Laki_Gen:...razmisljam i dal' su francuskinje (zbog mekog akcenta)?

kelja: Ova devojka je mnogo fina.
Ono sto mene najvise muci, glede ovog snimka, jeste pitanje da li su joj prave, ili...

Stefan Markic: 


Internet Censorship - The Net Neutrality issue continues
MySpace Admits Censorship Of Prison Planet.com
Net neutrality ce se predloziti zakonodavstvu u Americi

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

Continued growth of the 'Net right now is being hampered by the lack of clear enforceable standards on net neutrality. I don't think the country can afford that," Sen. Wyden warned a lunching band of telecom, computer, and software executives during his keynote address. "We've got to make sure that the 'Net is protected from the ever present impulse of companies that would like to take advantage of their position of the middleman to erect poles and barriers for their own benefits.

It seems the vote by the French Assembly is in direct opposition to the European Parliament, which last week passed a measure prohibiting EU governments from terminating a user's Internet access without a court order. The European Parliament also adopted an amendment that said, "Internet access is a fundamental right such as the freedom of expression and the freedom to access information."

The bill passed in France's National Assembly, the lower house of the French Parliament, by a narrow margin of 296 to 233. The legislation essentially creates a new government agency known as HADOPI (the Haute Autorit? pour la Diffusion des Oeuvres et la Protection des droits sur Internet), which will be tasked with sending notices to illegal file sharers.

The way it would work is that suspected offenders would receive two warnings about their illegal activities and on the third suspected offense, their Internet access would be cut off for anywhere from two months to a year. Users will also be put on a "three-strikes" blacklist so that they can't sign up for service from another ISP.

The legislation has proven to be quite controversial in France and throughout the world. It is considered one of the most aggressive digital antipiracy regulations out there, which has helped it win the support of the music and movie industries.

But consumer and free speech advocates have opposed the passage of such legislation, arguing that it denies accused Internet pirates the right to challenge the government's charges in court. Opponents of the legislation also fear that it will pave the way for governments to violate its citizens' personal privacy rights.

Under the new ‘HADOPI’ legislation ISPs have to warn their customers twice that they are accused of infringing copyright. If both warnings are ignored, Internet access for that subscriber will be terminated for up to a year - and they’ll have to keep paying their ISP bill throughout this period too.

The law goes much further than disconnecting alleged file-sharers though. In addition it is now possible to take “any action” in order to put a halt to copyright infringement. For example, websites can be blocked without having to provide hard evidence that they are engaging in illegal activities. The Pirate Bay has already been mentioned as one of the sites that could be easily taken out under the new law.

The French government, fresh from passing its controversial "three strikes" law to boot repeat file-sharers off the Internet, is now prepping its next assault on online malfeasance. A new bill would legalize government keyloggers, institute ISP censorship of child porn sites, and set up a massive citizen database called Pericles.

One UK ISP throttles P2P traffic, uses bandwidth caps, throttles streaming online video, and throttles "heavy users" of the network. The BBC is upset about the effect this has on its iPlayer streaming video service, but really, there are no surprises here. This is what a non-neutral network is allowed to look like.

France's groundbreaking "three strikes" law that would disconnect repeat Internet file-swappers has been overturned by the country's Constitutional Council. "Innocent until proven guilty" still means something in France.

One of the UK's largest ISPs says that the "free ride" is over for popular Web services like video streaming, which are building "very profitable business models" by using ISP pipes. In BT's view, it's time for streaming video to pay up for better service.

AT&T boss Ed Whitacre—the new head of General Motors—leveled the same charges at popular websites like Google back in 2005:

How do you think [websites] are going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

France's highest court has inflicted an embarrassing blow to President Sarkozy by cutting the heart out of a law that was supposed to put France in the forefront of the fight against piracy on the internet.

The Government insisted today that the HADOPI law would still be put into force, without its censured sections. Ms Albanel, whose job is now on the line, said that the agency would still send warnings to abusers although it was not clear how it would track them. It would then be up to prosecutors and the courts to take action, she said.

The Constitutional Council declared access to the internet to be a basic human right, directly opposing the key points of Mr Sarkozy's law, passed in April, which created the first internet police agency in the democratic world.

The strongly-worded decision means that Mr Sarkozy's scheme has backfired and inadvertently boosted those who defend the free-for-all culture of the web.

Govt reacts to the country’s Constitutional Council ruling that the “free communication of thoughts” for which the Internet is essential can only be curtailed by trial and not by order of govt agency.
Last week the the French govt’s “three-strikes” plan to disconnect accused file-sharers from the Internet suffered a shocking defeat at the hands of the country’s top court, the Constitutional Council, which ruled the law unconstitutional.

Last week the the French govt’s “three-strikes” plan to disconnect accused file-sharers from the Internet suffered a shocking defeat at the hands of the country’s top court, the Constitutional Council, which ruled the law unconstitutional.

NEW YORK -- The Internet is by far the most popular source of information and the preferred choice for news ahead of television, newspapers and radio, according to a new poll in the U.S.

But just a small fraction of U.S. adults considered social Web sites such as Facebook and MySpace as a good source of news and even fewer would opt for Twitter.

More than half of the people questioned in the Zogby Interactive survey said they would select the Internet if they had to choose only one source of news, followed by 21% for television and 10% for both newspapers and radio.

Only 10% described social Web sites as an important for news, and despite the media buzz about Twitter, only 4% would go to it for information.

The Internet was also selected as the most reliable source of news by nearly 40% of adults, compared with 17% who opted for television and 16% who selected newspapers and 13% for listened to the radio.

The major music labels are committed to the idea of graduated response, but they aren't wedded to any particular method of implementation. In France, disconnecting repeated online copyright infringers has been pushed by legislation. In the US, the RIAA wants ISPs to sign up to a voluntary scheme. But in Ireland, the "sue-them-into-doing-what-we-want" school of thought has triumphed.

Čuveni britanski dnevnik “The Times” počeo je da naplaćuje svoj sadržaj na Internetu za jednu funtu dnevno, ili dve funte nedeljno, ukoliko se čitaoci odluče za pretplatu. Međutim, od uvođenja sistema naplate, poseta Tajmsovom sajtu pala je za 60 odsto, navodi BBC.

maliradojca: Stefan Markic, jel si ti bot?

w3bl0rd: Ljudi o čemu vi pričate, pa nema nikakve šanse da se to desi ccc, čim se jedan servis tipa youtube ili google počinje naplačivati pojavit će se drugi besplatni, a ovaj što će naplačivat, aj pogodite što će s njim biti :D

Onaj: Pa nije bas tako... Nece youtube da ti naplacuje pristup vec provajder - tu se youtube ili bilo koji sajt nista ne pita tako da u tom slucaju ne bi ni bilo besplatnog pristupa bilo kom sajtu.

w3bl0rd: Ljudi o čemu vi pričate, pa nema nikakve šanse da se to desi ccc, čim se jedan servis tipa youtube ili google počinje naplačivati pojavit će se drugi besplatni, a ovaj što će naplačivat, aj pogodite što će s njim biti :D

bakancs: pa provajderi od samog nastanka interneta naplacuju pristup

bakancs: Moraces malo bolje da mi objasnis, jer ja i dalje ne razumem.

Zanima me kako ce, i po kom osnovu "internet provajder" naplatiti pristup navedenim sajtovima ako nije u njegovom vlasnistvu.

bakancs: jednostavno nemoguce

bakancs: 
A onaj koji ce hteti da pristupi "underground" sadrzaju, uvek ce naci nacina.. cak ce biti jos i sladje... :D

bakancs:
uvek ce naci nacina..

bakancs: Koliko ja vidim, ono sto ti govoris je da ce internet da poskupi (placacemo neke posebne pristupe jel..), sa jako puno drame..
Puno skuplji od ovoga koliko sada placamo ne moze biti.. Mislim da je i u Francuskoj i USA jeftiniji internet...

Predrag Supurovic: Milsimda brkaš stvari. Već i sada je tako - ako nepleatiš, ne možeš da klatiš mišem po Internetu. Prosto, internet pristup moraš da platiš.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has overruled FCC’s decision to sanction Comcast for unfair treatment of BitTorrent users. The ruling, which may also effect FCC’s Net Neutrality regulation, means that Comcast could go back to throttling BitTorrent users.

[...]

For BitTorrent users on Comcast and other US Internet providers there are uncertain times ahead.

Predrag Supurovic: Ako neki provajder pokuša da naplati više pristup sajtovima, tržište će ga uvek vratiti na rpvi kolosek, pošto će drugi da nude za manje para isto to.

Predrag Supurovic:Ograničenje koje funkcionano čini link neupotrebljivim ne može da prođe, ali može ono koja ga ne čini nefunkcionalnim ali ga čini manje kvalitetnim.

Open Internet Order: An Order adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression. These rules would protect consumers' and innovators' right to know basic information about broadband service, right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, and right to a level playing field, while providing broadband Internet access providers with the flexibility to reasonably manage their networks.

Today at 12:56 CET, the European Parliament decided whether ACTA would be ultimately rejected or whether it would drag on into uncertainty. In a 478 to 39 vote, the Parliament decided to reject ACTA once and for all. This means that the deceptive treaty is now dead globally.

This is a day of celebration.

Starting December 3rd, the world's governments are meeting behind closed doors at the ITU to discuss the future of the Internet. Some governments want to use this meeting in Dubai to increase censorship and regulate the Internet.

Zlatni_bg: Ma daj, sta vam je... Pa najuspesniji internet servisi su oni besplatni, i mlate debele pare na potpuno druge nacine od naplate pristupa, odavno je poznato da to ne prolazi kao prodaja reklamnog prostora, naplata nekih posebnih usluga itd... I uvek ce se naci neko ko ce istu uslugu nuditi besplatno...

The future of the web will be decided in a dark room by UN politicians and authoritarian governments — at least according to Google and some other opponents of the International Telecommunication Union’s plan to reform its 25-year-old guidelines. Leaked documents have shown that ITU members are interested in adding more internet regulations to the ITU’s mostly telecommunications-focused rules, something critics worry will let countries justify repressive filtering of the internet or upset the current balance of power by pushing more regulation. Supporters, meanwhile, hope it will help internationalize the internet, counterbalancing the more US-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which currently manages domains and controls the internet’s backbone.

Starting December 3rd, these concerns will come to a head, as ITU members meet in Dubai to discuss proposals and hammer out a treaty. The debate over the new regulations has been going on for years, and it will likely continue well beyond this meeting. As the meeting gets underway, we’re likely to see a lot of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt — some of which may be justified.

UNIVERSAL CITY, California – Beginning in a few weeks, the nation’s major internet service providers will roll out an initiative — backed by Obama and pushed by Hollywood and the record labels – to disrupt and possibly terminate internet access for online copyright scofflaws without the involvement of cops or courts.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/online-pirates-beware/

AMERIKANCI I GOOGLE USTALI PROTIV PRELASKA INTERNETA U RUKE UN I PLAĆANjA ZA TRANSFER SADRŽAJA


Učesnici konferencije slušaju govor Hamduna Turea, generalnog sekretara ITU

OKO 2.000 delegata iz 193 zemlje okupilo se na Svetskoj konferenciji o međunarodnim komunikacijama (WCIT) u Dubaiju radi pregovora o telekomunikacijskim propisima koji nisu menjani od 1988.(pre nego što je internet ušao u javnu upotrebu).

Konferenciju je organizovala Međunarodna telekomunikacijska unija (ITU), specijalizovana agencija UN-a, koju zagovornici slobodnog interneta optužuju da želi preko ITU-a da „preuzme kontrolu nad internetom".

Google-ov internet guru i inovator Vinton Cerf, kojeg u Sjedinjenim Državama zovu jednim od „očeva interneta", mesecima lobira protiv Međunarodne telekomunikacijske unije, smatrajući je produženom rukom brojnih nedemokratskih članica UN.

„Danas je slobodni i otvoreni internet u opasnosti", iznio je Cerf u nedavnim javnim obraćanjima.

Sjedinjene Države su, kao i Google, ustale protiv prelaska interneta u ruke Ujedinjenih nacija.

Naknade za međunarodni transfer podataka druga su sporna tema o kojoj se vodi rasprava i na Konferenciji u Dubaiju.

Na pregovaračkom stolu je novi model isporuke internetskih sadržaja, popularno nazvan „ko šalje-plaća" (engl. sender pays), koji se najlakše može uporediti sa nadoknadom za međunarodne telefonske pozive. Ovu nadoknadu bi plaćali vlasnici internet servisa, a nadoknada bi se plaćala za prekogranični prenos podataka. Na primer, ako se neko u Srbiji spoji na YouTube, ova bi kompanija morala da plati naknadu srpskom internet provajderu preko kojeg se dotični korisnik povezao sa ovim servisom, jer bi se radilo o međunarodnom transferu podataka. Drugim rečima, trošak bi se zaračunavao pošiljaocu podataka (YouTubeu) po jednakom principu po kojem se američkom korisniku naplaćuje telefonski poziv kad poziva nekog u Srbiji.

Obzirom da se na velike internet servise kao što su Google, YouTube, Facebook, iTunes, Netflix itd. spajaju stotine miliona korisnika iz celog sveta, kompanije vlasnice tih servisa bile bi dužne da plaćaju enormne sume telekomunikacionim kompanijama u zemljama gde žive korisnici njihovih sadržaja - npr., u Evropi.

Ne čudi da je ova zamisao o internet „carini" potekla od ETNO -a, grupe koja okuplja evropske telekomunikacione kompanije, kao što su „Vodafone Group", „Telecom Italia" i „France Telecom", jer su one te u čije kase bi se slivali prihodi od pretežno američkih isporučitelja internet sadržaja. Ako bi ovaj predlog bio prihvaćen, bio bi to kraj besplatnog transfera podataka između zemalja, a davaoci usluga bili bi praktično oporezovani za dostavu internet sadržaja u inostranstvo.

„Ovo je vrlo zabrinjavajuće. Ta bi nadoknada stvorila značajnu pravnu i komercijalnu nesigurnost", komentarisala je Seli Šipman Ventvort (Sally Shipman Wentworth), direktor pri organizaciji „Internet Society".

Sa druge strane grupa ETNO svoj predlog pravda mišljenjem da bi uvođenje nadoknade za inostrane (najviše američke) portale osiguralo povraćaj ulaganja telekomima koji su gradili širokopojasnu infrastrukturu, a koju sada besplatno koriste velike inostrane kompanije da bi plasirale svoje sadržaje međunarodnoj javnosti.

Velike kompanije bi mogle da doskoče ovakvoj „internet naknadi" tako što bi postavile servere u inostranstvu, čime bi izgubile status inostranih isporučioca sadržaja. No, manje kompanije koje nemaju sredstava za dodatne servere bile bi prisiljene da plaćaju ovu naknadu - ako bi za to imale novca.

Hi Stefan,

Over the past few weeks, you stood with millions from all corners of the world who took action in support of a free and open Internet. Your voice was heard.

Some governments sought to use the recent meeting of the International Telecommunication Union in Dubai to increase censorship and regulation of the Internet. At the conclusion of the meeting last Friday, 89 countries signed the treaty, while 55 countries said they would not sign or that additional review was needed. We stand with the countries that refused to sign, and we stand with you.

We we want to thank you for your actions over the past few weeks. Your voice helped shine a light on a process that would otherwise have been in the dark, and you helped bring the issue of Internet freedom to global prominence.

With your support, we can continue to help ensure that governments alone do not direct the future of the Internet. Thank you.

Until next time,

Vint Cerf
Google

Blue82:...oko necega na cega ne mogu da uticem.

The controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) now appears to be dead in the Senate, despite having passed the House by a wide margin earlier this month. Though tech, finance, and telecom firms with a combined $650 million in lobbying muscle supported the bill, opposition from privacy groups, internet activists, and ultimately the White House (which threatened to veto the law) seem to have proven fatal for now.

For all the heated rhetoric surrounding the CISPA legislation — predictions of an impending Digital Pearl Harbor matched by dire warnings of Big Brother surveillance — the controversy was almost entirely unnecessary.