We would all like to always reach our computers despite it changing IP addresses, in Windows Vista this problem might now be solvd. P2P in Windows Vista is easy as an “InterNet name” can be generated for the computer, this make the computer name unique on the internet.

In his Blog Microsoft developer Noah Horton describes the function in Windows Vista here, with which a P2P-Technologie is used named PNRP (Peer name resolution Protocol). So far one must know the IP address of a computer, in order to be able to connect to it.  With each new connection to the InterNet the computer keeps being assigned a new IP address from the provider. Now with the new Vista, you will be able to reach your computer without the need to worry about a dynamic IP address.

Be careful though as the only people who have escaped the RIAA lawsuit fiasco has been people who could rely on the defence that the IP address could not be used as evidence as they are dynamic. With this new Vista technology, that defence will become moot!

http://blogs.msdn.com/noahh/archive/2006/08/23/715894.aspx

The members of the British Association OF Independent Music (AIM) can drive their music out in the future over the P2P-Network. GNAB operated by the Bertelsmann daughter Arvato.

The AIM members decided on an Opt in basis whether they will take part. Beside music, downloads, subscriptions and video downloads are planned. Thus the umbrella federation of more than 900 independent music labels is the first organization, which agreed upon a collective Lizenzierung with P2P. AIM director Alison Wenham and Richard Elections, vice-president with Arvato, appeared contently, when it admits the agreement yesterday on the music fair Popkomm in Berlin gave “with this agreement the AIM proved its innovative handling digital music again. Licensed file sharing and on-line offers will provide more consumers for better entrance to more varied music and at the same time the AIM members to new incomes help “, expressed themselves Richard elections.

http://www.irights.info/

Movies File Share Top Ten Downloads this week - Bittorrent

01     Jackass
02     Scary Movie
03     Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
04     Poseidon
05     RV
06     The Sentinal
07     Silent Hill
08     V For Vendetta
09     The Black Dahlia
10     Invincible

In another blow to P2P (peer-to-peer) filesharing, a US federal judge ruled this week that the Morpheus software program encouraged users to infringe upon copyrighted works.

StreamCast, the owner of Morpheus, “cannot seriously argue that it did not know that the popular music and movies traded on its network were copyrighted”, wrote US district judge Stephen V Wilson.

The ruling is another win for record and film companies, which sought an injunction against distribution of the filesharing software in the suit, filed in 2001.

StreamCast continued to fight after two other companies named in the suit, Grokster and Sharman, the company behind the Kazaa filesharing client, reached settlements with the entertainment industry. Streamcast said it could consider appealing, saying the software has legal uses.

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&newsid=7213

LimeWire LLC has returned fire in its copyright dispute with Recording Industry Ass. Of America (RIAA), accusing its members of operating an illegal cartel to control the online distribution of music.

In a recent lawsuit, The RIAA attacked LimeWire and its top developers for facilitating copyright theft, through its peer-to-peer (P2P) file swapping service.

Limewire denies the charges, noting that it is merely the developer of an open source software. Limewire notes that it is a true P2P service - there are no central servers to facilitate file exchange. As such, people who download LimeWire swap files entirely of their “own volition”, it claims. Hmm. We can’t see a US court buying this argument.

A much more interesting line of defence is LimeWire’s attack against the music industry. It says the case is “part of a much larger conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models”. The RIAA and its members are using the law for anti-competitive means, not to control piracy, LimeWire charges.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/26/limewire_riaa_counterclaim/

The biggest record companies, according to the lawsuit, are engaged in a “modern conspiracy” to acquire “a monopoly over digital distribution of commercially valuable copyrighted music.” In all, the suit names 13 record companies.

In a statement, the industry association called the countersuit “a kitchen sink of frivolous charges” that doesn’t change the Supreme Court ruling last year in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster holding that file-sharing companies can be sued for copyright infringement.

Mr. Paczkowski called LimeWire’s language “heavy-handed,” but concluded that it’s not off base. LimeWire cites the recording industry’s relationship with iMesh, a file-sharing service it sued, but which is now essentially working at the industry’s behest, operating a fee-based downloading service. “While from all outward appearances iMesh is not controlled by the R.I.A.A.,” the lawsuit states, “dealings with iMesh by LimeWire and other P2P companies demonstrate, in reality, that this is not the case.”

That accusation “merits some looking into,” Mr. Paczkowski wrote.

“Much more interesting,” according to Nate Anderson of ArsTechnica, “is the lengthy section in which LimeWire discusses its decision to ‘go straight’ ” (arstechnica.com).

LimeWire says it had planned to introduce a system that would prevent copyrighted material from being traded, but the music labels would not license the necessary technology to make it work. The only way it could be done is if LimeWire and other file-sharing outfits became partners with iMesh. The plan, according to LimeWire, was to allow sharing of noncopyrighted files and to send users who wanted copyrighted works to legal sites like iTunes. “If you don’t think that this sounds like a profitable strategy, you’re not alone,” Mr. Anderson wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/business/30online.html

The recording industry has spent the past several years picking off one peer-to-peer file-sharing company after another: Napster, KaZaa, Grokster and several others have settled lawsuits, been acquired or agreed to stop allowing users to share copyrighted music. But LimeWire is standing firm. In response to the industry’s lawsuit against it last month, the company that owns the LimeWire file-sharing software filed a counterclaim last week, accusing members of the Recording Industry Association of America of anticompetitive practices, restraint of trade, tortuous interference and other claims (info.riaalawsuits.us).

The countersuit is “encouraging,” wrote John Paczkowski, an editor at SiliconValley.com who writes Good Morning Silicon Valley (gmsv.com). Paczkowski called LimeWire’s language “heavy-handed,” but concluded that it’s not off base. “Much more interesting,” according to Nate Anderson of ArsTechnica, “is the lengthy section in which LimeWire discusses its decision to ‘go straight’ ” (http://arstechnica.com).

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/04/Business/On_The_Web.shtml

There appears to be a PR (Page Rank) update on Google in progress.

1	toolbarqueries.google.com	(2)
2	64.233.161.104	(2)
3	216.239.59.99	(4)
4	64.233.161.99	(2)
5	66.102.9.104	(4)
6	216.239.53.99	(2)
7	216.239.39.104	(2)
8	66.102.7.99	(4)
9	216.239.57.104	(2)
10	66.102.9.99	(4)
11	66.102.7.104	(4)
12	216.239.53.104	(2)
13	66.102.11.99	(4)
14	216.239.57.99	(2)
15	66.102.11.104	(4)
16	216.239.59.104	(4)
17	216.239.39.99	(2)
18	216.239.37.104	(2)
19	66.249.93.104	(2)
20	64.233.179.104	(4)
21	216.239.51.104	(4)