MySpace is trying to tell artists what widgets they can embed on their myspace pages. Think again. The backlash will kill the whole site.

It will be nice to see it happen. (Meaning it will be nice to either see the crappy myspace fail, or a smarter myspace wake up and relax these silly restrictions.)

MySpace Restrictions Upset Some Users
By Brad Stone for the NY Times.

Some users of MySpace feel as if their space is being invaded.

MySpace, the Web's largest social network, has gradually been imposing
limits on the software tools that users can embed in their pages, like
music and video players that also deliver advertising or enable
transactions...

But to some formerly enthusiastic MySpace users, the new restrictions
hamper their abilities to design their pages and promote new projects.

"The reason why I am so bummed out about MySpace now is because recently
they have been cutting down our freedom and taking away our rights slowly,"
wrote Tila Tequila, a singer who is one of MySpace's most popular and
visible users, in a blog posting over the weekend. "MySpace will now only
allow you to use 'MySpace' things."...

The tussle between MySpace and Indie911 underscores tensions between
established Internet companies and the latest generation of Web start-ups.
Without a critical mass of visitors to their sites, many of these smaller
companies are devising strategies that involve clamping on to sites like
MySpace and Facebook and trying to make money off their traffic.

MySpace, meanwhile, is trying to show that it can generate stable revenue.
Google will pay it at least $900 million over the next three years to serve
ads to the site's users. And last fall, MySpace announced a partnership
with Snocap, a San Francisco-based company, to sell music.

Perhaps not coincidentally, this year, MySpace blocked widgets from Revver,
a video-sharing site that embeds advertisements in its clips, and Imeem, a
music buying service.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/technology/20myspace.html?pagewanted=print

March 20, 2007
MySpace Restrictions Upset Some Users
By BRAD STONE

Some users of MySpace feel as if their space is being invaded.

MySpace, the Web's largest social network, has gradually been imposing
limits on the software tools that users can embed in their pages, like
music and video players that also deliver advertising or enable
transactions.

At stake is the ability of MySpace, which is owned by the News Corporation,
to ensure that it alone can commercially capitalize on its 90 million
visitors each month.

But to some formerly enthusiastic MySpace users, the new restrictions
hamper their abilities to design their pages and promote new projects.

"The reason why I am so bummed out about MySpace now is because recently
they have been cutting down our freedom and taking away our rights slowly,"
wrote Tila Tequila, a singer who is one of MySpace's most popular and
visible users, in a blog posting over the weekend. "MySpace will now only
allow you to use 'MySpace' things."

Ms. Tequila, born Tila Nguyen, has attracted attention by linking to more
than 1.7 million friends on her MySpace page. To promote her first album,
she recently added to her MySpace page a new music player and music store,
called the Hoooka, created by Indie911, a Los Angeles-based start-up
company.

Users listened to her music and played the accompanying videos 20,000 times
over the weekend. But the Hoooka disappeared on Sunday after a MySpace
founder, Tom Anderson, personally contacted Ms. Tequila to object,
according to someone with direct knowledge of the dispute. She then vented
her thoughts on her personal blog.

MySpace says that it will block these pieces of third-party software - also
called widgets - when they lend themselves to violations of its terms of
service, like the spread of pornography or copyrighted material. But it
also objects to widgets that enable users to sell items or advertise
without authorization, or without entering into a direct partnership with
the company.

A MySpace spokeswoman said yesterday that the service did not remove
anything from Ms. Tequila's page. "A MySpace representative contacted her
and told her that she had violated our terms of service in regards to
commercial activity," the spokeswoman said. "She removed the material
herself, after realizing it was not appropriate for MySpace."

Ms. Tequila and her representatives would not comment.

But Justin Goldberg, chief executive of Indie911, said MySpace's actions
undercut the notion that the social networks' users have complete creative
freedom. "We find it incredibly ironic and frustrating that a company that
has built its assets on the back of its users is turning around and telling
people they can't do anything that violates terms of service," he said.

"Why shouldn't they call it FoxSpace? Or RupertSpace?" Mr. Goldberg said,
referring to the News Corporation's chief, Rupert Murdoch.

The tussle between MySpace and Indie911 underscores tensions between
established Internet companies and the latest generation of Web start-ups.
Without a critical mass of visitors to their sites, many of these smaller
companies are devising strategies that involve clamping on to sites like
MySpace and Facebook and trying to make money off their traffic.

MySpace, meanwhile, is trying to show that it can generate stable revenue.
Google will pay it at least $900 million over the next three years to serve
ads to the site's users. And last fall, MySpace announced a partnership
with Snocap, a San Francisco-based company, to sell music.

Perhaps not coincidentally, this year, MySpace blocked widgets from Revver,
a video-sharing site that embeds advertisements in its clips, and Imeem, a
music buying service.

"Our users weren't happy," said Dalton Caldwell, Imeem's chief executive,
who was nevertheless ambivalent about the MySpace ban because he thought
the move might encourage his users to visit his site directly. "If MySpace
isn't really 'their space' after all, maybe users will think about things
differently."

In the past, MySpace executives have said that the service failed to block
companies like YouTube that began successful businesses from MySpace's
pages.

"We probably should have stopped YouTube," Michael Barrett, chief revenue
officer for Fox Interactive Media, a part of the News Corporation, said in
an interview in late February. "YouTube wouldn't exist if it wasn't for
MySpace. We've created companies on our back."

MySpace and its corporate parent say they want to find ways to support and
exploit the growing widget economy. Last year, Fox Interactive Media
introduced a service called Spring Widget. The service provides tools to
help developers create widgets for use both on computer desktops and online
networks like MySpace.

In a recent use of its technology, the studio behind the horror film "Dead
Silence" used a Spring Widget tool on its promotional MySpace page to count
down the minutes until the film's release.

Fred Wilson, a New York-based venture capitalist who invests in social
media companies, said the strategy showed that the News Corporation was
trying to take advantage of growing interest in widgets while also trying
to carefully control what made it onto MySpace.

But that could be a dangerous strategy, Mr. Wilson said.

"Every attempt everyone has ever made to try to dictate what a person's
Internet experience will be has ended up coming up empty," he said. "You
have to accept the fact that you are never going to be the be-all and
end-all of everyone's experience. They are one click away from everyone
else on the Web."

As for Ms. Tequila, who wrote on her blog that she was a personal friend of
Mr. Anderson, the MySpace co-founder, she wrote that she felt bad about
blasting the site but that she could not stay silent.

"You guys used to be so cool," she wrote of MySpace. "Don't turn into a
corporate evil monster."

This is from the February 7, 2007 program of CNBC's Morning Call.

CNBC On Why DRM Should Go Away (Quicktime - 16 MB)

CNBC On Why DRM Should Go Away (MP3 - 8 MB)

This story was inspired by Steve Jobs' recent
campaign to kill Digital Rights Management (DRM) in iTunes.

The argument supporting this position was best described when the commentator started off saying:
"Mr. Sherman, your anti-piracy software doesn't work anyway. What's the point?"

Long story short:

-DRM is only a hassle for consumers. Real "pirates" hack it anyway.

-DRM doesn't need to exist for new business models - there are numerous subscription services already without DRM.

-For this reason, a subscription service that doesn't let you move your music around between your different devices is already "broken" (while also depriving you of your fair use and first sale rights to make legal copies of media you've purchased legally).

Here is the full text of the entire article linked to above about Steve Jobs (in case the link goes bad):
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1551759/20070207/index.jhtml

Apple's Steve Jobs Ready To Scrap iTunes Copy Protection
With label cooperation, Apple would sell DRM-free music 'in a heartbeat,' CEO says.

By Gil Kaufman

Steve Jobs is great at making lusted-after shiny tech objects, but the Apple Inc. CEO could use a lesson or two in the fine art of blogging. Regardless of his failure to keep it brief and breezy, though, the man who brought you the iPod and iTunes posted a lengthy, fascinating open letter on the Apple site on Tuesday in which he surprisingly stated that he'd be OK with scrapping the Digital Rights Management software that prevents songs downloaded from iTunes from being played on competing MP3 players.

Jobs, who has defended DRM in the past, said he's asked the four major labels (Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group and EMI Group) to remove the software that prevents the copying of music files. As of now, songs bought on iTunes will only play on Apple's own iPods, and music bought from other download sites have their own DRM systems that work for competing music players.

"When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied," Jobs explained in the letter about the big four, which control rights to more than 70 percent of the world's music. "The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices."

Part of the deal, he added, is that if Apple's DRM was compromised at any time and the music downloaded from iTunes could suddenly be played on unauthorized devices — hackers have worked hard at finding some work-arounds for the iTunes DRM — the company had only a "small number of weeks" to fix the situation or face the withdrawal of the record company's entire catalog from the iTunes store. Jobs decried the need to employ secret codes in Apple's FairPlay DRM in order to stay a step ahead of hackers in the "cat-and-mouse game" to repair challenges to FairPlay's security.

"Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly," Jobs predicted. He proposed three solutions to the problem:

» "Continue on the current course, with each manufacturer competing freely with their own "top to bottom" proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music. It is a very competitive market, with major global companies making large investments to develop new music players and online music stores. Apple, Microsoft and Sony all compete with proprietary systems. Music purchased from Microsoft's Zune store will only play on Zune players; music purchased from Sony's Connect store will only play on Sony's players; and music purchased from Apple's iTunes store will only play on iPods. This is the current state of affairs in the industry, and customers are being well served with a continuing stream of innovative products and a wide variety of choices.

» "The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company's players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players."

» "The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."

Why would the big four agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect them, Jobs asks? The simple answer, he wrote, is "because DRMs haven't worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy.

"Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That's right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player."

Jobs argued that if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, why would they bother saddling the small remaining percentage of their sales with a DRM system that doesn't work?

"If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM-protected music," he wrote. "If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies."

I had just signed up for a PayPal account too, and was in the process of verifying my bank account. Now I think I don't want to get involved with these guys.

Mark Perkel learned this the hard way, when PayPal gave his account "limited" status after deciding it didn't like some of the content on his website. Furthermore, right before it shut down his account, it reversed a deposit that one of his clients had transferred to his PayPal account, but it did not return the money to his client's bank account after removing it from Perkel's bank account.

According to PayPal's User Agreement, (It's probably the Accessible Use policy regarding adult material that he violated.), if it chooses to make your account "limited," (PayPal has the authorization to do so at any time based on its own discretion), it can and will hold the funds in your PayPal account for 180 days.

Turns out that money is in limbo until Perkel writes PayPal in a secure email on its website and asks for this to be done explicitly. This is despite the fact that he asked them to do so over the phone. (And why wouldn't they have already done so anyway? - if they were reversing the transaction, when the money left Perkel's account, it should have gone back to where it came from.)

PayPal claims that they hold the money for 180 days to "protect ourselves from potential reversals" to the accounts. But there's a free speech issue here - why is PayPal going around making judgements about it's customers' websites anyway? Who's going to be next? Is your PayPal account something you don't want to keep too much money in at any one time, since they can freeze your account and hold it up for 180 days?

These are the questions going through my mind after listing to this MP3 of Marc Perkel talking to Paypal.

If you're listen to the MP3, and in a hurry, the relevant portion is at about 6 min 50 seconds into it. But if you've got a minute, listen to the whole thing. It's pretty interesting.

So Perkel may have violated their user agreement, but closing his account without giving him a chance to take his money out, and then holding on to not only the money he had in his account, but the money his client had transferred to him the day before the account was closed doesn't seem right.

Marc's started an anti-paypal website, to let people know about his experience, but I'm not telling you to boycott these guys necessarily. I just want you to know about this so you can make your own decision. Maybe there's a perfectly good reason why PayPal works for you. Fine.

(This MP3 might also have some great samples in it for you Dee Jay/Audiophile types. Don't say I didn't tell ya :-)

Here's some information for anyone who is interested in the news story about PayPal and their lawsuit settlement over freezing customer's accounts:

PayPal settles customer suit

Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.com.com/PayPal+settles+customer+suit/2100-1038_3-5233490.html

Last modified: June 14, 2004, 4:38 PM PDT
By Paul Festa
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Print story E-mail story Your take

PayPal has reached a preliminary settlement with some customers who accused the eBay unit of illegally freezing their funds.

The company on Friday said it will pay a total of $9.25 million to settle the federal class-action suit, $3.4 million of which will pay lawyers' fees and costs.

PayPal admitted no wrongdoing in settling the claims, which were filed in 2002 as part of two federal class-action suits that also alleged other customer service deficiencies.

Those two cases were merged, and a third case, pending in California state court, will be dismissed if the settlement agreement is approved.

"In this agreement, PayPal does not acknowledge that any of the allegations in the case are true," PayPal said in an e-mail to customers. The unit "entered into the settlement agreement to avoid further costs of litigation and to devote resources to more productive areas of our business."

An attorney for PayPal customers called the settlement a win not only in securing a financial reward, but in changing the way PayPal does business.

"I think we got it right," said Daniel Girard, a partner with Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo in San Francisco. "The settlement provides for cash recovery and also for a series of changes to the operating procedures at PayPal."

Between June and September 2003, while the litigation was still pending, PayPal released $5.1 million in frozen customer funds, Girard said. As part of the settlement, PayPal agreed to change the way it handled dispute resolution.

PayPal acknowledged that the settlement included an injunction mandating certain changes to the company's procedures, but maintained that the modifications had come about independent of the litigation.

"PayPal has always been looking for ways to improve customer service," said company spokeswoman Amanda Pires. The litigation "didn't really change the way PayPal has been operating. We have improved our customer service as part of our normal course of business."

PayPal claims 45 million member accounts around the world.

The settlement was the product of mediation, begun early last fall, before a court-appointed special master. Within a week, the parties plan to file the preliminary settlement with the U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., for approval.

The case involves PayPal customers who used the service between Oct. 1, 1999 and Jan. 31, 2004. European Union residents are excluded.

PayPal said it will publish the allocation plan in July or August. Customers will be informed of settlement terms within two months of the court's preliminary approval.

Here's the text from the website in case the link goes bad:

http://paypal.ctyme.com/paypal/paypalsucks.htm

PayPal Sucks - Closed my Account - Keeping my Money

I'm in the process of building my PayPal sucks site and this blog entry is the first step. It's the art of being an asshole. I'm sure I'm not the only one that PayPal has ripped off and probably won't be the last - but I will be the one they remember the most.

I got an email today from PayPal that they are closing my account. The reason for closing my account is that they claim they don't like the content of my web site - specifically my site on Sexual Issues where I have my Men's Guide to Escort Services - a guide to interacting with hookers, The Nerd's Guide to Sex - a guide teaching men how to properly have sex with women, and The Shy Girl's Guide to Becoming a Whore - a women's guide to surviving the Bush Ecomony.

So - because they didn't like my web site content they not only decided to cancel my PayPal account - but to also keep my money for 180 days. And - I had transfered my money out of PayPal yesterday - but after closing my account today they reversed yesterday's transaction and are going to steal my money.

The people at PayPay are real mother fuckers. But I to am an asshole and I don't get mad - I get even. Whenever I get screwed by someone I use my talents of being a real prick to turn the tables on them and make them feel the heat.

PayPal claims that according to their End User Agreement that they have the right to close down my account for any reason whatsoever - without any form of recourse - keep my money for 180 days - and there's nothing that I can do about it. Well Paypal you on wrong about that because there's a lot to do about it.

I am a person who values free speech and fights hard against censorship and the Corparations like eBay who owns PayPay who think they can come in and tell ME what I can say on the Internet. Well I say - fuck you PayPal! I will not only keep my right to FREE SPEECH but I will use that right to expose you for what you really are.

Now - for those of you who are reading this - you probably don't entirely grasp the details of what I'm talking about. You think - this is PayPal - they have to be more ethical than that don't they? I say - yes they do. So I called them on the phone about it to get them to explain it to me in their own words. And I RECORDED THE CONVERSTATION IN THIS MP3 FILE SO YOU ALL CAN HERE IT FOR YOURSELF!

First things first. The file you are listening to is edited. But the important content is unaltered. I removed about 20 minutes of on hold messages so that you wouldn't have to sit through the wait time. The rest of it is everything that was said between me and PayPal.

What really fun about this is that I got them to say just exactly what they did to me and how they ripped me off and how they aren't going to do anything to fix it. What you hear is a real life detailed experience that I had and what PayPal's end user agreement really means to you - so that if you are thinking about doing business with PayPal - or you are already a PayPal or eBay customer - you might want to reread that user agreement and see if this is really what you want to be agreeing to.

In the recorded conversation - after getting them to plainly explain how they are screwing me - I anounce to them that I have recorded this phone call - and that I'm going to put it on the Internet. All of a sudden it is them flipping out and screaming about their rights - but - there's nothing they can do about it. You see - I'm not the only one who has no choice. When I dialed up PayPal - the very first thing their machine said was, "This call may be recorded." So - I recorded it. Listen to the squeal about their rights - but I don't give a fuck about their rights because they don't give a fuck about my rights.

The big corps think they hold all the cards - but there are things that we consumers can do to fight back. After all 0 this is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not of big corporation who think they can enslave us and walk over us any time they want to. I want this web site to be a turtorial about how people like you and me can stand up to these motherfuckers and show them that the People rule. And we do that by taking money out of their pockets.

Now - there are plenty of other people out there with similar stories of being censored or otherwise ripped off be PayPal and the comment section is open for you to tell your PayPal story. Go ahead and put in links to other PayPay sucks sites and tell us who is better. It's time that the online community organized to move away from unethical corporations like eBay who owns PayPal and find services who will play ball with us on OUR TERMS.

And - I want you to let PayPal know that you saw this web site and let them know what you think aboiut it. Here is an Email Form to tell them - you saw it hear - you listened to the recording - and what you think about it.

One think to keep in mind is - PayPal is not a bank - nor do you have the protection that banks offer. They are also not a credit card company. They act like they are a fiscal instution but Master Card and Visa aren't playing moral police with me. And as you can see - if they decide to take your money - they just take it. Even if you transfer your money out of paypal the day before they close your account.

Also - if you are going to link to this page - don't use the blog url. Use this URL instead:

http://paypal.ctyme.com/paypal/paypalsucks.htm

Here's another PayPal Warning Site I found.

Other PayPal Sucks Sites:

http://www.paypalsucks.com/
http://www.internationalterrorist.com/paypal.html
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/05/18/0128201.shtml?tid=126&tid=153&tid=172&tid=93&tid=95&tid=99
http://www.gnutellanews.com/article/12148
http://www.tcj.com/messboard/ubb/Forum1/HTML/007500.html
http://seclists.org/lists/politech/2003/Mar/0040.html
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/02/23/pay_pal/index.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/paypal.html
http://www.aboutpaypal.org/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paypalperil/
http://www.outofthedark.com/CorporateWars/PayPal/index.html
http://www.ygoodman.com/paypal.asp

What is PayPal?

PayPal is an online service that allows you to email money to other people.

----------------------

Why is my account access limited?

Your account access has been limited for the following reason(s):
# Jun. 13, 2004: In accordance with PayPal's User Agreement and Acceptable Use Policy, we have closed your account. Your funds may be held for 180 days from the date of your last transaction. After 180 days, you will be able to access your funds by requesting an online bank transfer or, if applicable, a check from PayPal. Please update your address or bank information as we cannot be held responsible for checks issued to an incorrect address. We do ask that you please remove reference(s) to PayPal from your site.

(Your case ID for this reason is PP-040-853-646.)
Posted by marc at June 13, 2004 07:59 PM | TrackBack
Comments

i feel for u mate.. i had my paypal account closed, and by the time i was able to come back to the civilized world to do anything,(was out in the outback) my money, my account all gone.The reason they gave me was inactivity on my account so they took it to themselves to close and wipe my money clean.Your reasons was more obsecure.. wat does an online content (what u write on the net) has anything to do with paypal?

screw them real good!
Posted by: ixnay at June 13, 2004 09:11 PM

Large corporations are all, repeat, all crooked. You will need a website the size of Siberia to contain all the "so and so sucks" information. Let me suggest:

CORPORATIONS SUCK

They are Re-animated Companies. They take a company that has been sold (aka dead) and artificially re-animate it with money from absentee stock-holders. These Frankenstein's Monsters are ruling the world. Nice, huh?

They are evil incarnate. Whaddaya gonna do?
Posted by: Dancho at June 13, 2004 09:49 PM

the URL to the MP3 is 404, bro.

Drew
Posted by: drew niese at June 13, 2004 10:01 PM

As far as the reversal of transaction goes, I think you have a legitimate right to complain.

But I don't think you can call foul as far as PayPal's closing your account is concerned.

From the "User Agreement for PayPal Services":

"This User Agreement ("Agreement") is a contract between you and PayPal, Inc. and applies to your use of the PayPal™ payment service and any related products and services available through www.paypal.com (collectively the "Service"). If you do not agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, please do not use or access our Services.

You must read, agree with, and accept all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and the Privacy Policy, which include those terms and conditions expressly set out below and those incorporated by reference, before you may become a member of PayPal. We strongly recommend that, as you read this Agreement, you also access and read the information contained in the other pages and websites referred to in this document, as they may contain further terms and conditions that apply to you as a PayPal user. Please note: underlined words and phrases are links to these pages and websites. By accepting this Agreement, you also agree that your use of other PayPal websites and Services will be governed by the terms and conditions posted on those websites."

One of the links is the "Acceptable Use Policy", and one of the examples of prohibited services/sites is "information sites or directories that provide links to adult sites or escort services".

PayPal isn't telling you what you can and can't say on the internet. They're not shutting your site down. Private companies *do* have the right to dictate what their services can and can't be used for.

PayPal didn't close your account because of something so arbitrary as "they don't like the content of your web site". They closed it because you broke terms of usage that you had agreed to when you signed up for their services in the first place.
Posted by: MadBlue at June 14, 2004 03:49 AM

Never, NEVER keep a large balance with Paypal. Damn, 6 months sure seems like a long time to keep somebody's money! That's a helluva float! Whatever happened to 30 days, 60 days, even 90 days? Okay, so 6 months go by and then what - They make your money disappear for inactivity like that poor Aussi who was outback!?
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 04:14 AM

Hey, that recording was funny as hell. Well, obviously, congress has to legislate laws to protect the consumer against paypal/ebay. I never use paypal when I put something up for auction on ebay. Hey, just imagine, ebay just closed my account for a bullshit infraction. That means that they probably would have frozen my paypal account too.

How's that song go... Alicia, Alicia...la la la la
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 04:35 AM

I don't buy keeping the money for 6 fucking months to cover potential complaints. I mean, what if they had already sent you the money; how would they cover their complaints then?
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 04:43 AM

If PAYPAL is acting as any merchant account, they reserve the right to hold funds to handle claims. As a businessman I am not totally bothered by this, if you agree to it. But, I do believe the owner of the account should earn ALL the interest from those funds. Now, I'll go listen to the tape.
Posted by: X-FREEPER at June 14, 2004 06:14 AM

"PayPal still faces probes by the FTC and other states regarding how it does business, including procedures dealing with times when product is not delivered after payment is received, and PayPal's account-freezing policies."

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Mar/gee20040310024206.htmw
Posted by: Babylonian at June 14, 2004 07:51 AM

Mark, I was reading one of your err... other sites...lol....hey, I don't mean to burst your bubble but...BUT... the reason those escorts were telling you that you are so good in bed is because...err.......u were PAYING them and they wanted a tip plus more business in the future.
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 07:57 AM

While less than ethical, what PayPal did was perfectly legal. You agreed to their license agreement in the beginning, obviously without reading the whole thing (but honestly, who does?).

As for tape recording you conversation with PayPal... you're gonna wind up in serious shit. That's recording a phone conversation without expressly telling the other party that the call is being recorded is a felony. If they want to, they can sue you to hell and back if you post that conversation on the internet (like you did). If I were you, I'd get rid of it--it's evidence against you.
Posted by: Mance at June 14, 2004 10:35 AM

No, I think that since Paypal's own recording said that the conversation would be recorded puts Mark in the clear.
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 11:17 AM

Unfortunately, that's not true. The recording said that it is possible that the call may be recorded, but PayPal is required by law to notify all customers of such a recording. IF you argue semantics with a judge, it's not going to help you.
Posted by: Mance at June 14, 2004 01:14 PM

Dude... you got your Paypal logo right there on your site. Gotta get rid of that...
Posted by: Dancho at June 14, 2004 02:55 PM

your blog on Reagan must have offended Paypal.
Posted by: celery at June 14, 2004 05:51 PM

I don't have a problem with Paypal canceling his account, because they're notorious for not dealing with immoral (to them) stuff. Marc's site does push the comfort level (though I find it informative and hilarious, but that's just me.) And, anyway, that's their right. They can do business with whoever they want. And I can do business with whoever I want. No one's forcing people to use Paypal. Plenty of alternatives out there.

But I do have a serious problem with their holding his funds. They should freeze his account, so that he can only move his funds out, and do nothing else. But tying up his cash is, in my opinion, severely unethical. Not sure what can be done about it, though, except spread the word and cost them business. Worked for me. I avoid Paypal whenever possible now.

So--anyway. I'm starting up an Internet business later this year, and need reviews on digital currency, since Paypal is out. Was out a long time ago. I've heard this happen to lots of people. Anybody use e-gold or its competitors? What did you think?

And, yeah, I was wondering about the legality of taping people without their consent/knowledge. Anybody know the relevant statute? What kind of trouble has Marc got himself into?
Posted by: curt at June 14, 2004 05:58 PM

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 119--WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND
INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

I guess there are states that have a two party notification law..but most states require single...and since you consented at the beginning of the conversation...when they asked...not that there seemed to be a choice offered to you of a press 1 if you consent, or press 2 if you do not...seems to me when they announce it they are just telling you they are and you have no choice.
The recording of the call was good...
Posted by: minerva at June 14, 2004 08:14 PM

Marc, that was the most enjoyable hour I just spent, reading your page and listening to that recording.

Its time big business gets back to basics and realizes just where they get these big bucks from..US. The people. Our little pocketbooks feed their big executive salaries and its time they felt the pinch, just as we have to.

I am cancelling my PayPal account today. Not that my little amount will hurt them, but spreading the word will. I realize that PayPal was bought by eBay, but new auction sites are opening up daily. Competition is good!!!

And to anyone who wants to go the 'moral route', go right ahead! I've been with Ctyme hosting for two years and nothing on Marc's site bothers me at all. AND, I'm a 60 year old lady, widowed and mother to a wonderful young man. If it doesn't bother me, it shouldn't bother anyone!!

You go, Marc!!
Posted by: Nightwalker at June 15, 2004 03:13 AM

Enough paypal already.

You know, after everything the White House has put this country of ours through, Cheney, despite it all, is in Florida perpetuating the lie that there was a link between Al Qaida and Sadam Hussein! This clown makes me want to puke!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040615/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_terrorism_1

Cheney Claims al-Qaida Linked to Saddam

Mon Jun 14, 8:00 PM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press Writer

ORLANDO, Fla. - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said Monday that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had "long-established ties" with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers

The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida."
Posted by: richard at June 15, 2004 04:09 AM

Paypal closed my account because i received one payment from adult sponsor. I dont put paypal logo or watsoever on my websites and they closed it, leaving $2,800 in it. And they will not restore my account anymore. Paypal sucks! I will not recommend to my friends.
Posted by: Justin at June 15, 2004 05:45 AM

Unbelievable. PayPal doesn't like YOUR free speech, and gets all whiny when you expose their idiocy.

Ass soon as I drain my account, say buh-bye, Pay-former-"Pal"...
Posted by: gino at June 15, 2004 06:19 AM

Hold the account for 180 days for reversals? Yeah Right!

I got ripped off on eBay, payed with Paypal. Suppose to come in 3 days (express). After 7 days didn't show up. Seller's eBay account NARU'ed. Couldn't contact seller so I filed a Buyer complaint to reverse the transaction to get a refund of my money. After a week of Paypal "investigation", Paypal said they couldn't refund my money because there is NO FUNDS in the account! Why coundn't they reverse it?!?!
Posted by: Mr. A at June 15, 2004 11:35 AM

That's because the person closed it of their own volition, so there is no waiting period for reversals. On accounts that have been limited for some reason or another, they install this waiting period because they believe that people who have done something to warrant a closing might have trouble with reversals.
Posted by: Mance at June 15, 2004 03:12 PM

"This call may be recorded."

Not a complicated concept!

"May" implies a grant of permission; "might" implies the possibility of something occurring. (If I say you MAY use the phone, that is very different than saying you MIGHT use the phone. One conveys my approval for your engaging in that particular activity; the other conveys my assessment of your future activities.)

Marc's right, PayPal's wrong, and they (to be frank) are more fucked than Anna Nicole Smith if they think holding funds for 6 months is REASONABLE.

In the age of electronic banking, 180 days is an ETERNITY, and completely indefensible.

In my opinion.

;)

The EFF released the following advisory a while ago. The concerns still stand.
Check it out.

EFF Reports on Trusted Computing

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on Thursday published a landmark report on trusted computing, a technology designed to improve security through hardware changes to the personal computer.

The report, entitled "Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk," maintains that computer owners themselves, rather than the companies that provide software and data for use on the computer, should retain control over the security measures installed on their computers. Any other approach, says the report's author Seth Schoen, carries the risk of anti-competitive behavior by which software providers may enforce "security measures" that prevent interoperability when using a competitor's software.

"Helping computer owners defend their computers against attacks is progress in computer security, but treating computer owners themselves as the bad guys is not," said Schoen. "Security architectures must be designed to put the computer owner's interests first, not to lock the owner into the plans of others."

Links:

For the full press release

EFF report: "Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk"

EFF companion commentary: "Meditations on Trusted Computing"

CNET story about the EFF report

Better yet, skip Ticketmaster altogether, if you actually have a choice. But usually you don't. Here's the problem with printing your own tickets:

Ticketmaster gives you an option to print your own tickets on your home printer. It sounds good at first, but let me assure you, it's just another bait and switch from the "masters."

Not only does Ticketmaster charge you the same $8.00 service fee (despite the fact that it's managed to pass on the printing costs on to you and has managed to save itself all postage costs for the transaction), but it also sells large, full color ads on the full page "tickets" that you are required to print out completely (because the "ticket" itself is on the top part of the page, and its corresponding bar code is on the bottom part of the page). So your color ink cartridge takes big hit too.

Entrepreneurs of the world: please oh please overthrow the Ticketmaster regime. It truly sucks.

This is from the October 1, 2003 program.

Lewis Black On The Do Not Call Registry Controversy (Small - 8 MB)





The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Here's a clip from KPIX that explains how to claim whatever you might have coming to you as a result of Microsoft's anti-trust practices. Of course it's too little, too late. (What a silly question :-)

Nevertheless, if you are a business that has invested in Microsoft software over the last 7+ years, you could be eligible for some real cash. The vouchers can be used to purchase equipment and software from any manufacturer, not just Microsoft.

Here are more of the details of the $1.1 Billion Microsoft Settlement.

Click here for a settlement form.

KPIX On Microsoft's Voucher Program (Small - 8 MB)

There's a revolution going on guys, and it starts today!

Musicians are going to stand up for their right to use the Internet to promote their music.

Listeners are going to stand up for their right to not be spied on and treated as criminals for sharing that music.

Ready, set....GO!

Here's an awesome MP3 that will serve nicely as its theme song (courtesy of Zug):
RIAA Phone Call

Here's more information about it.
(Thanks, Jason.)

Lyrics:

well i recollect the days when music was free
you could tape from the radio, burn a CD
now the RIAA wants to know about me
my address, my number, my ISP
yo, bitches, ain't we still got privacy?
why the president be lettin' you spy on me
how many tricks they gonna be lettin you try on me?
trying to be spying on my MP3s

But you protect YOUR corporate privacy
Keep your phone number hidden from the bourgeoisie
Your customers have to play hide and seek
So here's the number to call if you disagree

775-0101
775-0101
202-775-0101

why's the RIAA starting litigations
the cops should be looking for the real perpetrations
the killers, the racists, the rapists
'stead of fucking with us for saving to our hard disk
raise your middle finger if you feel me loc
these fucking subpoenas are a fucking joke
leave us alone, throw us a bone
like i did with your mom that time at your home

There's NO SUCH THING as bad publicity
Even if you giving it out for free
So join us in the twenty-first century
Where we find our new songs on MP3s
Embrace the new technologies
Grokster, Kazaa, and P2P
So call this number now, and help them see
And if you call from work, your call is free!

775-0101
775-0101
202-775-0101

202 is the area code and we're dialin'
775 and then we be smilin'
0101-1-cary sherman
well isn't this fun it's ZUG.com

you know, they've never been fair to the bands.
now the riaa takes a stand?
can't believe we're getting preached to by the man
so what's the plan, stan? I've got a short attention span.

they've gotta change up the music industry
make it all available on MP3
listen to people like you and me
and make us wanna pay a monthly fee

this song is now my lyrical catastrophe
go ahead and grab it, it's completely free
aint gotta pay a dime to listen to me
So share this song and fuck the industry

Number portability is supposed to kick in for consumers in November, but there's a chance that cell phone service providers might find a way to get out of it if we don't remind Congress how important number portability is to us. You can let your representatives know how you feel -- and it takes less than one minute to do so -- by going here.

(Thanks, Cory)

That's funny, I thought scalping was immoral and illegal, and that there were laws against it and stuff. It sure seems like it when the cops arrest people in front of venues for doing so.

I guess it's OK when a corporation stands to make the profit from such practices.

What I want to know is: how are the increased ticket revenues going to make their way back to the artists? My guess is that they're not. Consumers will be hit with exorbitant ticket prices (when ticket prices are already too high for many to even go to concerts anymore). So fewer people will go to shows, and that means smaller crowds for artists. Only Ticketmaster stands to benefit from this system. It will keep track of the auction prices. It will redistribute the profits as it sees fit.

The article says that "venue operators, promoters and performers will decide whether to participate," but I wonder how many artists have enough weight to have any say in the matter. I wish that artists really did have the power to refuse to play concerts using this auction system. Some of the larger acts might be able to do this. It will really depend on which acts care about all of their fans, and which acts only care about their rich fans. Only time will tell.

Ticketmaster Auction Will Let Highest Bidder Set Concert Prices
By Chris Nelson for the NY Times.

With no official price ceiling on such tickets, Ticketmaster will be able to compete with brokers and scalpers for the highest price a market will bear.

"The tickets are worth what they're worth," said John Pleasants, Ticketmaster's president and chief executive. "If somebody wants to charge $50 for a ticket, but it's actually worth $1,000 on eBay, the ticket's worth $1,000. I think more and more, our clients - the promoters, the clients in the buildings and the bands themselves - are saying to themselves, `Maybe that money should be coming to me instead of Bob the Broker.' "

EBay has long been a busy marketplace for tickets auctioned by brokers and others. Late last week, for example, it had more than 22,000 listings for ticket sales.

Venue operators, promoters and performers will decide whether to participate in the Ticketmaster auctions, Mr. Pleasants said. In June, the company tested the system for the Lennox Lewis-Vitali Klitschko boxing match at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. The minimum bid for the package - two ringside seats, a boxing glove autographed by Mr. Lewis and access to workouts, among other features - was $3,000, and the top payer spent about $7,000, a Staples Center spokesman, Michael Roth, said.

Once the auction service goes live, Ticketmaster will receive flat fees or a percentage of the winning bids, to be decided with the operators of each event, said Sean Moriarty, Ticketmaster's executive vice president for products, technology and operations.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/01/technology/01TICK.html?ex=1063435225&ei=1&en=a951a7fd146551eb

Ticketmaster Auction Will Let Highest Bidder Set Concert Prices

September 1, 2003
By CHRIS NELSON

Three years after Ticketmaster introduced ticketFast, its online print-at-home ticketing service, consumers have so embraced it that the company now sells a half-million home-printed tickets for sporting and entertainment events each month in North America. Where ticketFast is available, 30 percent of tickets sold are now printed at home, said the company, which is by far the nation's largest ticket agency.

But consumers - many of whom have complained for years about climbing ticket prices and Ticketmaster service charges - may be less eager for the next phase of Ticketmaster's Internet evolution.

Late this year the company plans to begin auctioning the best seats to concerts through ticketmaster.com.

With no official price ceiling on such tickets, Ticketmaster will be able to compete with brokers and scalpers for the highest price a market will bear.

"The tickets are worth what they're worth," said John Pleasants, Ticketmaster's president and chief executive. "If somebody wants to charge $50 for a ticket, but it's actually worth $1,000 on eBay, the ticket's worth $1,000. I think more and more, our clients - the promoters, the clients in the buildings and the bands themselves - are saying to themselves, `Maybe that money should be coming to me instead of Bob the Broker.' "

EBay has long been a busy marketplace for tickets auctioned by brokers and others. Late last week, for example, it had more than 22,000 listings for ticket sales.

Venue operators, promoters and performers will decide whether to participate in the Ticketmaster auctions, Mr. Pleasants said. In June, the company tested the system for the Lennox Lewis-Vitali Klitschko boxing match at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. The minimum bid for the package - two ringside seats, a boxing glove autographed by Mr. Lewis and access to workouts, among other features - was $3,000, and the top payer spent about $7,000, a Staples Center spokesman, Michael Roth, said.

Once the auction service goes live, Ticketmaster will receive flat fees or a percentage of the winning bids, to be decided with the operators of each event, said Sean Moriarty, Ticketmaster's executive vice president for products, technology and operations.

Along with home printing, auctions are central to "a new age of the ticket," Mr. Pleasants said. In the second quarter of this year, tickets sold online, with or without home printing, represented 51 percent of Ticketmaster's ticket sales. The rest were sold by phone or at walk-up locations.

Ticket Forwarding allows season ticket holders for several sports teams (including the New York Knicks, Rangers and Giants) to e-mail extra tickets to other users, with Ticketmaster charging the sender $1.95 per transaction.

TicketExchange provides a forum for season ticket holders to auction tickets online. The seller and buyer pay Ticketmaster 5 percent to 10 percent of the resale price, a fee the company splits with the team.

In the case of the ticketFast home-printing service, buyers pay an additional $1.75 to $2.50 per order, with the fee set by the event operator. Home printing has won converts among people who want tickets immediately, instead of receiving them by mail or a delivery service or having to stand in line at a will-call window.

One satisfied customer is Brian Resnik, 29, of Tampa, Fla., who says the home-printing fee is a bargain compared with the $19.50 that Ticketmaster charges for two-day shipping through United Parcel Service.

But some other users, who praised the convenience of home printing, objected to being charged an extra fee.

"It's kind of mind-boggling to me," said Joe Guckin, 41, of Philadelphia, who used ticketFast to buy tickets for a Baltimore Orioles home game last season. "You're printing up the ticket, on your printer at home, your paper, your ink, etc. - and you have to pay for that?"

The company replies that home-printing consumers are helping to pay for the technology that makes the service possible.

Ticketmaster has spent $15 million to $20 million to outfit almost 700 stadiums, arenas, theaters and concert halls in this country and Canada with bar-code scanners that read and authenticate the tickets and computers that capture information such as which seats are filled and which doors have the most traffic, Mr. Moriarty said. In 2003, the company has sold 400,000 to 600,000 ticketFast tickets each month.

Some ticketFast customers, like Diane DeRooy, 52, of Seattle, complain that Ticketmaster assesses a lot of fees even before levying the print-at-home charge. A ticket to see Crosby, Stills & Nash on Friday at the PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, N.J., for example, carries $13.80 in venue, processing and convenience fees, plus a $2.50 charge for the home-printing option. Without the fees, a ticket costs $30.25 to $70.25.

Many of those customers are skeptical about Ticketmaster's plans to auction the best seats to concerts.

"The band's biggest fans ought to have the best seats, not the band's richest fans," said Tim Todd, 47, of Kansas City, Mo., who used ticketFast recently to buy tickets for a concert by the rock group Phish. Ticketmaster would be, in essence, official scalpers, Mr. Guckin said, voicing a sentiment expressed by some other customers.

Industry watchers agree that auctions will affect all concertgoers. Prime seats are undervalued in the marketplace, said Alan B. Krueger, a professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, who has studied ticket prices. He predicts that once auctions begin revealing a ticket's market value, prices as a whole will climb faster.

Gary Bongiovanni, editor of the concert industry trade magazine, Pollstar, predicted that all ticket prices would become more fluid. After a promoter assesses initial sales from an auction, remaining ticket prices could be raised or lowered to meet goals.

The notion of ticket auctions is annoying, Mr. Resnik said, but he is resigned to them.

"I guess the capitalist inside me would say, `Hey, if that's what they can get for tickets, I guess that's just something I can't afford, like a yacht and a Learjet.' "

File swapper fights RIAA subpoena
By John Borland for CNET News.com

An anonymous California computer user went to court Thursday to challenge the recording industry's file-trading subpoenas, charging that they are unconstitutional and violate her right to privacy.
The legal motion, filed in Washington, D.C., federal court by a "Jane Doe" Internet service subscriber, is the first from an individual whose personal information has been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in recent months...

The motion was filed by a pair of Sacramento, Calif., attorneys, who said the RIAA had gone too far in its effort to protect its online copyrights.

"This is more invasive than someone having secret access to the library books you check out or the videos you rent," said Glenn Peterson, one of the attorneys, in a statement. "The recent efforts of the music industry to root out piracy have addressed a uniquely contemporary problem with Draconian methods--good old fashioned intimidation combined with access to personal information that would make George Orwell blush."

The "Jane Doe" motion comes as the first individual legal response to the RIAA's effort to sue large numbers of file swappers. It follows similar legal challenges from several ISPs and colleges, including Pacific Bell Internet Services, an SBC Communications subsidiary...

Critics of the unconventional subpoena process have noted that individuals whose information has been sought in other subpoena processes, such as potential libel cases, are given the legal opportunity to challenge the request for their personal information, however.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1025_3-5066754.html

File swapper fights RIAA subpoena
John Borland, Staff Writer, CNET News.com

An anonymous California computer user went to court Thursday to challenge the recording industry's file-trading subpoenas, charging that they are unconstitutional and violate her right to privacy.
The legal motion, filed in Washington, D.C., federal court by a "Jane Doe" Internet service subscriber, is the first from an individual whose personal information has been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in recent months.

The RIAA has used court orders to try to identify more than 1,000 computer users it alleges have been offering copyrighted songs on file-trading networks. It plans to use the information gained to file copyright lawsuits against the individuals.

The motion was filed by a pair of Sacramento, Calif., attorneys, who said the RIAA had gone too far in its effort to protect its online copyrights.

"This is more invasive than someone having secret access to the library books you check out or the videos you rent," said Glenn Peterson, one of the attorneys, in a statement. "The recent efforts of the music industry to root out piracy have addressed a uniquely contemporary problem with Draconian methods--good old fashioned intimidation combined with access to personal information that would make George Orwell blush."

The "Jane Doe" motion comes as the first individual legal response to the RIAA's effort to sue large numbers of file swappers. It follows similar legal challenges from several ISPs and colleges, including Pacific Bell Internet Services, an SBC Communications subsidiary.

A Massachusetts federal court has already ruled that some of the group's subpoenas, submitted to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston College, had not followed the correct legal process and were therefore invalid. That court left open the possibility that the RIAA could simply refile those subpoenas properly, however.

An RIAA spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment on Thursday's legal action. Previously, attorneys for the group have noted that the subpoenas are aimed at the ISPs that hold subscriber information, not subscribers themselves, and therefore individuals had little or no legal standing to challenge them.

Critics of the unconventional subpoena process have noted that individuals whose information has been sought in other subpoena processes, such as potential libel cases, are given the legal opportunity to challenge the request for their personal information, however.

Senator to hold hearings on recording industry's piracy crackdown
By Frederic Frommer for the Associated Press.

A Senate panel will hold hearings on the recording industry's crackdown against online music swappers, the chairman said Thursday.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., made the announcement in a letter to the Recording Industry Association of America. He had received information he had requested from the group about the campaign, which Coleman has called excessive...

The association announced plans in June to file several hundred lawsuits against people suspected of illegally sharing songs on the Internet. Copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song...

Coleman said he is concerned the campaign could ensnare innocent people, such as parents and grandparents whose computers are being used to download music by their children and grandchildren. He also said that some downloaders themselves might not know they are breaking the law.

Coleman has admitted that he used to download music from Napster, the file-sharing service that a federal judge shut down for violating music copyrights.

He wrote that as subcommittee chairman, he intends "to assist in the development of remedies that will be reasonable and narrowly tailored to fit the extent of infringement."

...Last month, Coleman asked the industry association to furnish him with a list of its subpoenas; its safeguards against invading privacy and making erroneous subpoenas; its standards for issuing subpoenas; and a description of how it collects evidence of illegal file sharing.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2003/08/15/hearings/

Senator to hold hearings on recording industry's piracy crackdown

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Frederic Frommer

Aug. 15, 2003 |

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Senate panel will hold hearings on the recording industry's crackdown against online music swappers, the chairman said Thursday.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., made the announcement in a letter to the Recording Industry Association of America. He had received information he had requested from the group about the campaign, which Coleman has called excessive.

The Senate Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is reviewing the group's responses and declined to make them available Thursday, as did the industry group.

The association announced plans in June to file several hundred lawsuits against people suspected of illegally sharing songs on the Internet. Copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song.

In his letter, Coleman said he would look at not just the scope of that campaign but also the dangers that downloaders face by making their personal information available to others. Coleman said he would review legislation that would expand criminal penalties for downloading music.

The association said in a statement that "hearings are part of any oversight process and we always look forward to having the opportunity to present our position."

Coleman said he is concerned the campaign could ensnare innocent people, such as parents and grandparents whose computers are being used to download music by their children and grandchildren. He also said that some downloaders themselves might not know they are breaking the law.

Coleman has admitted that he used to download music from Napster, the file-sharing service that a federal judge shut down for violating music copyrights.

He wrote that as subcommittee chairman, he intends "to assist in the development of remedies that will be reasonable and narrowly tailored to fit the extent of infringement."

Coleman was on vacation Thursday and unavailable for comment.

Last month, Coleman asked the industry association to furnish him with a list of its subpoenas; its safeguards against invading privacy and making erroneous subpoenas; its standards for issuing subpoenas; and a description of how it collects evidence of illegal file sharing.

Wendy vs. Howard Berman on CNN's Next@CNN, August 9, 2003.

Next@CNN - Criminal Intent - Complete (Small - 21 MB)

Next@CNN - Criminal Intent - Part 1 of 2 (Small - 10 MB)

Next@CNN - Criminal Intent - Part 2 of 2 (Small - 11 MB)

Garamendi On Emergency Measure (Small - 6 MB)

This story, which features Emerald Yeh, aired sometime last week on San Francisco's KRON Channel 4.

The stills below provide most of the important information.

KRON On The Do Not Call Registry (Small - 6 MB)

a.k.a. Register In The "No Call" Registry (and It's Illegal For Telemarketers To Call You)

A few months ago, I got all hot and bothered about the news that our cell phone numbers would soon be made available to telemarketers via 411 info.

One solution to this is to sign up for the "Do Not Call Registry."

Most telemarketers cannot call your telephone number if it is in the National Do Not Call Registry. You can register your home and mobile phone numbers for free. Your registration will be effective for five years.

If a telemarketer calls you during that time, you can file a complaint.

It just took me less than a minute to register my home and cell phone numbers.

This is just plain funny.

Okay so Wired News has a great story about how Orinn Hatch says one thing and does another with regard to respecting copyright laws. Perhaps now he will just admit that he didn't understand how easy it is to "violate copyright" (gasp!) unknowlingly.

Meanwhile, a link to the the real feed of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on P2P and Filesharing Networks where he made his original inflammatory remarks finds its way to my mailbox. (Clip starts a little bit after 1 hour 28 minutes on the real feed when Hatch gives a little speech at the end.)

And voila, MP3s and uncompressed AIFF files of the most damning part of his little speech are born.

The "original" version was pretty quiet -- so I increased the gain and made the "louder" versions of the MP3 and AIFF files. But for you purists who would rather increase the gain on your own, I left the original in the directory.

There's also another guy talking in the beginning of the "original"-- which is edited out of the "louder" versions.

Enjoy!

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59305,00.html

Welcome to Wired News. Skip directly to: Search Box, Section Navigation, Content.

Wired News

Search:
Text Size: Small Text Normal Text Large Text Larger Text [Home][Technology][Culture][Business][Politics][Wired Magazine Site][Animation Express]
Orrin Hatch: Software Pirate?

By Leander Kahney | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 1

11:56 AM Jun. 19, 2003 PT

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested Tuesday that people who download copyright materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.

But Hatch himself is using unlicensed software on his official website, which presumably would qualify his computer to be smoked by the system he proposes.
* Story Tools
[Print story] [E-mail story]
* See also

* Hatch Wants to Fry Traders' PCs
* Will GOP Shake Up Tech Policy?
* Hatching Plans for Stem-Cell Law
* Music a Pol Can Subscribe To
* Picture Yourself in Politics

* Today's Top 5 Stories

* Saddam's Homepage Gets Face Lift
* Smart Bricks, or a Dumb Idea?
* Columbia House Jumps in Game Biz
* The Sound of Stolen Thunder
* Orrin Hatch: Software Pirate?

The senator's site makes extensive use of a JavaScript menu system developed by Milonic Solutions, a software company based in the United Kingdom. The copyright-protected code has not been licensed for use on Hatch's website.

"It's an unlicensed copy," said Andy Woolley, who runs Milonic. "It's very unfortunate for him because of those comments he made."

Hatch on Tuesday surprised a Senate hearing on copyright issues with the suggestion that technology should be developed to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Net.

Hatch said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights," the Associated Press reported. He then suggested the technology would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer."

Any such technology would be in violation of federal antihacking laws. The senator, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested Congress would have to make copyright holders exempt from current laws for them to legally destroy people's computers.

On Wednesday, Hatch clarified his comments, but stuck by the original idea. "I do not favor extreme remedies -- unless no moderate remedies can be found," he said in a statement. "I asked the interested industries to help us find those moderate remedies."

Just as well. Because if Hatch's terminator system embraced software as well as music, his servers would be targeted for destruction.

Milonic Solutions' JavaScript code used on Hatch's website costs $900 for a site-wide license. It is free for personal or nonprofit use, which the senator likely qualifies for.

However, the software's license stipulates that the user must register the software to receive a licensing code, and provide a link in the source code to Milonic's website.

On Wednesday, the senator's site met none of Milonic's licensing terms. The site's source code (which can be seen by selecting Source under the View menu in Internet Explorer) had neither a link to Milonic's site nor a registration code.

However, by Thursday afternoon Hatch's site had been updated to contain some of the requisite copyright information. An old version of the page can be seen by viewing Google's cache of the site.

"They're using our code," Woolley said Wednesday. "We've had no contact with them. They are in breach of our licensing terms."

When contacted Thursday, Woolley said the company that maintains the senator's site had e-mailed Milonic to begin the registration process. Woolley said the code added to Hatch's site after the issue came to light met some -- but not all -- of Milonic's licensing requirements.

Before the site was updated, the source code on Hatch's site contained the line: "* i am the license for the menu (duh) *"

Woolley said he had no idea where the line came from -- it has nothing to do with him, and he hadn't seen it on other websites that use his menu system.

"It looks like it's trying to cover something up, as though they got a license," he said.

A spokesman in Hatch's office on Wednesday responded, "That's ironic" before declining to put Wired News in contact with the site's webmaster. He deferred comment on the senator's statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which did not return calls.

The apparent violation was discovered by Laurence Simon, an unemployed system administrator from Houston, who was poking around Hatch's site after becoming outraged by his comments.

Milonic's Woolley said the senator's unlicensed use of his software was just "the tip of the iceberg." He said he knows of at least two other senators using unlicensed copies of his software, and many big companies.

Continental Airlines, for example, one of the largest airlines in the United States, uses Woolley's system throughout its Continental.com website. Woolley said the airline has not paid for the software. Worse, the copyright notices in the source code have been removed.

"That really pisses me off," he said.

A spokesman for Continental said the airline would look into the matter.

Woolley makes his living from his software. Like a lot of independent programmers, he struggles to get people to conform to his licensing terms, let alone pay for his software.

"We don't want blood," he said. "We just want payment for the hard work we do. We work very, very hard. If they're not prepared to pay, they're software pirates."

End of story

Today's stop: Oakland, California.

(These are two shots from the same Starbucks.)

Why am I starting to feel like a Starbucks spokesmodel?

(More background on this here.)

Lawrence Lessig was a bit upset yesterday at the prospect of Starbucks not allowing pictures to be taken inside of their stores.

I wonder what would happen if hundreds of people from around the country experimented this holiday weekend by taking pictures at their local Starbucks …

I had no problems whatsoever from the Starbucks staff while having my picture taken. They were their usually cheery selves behind the counter while everyone else in the store watched as I danced around holding up my venti iced soy latte.

Another customer took the shots of me, so they're a little shaky (even shakier than normal :-)

Tomorrow I'll have more time to visit a few more locations.

Perhaps you can do the same at a Starbucks in your town :-)

(When you do, be sure to post them to Larry's comment page.)

Taking Pictures Inside Starbucks - 24th St (Small - 2 MB)
Taking Pictures Inside Starbucks - 24th St (Hi-Res - 11 MB)

"We still live in a free society! Yay!"

Here is the full text in case the link goes bad:

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/2003_05.shtml#001223

dear Starbucks, say it ain’t true?

So I have this from an extremely reliable source, who vouches totally for the facts that follow.

Story one: Last month while visiting Charleston, three women went into a Starbucks. They were spending the weekend together and one of them had a disposable camera with her. To commemorate their time with one and other they decided to take round robin pictures while sitting around communing. The manager evidently careened out of control, screaming at them, “Didn’t they know it was illegal to take photographs in a Starbucks. She insisted that she had to have the disposable camera because this was an absolute violation of Starbuck’s copyright of their entire ‘environment’--that everything in the place is protected and cannot be used with Starbuck’s express permission.

Story two: At our local [North Carolina] Starbucks, a friend’s daughter, who often has her camera with her, was notified that she was not allowed to take pictures in any Starbucks. No explanation was given, but pressed I would think that the manager there would give a similar rationale.

I wonder what would happen if hundreds of people from around the country experimented this holiday weekend by taking pictures at their local Starbucks …

posted on [ May 23 03 at 2:10 PM ] to [ bad code ] [ 43 comments ]

From the "we say 'rip mix burn' but we don't really mean it" department.

It's like Apple saying "when we gave you a telephone connectivity kit, we thought you were only going to call these kinds of people on these kinds of phones -- not these other people. Why would you want to use a phone to talk to them? We only wanted you to talk to these kinds of people who are using these kinds of our phones (which we would also like you to buy please)."

"Don't you see. Although it feels like you're using your phone to talk to who you want and get the information you need, you're talking to the wrong people on the wrong kinds of phones (although we also manufacture and distribute the phones you'd like to converse with)."

"Look we have our reasons, ok? So you'd better just give your phone-making kit back! And don't try anything funny -- like making your own phone kit.
We'll tell you who to talk to and what for from this point on. Got it buddy?"

Here Apple -- now you can put this in your pipe and smoke it:

Developer to revive iTunes file-sharing
By Matthew Broersma, Special to CNET News.com.

The developer of a peer-to-peer file-sharing plug-in for
Apple Computer's iTunes music application has decided
to give the software a new lease on life, after it was put
out of commission by the computer maker's lawyers
earlier this month.

Two weeks ago, Apple ordered developer James Speth
to return his iTunes software developer kit and to stop
distributing the iCommune plug-in for iTunes. The plug-in
allowed iTunes to play or download music from other Macs
via a network or Internet connection, potentially giving
the music player a peer-to-peer feature.

In a recent message sent to iCommune users, Speth
said that he will honor, Apple's request to stop
distributing his software, but he will build the same
features into a standalone application. The next
version of iCommune will work with iTunes and
potentially other digital music players and will use
Rendezvous, Apple's implementation of a protocol
for automatic discovery of network-connected devices.

Speth also said that the new version will be open
source under the General Public License, the
same license used by the GNU/Linux operating system.
Open-source software can be freely modified and
redistributed, as long as the modified code is
returned to the community...

Apple itself has publicly demonstrated the use
of Rendezvous to allow iTunes to access other
\playlists across a network, but has given no
indication of when such a version of iTunes
might appear. The current version 3 of the
program shares playlists with other version 3
"iLife" applications, such as iMovie, iDVD and iCal.

ICommune differs from Apple's concept, however,
in that it enables music downloads. Services such
as Napster, Aimster, Morpheus and Kazaa have
incurred the legal wrath of the music industry for
enabling users to trade song files, which record
companies say has resulted in mass piracy and
declining CD sales.

However, Apple has said that legal fears played
no part in its decision to pull the plug on iCommune.
The proprietary iTunes software developer kit used by
Speth was intended only for making iTunes connect
to hardware devices, not to other Macs, according to Apple.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

Developer to revive iTunes file-sharing
By Matthew Broersma
Special to CNET News.com
January 28, 2003, 11:09 AM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-982441.html

The developer of a peer-to-peer file-sharing plug-in for Apple Computer's
iTunes music application has decided to give the software a new lease on life,
after it was put out of commission by the computer maker's lawyers earlier this
month.

Two weeks ago, Apple ordered developer James Speth to return his iTunes
software developer kit and to stop distributing the iCommune plug-in for
iTunes. The plug-in allowed iTunes to play or download music from other Macs
via a network or Internet connection, potentially giving the music player a
peer-to-peer feature.

In a recent message sent to iCommune users, Speth said that he will honor
Apple's request to stop distributing his software, but he will build the same
features into a standalone application. The next version of iCommune will work
with iTunes and potentially other digital music players and will use
Rendezvous, Apple's implementation of a protocol for automatic discovery of
network-connected devices.

Speth also said that the new version will be open source under the General
Public License, the same license used by the GNU/Linux operating system.
Open-source software can be freely modified and redistributed, as long as the
modified code is returned to the community.

"I'm going to get the basics of the next version done, then get it out the
door, with source. Hopefully, from there it will take on a life of its own and
get even better," Speth said in the message.

Apple itself has publicly demonstrated the use of Rendezvous to allow iTunes to
access other playlists across a network, but has given no indication of when
such a version of iTunes might appear. The current version 3 of the program
shares playlists with other version 3 "iLife" applications, such as iMovie,
iDVD and iCal.

ICommune differs from Apple's concept, however, in that it enables music
downloads. Services such as Napster, Aimster, Morpheus and Kazaa have incurred
the legal wrath of the music industry for enabling users to trade song files,
which record companies say has resulted in mass piracy and declining CD sales.

However, Apple has said that legal fears played no part in its decision to pull
the plug on iCommune. The proprietary iTunes software developer kit used by
Speth was intended only for making iTunes connect to hardware devices, not to
other Macs, according to Apple.

ZDNet U.K.'s Matthew Broersma reported from London .

Holy cow! Michael Powell got a TIVO and he loves it!

Now he can understand the true joy the modern Consumer can achieve while exercising their fair use and first sale rights.

FCC's Powell declares TiVo 'God's machine'
By Jim Krane for the Las Vegas Associate Press.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is a new convert -- to the personal digital video recorder faithful.

"My favorite product that I got for Christmas is TiVo," FCC chairman Michael Powell said during a question and answer session at the International Consumer Electronics Show. "TiVo is God's machine."

If Powell's enthusiasm for digital recordings of TV broadcasts are reflected in FCC rulings, the entertainment industry could find it difficult to push in Washington its agenda for technical restrictions on making and sharing such recordings.

Powell said he intended to use the TiVo machine to record TV shows to play on other television sets in his home, and even suggested that he might share recordings with his sister if she were to miss a favorite show.

"I'd like to move it to other TVs," he said of his digitally recorded programming. A number of products already allow that...

Powell said the FCC was examining the broadcast flag issue to determine whether the agency has a regulatory role. He suggested that Congress might "assign us a role so we have clear jurisdiction and resources to do it."

Powell said he understood the needs to balance consumers' fair use rights to make personal copies of television shows with Hollywood's fears that TiVo-like technology allows exact copies to be made and easily sent over the Internet.

Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/01/10/financial1802EST0373.DTL

FCC's Powell declares TiVo 'God's machine'

JIM KRANE, AP Technology Writer Friday, January 10, 2003

(01-10) 15:02 PST LAS VEGAS (AP) --

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is a new convert -- to the personal digital video recorder faithful.

"My favorite product that I got for Christmas is TiVo," FCC chairman Michael Powell said during a question and answer session at the International Consumer Electronics Show. "TiVo is God's machine."

If Powell's enthusiasm for digital recordings of TV broadcasts are reflected in FCC rulings, the entertainment industry could find it difficult to push in Washington its agenda for technical restrictions on making and sharing such recordings.

Powell said he intended to use the TiVo machine to record TV shows to play on other television sets in his home, and even suggested that he might share recordings with his sister if she were to miss a favorite show.

"I'd like to move it to other TVs," he said of his digitally recorded programming. A number of products already allow that.

A TiVo competitor, SONICblue, has been sued by top motion picture studios and some television networks over a ReplayTV device that enables users to share digitally recorded shows over the Internet with a limited group of fellow ReplayTV owners.

Powell made the statements during a brief exchange with Gary Shapiro, who heads the Consumer Electronics Association, a lobbying group opposed to government-imposed restrictions on TiVo-like digital recording technology.

Shapiro was clearly delighted, calling Powell's statement "good news" and suggesting to Powell that his regulatory authority might allow him to rule in favor of sharing recorded TV broadcasts.

"That's up to you, actually," Shapiro said. "We're glad. We hope some of your colleagues in Congress buy a TiVo as well."

Many in Hollywood have railed against the machines, saying they could cut into TV advertising re