Download as KEY, PPTX
More Related Content
Similar to How high heels and fishnet have driven internet innovation final
How high heels and fishnet have driven internet innovation final
- 1. How High Heelsand Fishnet have Driven Internet Innovation & Information Security: The Internet is for PORN Chris Kubecka & Jarett “JK-47” Kulm SecurityEvangelistEU.wordpress.com Under legal advisement to temporarily cease blog All are welcome in the House of Bytes English Language Presentation
- 2. PORN The Internet isfor http://www.warcraftmovies.com/movieview.php?id=11070
- 3. Disclaimer This presentation issolely the opinion of the presenters and not necessarily shared by any clients, current or subsequent employers of the presenter. The presentation is published under a Creative Commons Un-ported 3.0 license
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
- 57.
- 58.
- 59.
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.
- 64.
- 65.
- 66.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
- 73.
- 74.
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.
- 78.
- 79.
- 80.
- 81.
- 82.
- 83.
- 84.
- 85.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
- 89.
- 90.
- 91.
- 92.
- 93.
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.
- 97.
- 98.
- 99.
Editor's Notes
- #2 Presentation date and time:\n13/07/2012 22:00 EST\n
- #3 \n
- #4 \n
- #5 All advisory activities with small NGOs, non-government organization, of this nature are unpaid in a volunteer advisory capacity role. We do not charge for any of these services. If you are a small NGO that requires assistance with basic/general security please contact us. If we are unable to assist due to capacity we work with other highly qualified security researchers who could assist in a voluntary role. \n\nThe focus of this presentation is not child pornography but on the definition of legal porn, the differences in definitions, timeline of porn driven security innovations on the internet and censorship of related legal content.\n
- #6 All advisory activities with small NGOs, non-government organization, of this nature are unpaid in a volunteer advisory capacity role. We do not charge for any of these services. If you are a small NGO that requires assistance with basic/general security please contact us. If we are unable to assist due to capacity we work with other highly qualified security researchers who could assist in a voluntary role. \n\nThe focus of this presentation is not child pornography but on the definition of legal porn, the differences in definitions, timeline of porn driven security innovations on the internet and censorship of related legal content.\n
- #7 All advisory activities with small NGOs, non-government organization, of this nature are unpaid in a volunteer advisory capacity role. We do not charge for any of these services. If you are a small NGO that requires assistance with basic/general security please contact us. If we are unable to assist due to capacity we work with other highly qualified security researchers who could assist in a voluntary role. \n\nThe focus of this presentation is not child pornography but on the definition of legal porn, the differences in definitions, timeline of porn driven security innovations on the internet and censorship of related legal content.\n
- #8 \n
- #9 What is the demand for legal on-line pornography?\nRecent Wikipedia statistics show after general log on pages and API access 9 out of the top 25 pages accessed in Wikipedia could be considered pornography related.\n\nWho knew Wikipedia was so sexy!\n\nWhy are these and related pages so popular? Much of the traffic is driven by locations where the same on-line porn considered legal in the USA is not say in the country of Dubai or Morocco. \n
- #10 What is the demand for legal on-line pornography?\nRecent Wikipedia statistics show after general log on pages and API access 9 out of the top 25 pages accessed in Wikipedia could be considered pornography related.\n\nWho knew Wikipedia was so sexy!\n\nWhy are these and related pages so popular? Much of the traffic is driven by locations where the same on-line porn considered legal in the USA is not say in the country of Dubai or Morocco. \n
- #11 What is the demand for legal on-line pornography?\nRecent Wikipedia statistics show after general log on pages and API access 9 out of the top 25 pages accessed in Wikipedia could be considered pornography related.\n\nWho knew Wikipedia was so sexy!\n\nWhy are these and related pages so popular? Much of the traffic is driven by locations where the same on-line porn considered legal in the USA is not say in the country of Dubai or Morocco. \n
- #12 What is the demand for legal on-line pornography?\nRecent Wikipedia statistics show after general log on pages and API access 9 out of the top 25 pages accessed in Wikipedia could be considered pornography related.\n\nWho knew Wikipedia was so sexy!\n\nWhy are these and related pages so popular? Much of the traffic is driven by locations where the same on-line porn considered legal in the USA is not say in the country of Dubai or Morocco. \n
- #13 What is the demand for legal on-line pornography?\nRecent Wikipedia statistics show after general log on pages and API access 9 out of the top 25 pages accessed in Wikipedia could be considered pornography related.\n\nWho knew Wikipedia was so sexy!\n\nWhy are these and related pages so popular? Much of the traffic is driven by locations where the same on-line porn considered legal in the USA is not say in the country of Dubai or Morocco. \n
- #14 What is the demand for legal on-line pornography?\nRecent Wikipedia statistics show after general log on pages and API access 9 out of the top 25 pages accessed in Wikipedia could be considered pornography related.\n\nWho knew Wikipedia was so sexy!\n\nWhy are these and related pages so popular? Much of the traffic is driven by locations where the same on-line porn considered legal in the USA is not say in the country of Dubai or Morocco. \n
- #15 What is the demand for legal on-line pornography?\nRecent Wikipedia statistics show after general log on pages and API access 9 out of the top 25 pages accessed in Wikipedia could be considered pornography related.\n\nWho knew Wikipedia was so sexy!\n\nWhy are these and related pages so popular? Much of the traffic is driven by locations where the same on-line porn considered legal in the USA is not say in the country of Dubai or Morocco. \n
- #16 Let us begin\n\nTo understand what pornography is we must first know what the definition of pornography\n\nThe depiction, material of erotic behavior cause sexual excitement or depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction\nAny type of pornography which features or intends to depict minors under the age of 18 in the USA is illegal. This includes computer generated images . (18 U.S.C. §2256) \n\nThe definition of legal pornography differs from country to country. Some countries such as the USA and the Netherlands have banned bestiality but allow hard core porn whilst Germany still allows bestiality. \n\n\nIn the USA a 1968 Supreme Court ruling defined hard core pornography – Jacobellis_v._Ohio\n
- #17 Let us begin\n\nTo understand what pornography is we must first know what the definition of pornography\n\nThe depiction, material of erotic behavior cause sexual excitement or depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction\nAny type of pornography which features or intends to depict minors under the age of 18 in the USA is illegal. This includes computer generated images . (18 U.S.C. §2256) \n\nThe definition of legal pornography differs from country to country. Some countries such as the USA and the Netherlands have banned bestiality but allow hard core porn whilst Germany still allows bestiality. \n\n\nIn the USA a 1968 Supreme Court ruling defined hard core pornography – Jacobellis_v._Ohio\n
- #18 Let us begin\n\nTo understand what pornography is we must first know what the definition of pornography\n\nThe depiction, material of erotic behavior cause sexual excitement or depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction\nAny type of pornography which features or intends to depict minors under the age of 18 in the USA is illegal. This includes computer generated images . (18 U.S.C. §2256) \n\nThe definition of legal pornography differs from country to country. Some countries such as the USA and the Netherlands have banned bestiality but allow hard core porn whilst Germany still allows bestiality. \n\n\nIn the USA a 1968 Supreme Court ruling defined hard core pornography – Jacobellis_v._Ohio\n
- #19 Let us begin\n\nTo understand what pornography is we must first know what the definition of pornography\n\nThe depiction, material of erotic behavior cause sexual excitement or depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction\nAny type of pornography which features or intends to depict minors under the age of 18 in the USA is illegal. This includes computer generated images . (18 U.S.C. §2256) \n\nThe definition of legal pornography differs from country to country. Some countries such as the USA and the Netherlands have banned bestiality but allow hard core porn whilst Germany still allows bestiality. \n\n\nIn the USA a 1968 Supreme Court ruling defined hard core pornography – Jacobellis_v._Ohio\n
- #20 Cuseeme was first developed for the Macintosh in 1992 and later for the Windows platform in 1994. Originally it was video-only with audio added in 1994 for the Macintosh and 1995 for Windows. CU-SeeMe's audio came from Maven, an audio-only client developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[2]\nCU-SeeMe was introduced to the public on April 26, 1993 as part of an NSF funded education project called the Global Schoolhouse.[3]\n
- #21 Cuseeme was first developed for the Macintosh in 1992 and later for the Windows platform in 1994. Originally it was video-only with audio added in 1994 for the Macintosh and 1995 for Windows. CU-SeeMe's audio came from Maven, an audio-only client developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[2]\nCU-SeeMe was introduced to the public on April 26, 1993 as part of an NSF funded education project called the Global Schoolhouse.[3]\n
- #22 Cuseeme was first developed for the Macintosh in 1992 and later for the Windows platform in 1994. Originally it was video-only with audio added in 1994 for the Macintosh and 1995 for Windows. CU-SeeMe's audio came from Maven, an audio-only client developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[2]\nCU-SeeMe was introduced to the public on April 26, 1993 as part of an NSF funded education project called the Global Schoolhouse.[3]\n
- #23 Cuseeme was first developed for the Macintosh in 1992 and later for the Windows platform in 1994. Originally it was video-only with audio added in 1994 for the Macintosh and 1995 for Windows. CU-SeeMe's audio came from Maven, an audio-only client developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[2]\nCU-SeeMe was introduced to the public on April 26, 1993 as part of an NSF funded education project called the Global Schoolhouse.[3]\n
- #24 Cuseeme was first developed for the Macintosh in 1992 and later for the Windows platform in 1994. Originally it was video-only with audio added in 1994 for the Macintosh and 1995 for Windows. CU-SeeMe's audio came from Maven, an audio-only client developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[2]\nCU-SeeMe was introduced to the public on April 26, 1993 as part of an NSF funded education project called the Global Schoolhouse.[3]\n
- #25 Cuseeme was first developed for the Macintosh in 1992 and later for the Windows platform in 1994. Originally it was video-only with audio added in 1994 for the Macintosh and 1995 for Windows. CU-SeeMe's audio came from Maven, an audio-only client developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[2]\nCU-SeeMe was introduced to the public on April 26, 1993 as part of an NSF funded education project called the Global Schoolhouse.[3]\n
- #26 \n
- #27 \n
- #28 \n
- #29 Private VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nBulk encryption - KG-84, KIV-7, etc.\n\nThe most popular online pornography website called Xvideo has >350 million users every month which was about the same amount of people who were online globally in the year 2000. Currently about 7% of the internet users in the world visit this website.\n\nRef: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm \n
- #30 Private VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nBulk encryption - KG-84, KIV-7, etc.\n\nThe most popular online pornography website called Xvideo has >350 million users every month which was about the same amount of people who were online globally in the year 2000. Currently about 7% of the internet users in the world visit this website.\n\nRef: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm \n
- #31 Private VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nBulk encryption - KG-84, KIV-7, etc.\n\nThe most popular online pornography website called Xvideo has >350 million users every month which was about the same amount of people who were online globally in the year 2000. Currently about 7% of the internet users in the world visit this website.\n\nRef: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm \n
- #32 Private VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nBulk encryption - KG-84, KIV-7, etc.\n\nThe most popular online pornography website called Xvideo has >350 million users every month which was about the same amount of people who were online globally in the year 2000. Currently about 7% of the internet users in the world visit this website.\n\nRef: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm \n
- #33 Private VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nBulk encryption - KG-84, KIV-7, etc.\n\nThe most popular online pornography website called Xvideo has >350 million users every month which was about the same amount of people who were online globally in the year 2000. Currently about 7% of the internet users in the world visit this website.\n\nRef: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm \n
- #34 Private VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nBulk encryption - KG-84, KIV-7, etc.\n\nThe most popular online pornography website called Xvideo has >350 million users every month which was about the same amount of people who were online globally in the year 2000. Currently about 7% of the internet users in the world visit this website.\n\nRef: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm \n
- #35 Melissa Virus was spread in the wild to distribute a word document which contained credentials to 80 porn websites. Its propagation shut down most internet email systems at the time.\n\nAnna Kournikova computer virus was spread by the eagerness of recipients to view a possible nude picture of Anna Kornikova\n\nThe Naked Wife virus "My wife never look [sic] like that! ;-) Best Regards,“ promised a nude photo of a married woman\n\nWindows based game for breaking Yahoo Captchas where gamers were rewarded with porn images and unbeknownst became spammers \n\nBrian Warner says this is a "conceivable attack" that spammers could use to defeat CAPTCHAs.[4] The spammer sets up a pornographic web site where access requires that the user solves the CAPTCHAs in question- Theoretical\n\nDue to an architectural flaw in SSL, Twitter was flooded with porn spam in 2009. The company to switched to TLS 1.0 to mitigate risk.\n\nFacebook was flooded with porn images, many hardcore when some spammers took advantage of certain user browser vulnerabilities.\n\nAnti-Child Porn Spam Protection Randsomware mainly affected Windows Server 2003. This malware informed the user that the computer had been used to send spam links out to child porn and encrypted the hard drive with AES but for 100-1000 Euro a key would be sent and the hard drive could be decrypted. The author took advantage of servers already infected with ACCDFISA and enacted penalties for any delays in paying the ransom ac cording to the author to help stamp out child porn while padding his wallet.\n\nWebsites with religious or ideological themes were found to have triple the average number of "threats" that those featuring adult content, according to Symantec.Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/religion-riskier-than-porn-for-online-viruses-20120502-1xxx4.html#ixzz20LCMNGWU\n
- #36 Some of the first porn available on modern computers was click based. You would get pop-ups per click of porn for free or depending on your type of subscription. Now it is estimated that 35% of us are inadvertently exposed to legal pornography via pop-ups.\n\nApple was the first with Safari 2.0, now all major browsers support this mode. Internet Explorer has a feature called InPrivate Subscriptions for RSS feeds.\n\nYears ago prior to commercial packages I had to hand type key words to filter out, lots of variation on Penis, pills and all sorts of dirty words prior to being able to purchase a vetted list for a reasonable cost.\n\nPrivate VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nThe US Government is proposing Digital ID systems for all internet users within its boarders that would link all browsing and internet usage via an authentication method. The end of anonymity of the internet in the USA.\n
- #37 Some of the first porn available on modern computers was click based. You would get pop-ups per click of porn for free or depending on your type of subscription. Now it is estimated that 35% of us are inadvertently exposed to legal pornography via pop-ups.\n\nApple was the first with Safari 2.0, now all major browsers support this mode. Internet Explorer has a feature called InPrivate Subscriptions for RSS feeds.\n\nYears ago prior to commercial packages I had to hand type key words to filter out, lots of variation on Penis, pills and all sorts of dirty words prior to being able to purchase a vetted list for a reasonable cost.\n\nPrivate VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nThe US Government is proposing Digital ID systems for all internet users within its boarders that would link all browsing and internet usage via an authentication method. The end of anonymity of the internet in the USA.\n
- #38 Some of the first porn available on modern computers was click based. You would get pop-ups per click of porn for free or depending on your type of subscription. Now it is estimated that 35% of us are inadvertently exposed to legal pornography via pop-ups.\n\nApple was the first with Safari 2.0, now all major browsers support this mode. Internet Explorer has a feature called InPrivate Subscriptions for RSS feeds.\n\nYears ago prior to commercial packages I had to hand type key words to filter out, lots of variation on Penis, pills and all sorts of dirty words prior to being able to purchase a vetted list for a reasonable cost.\n\nPrivate VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nThe US Government is proposing Digital ID systems for all internet users within its boarders that would link all browsing and internet usage via an authentication method. The end of anonymity of the internet in the USA.\n
- #39 Some of the first porn available on modern computers was click based. You would get pop-ups per click of porn for free or depending on your type of subscription. Now it is estimated that 35% of us are inadvertently exposed to legal pornography via pop-ups.\n\nApple was the first with Safari 2.0, now all major browsers support this mode. Internet Explorer has a feature called InPrivate Subscriptions for RSS feeds.\n\nYears ago prior to commercial packages I had to hand type key words to filter out, lots of variation on Penis, pills and all sorts of dirty words prior to being able to purchase a vetted list for a reasonable cost.\n\nPrivate VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nThe US Government is proposing Digital ID systems for all internet users within its boarders that would link all browsing and internet usage via an authentication method. The end of anonymity of the internet in the USA.\n
- #40 Some of the first porn available on modern computers was click based. You would get pop-ups per click of porn for free or depending on your type of subscription. Now it is estimated that 35% of us are inadvertently exposed to legal pornography via pop-ups.\n\nApple was the first with Safari 2.0, now all major browsers support this mode. Internet Explorer has a feature called InPrivate Subscriptions for RSS feeds.\n\nYears ago prior to commercial packages I had to hand type key words to filter out, lots of variation on Penis, pills and all sorts of dirty words prior to being able to purchase a vetted list for a reasonable cost.\n\nPrivate VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nThe US Government is proposing Digital ID systems for all internet users within its boarders that would link all browsing and internet usage via an authentication method. The end of anonymity of the internet in the USA.\n
- #41 Some of the first porn available on modern computers was click based. You would get pop-ups per click of porn for free or depending on your type of subscription. Now it is estimated that 35% of us are inadvertently exposed to legal pornography via pop-ups.\n\nApple was the first with Safari 2.0, now all major browsers support this mode. Internet Explorer has a feature called InPrivate Subscriptions for RSS feeds.\n\nYears ago prior to commercial packages I had to hand type key words to filter out, lots of variation on Penis, pills and all sorts of dirty words prior to being able to purchase a vetted list for a reasonable cost.\n\nPrivate VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nThe US Government is proposing Digital ID systems for all internet users within its boarders that would link all browsing and internet usage via an authentication method. The end of anonymity of the internet in the USA.\n
- #42 Some of the first porn available on modern computers was click based. You would get pop-ups per click of porn for free or depending on your type of subscription. Now it is estimated that 35% of us are inadvertently exposed to legal pornography via pop-ups.\n\nApple was the first with Safari 2.0, now all major browsers support this mode. Internet Explorer has a feature called InPrivate Subscriptions for RSS feeds.\n\nYears ago prior to commercial packages I had to hand type key words to filter out, lots of variation on Penis, pills and all sorts of dirty words prior to being able to purchase a vetted list for a reasonable cost.\n\nPrivate VPNs/Proxy for internet censorship circumvention \n\nThe US Government is proposing Digital ID systems for all internet users within its boarders that would link all browsing and internet usage via an authentication method. The end of anonymity of the internet in the USA.\n
- #43 The majority of some security company revenues is related to is making money off filtering pornography from corporate environments. Companies like Bluecoat, for example. \n\n\n\nSome stats from 2006\n\nAVN Media network reported on-line revenue at 2.8 billion 2006, 13% rise over 2005\n\nUS states with more conservative religious viewpoints tend to have higher porn subscription rates and tend not to surf porn on Sundays\n\n\nAccording to a 2011 research[2]\nEvery second, 28,258 users are watching pornography on the internet\nEvery second, 372 people are typing the word "adult" into search engines[3]\n40 million American people regularly visit porn sites\n35% of all internet downloads are related to pornography\n25% of all search engine queries are related to pornography, that is 68 million search queries a day.\n1 of every 3 porn viewers is a woman.\nSearch engines get 116,000 queries every day related to child pornography.\n34% of internet users have experienced unwanted exposure to pornographic content through ads, pop up ads, misdirected links or emails.\n2.5 billion emails sent or received everyday contain porn.\nOn the average, every 39 minutes, a new pornography video is being created in the United States.[3]\n\nAccording to National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, 2010, 47% of Christians in the United States report that pornography is a problem in their home.[4]\n[edit]\nInternet pornography revenue\n12% of the websites (i.e. 24.6 million) on the internet are pornographic.\nThe global market of internet pornography is worth $4.9 billion dollars.[5]\nIn the United States alone, internet pornography generates more revenue than all combined revenues of all of the NFL, Major League Baseball and NBA sports franchises.[6]\n
- #44 The majority of some security company revenues is related to is making money off filtering pornography from corporate environments. Companies like Bluecoat, for example. \n\n\n\nSome stats from 2006\n\nAVN Media network reported on-line revenue at 2.8 billion 2006, 13% rise over 2005\n\nUS states with more conservative religious viewpoints tend to have higher porn subscription rates and tend not to surf porn on Sundays\n\n\nAccording to a 2011 research[2]\nEvery second, 28,258 users are watching pornography on the internet\nEvery second, 372 people are typing the word "adult" into search engines[3]\n40 million American people regularly visit porn sites\n35% of all internet downloads are related to pornography\n25% of all search engine queries are related to pornography, that is 68 million search queries a day.\n1 of every 3 porn viewers is a woman.\nSearch engines get 116,000 queries every day related to child pornography.\n34% of internet users have experienced unwanted exposure to pornographic content through ads, pop up ads, misdirected links or emails.\n2.5 billion emails sent or received everyday contain porn.\nOn the average, every 39 minutes, a new pornography video is being created in the United States.[3]\n\nAccording to National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, 2010, 47% of Christians in the United States report that pornography is a problem in their home.[4]\n[edit]\nInternet pornography revenue\n12% of the websites (i.e. 24.6 million) on the internet are pornographic.\nThe global market of internet pornography is worth $4.9 billion dollars.[5]\nIn the United States alone, internet pornography generates more revenue than all combined revenues of all of the NFL, Major League Baseball and NBA sports franchises.[6]\n
- #45 The majority of some security company revenues is related to is making money off filtering pornography from corporate environments. Companies like Bluecoat, for example. \n\n\n\nSome stats from 2006\n\nAVN Media network reported on-line revenue at 2.8 billion 2006, 13% rise over 2005\n\nUS states with more conservative religious viewpoints tend to have higher porn subscription rates and tend not to surf porn on Sundays\n\n\nAccording to a 2011 research[2]\nEvery second, 28,258 users are watching pornography on the internet\nEvery second, 372 people are typing the word "adult" into search engines[3]\n40 million American people regularly visit porn sites\n35% of all internet downloads are related to pornography\n25% of all search engine queries are related to pornography, that is 68 million search queries a day.\n1 of every 3 porn viewers is a woman.\nSearch engines get 116,000 queries every day related to child pornography.\n34% of internet users have experienced unwanted exposure to pornographic content through ads, pop up ads, misdirected links or emails.\n2.5 billion emails sent or received everyday contain porn.\nOn the average, every 39 minutes, a new pornography video is being created in the United States.[3]\n\nAccording to National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, 2010, 47% of Christians in the United States report that pornography is a problem in their home.[4]\n[edit]\nInternet pornography revenue\n12% of the websites (i.e. 24.6 million) on the internet are pornographic.\nThe global market of internet pornography is worth $4.9 billion dollars.[5]\nIn the United States alone, internet pornography generates more revenue than all combined revenues of all of the NFL, Major League Baseball and NBA sports franchises.[6]\n
- #46 The majority of some security company revenues is related to is making money off filtering pornography from corporate environments. Companies like Bluecoat, for example. \n\n\n\nSome stats from 2006\n\nAVN Media network reported on-line revenue at 2.8 billion 2006, 13% rise over 2005\n\nUS states with more conservative religious viewpoints tend to have higher porn subscription rates and tend not to surf porn on Sundays\n\n\nAccording to a 2011 research[2]\nEvery second, 28,258 users are watching pornography on the internet\nEvery second, 372 people are typing the word "adult" into search engines[3]\n40 million American people regularly visit porn sites\n35% of all internet downloads are related to pornography\n25% of all search engine queries are related to pornography, that is 68 million search queries a day.\n1 of every 3 porn viewers is a woman.\nSearch engines get 116,000 queries every day related to child pornography.\n34% of internet users have experienced unwanted exposure to pornographic content through ads, pop up ads, misdirected links or emails.\n2.5 billion emails sent or received everyday contain porn.\nOn the average, every 39 minutes, a new pornography video is being created in the United States.[3]\n\nAccording to National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, 2010, 47% of Christians in the United States report that pornography is a problem in their home.[4]\n[edit]\nInternet pornography revenue\n12% of the websites (i.e. 24.6 million) on the internet are pornographic.\nThe global market of internet pornography is worth $4.9 billion dollars.[5]\nIn the United States alone, internet pornography generates more revenue than all combined revenues of all of the NFL, Major League Baseball and NBA sports franchises.[6]\n
- #47 Green adult content allowed and not censored\nYellow adult content partially restricted or censored\nRed no adult pornography is legal\nGrey, no data or reporting\n\nEven where some pornography is permitted many countries have highly restrictive internet access regulations. In India for example, if you wish to use the internet at a Cyber Café the following conditions must be met. \n\nAs Dan Sabbagh of The Guardian says it best “A nice trinity of national security, piracy and porn.”\n
- #48 Green adult content allowed and not censored\nYellow adult content partially restricted or censored\nRed no adult pornography is legal\nGrey, no data or reporting\n\nEven where some pornography is permitted many countries have highly restrictive internet access regulations. In India for example, if you wish to use the internet at a Cyber Café the following conditions must be met. \n\nAs Dan Sabbagh of The Guardian says it best “A nice trinity of national security, piracy and porn.”\n
- #49 Green adult content allowed and not censored\nYellow adult content partially restricted or censored\nRed no adult pornography is legal\nGrey, no data or reporting\n\nEven where some pornography is permitted many countries have highly restrictive internet access regulations. In India for example, if you wish to use the internet at a Cyber Café the following conditions must be met. \n\nAs Dan Sabbagh of The Guardian says it best “A nice trinity of national security, piracy and porn.”\n
- #50 Green adult content allowed and not censored\nYellow adult content partially restricted or censored\nRed no adult pornography is legal\nGrey, no data or reporting\n\nEven where some pornography is permitted many countries have highly restrictive internet access regulations. In India for example, if you wish to use the internet at a Cyber Café the following conditions must be met. \n\nAs Dan Sabbagh of The Guardian says it best “A nice trinity of national security, piracy and porn.”\n
- #51 Green adult content allowed and not censored\nYellow adult content partially restricted or censored\nRed no adult pornography is legal\nGrey, no data or reporting\n\nEven where some pornography is permitted many countries have highly restrictive internet access regulations. In India for example, if you wish to use the internet at a Cyber Café the following conditions must be met. \n\nAs Dan Sabbagh of The Guardian says it best “A nice trinity of national security, piracy and porn.”\n
- #52 Green adult content allowed and not censored\nYellow adult content partially restricted or censored\nRed no adult pornography is legal\nGrey, no data or reporting\n\nEven where some pornography is permitted many countries have highly restrictive internet access regulations. In India for example, if you wish to use the internet at a Cyber Café the following conditions must be met. \n\nAs Dan Sabbagh of The Guardian says it best “A nice trinity of national security, piracy and porn.”\n
- #53 Green adult content allowed and not censored\nYellow adult content partially restricted or censored\nRed no adult pornography is legal\nGrey, no data or reporting\n\nEven where some pornography is permitted many countries have highly restrictive internet access regulations. In India for example, if you wish to use the internet at a Cyber Café the following conditions must be met. \n\nAs Dan Sabbagh of The Guardian says it best “A nice trinity of national security, piracy and porn.”\n
- #54 Internet censorship in Thailand began as an effort to block child pornography; however, this no longer appears to be the main goal of the blacklist.\n\nA US citizen was recently sentenced to 2 ½ years in jail for insulting the royal family. Luckily the Thai government due to press exposure reviewed Joe Gordon’s sentence and he was just pardoned. His crime, he translated portions of an unauthorized biography about the King of Thailand.\n\nThe blacklist is highly secretive.\n
- #55 Internet censorship in Thailand began as an effort to block child pornography; however, this no longer appears to be the main goal of the blacklist.\n\nA US citizen was recently sentenced to 2 ½ years in jail for insulting the royal family. Luckily the Thai government due to press exposure reviewed Joe Gordon’s sentence and he was just pardoned. His crime, he translated portions of an unauthorized biography about the King of Thailand.\n\nThe blacklist is highly secretive.\n
- #56 Internet censorship in Thailand began as an effort to block child pornography; however, this no longer appears to be the main goal of the blacklist.\n\nA US citizen was recently sentenced to 2 ½ years in jail for insulting the royal family. Luckily the Thai government due to press exposure reviewed Joe Gordon’s sentence and he was just pardoned. His crime, he translated portions of an unauthorized biography about the King of Thailand.\n\nThe blacklist is highly secretive.\n
- #57 Internet censorship in Thailand began as an effort to block child pornography; however, this no longer appears to be the main goal of the blacklist.\n\nA US citizen was recently sentenced to 2 ½ years in jail for insulting the royal family. Luckily the Thai government due to press exposure reviewed Joe Gordon’s sentence and he was just pardoned. His crime, he translated portions of an unauthorized biography about the King of Thailand.\n\nThe blacklist is highly secretive.\n
- #58 The secret blacklist leaked by Wikileaks and showed less than half of the 1340 websites on the ban list were related to child pornography\n\nThe country wants to ban depictions of small breasted women and female ejaculation which was considered an offensive sexual fetish\n\nFebruary 2012 report recommendations include both child porn and “the type of content targeted by filtering rules should focus on adult content”\n\nBut about half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.\n\n"It seems to me as if just about anything can potentially get on the list," Landfelt said.\n\nThe blacklist is maintained by ACMA and provided to makers of internet filtering software that parents can opt to install on their PCs. The ACMA is not elected nor do they follow any legislative or judicial review. The framework for censorship appears to be driven by the morality of a few individuals.\n\nBlacklist is not transparent \n
- #59 The secret blacklist leaked by Wikileaks and showed less than half of the 1340 websites on the ban list were related to child pornography\n\nThe country wants to ban depictions of small breasted women and female ejaculation which was considered an offensive sexual fetish\n\nFebruary 2012 report recommendations include both child porn and “the type of content targeted by filtering rules should focus on adult content”\n\nBut about half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.\n\n"It seems to me as if just about anything can potentially get on the list," Landfelt said.\n\nThe blacklist is maintained by ACMA and provided to makers of internet filtering software that parents can opt to install on their PCs. The ACMA is not elected nor do they follow any legislative or judicial review. The framework for censorship appears to be driven by the morality of a few individuals.\n\nBlacklist is not transparent \n
- #60 The secret blacklist leaked by Wikileaks and showed less than half of the 1340 websites on the ban list were related to child pornography\n\nThe country wants to ban depictions of small breasted women and female ejaculation which was considered an offensive sexual fetish\n\nFebruary 2012 report recommendations include both child porn and “the type of content targeted by filtering rules should focus on adult content”\n\nBut about half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.\n\n"It seems to me as if just about anything can potentially get on the list," Landfelt said.\n\nThe blacklist is maintained by ACMA and provided to makers of internet filtering software that parents can opt to install on their PCs. The ACMA is not elected nor do they follow any legislative or judicial review. The framework for censorship appears to be driven by the morality of a few individuals.\n\nBlacklist is not transparent \n
- #61 Yandex NV, Russia’s biggest Internet search engine, fell for a third day, leading a slump in the nation’s New York-traded shares, on concern lawmakers are preparing to ban access to some websites. RTS futures dropped.\nYandex retreated 2.7 percent to $18.35 yesterday in New York, completing the longest stretch of declines in a month. The Bloomberg Russia-US Equity Index (RUS14BN) of the most-traded Russian companies listed in the U.S. lost 0.4 percent to 88.12. The RTS stock-index futures expiring in September dropped 1.3 percent to 133,605.\nThe Duma, Russia’s lower house of the parliament, is scheduled to vote as soon as today on amending a law that bans access to websites that promote criminal activity against children such as pornography and illegal drugs. The Russian version of Wikipedia said yesterday that it temporarily shut its service in protest.\n“Investors took it as a sign that Russia seeks to control Internet and may block even those websites that have nothing to do with any criminal activity,” Alexander Vengranovich, an analyst at Otkritie Financial Corp said by phone from Moscow yesterday. “People are concerned it may turn out to be a Chinese-style control over Internet by the government.”\nThe Market Vectors Russia ETF (RSX), the biggest U.S.-traded exchange-traded fund that holds Russian shares, lost 1.1 percent to $25.79, the lowest since June 28. The RTS Volatility Index, which measures expected swings in the index futures, rose 0.7 percent to 31.24.\nDelay Law Discussion\nYandex said the Parliament should delay its planned discussion on banning certain websites.\n“It is necessary to postpone consideration of the bill and discuss it with the Internet industry representatives,” Ochir Mandzhikov, Yandex’s press officer said in an e-mail from Moscow yesterday. “The need to combat illegal content is evident for civil society, as evident is the need for freedom of speech and access to information.”\nThe Duma said it plans to vote on the law in a second preliminary reading as soon as today. If approved in a third and final reading and signed in effect by President Putin, the law would give Russian authorities the right to blacklist Internet sites without a court order.\nMail.ru Group Ltd. (MAIL), the largest Russian-language Internet company, fell 0.3 percent to $34 in London yesterday, the lowest since July 3.\n‘Spread of Pornography’\n“Designed to counter the spread of pornography, drug abuse, extremist propaganda, in its current form the amendments leave the door open for a potentially arbitrarily wide expansion of its scope,” Alexey Zabotkin, an analyst at VTB Capital in Moscow, wrote in an e-mailed report yesterday. ‘Tangible legislative action to censor Internet would be perceived quite negatively not only for Russia’s Internet stocks Yandex and Mail.Ru, but also for the broader investment case.’’\nOil, Russia’s major export earner, declined in New York and London after Norway ended a strike that threatened to halt output by western Europe’s largest crude exporter.\nCrude oil for August delivery lost 2.4 percent to $83.91 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange yesterday. Prices have decreased 15 percent this year.\nBrent oil for August settlement fell 2.5 percent to $97.84 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange. Urals crude fell 1.4 percent to $97.89 per barrel, the lowest since July 2.\nDividend Payments\nOAO RusHydro (RSHYY), Russia’s largest hydropower producer, gained 2.8 percent to $2.53 in New York trading yesterday, the highest level in a week. The stock rose 4 percent to 86.01 kopeks, or 2.6 U.S. cents in Moscow. One ADR is equal to 100 common shares.\nPresident Vladimir Putin said yesterday the company is undervalued and the state won’t sell its stake at the current price. Russia is committed to selling state assets and energy companies should consider increasing dividend payments to boost their market value, he said at a meeting with executives and government officials.\n“Even though Russia attracted interest today on the back of Putin’s comments, until there is real solid reform progress any such periods of optimism will be brief,” Chris Weafer, chief strategist at Troika Dialog in Moscow, said by e-mail from Moscow. “Only when investors see real progress in the reform agenda will we able to talk about Russia pulling away from external influences. We are a long way from that position now.”\n\n
- #62 The Committee to Protect Journalists says it appears Ethiopia is extending and refining its censorship of Internet news with a sophistication that could encourage other authoritarian regimes in Africa.\nPrime Minister Meles Zenawi’s government has been blocking major news sites and blog hosts since disputed general election results in 2005 led to violent protests. Voice Over Internet Protocol such as Skype also is blocked, forcing people to use the state telephone system.\nA CPJ statement Monday says “the rollout of a far more pervasive and sophisticated blocking system’’ started in April to include smaller blogs by exiles and news services, and even individual Facebook pages.\n“The gap through which undetected, uncensored news gets in and out of Ethiopia is definitely narrowing,’’ encouraging similar action from authoritarian regimes such as Sudan.\n\n
- #63 By DIDI TANG, Associated Press – 2 days ago \nBEIJING (AP) — China's broadcasting and Internet regulators have told Internet video providers that they must prescreen all programs before making them available, tightening state censorship of increasingly popular online drama series and mini-movies.\nThe new rule was issued jointly by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) and the State Internet Information Office.\nSARFT said this week in a statement on its website that the rule is in response to the rapid growth in online video programs, some of which it said contain vulgar content, excessive violence or pornography. It said the rule would protect younger people and promote high-quality online programs.\nChina has a long-standing practice of censoring traditional television programs and films, and it bans access to several popular foreign websites, including the video-sharing site YouTube. The government relies on domestic web service providers to scrub the Internet of what Beijing considers to be offensive content.\nThe government statement said online video providers should bear responsibility for web programs and must prescreen content before it is posted, though it did not offer specific standards or mention penalties. SARFT said government regulators will ensure that Internet video providers implement the rule.\nA woman working in the public relations office for Youku, China's most popular online video provider, said Wednesday the new decree had little impact on the company because Youku already has hundreds of prescreeners who examine all content uploaded to the site.\n"Nothing with vulgar or violent materials will pass," said the woman, who did not give her name because she said she was not authorized to speak on the record. "Political speech? If it is anti-party and anti-society, it definitely will not pass. No website will allow such content."\n\n
- #64 ACTA Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement one of the touted public reasons for the USA to become a signatory was an effort to stem and abate child pornography. However, the treaty has far reaching internet censorship implications. Both the current and the previous presidential refused requests to make the text of the treaty public stating to do so could damage national security. \n\nE.D. Kain a writer for Forbes compared the characteristics of ACTA with that of SOPA and PIPA, noting that they were each "defined by [their] opacity: secret negotiations, closed door talks, no public discussion."[115]\n\nThe treaty comes into force after ratification of at least six nations but only for nations which ratified the treaty. United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea are signatories. \n\nMitt Romney wants every computer sold in the US to have an in-built filter to combat pornography. Specifically, it is intended to protect exposure to minors. "I wanna make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer.“ Like a the parental control chips installed on US televisions.\n
- #65 ACTA Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement one of the touted public reasons for the USA to become a signatory was an effort to stem and abate child pornography. However, the treaty has far reaching internet censorship implications. Both the current and the previous presidential refused requests to make the text of the treaty public stating to do so could damage national security. \n\nE.D. Kain a writer for Forbes compared the characteristics of ACTA with that of SOPA and PIPA, noting that they were each "defined by [their] opacity: secret negotiations, closed door talks, no public discussion."[115]\n\nThe treaty comes into force after ratification of at least six nations but only for nations which ratified the treaty. United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea are signatories. \n\nMitt Romney wants every computer sold in the US to have an in-built filter to combat pornography. Specifically, it is intended to protect exposure to minors. "I wanna make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer.“ Like a the parental control chips installed on US televisions.\n
- #66 ACTA Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement one of the touted public reasons for the USA to become a signatory was an effort to stem and abate child pornography. However, the treaty has far reaching internet censorship implications. Both the current and the previous presidential refused requests to make the text of the treaty public stating to do so could damage national security. \n\nE.D. Kain a writer for Forbes compared the characteristics of ACTA with that of SOPA and PIPA, noting that they were each "defined by [their] opacity: secret negotiations, closed door talks, no public discussion."[115]\n\nThe treaty comes into force after ratification of at least six nations but only for nations which ratified the treaty. United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea are signatories. \n\nMitt Romney wants every computer sold in the US to have an in-built filter to combat pornography. Specifically, it is intended to protect exposure to minors. "I wanna make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer.“ Like a the parental control chips installed on US televisions.\n
- #67 \n\n\nCopyright Term Extension Act\nFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia\n\nJump to: navigation, search\nSonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act\n\nFull title\nTo amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code, with respect to the duration of copyright, and for other purposes.\nAcronym\nCTEA\nEnacted by the\n105th United States Congress\nEffective\nOctober 27, 1998\nCitations\nPublic Law\nPub.L. 105-298\nStat.\n112 Stat. 2827\nCodification\nTitle(s) amended\n17 (Copyrights)\nU.S.C. section(s) amended\n17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 203(a)(2), 301(c), 302, 303, 304(c)(2)\nLegislative history\nIntroduced in the Senate as S. 505 by Orrin Hatch on March 20, 1997\nPassed the Senate on October 7, 1998 (unanimous consent)\nPassed the House on October 7, 1998 (voice vote)\nSigned into law by President Bill Clinton on October 27, 1998\nUnited States Supreme Court cases\nEldred v. Ashcroft\nv\nt\ne\n\n\nExpansion of U.S. copyright law (Assuming authors create their works by age 35 and live for seventy years)\nThe Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Since the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship. The Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.[1] Copyright protection for works published prior to January 1, 1978, was increased by 20 years to a total of 95 years from their publication date.\nThis law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act,[2] effectively "froze" the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still protected by copyright in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterward (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that or if the copyright gets extended again.[clarification needed] Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired. The Act did extend the terms of protection set for works that were already copyrighted, and is retroactive in that sense. However, works created before January 1, 1978, but not published or registered for copyright until recently, are addressed in a special section (17 U.S.C. § 303) and may remain protected until the end of 2047. The Act became Pub.L. 105-298 on October 27, 1998.\nContents\n1 Background\n2 Political climate\n 2.1 Senate Report 104-315\n 2.2 Support\n 2.3 Opposition\n 2.4 March 25th, 1998 House Debate\n3 Challenges\n4 See also\n5 References\n6 External links\n 6.1 Summary of copyright protection rules\n 6.2 Documentation from the United States government\n 6.3 Views of proponents\n 6.4 Views of opponents\nBackground\nUnder the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the signatory states are required to provide copyright protection for a minimum term of the life of the author plus fifty years, but they are permitted to provide for a longer term of protection. Following the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection, member states of the European Union implemented protection for a term of the author's life plus seventy years. The United States did not become a Berne signatory until 1988, but had previously provided for the minimum copyright term the convention required in the Copyright Act of 1976.\nAfter the United States' accession to the Berne convention, a number of copyright owners successfully lobbied the U.S. Congress for another extension of the term of copyright, to provide for the same term of protection that exists in Europe. The act was named in memory of the late Congressman Sonny Bono, who died nine months before the act became law: he had previously been one of twelve sponsors of a similar bill.\nThe US legislators ignored the spirit of the European legislation, which added 15 years to the term to account for the two world wars. America's war experience was substantially different than Europe's. This 15 years was intended to be temporary in Europe, but became permanent in the US.[3]\nHouse members sympathetic to restaurant and bar owners, who were upset over ASCAP and BMI licensing practices, almost derailed the Act. As a result, the bill was amended to include the Fairness in Music Licensing Act, which exempted smaller establishments from needing a public performance license to play music.[4]\nBoth houses of the United States Congress passed the act as Public Law 105-298 with a voice vote,[5][6] making it impossible to determine who voted for or against. President Bill Clinton signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 on October 27, 1998.[7]\nPolitical climate\nSenate Report 104-315\nThe Senate Report[8] gave the official reasons for passing copyright extension laws and was originally written in the context of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995, S. 483.\nThe purpose of the bill is to ensure adequate copyright protection for American works in foreign nations and the continued economic benefits of a healthy surplus balance of trade in the exploitation of copyrighted works. The bill accomplishes these goals by extending the current U.S. copyright term for an additional 20 years. Such an extension will provide significant trade benefits by substantially harmonizing U.S. copyright law to that of the European Union while ensuring fair compensation for American creators who deserve to benefit fully from the exploitation of their works. Moreover, by stimulating the creation of new works and providing enhanced economic incentives to preserve existing works, such an extension will enhance the long-term volume, vitality and accessibility of the public domain.\nThe authors of the report believed that extending copyright protection would help the United States by providing more protection for their works in foreign countries and by giving more incentive to digitize and preserve works since there was an exclusive right in them. The report also included minority opinions by Herb Kohl and Hank Brown, who believed that the term extensions were a financial windfall to current owners of copyrighted material at the expense of the public's use of the material.\nSupport\nIn addition to the Walt Disney Company (whose extensive lobbying efforts inspired the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act"), California congresswoman Mary Bono (Sonny Bono's widow and Congressional successor) and the estate of composer George Gershwin supported the act. Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, said:\nActually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.[9]\nProponents of the Bono Act argue that it is necessary given that the life expectancy of humans has risen dramatically since Congress passed the original Copyright Act of 1790,[10] that a difference in copyright terms between the United States and Europe would negatively affect the international operations of the entertainment industry,[10][11] and that some works would be created under a longer copyright that would never be created under the existing copyright. They also claim that copyrighted works are an important source of income to the US[11][12] and that media such as VHS, DVD, Cable and Satellite have increased the value and commercial life of movies and television series.[11]\nProponents contend that Congress has the power to pass whatever copyright term it wants because the language "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" in the United States Constitution is not a substantive limitation on the powers of Congress, leaving the sole restriction that copyrights must only last for "limited times." However, in what respect the granted time must be limited has never been determined, thus arguably even an absurdly long, yet finite, duration would still be a valid limited time according to the letter of the Constitution as long as Congress was ostensibly setting this limit to promote the progress of science and useful arts. This was one of the arguments that prevailed in the Eldred v. Ashcroft case, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the CTEA. It is also pointed out by proponents that the extension did not prevent all works from going in the public domain. They note that the 1976 Copyright Act established that unpublished works created before 1978 would still begin entering the public domain January 1, 2003 (Known author: life of the author plus 70 years; anonymous/pseudoanonymous/unknown author/works-for-hire: 120 years from creation), and that the provision remained unaffected by the 1998 extension.[13] They also claim that Congress has actually increased the scope of the public domain since, for the first time, unpublished works will enter the public domain.[13]\nProponents believe that copyright encourages progress in the arts. With an extension of copyright, future artists have to create something original, rather than reuse old work, however, had the act been in place in the 1960's, it is unlikely that Andy Warhol would have been able to sell or even exhibit any of his work, since it all incorporated previously copyrighted material. Proponents contend that it is more important to encourage all creators to make new works instead of just copyright holders.[13]\nProponents say that copyright better preserves intellectual property like movies, music and television shows.[12][13] One example given is the case of the classic film It's a Wonderful Life[12]. Before Republic Pictures and Spelling Entertainment (who owned the motion picture rights to the short story and the music even after the film itself became public domain) began to assert their rights to the film, various local TV stations and cable networks broadcast the film endlessly. As New York Times reporter Bill Carter put it: "the film's currency was being devalued."[14]\nMany different versions of the film were made and most if not all were in horrible condition.[15] After underlying rights to the film were enforced, it was given a high quality restoration that was hailed by critics. In addition, proponents note that once a work falls into the public domain there is no guarantee that the work will be more widely available or cheaper. Suggesting that quality copies of public domain works are not widely available, they argue that one reason for a lack of availability may be due to publishers' reluctance to publish a work that is in the public domain for fear that they will not be able to recoup their investment or earn enough profit.[12]\nProponents reject the idea that only works in the public domain can provide artistic inspiration. They note that opponents fail to take into account that copyright applies only to expressions of ideas and not the ideas themselves.[13] Thus artists are free to get ideas from copyrighted works as long as they don't infringe. Borrowing ideas and such are common in film, TV and music even with copyrighted works (see Scènes à faire, Idea-expression divide and stock character). Works such as parody benefit from fair use.\nProponents also question the idea that extended copyright is "corporate welfare." They state that many opponents also have a stake in the case, claiming that those arguing against copyright term extension are mostly businesses that depend on distributing films and videos that have lost their copyright.[12]\nOpposition\n\n\nA logo representing opposition to the CTEA, using a reference to its "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" pejorative denomination\nDennis S. Karjala, a law professor, led an effort to try to prevent the CTEA from being passed. He testified before the Committees on the Judiciary arguing "that extending the term of copyright protection would impose substantial costs on the United States general public without supplying any public benefit. The extension bills represent a fundamental departure from the United States philosophy that intellectual property legislation serve a public purpose."[16] An Editorial in the New York Times argued against the copyright extension on February 21, 1998. The article stated "When Senator Hatch laments that George Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue' will soon 'fall into the public domain,' he makes the public domain sound like a dark abyss where songs go, never to be heard again. In fact, when a work enters the public domain it means the public can afford to use it freely, to give it new currency."[17]\nOpponents of the Bono Act consider the legislation to be corporate welfare and have tried (but failed) to have it declared unconstitutional, claiming that such an act is not "necessary and proper" to accomplishing the Constitution's stated purpose of "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts".[18] They argue that most works bring most of the profits during the first few years and are pushed off the market by the publishers thereafter. Thus there is little economic incentive in extending the terms of copyrights except for the few owners of franchises that are wildly successful, such as Disney. They also point out that the Tenth Amendment can be construed as placing limits on the powers that Congress can gain from a treaty. More directly, they see two successive terms of approximately 20 years each (the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Bono Act) as the beginning of a "slippery slope" toward a perpetual copyright term that nullifies the intended effect and violates the spirit of the "for limited times" language of the United States Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 8.[19]\nThey question the proponents' life expectancy argument, making the comparison between the growth of copyright terms and the term of patents in relation to the growth of life expectancies. Life expectancies have risen from about 35 years in 1800 [20] to 77.6 years in 2002.[21] Considering the increase in life expectancies during that period of time was a bit more than double but the copyright terms have increased threefold from only 28 years total (under the Copyright Act of 1790) presents an apparent discrepancy. While copyright terms have increased significantly since the 1790 act, terms of patents have not been extended in parallel; patents adequately reward investment in the field with their mere 20-year term.[22]. Moreover, life expectancy statistics are skewed due to historically high infant mortality rates. Correcting for infant mortality, life expectancy has only increased by fifteen years between 1850 and 2000[23].\nOpponents also argue that the Act encourages "offshore production." For example, derivative works could be created outside the United States in areas where copyright would have expired, such works advancing science or the useful arts, and that US law would prohibit these works to US residents. For example, a movie of Mickey Mouse playing with a computer could be legally created in Russia and children worldwide could possibly benefit from watching it, but the movie would be refused admission for importation by US Customs because of copyright, resulting in a deprivation to American children. Similarly, the first Winnie-the-Pooh book was published in 1926 and would have been public domain in 2001.[24][25]\nOpponents identify another possible harm from copyright extension: loss of productive value of private collections of copyrighted works. A person who collected copyrighted works that would soon "go out of copyright," intending to re-release them on copyright expiration, lost the use of his capital expenditures for an additional 20 years when the Bono Act passed. This is part of the underlying argument in Eldred v. Ashcroft.[26] The Bono Act is thus perceived to add an instability to commerce and investment, areas which have a better legal theoretical basis than intellectual property, whose theory is of quite recent development and is often criticized as being a corporate chimera. Conceivably, if one had made such an investment and then produced a derivative work (or perhaps even re-released the work in ipse), he could counter a suit made by the copyright holder by declaring that Congress had unconstitutionally made, ex post facto, a restriction on the previously unrestricted.\nOpponents also question the proponents' "new works would not be created" argument: the hidden presumption that the goal is to make the creation of new works possible. However, the authors of the United States Constitution evidently thought that unnecessary, instead restricting the goal of copyright to merely "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts". In fact, some works created under time-limited copyright would not be created under perpetual copyright because the creator of a distantly derivative work does not have the money and resources to find the owner of copyright in the original work and purchase a license, or the individual or privately held owner of copyright in the original work might refuse to license a use at any price (though a refusal to license may trigger a fair use safety valve). Thus they argue that a rich, continually replenished, public domain is necessary for continued artistic creation.[27]\nMarch 25th, 1998 House Debate\nThe House debated the Copyright Term Extension Act (House Resolution 390) on March 25, 1998.[28] The term extension was almost completely supported, with only the mild criticism by Jim Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin) of "H.R. 2589 provides a very generous windfall to the entertainment industry by extending the term of copyright for an additional 20 years."[29] He suggested that it could be balanced by adding provisions from the Fairness in Music Licensing Act (H.R. 789). Lloyd Doggett (Texas) called the 'Fairness in Music Licensing Act' the 'Music Theft Act' and claimed that it was a mechanism to "steal the intellectual property of thousands of small businesspeople who are song writers in this land."[30] The majority of subsequent debate was over Sensenbrenner's House Amendment 532[31] to the CTEA. This amendment was over details of allowing music from radio and television broadcasts in small businesses to be played without licensing fees. An amendment to Sensenbrenner's amendment was proposed by Bill McCollum,[32]. The key differences between Sensenbrenner's proposal and McCollum's amendment were 1) local arbitration versus court lawsuits in rate disagreements, 2) all retail businesses versus only restaurants and bars, 3) 3500 square feet of general public area versus 3,500 square feet (330 m2) of gross area, 4) which music licensing societies it applied to (all versus ASCAP and BMI), and 5) freedom from vicarious liability for landlords and others leasing space versus no such provision.[33] After debate (and the first verse of American Pie[34]) the McCollum Amendment was rejected in by 259 to 150[35] and the Sensenbrenner amendment was passed by 297 to 112.[36] The Copyright Term Extenion Act H.R. 2589 was passed.[37]\nThe term extension was supported for two key reasons. First, "copyright industries give us [(the United States)] one of our most significant trade surpluses." Second, the recently enacted legislation in the European Union had extended copyright there for 20 years, and so EU works would be protected for 20 years longer than US works if the US did not enact similar term extensions. Howard Coble also stated that it was good for consumers since "When works are protected by copyright, they attract investors who can exploit the work for profit."[38] The term extension portion was supported by Songwriters Guild of America, National Academy of Songwriters, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Intellectual Property Law Section of the American Bar Association, the Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers Association, the Information Technology Association of America and others.[39]\nChallenges\nPublishers and librarians, among others, brought Eldred v. Ashcroft to obtain an injunction on enforcement of the act. Oral arguments were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 9, 2002, and on January 15, 2003 the court held the CTEA constitutional by a 7-2 decision.\nThe plaintiffs in the Eldred case have as of 2003 begun to shift their effort toward the U.S. Congress in support of a bill called the Public Domain Enhancement Act that would make the provisions of the Bono Act apply only to copyrights that had been registered with the Library of Congress.\nSee also\nAnti-copyright\nCopyright\nCopyleft\nDigital Millennium Copyright Act\nEx post facto law\nIntellectual property\nList of countries' copyright length\nMPAA\nPublic domain\nRent seeking\nRIAA\nSoftware copyright\nUnited States copyright law\nEuropean Union 95 year recording copyright extension proposal\nReferences\n^ U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics, pp. 5-6\n^ Lawrence Lessig, Copyright's First Amendment, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 1057, 1065 (2001)\n^ "Jon Henley investigates Ravel's missing millions". The Guardian (London). 2001-05-08.\n^ William Patry, 1 Patry on Copyright § 1:97 (Thomson Reuters/West 2009)\n^ "THOMAS: Status of H.R. 2589". Thomas.loc.gov. Retrieved 2011-01-21.\n^ "THOMAS: Status of S. 505". Thomas.loc.gov. Retrieved 2011-01-21.\n^ "U.S. Copyright Office: Annual Report 2002: Litigation". Copyright.gov. Retrieved 2011-01-21.\n^ "Senate Report 104-315". Thomas.loc.gov. Retrieved 2011-01-21.\n^ "H9952". Congressional Record. Government Printing Office. October 7, 1998. Retrieved 2007-10-30.\n^ a b "Senator Orrin Hatch’s Introduction of The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1997". 1997-03-20.\n^ a b c "Senator Dianne Feinstein's Statement before Congress". 1997-03-20.\n^ a b c d e "Excerpts of Bruce A. Lehman’s statement before Congress". 1995-09-20.\n^ a b c d e Scott M. Martin (September 24, 2002). "The Mythology of the Public Domain: Exploring the Myths Behind Attacks on the Duration of Copyright Protection" (PDF). Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (Loyola Law Review) 36 (1): 280. ISSN 1533-5860. Retrieved 2007-11-17.\n^ Carter, Bill (1994-12-19). "THE MEDIA BUSINESS; Television". New York TImes: D10. Retrieved 2010-11-27.\n^ See Two Days of Christmas Classics, TORONTO STAR, December 24, 1999, At E1.\n^ http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/legmats/1998statement.html Opposing Copyright Extension, Legislative Materials (105th Congress), Statement of Copyright and Intellectual Property Law Professors in Opposition to H.R. 604, H.R. 2589, and S.505\n^ New York Times, February 21, 1998, Keeping Copyright in Balance\n^ "No" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-01-21.\n^ "Cornell University Law School - United States Constitution". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2011-01-21.\n^ "Life Expectancies in 1800s". Answers.com. Retrieved 2011-01-21.\n^ "Life Expectancies in 20002". Medical News Today. Retrieved 2011-01-21.\n^ "United States Patent and Trademark Office - General Information". Uspto.gov. Retrieved 2011-01-21.\n^ http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html\n^ Macavinta, Courtney. "CNET - Copyright extension law". News.cnet.com. Retrieved 2011-01-21.\n^ "Winnie the Pooh - FAQ - Your Frequently Asked Questions X". Lavasurfer.com. Retrieved 2011-01-21.\n^ "Salon.com Technology | Mickey Mouse vs. The People". Archive.salon.com. 2002-02-21. Retrieved 2011-01-21.\n^ Howard Besser, The Erosion of Public Protection: Attacks on the concept of Fair Use, Paper delivered at the Town Meeting on Copyright & Fair Use, College Art Association, Toronto, February 1998. Retrieved 2010-07-27.\n^ Congressional Record, Volume 144, 1998, H1456-H1483, March 25, 1998\n^ Congressional Record, Volume 144, 1998, H1459\n^ Congressional Record, Volume 144, 1998, H1457\n^ http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.105hamdt532 "Handle Problem Report (Library of Congress)". Hdl.loc.gov. Retrieved 2011-02-06.\n^ http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.105hamdt533 "Handle Problem Report (Library of Congress)". Hdl.loc.gov. Retrieved 2011-02-06.\n^ Congressional Record, Volume 144, 1998, H1470-H1471\n^ Congressional Record, Volume 144, 1998, H1471\n^ Congressional Record, Volume 144, 1998, H1482\n^ Congressional Record, Volume 144, 1998, H1482-H1483\n^ Congressional Record, Volume 144, 1998, H1483\n^ Congressional Record, Volume 144, 1998, Coble, North Carolina, H1458\n^ Congressional Record, Volume 144, 1998, H1463\nExternal links\n Works related to Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act at Wikisource\nSummary of copyright protection rules\nCornell Univ. Copyright Protection Chart\nDocumentation from the United States government\nS.505: Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act\nSenate Report No. 104-315\nPublic Law 105-298\nTranscript of oral arguments in Eldred vs. Ashrcroft -(pdf)\nViews of proponents\nCopyright Extension.com\nMythology of the public domain: Exploring the myths behind attacks on the duration of copyright by Scott Martin\nThe National Music Publishers' Association, Inc\nThe American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers\nPaper by Liebowitz and Margolis, archived at the Social Science Research Network website\nViews of opponents\nThe Eric Eldred Act\nSonny Bono Copyright Extension Act opposition by Damian Yerrick.\nNew York Times editorial, 4/30/2001, Let the Stories Go\nLitman Decries Overbroad Copyright Protection and Mouse Trapped by Mike Godwin\nDiscussion on Elvis Copyrights expiring in the UK\nArticle in Findlaw's Writ by Chris Sprigman\ncoverage of opposition by attorney Lawrence Lessig\nDIGITAL COPYRIGHT by Jessica Litman\nOpposing Copyright Extension\nThomas Maucalay on Copyright Law\n"Melancholy Elephants", from the Baen Books Free Library – a cautionary story by Spider Robinson. He later backed away from that position (while noting the irony) in a column collected in his 2004 The Crazy Years\nQuotation from Marybeth Peters\nView page ratings\nRate this page\nWhat's this?\n\nTrustworthy\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nObjective\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nComplete\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWell-written\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCategories:\nUnited States federal copyright legislation\n1998 in law\nCopyright length\n105th United States Congress\n\nCreate account\nLog in\nArticle\nTalk\nRead\nEdit\nView history\n\n\nMain page\nContents\nFeatured content\nCurrent events\nRandom article\nDonate to Wikipedia\nWikipedia Shop\nInteraction\nHelp\nAbout Wikipedia\nCommunity portal\nRecent changes\nContact Wikipedia\nToolbox\nPrint/export\nLanguages\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nNederlands\n日本語\nSvenska\nThis page was last modified on 25 June 2012 at 16:32.\nText is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.\nContact us\nPrivacy policy\nAbout Wikipedia\nDisclaimers\nMobile view\n\n\n\n\n
- #68 Does anyone in the audience agree with hardware provider dictating how you use their hardware? I thought if you buy the hardware you own the hardware.\n
- #69 Does anyone in the audience agree with hardware provider dictating how you use their hardware? I thought if you buy the hardware you own the hardware.\n
- #70 Does anyone in the audience agree with hardware provider dictating how you use their hardware? I thought if you buy the hardware you own the hardware.\n
- #71 Does anyone in the audience agree with hardware provider dictating how you use their hardware? I thought if you buy the hardware you own the hardware.\n
- #72 Does anyone in the audience agree with hardware provider dictating how you use their hardware? I thought if you buy the hardware you own the hardware.\n
- #73 Does anyone in the audience agree with hardware provider dictating how you use their hardware? I thought if you buy the hardware you own the hardware.\n
- #74 Does anyone in the audience agree with hardware provider dictating how you use their hardware? I thought if you buy the hardware you own the hardware.\n
- #75 Does anyone in the audience agree with hardware provider dictating how you use their hardware? I thought if you buy the hardware you own the hardware.\n
- #76 Does anyone in the audience agree with hardware provider dictating how you use their hardware? I thought if you buy the hardware you own the hardware.\n
- #77 Does anyone in the audience agree with hardware provider dictating how you use their hardware? I thought if you buy the hardware you own the hardware.\n
- #78 Does anyone in the audience agree with hardware provider dictating how you use their hardware? I thought if you buy the hardware you own the hardware.\n
- #79 It is imperative that we all stay on top of the continued efforts to censor the internet as well as unfair trade practices which could jeopardize lives. ACTA and CETA affect all pharmaceuticals as well as stifling innovation by arcane and vague copyright enforcement standards. \nImagine for a moment you need to know how to deliver a baby during an emergency without medial personnel and all graphics were blocked by a country wide filter. There remain some countries where maternal mortality has almost reached 1 in 4. \n\nHow many people in the audience think opting in to view legal online pornography by adults is an invasion of privacy?\n\nHow many people in the audience like the idea of a black box being installed inside their home to monitor all their online activities?\n
- #80 It is imperative that we all stay on top of the continued efforts to censor the internet as well as unfair trade practices which could jeopardize lives. ACTA and CETA affect all pharmaceuticals as well as stifling innovation by arcane and vague copyright enforcement standards. \nImagine for a moment you need to know how to deliver a baby during an emergency without medial personnel and all graphics were blocked by a country wide filter. There remain some countries where maternal mortality has almost reached 1 in 4. \n\nHow many people in the audience think opting in to view legal online pornography by adults is an invasion of privacy?\n\nHow many people in the audience like the idea of a black box being installed inside their home to monitor all their online activities?\n
- #81 It is imperative that we all stay on top of the continued efforts to censor the internet as well as unfair trade practices which could jeopardize lives. ACTA and CETA affect all pharmaceuticals as well as stifling innovation by arcane and vague copyright enforcement standards. \nImagine for a moment you need to know how to deliver a baby during an emergency without medial personnel and all graphics were blocked by a country wide filter. There remain some countries where maternal mortality has almost reached 1 in 4. \n\nHow many people in the audience think opting in to view legal online pornography by adults is an invasion of privacy?\n\nHow many people in the audience like the idea of a black box being installed inside their home to monitor all their online activities?\n
- #82 It is imperative that we all stay on top of the continued efforts to censor the internet as well as unfair trade practices which could jeopardize lives. ACTA and CETA affect all pharmaceuticals as well as stifling innovation by arcane and vague copyright enforcement standards. \nImagine for a moment you need to know how to deliver a baby during an emergency without medial personnel and all graphics were blocked by a country wide filter. There remain some countries where maternal mortality has almost reached 1 in 4. \n\nHow many people in the audience think opting in to view legal online pornography by adults is an invasion of privacy?\n\nHow many people in the audience like the idea of a black box being installed inside their home to monitor all their online activities?\n
- #83 All blacklists should be made public to ensure censorship if blocking illegal content only, not political opposition or differing incumbent opinion \n
- #84 All blacklists should be made public to ensure censorship if blocking illegal content only, not political opposition or differing incumbent opinion \n
- #85 All blacklists should be made public to ensure censorship if blocking illegal content only, not political opposition or differing incumbent opinion \n
- #86 All blacklists should be made public to ensure censorship if blocking illegal content only, not political opposition or differing incumbent opinion \n
- #87 \n
- #88 \n
- #89 I would be remiss if I didn't offer a way to report actual illegal and harmful pornography. Once a picture is on-line, thousands of copies or more are made. Just as the US state Department’s request for Wikileaks to delete all copies of leaked information off the internet was impossible. The same issue occurs in many child pornography cases. Child porn is one of the few crimes which victimizes and should be eradicated. Please if you think you see any child pornography please report it to the appropriate authorities. \n
- #90 http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2451\nhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pornography_laws.svg\nhttp://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw-xoEVz3ASTICSNalrm2QtiG-tzGesHnCgTPQ2ZDAs5leIrA1 \nhttp://australianperfumejunkies.com/tag/natalie-portman/ (image altered)\nhttp://people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf\nhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg/88px-Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg\n