Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
News

Submission + - D.C. Court rules against FCC on Net Neutrality (cnet.com) 1

Submitted by lefiz
lefiz writes: The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to impose strict Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. This ruling overturns the FCC's 2008 order against Comcast over its "network management" practices that interfered with BitTorrent traffic. This may have serious consequences for Net Neutrality going forward.

Submission + - Court Rules Against F.C.C. in ‘Net Neutralit (nytimes.com)

Submitted by Outsdr
Outsdr writes: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

Tuesday’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast Corporation, the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s authority to impose so called “net neutrality” obligations.

It marks a serious setback for the F.C.C., which needs authority to regulate the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its national broadband plan.

Submission + - Net Neutrality Suffers Major Setback (msn.com)

Submitted by RingDev
RingDev writes: The US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Comcast today, stating that the FCC lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
Editorial

Submission + - Caught in red tape, Eric De La Cruz needs a heart (weloveeric.com)

Submitted by
An anonymous reader writes: Eric De La Cruz, (@EricDLCruz on Twitter) age 27, who resides in Nevada, is in dire need of a heart transplant. He is dying. His sister, Veronica (@VeronicaDLCruz on Twitter), is doing all she can to help her brother. However, she is caught in the red-tape system in Nevada. He needs Medicare Disability.

Eric has been turned down for the heart transplant list because he is on Nevada Medicaid, and there are no transplant centers in Nevada. He needs to get to California under the Medicare Disability program. He has been rejected twice and the next appeals hearing is in one year. Eric has Severe Dilated Cardiomyopathy with an EF of 15%. His kidneys are having trouble because of his heart. His creatinine levels are high, his blood pressure is very low and he keeps retaining fluid.

$150,000 is needed to get Eric on a transplant list, and the transplant is projected to cost nearly $800,000.

http://weloveeric.com/

Media Coverage:
KTNV: http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10384977
KLAS: http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=10384960
Censorship

Submission + - OiNK is taken down by Interpol, admin arrested 2

Submitted by QuietR10t
QuietR10t writes: Scott Gilbertson from Wired raises an interesting point: "However, there is one interesting quote in the IFPI's press release. Jeremy Banks, head of the IFPI's Internet Anti-Piracy Unit, says in the press release: "OiNK was central to the illegal distribution of pre-release music online. This was not a case of friends sharing music for pleasure. This was a worldwide network that got hold of music they did not own the rights to and posted it online." (emphasis mine)

The IFPI seems to be making a distinction of scale between professional piracy groups and friends sharing files, even if, so far as I know, copyright laws in Britain (and the U.S.) make no such distinctions."
http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/10/oink-is-the-lat.html

There are also rumors of investigation into users, but with 180k users I'm not sure they would know where to start.
The Internet

Submission + - Cops subpoena to learn who read critical web pages

Submitted by solareagle
solareagle writes: A weekly newspaper has received grand jury subpoenas seeking information on who visits their Phoenix weekly's Web site. Maricopa County authorities want every story New Times has written about Sheriff Joe Arpaio since Jan. 1, 2004, including one that revealed the sheriff's address. The subpoenas also seek online profiles of anyone who read four specific articles about Arpaio and profiles of anyone who visited the paper's Web site since Jan. 1, 2004. Also sought was information on what Web users did while on the site. When the newspaper published a story revealing the subpoenas, its editor was arrested for revealing grand jury information. He now faces up to six months in jail and $2500 in fines. Former New Times reporter John Dougherty, whose original story about Arpaio's address sparked the controversy, said: "We're not harboring state secrets, we're not harboring terrorists, we're just straight up reporting on issues they don't want us to report on."
Security

Submission + - Who Is Really Monitoring Your Domain Searches? (dailydomainer.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: It has happened to most of us: A perfect domain name pops into your mind. A quick check at your favorite domain registrar reveals that the domain is still available. For some reason, you put off the actual registration for a few days. And when you come back to finally register the domain, it's taken by someone else! In many cases, this is ....
Music

Submission + - Canada may tax legal music downloads 3

Submitted by FuriousBalancing
FuriousBalancing writes: MacNN reports:

Canadians may soon pay a small tax on every legal music store download, says a new measure (PDF) sanctioned by the Copyright Board of Canada. Requested by the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), the tax would apply at least 2.1 cents to every individual song download and 1.5 cents per track for complete albums. Subscription download and streaming services would themselves be charged between 5.7 and 6.8 percent of a user's monthly fees. Minimum fees would also apply for every larger download or subscription. The new tax would be retroactive to January 1st, 1996.
Media

Submission + - Radiohead Made $6-$10 Million on Album (wired.com)

Submitted by
mytrip
mytrip writes: "Thom Yorke's representative told me that the band have "decided not to give out any figures" for sales of Radiohead's In Rainbows album, but that isn't stopping people from making their best guesses based on what little information is available.

The Seminal estimates that Radiohead sold about $10 million-worth of albums as of 10/12, assuming that their source was correct that approximately 1.2 million people downloaded the album from the site, and that the average price paid per album was $8 (we heard that number too, but also heard that a later, more accurate average was $5, which would result in $6 million in revenue instead)."

Slashdot Top Deals

MAC user's dynamic debugging list evaluator? Never heard of that.

Close