  I could just tell it to build me a car, and make it look exactly like Lamborghini.  If i only made them for my self and did not sell them is that illegal?

For any business to be successful you must provide a product or service that others cannot to do for themselves.  We now have the technology of 3d printing in any media(metal,plastic) so legality of reproducing anything will be the future issues.

So that is the technical reasons why I’m a Internet Pirate.  Next time i will tell you the ethical reason I’m a Internet Pirate.

Streaming Online News

Over the last year or so i have been trying to watch all my news and entertainment over the internet. I stream news, netflix, hulu, and peer to peer downloading.  There are many devices ike Apple TV, Roku box, xbox, playstation, and many more can now stream from the internet right to your TV.  Your cable box is probably the most least technically advance device in the modern household.  The cable companies have the monopoly and no competition so they have no need it keep making new devices.

Here are some great online streaming news channels

Al Jazeera English     LiveStation.com

   CNN Live      BBC World News

LiveStation.com is a great site that has a lot of the major news broadcast from around the world.  With all the things happening in the middle east and asia watching Al Jazeera is a lot better that CNN, and not only because they are focusing on local things.  It is hard to explain why but i feel that the US media like CNN and FOX are all about ratings. I feel that the focus is on the host of the show and not the news.  Whether it is Pierce Morgan, Anderson Cooper or Larry King i think that the focus is on them and not the news.  The show becomes them telling us the news.

You can even stream Hawaii News Now. witch is good.  But i have to say that they had horrible Tsunami coverage this last weekend.  During the Tsunami warning the local news had no good footage of anything. For 4 hours we watched only 2 camera shots, A night vision traffic cam in Waikiki and the back of some house in Diamond with a flood light.  And that was absolutely it!!!! are you shitting me? We live on an island surrounded by water and they could not get one camera guy down to any beach or even on a roof in Waikiki?  What about the Harbors or Haleiwa. Al Jazeera had better coverage of what was happening in Hawaii and they were showing what was happing in Japan at the same time.

My point is that the old system run by the cable companies is coming to an end and unless they keep up with the outside world they will be overtaken by companies like google and apple that can offer the same products and services practically for free.

Net Neutrality Part 2 Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech

The for the last 15 years the FCC has been hit with heavy criticism about it's dealing with censorship because many felt that was not what the FCC was created for.  But the FCC has a chance to redeem its public image by starting to enforce net neutrality by witch is absolutely one reason the FCC was really started for,  control media pipelines in favor of the public good.

So the FCC is now trying to pass a bill that will help support net neutrality.  Some of the main points in this bill is that internet providers can't favor their own content and providers can't limit access to lawful content.

Right now it seems all this net neutrality is all about if just watching Netflix and downloading everything off the internet.  But really it has a greater implications.  If we do not keep the internet an open network then we run the risk of losing the ability of have a free press and could infringe on first amendment rights.   This is exactly what China does. When you go on the internet in China you are not on the same internet that the rest of the world gets.  You are on a Chinese internet that is tightly controlled and cannot get access with sites that the government does not agree with wether it be politically or financially.

Right now all the cable companies are trying to do is slow down Skype, Netflix, iTunes and other internet media.  But if those same ISPs decide that they do not want to support the New York Times or CNN in favor of there own companies it would be a violation of the first amendment.  It would be as if the phone companies charged you double to call people they did not like.

So even if you do not fully understand what net neutrality is, just remember it comes down to protecting free speech and free press.

Wiki Leaks - Freedom of Speach?

By now most of heard about Wiki Leaks and its creator Julian Assange.  Wiki Leaks  is an international non-profit organisation that publishes submissions of private, secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources and news leaks.  In past months Wiki Leaks have leak thousands of US military files that were stollen by a low ranking solider.

Now here is the part that is starting to dive me crazy.  The question on everyone mind is "Is what he did illegal? Should Julian Assange be held accountable and prosecuted?"  To me this very question is ridiculous.  He is an Australian citizen that runs a web site based out of Sweden.  It doesn't matter what he does he does not fall under US jurisdiction.  We cannot even extradite Roman Polanski as he hosts film festivals in his villa in France, and he was convicted on US soil.  The news channels know this but they still constantly talked about it because it makes great news.  The guy that actually stole the stuff was arrested immediately and sitting in a military jail.  They are going to throw the book at him and you know they are not letting him talk to anyone so there is no story there.

Wiki Leaks is protected under the first amendment just like anyone else.  Any newspaper or news network that got the scoop first would have reported the story.  If CNN or the New York Times got the scoop first would the anger about the leak have taken the same direction?  And all the major news networks report it anyway.  One reason for the out lash at Wiki Leaks from the major new networks is because such a small organization got the information first.  In in a kind of act of jealousy the major news networks bash the little guy.  A good example of this same thing happening in the media else were is a certain male celebrity went on Howard Stern recently and told some truths about himself and the next day he was criticized for giving the story to Stern and not to some one like Oprah.

The government got off easy on this one.  The story became not what facts were leaked but got turned around and Wiki Leaks became the story.  Who even remembers what was leaked? Something about Gaddafi getting plastic surgery and the Saudi's bitching about Iran, what a revelation.   This is a good example agenda setting and of how the mass media does not necessarily tell us what to think but what to think about.  It is a shame that the media does support Wiki Leaks more because in the long run what ever legal decisions come of this is going to effect the freedom of speech or everyone.

Net Neutrality Part 1

A topic i want to research a bit further this semester is Net Neutrality.

So what exactly is net neutrality? To get started i want to try to explane some of the Conflicts that are the key issues.

The Conflict:

     The way the internet works now and has since the beginning is that all content is treated the same whether you are on google, Hulu or Netflix.  The internet service provider and phone companies own the physical network which we pay to access the internet but they are not allowed to control access to any legal content on the web.

     What this really come down to is money.  We pay the cable and phone companies, in our case Time Warner cable, for access to the internet.  Keeping with the technology boom the online streaming of high definition entertainment is on the rise any will only get bigger.  Sites like Netflix, Hulu, iTunes and other media streaming sites account for almost 30 percent of internet traffic.  Cable companies make a lot of money selling pay cable services like hbo, shotime, and pay per view and on demand services.  but with more people going to the internet for these services they are loosing money.  

      So what some of the large corporation are proposing is that they can control the bandwidth and the speed of the internet in favor of their own content.  The cable companies do not want you watching netflix so they will either limit the bandwith or force  companies to pay them more money to get full bandwith.

     With many new wireless channels opening up for the wireless phone networks net neutrality maintains that the rules that apply landline internet should apply to wireless networks.  Many people might not be aware of what this issue actually means.  We all take for granted the we can plug any telephone into the network and it will work and that any brand of television can plug in to your cable.  The ethernet internet network can plug into any brand of computer.  

     You would think it is ridiculous that if you buy an Apple computer that it can only work on a Time Warner Road Runner internet.  But that is that way the cell phone networks are becoming.  Cellphone are now basically small computers and we access the internet on our cellphones for the same reasons and we do on a laptop. With websites like Skype and Google voice you can now call anyone in the world over your phone and not have to pay AT&T for the call.  This is exactly what they do not want you to do. 

     So what  net neutrality means is that we need to treat the internet like a utility.  Just as we treat electricity, water and telephone.  Just as the electric company cannot tell you what brand of electronics can be plugged in to the wall or the water company tell you what brand of faucets to buy.

In the next part  it will get into more detail about who this effects and how it will impact the future of mass media.

Here are some great links that can bring you up to date with Net Neutrality

http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions

http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/3403

Into to Ornellas

Aloha:}

My name is Justin Ornellas  I am a senior at Hawaii Pacific University majoring in Multimedia.

I have a lot of interest in photography both digital and analog.  I have a background of computer science and information technology.  I want to get involved in the production side of journalism or entertainment.  With the technology boom of the last ten years I feel that knowledge of all mediums is what you need to know.


My new motto is "Art is Problem Solving" 

All great artist have to figure out how to express themselves in there work.  If it is too easy or every one can do it than it is not really art.  To me art is problem solving.  A sculpter has to figure out how to get a figure out of a stone. a painter has to make a decision with every stroke he makes.  I learned this mainly from doing film photography.  The process of getting a image on a piece of film then into a computer is many steps of problem solving.

I believe that a true professional in any industry must be a problem solver.  The technology whether it be cameras or computers are only tools that we can use.  And the true inovation comes with the ability to solve a problem and make decisions.   While a tv or film director must make the more creative decisions the producers job is basically to be one big problem solver and is very important for getting the job done.

Blog Mission:
My Plan for this blog is to bring up some interesting topics that relate to our class and to try to get people interested in new ways of looking at multimedia.