Content is copyright © KatsBits™ 2000-2013. All Rights Reserved.
No part of this web site may be reproduced (except for personal use) without prior written permission from KatsBits.com. For more infomation on copyright click here.
blog.katsbits.com
Wolfenstein: The New Order
A new Wolfenstein? Yep. Announcement trailer and initial info can be found here (GameSpot). Possibly being built on idTech 5. No release date or other info available as of yet.
[EDITS (as they become available)]
http://uk.gamespot.com/wolfenstein-the-new-order/videos/fierce-combat-and-nasty-villains-in-wolfenstein-the-new-order-6408067/
Screens (these should really be on their website not Facebook, so that's slightly puzzling as to why) - https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151575626394166.1073741826.56833114165&type=1
Concept Art - https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151575850589166.1073741827.56833114165&type=1
The Copyright Alert System
Regular Readers may recall a previous posting about the "Memorandum of Understand". If not, here's the summery from that posting;
In reading the summary of the original post above, it's clear to the reader that SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and the myriad other attempts[1][2] to reign-in the Internet are not actually needed; 'private corporations' operating over a 'public' network only need to agree between themselves with respect to policing what goes on. Government has never really been necessary except to 'legitimise' the presumed (assumed?) authority of both ISP and Content Provider to then do what they have wanted to do for a long time - 'notify' and 'prosecute' without due process in law, 'infringements'. The legislation lays this out point blank.
Say hel-lo to my little friend
Enter the Center for Copyright Information, a joint venture between Network Operators (ISP's) and Content Providers. It's the "Memorandum of Understanding" realised. Claim is made to "..represent artists and content creators..", you and me in other words, the people who actually make the stuff we watch, use, play and listen to. Except they don't. It's the large lobbying groups that categorically feed on 'artists and content creators', the Usual Suspects like the RIAA, MPAA etc. etc.., the ones pushing, hard, for that aforementioned Government 'authority' to go after infringers. But this is not really the point about this post, although it does 'forewarn', in a manner of speaking.
The CCI is a consumer information hub about Copyright, ostensibly where, upon receipt of a Notice, one would be sent for 'educating', to learn about Copyright and what it means "to you as a consumer". All well and good. Except... how exactly do they know to whom a Notice is to be sent?
The CCI itself is not an investigatory body. Nor is it a Government Agency - its a private partnership initiative. It has no 'legal' powers (in the sense that it can 'enforce' an action). So, without going through the expense, in terms of time, money and resources to provide the evidence of infringement in pursuit of a Court Issued Order to require an ISP to hand over Personally Identifiable Information (your account details, incl. name, address, account age, traffic, sites visited etc.etc.), precisely how does the CCI know where to send the Copyright Alerts and direct users to themselves?.
It's funny one should be asking that because it really does make one wonder why they go through all that trouble pushing for the aforementioned SOPA, PIPA et-al (wasting tax-payers money to boot), except perhaps for the Government sanction authority, when all they have to do is agree amongst themselves to share the necessary data to prosecute (take action) against users through simple Terms of Service Violation citations, typically the "account suspension when network stability is undermined".
It's more than likely other 'service violation reasons' can be use, the larger point being the provision of evidence that would satisfy a Judge or Jury seems rather less important that 'we' think it would be, certainly when all it takes is a simple procedural agreement between co-conspirators to abuse the public trust (we subscribe and agree to services provided by Private Corporations on the understanding that - and this is stated contractually in the ToS we 'sign' - our Privacy is protected to the full extent of the law and that it cannot be bypassed without exception).
Further Reading
2 comments | Write Comment
Quote
Summary: there's a private agreement between Copyright holders and network service providers coming into force in July that will mean what you do is to be monitoring with respect to copyright infringements. P2P networks are of particular interests. In affect, users will be regarded in principle as being guilty of infringement by the very act that they are being actively monitored for it. You have no say in this as a user except to switch providers to an ISP that has not signed up to the Memorandum of Understanding - this isn't public policy so there is no political recourse, no member of Parliament/Congress that can be called.
In reading the summary of the original post above, it's clear to the reader that SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and the myriad other attempts[1][2] to reign-in the Internet are not actually needed; 'private corporations' operating over a 'public' network only need to agree between themselves with respect to policing what goes on. Government has never really been necessary except to 'legitimise' the presumed (assumed?) authority of both ISP and Content Provider to then do what they have wanted to do for a long time - 'notify' and 'prosecute' without due process in law, 'infringements'. The legislation lays this out point blank.
Say hel-lo to my little friend
Enter the Center for Copyright Information, a joint venture between Network Operators (ISP's) and Content Providers. It's the "Memorandum of Understanding" realised. Claim is made to "..represent artists and content creators..", you and me in other words, the people who actually make the stuff we watch, use, play and listen to. Except they don't. It's the large lobbying groups that categorically feed on 'artists and content creators', the Usual Suspects like the RIAA, MPAA etc. etc.., the ones pushing, hard, for that aforementioned Government 'authority' to go after infringers. But this is not really the point about this post, although it does 'forewarn', in a manner of speaking.
The CCI is a consumer information hub about Copyright, ostensibly where, upon receipt of a Notice, one would be sent for 'educating', to learn about Copyright and what it means "to you as a consumer". All well and good. Except... how exactly do they know to whom a Notice is to be sent?
The CCI itself is not an investigatory body. Nor is it a Government Agency - its a private partnership initiative. It has no 'legal' powers (in the sense that it can 'enforce' an action). So, without going through the expense, in terms of time, money and resources to provide the evidence of infringement in pursuit of a Court Issued Order to require an ISP to hand over Personally Identifiable Information (your account details, incl. name, address, account age, traffic, sites visited etc.etc.), precisely how does the CCI know where to send the Copyright Alerts and direct users to themselves?.
It's funny one should be asking that because it really does make one wonder why they go through all that trouble pushing for the aforementioned SOPA, PIPA et-al (wasting tax-payers money to boot), except perhaps for the Government sanction authority, when all they have to do is agree amongst themselves to share the necessary data to prosecute (take action) against users through simple Terms of Service Violation citations, typically the "account suspension when network stability is undermined".
It's more than likely other 'service violation reasons' can be use, the larger point being the provision of evidence that would satisfy a Judge or Jury seems rather less important that 'we' think it would be, certainly when all it takes is a simple procedural agreement between co-conspirators to abuse the public trust (we subscribe and agree to services provided by Private Corporations on the understanding that - and this is stated contractually in the ToS we 'sign' - our Privacy is protected to the full extent of the law and that it cannot be bypassed without exception).
Further Reading
auibcu.com domain renewal scam (iGlobal Merchant Services)
Another domain renewal scam courtesy of iGlobal Merchant Services.
Pertinent Details
Currently the domain, auibcu.com, is registered through moniker.com and privacy-protected; associated IP is 220.164.140.243 which routes to China - ns.chinanet.cn.net (good luck with that). The payment page IP, 173.255.206.174, routes to linode.com (name.com is the registrar - not privacy protected). Obviously, these are pretty much just the hosting services and not necessarily the culprits at the center of iGlobal Merchant Services domain renewal scam.
Email notice which lists the domain name about to expire with wording which implies the message to be a legitimate way to renew. Note payment details as 'spoilered' - black out, text has to be selected to make it visible. All links route to the same page, including unsubscribe.
Payment page is similar in appearance to PayPal payment pages. Billing details are trawled from WhoIs and listed as such (displayed the same way they are shown in WhoIs). Note verification badges are dummies and do not link back to source for verification purposes.
Connection on auibcu.com is not secure. Account retrival requires input of credit card details (which likely returns 'contact page' even if legit).
0 comments | Write Comment
Pertinent Details
- Domain - auibcu.com
- Company Name - iGlobal Merchant Services
- Contact - Customer Contact Manager, PO Box 4668 New York, NY 10163
- Contact # - 1-866-438-2434 (note: linked to similar scams)
Currently the domain, auibcu.com, is registered through moniker.com and privacy-protected; associated IP is 220.164.140.243 which routes to China - ns.chinanet.cn.net (good luck with that). The payment page IP, 173.255.206.174, routes to linode.com (name.com is the registrar - not privacy protected). Obviously, these are pretty much just the hosting services and not necessarily the culprits at the center of iGlobal Merchant Services domain renewal scam.
Email notice which lists the domain name about to expire with wording which implies the message to be a legitimate way to renew. Note payment details as 'spoilered' - black out, text has to be selected to make it visible. All links route to the same page, including unsubscribe.
Quote
"Domain: BLENDERJOBS.COM
To: [whois trawled contact]
Don't miss out on this offer which includes search engine submission for BLENDERJOBS.COM for 12 months. There is no obligation to pay for this order unless you complete your payment by Oct 26, 2012. Our services provide submission and search engine ranking for domain owners. This offer for submission services is not required to renew your domain registration.
Failure to complete your search engine registration by Oct 26, 2012 may result in the cancellation of this order (making it difficult for your customers to locate you using search engines on the web)."
Payment page is similar in appearance to PayPal payment pages. Billing details are trawled from WhoIs and listed as such (displayed the same way they are shown in WhoIs). Note verification badges are dummies and do not link back to source for verification purposes.
Connection on auibcu.com is not secure. Account retrival requires input of credit card details (which likely returns 'contact page' even if legit).
Special 301 Report (IPR Watch List)
The Intellectual Property Right watch list is part of the annual "Special 301 Report" submitted to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (Executive office) from various media industries on (copy)Rights infringements and participating countries. Once on the list an advisory is levied. If a country is listed, certain services may be withheld or withdrawn completely by US companies and businesses providing them.
Resources
0 comments | Write Comment
Quote
This Report reflects the Administration’s resolve to encourage and maintain effective IPR protection and enforcement worldwide. It identifies a wide range of concerns, including troubling “indigenous innovation” policies that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders in China, the continuing challenges of copyright piracy over the Internet in countries such as Canada, Italy and Russia, and the ongoing, systemic IPR enforcement issues presented in many trading partners around the world.
Resources
- http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2012%20Special%20301%20Report_0.pdf
- Wikipedia: Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974
- Title 19 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter I › Part 8 › § 2242. Identification of countries that deny adequate protection, or market access, for intellectual property rights [alt link]
- 2012 Special 301 Review: Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974: Request for Public Comment and Announcement of Public Hearing
- The International Intellectual Property Alliance
- Could The Special 301 Report Be Useful? Proposed Law Would Broaden It To Condemn Internet Censorship
OfCom Digital Economy Act 2010 final Consultation Report
Don't have time at the moment to write anything up on this other than to post the resulting report OfCom came up with as part of their overall mulling over of the requirements of the Digital Economy Act 2010 with respect to file sharing, pirating and prosecution thereof/in (for more info in the DEA itself see here).
0 comments | Write Comment
- Notice of Ofcom’s proposal to make by order a code for regulating the initial obligations
- Summery - Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010
- Consultation Document (full print version) [PDF]
Learn Blender 3D - learn to make a simple low-poly rigged and animated character
Blender & IMVU furniture - new to Blender? IMVU? Learn to make furniture quickly
Displaced Terrain Mesh - using displace to make a basic terrain +optimisation tips
Displace & Simple Terrain - making a simple terrain in Blender 2.49 using displace
-
Resources