|
Donation/Premium |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FCC is Warning Companies with filing fees |
|
|
The Federal Communications Commission is warning companies with filing fees due that there may be some phishy stuff going on. The FCC has gotten some complaints, it announced yesterday, that (ahem) "nongovernment entities" have been trying to "misdirect parties" attempting to fork over their fee money.
"The complainants have alleged that these non-government websites are attempting to collect financial information," the Commission's advisory continues. The discovery appears to have been made by the law firm of Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, which sent out an alert over the weekend.
Fiscal year 2008 FCC fees are due by September 25. The correct site for paying on-line is www.fcc.gov/fees/feefiler.html. The agency's statement doesn't disclose the domains of these possible rogue sites, but says that its Inspector General will look into the matter.
That's a good idea, because the FBI warned at the Federal Trade Commission's 2007 Spam Summit that over 200 government Web sites have been compromised by spammers and phishers, some used to "blast out spam," as an FBI agent explained. Of course, setting up a phony government site isn't as serious a compromise as penetrating the actual site itself (although this will not console fee filers who inadvertently send their credit card numbers to crooks).
Story continues...."
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Work-at-home Web sites settle FTC charges |
|
|
Brothers who operated Web sites promising profits from work-at-home businesses have settled charges that they misled customers with false earnings claims, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said.
The FTC filed a civil complaint against Eric G. Louie, doing business as Fastcashathome.com, Fastcashathome.homestead.com and Hometypers.com; and Calvin G. Louie, doing business as Moneymakingsecret.homestead.com, Realcashprograms.com, and Dataentrypro.com, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, in November 2006. The six Web sites are no longer operating.
The FTC accused the Louie brothers of inflating earnings potential in work-at-home opportunities involving government grants, mystery shopping, online surveys and data entry.
In the settlement, announced Wednesday, the brothers are barred from further marketing work-at-home opportunities.
The settlement also imposes a US$4.9 million judgment that will be suspended if the brothers surrender assets frozen by the court in 2006; proceeds from the sale of two cars, a Lamborghini and a Ferrari; and any tax refunds for tax years 2005 and 2006. The full judgment will be imposed if they fail to meet the terms of the settlement, or if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition, the FTC said in a press release.
The Louies charged consumers between $47 and $129 to access Web sites that included “money-making secrets," the FTC said. Their advertised programs either did not exist as represented or did not offer quick and easy money with little time or effort as promised, the agency said.
The case was brought as part of Project Fal$e Hope$, an FTC-led effort that targeted bogus business opportunities and work-at-home scams. The effort has resulted in more than 100 law enforcement actions by the FTC, the I.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and law enforcement agencies in 11 states.
The IDG News Service is a Network World affiliate."
|
|
|
|
|
|
MPAA: actual P2P distribution often impossible to prove |
|
|
Copyright holders shouldn't have to prove that an unauthorized distribution of their work occurred in order to collect damages, according to the Motion Picture Association of America.Both sides realize that the stakes are high and are throwing everything they've got Judge Davis' way. At the time of the Jammie Thomas trial, Thomas was found liable for $9,250 in damages per song for a collection of 24 songs that she made available online, for a total of $222,000 in total damages. In May, however, Davis said that he may have made a manual error of law when instructing the jury.
In its filing, the MPAA says that the mere act of making available a copyrighted piece on a P2P network should serve as sufficient evidence of copyright infringement. Therefore, anyone who makes files available over P2P networks should be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of actual distribution, even if proof of that actual distribution doesn't exist. It sees arguments to the contrary as mere technicalities designed to make it harder for rightsholders to prosecute infringers.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation shot back with its own amicus brief, arguing that the Copyright Act does not grant a making available right to copyright owners. It also said that trade groups shouldn't be allowed to claim that an actual distribution took place based solely on downloads from their own investigators.
According to the MPAA, providing this level of evidence is just too hard. It is often very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise, writes the group.
Another hearing on the case is scheduled for August, at which time Thomas may get the new trial that she has been asking for since last October. "
|
|
|
|
|
|
EFF attacks foundation of entire RIAA lawsuit campaign |
|
|
Bretbrs writes "
The Electronic Frontier Foundation weighed in this week on the Jammie Thomas file-swapping case, where the judge has asked for public comment on whether just making a file available for download on a P2P network should count as copyright infringement. In its filing, the EFF goes for the jugular, seeking to show that the RIAA's entire approach to file-swapping cases is flawed.
Not only does the Copyright Act not grant a making available right, the EFF said, but trade groups also shouldn't be allowed to claim that an actual distribution took place based solely on downloads from their own investigators. Together, this two-part theory would effectively eviscerate the RIAA's current legal campaign by making it nearly impossible for copyright holders to show that infringing distributions to the public have taken place over P2P networks.
As published by Nate Anderson | June 22, 2008 - 09:03PM CT.
"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Study paints grim picture of automated P2P enforcement |
|
|
Bretbrs writes "
A network printer should not be the target of a DMCA takedown notice from US copyright holders, but researchers at the University of Washington have shown just how simple it is to frame any particular IP address as an infringing BitTorrent user. The researchers used their technique to attract nearly 500 DMCA takedown notices, all of them bogus and some of them targeting nonsensical devices. Their work shows how difficult it can be to pin down Internet pirates.
The researchers were able to show that indirect detection is still widely used. By using 13 different machines on the University of Washington campus, the researchers were able to advertise our presence as a potential replica without uploading or downloading any file data whatsoever. Despite having no infringing content on their machines, the takedown notices poured in, meaning that direct detection could not have been used in these cases.
more can be found here
"
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Login |
|
|
|
|
|
|
· New User? · Click here to create a registered account.
|
|
|
Antiphishing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft MVP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
