To pretend it's a revelation that Megaupload trafficked in illicit material is like Claude Rains being "shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" That said, its "front parlor," if you will, had many legitimate customers who had posted non-infringing files. So the big question that Colombia's NTN24 news anchor Mónica Fonseca* asked me was essentially, "What has happened to everyone's files?"

Earlier today, I appeared on NTN24's "CST" program (Health, Science, Technology) to discuss the ramifications of the Justice Dept.'s seizure of Megaupload's assets and domain names. In response to Fonseca's question, I said that folks who had uploaded legitimate files to their "cyberlockers" won't be able to access them today, and will probably find them gone anyway if and when some form of Megaupload comes back online from outside U.S. borders. My ReadWriteWeb colleague John Paul Titlow shares the same sentiments.

Has the United States started a war in cyberspace, I was asked? Certainly there's no doubt of there being a war on, I responded, although there's some doubt as to who really started it. In any event, it's clear that the Justice Dept. has fired a huge salvo, and the battle is now raging.

What lessons should consumers take away from this turn of events? I told Fonseca that it doesn't take very much due diligence for a conscientious consumer to spot the difference between a legitimate cloud storage service with the consumer's interests at heart (I cited Dropbox, SkyDrive, and Box.com as examples) compared with one whose interests lie in goading him to partake in illicit file sharing. There's a reason there are no independently-managed search services pointing to files on a site like Dropbox. It's not out to make files popular; it's out to provide customer service. When a service promotes itself as free, but continues to offer services behind a gilded, camouflaged door marked "premium" or "subscribers only," consumers should get the hint.

New Zealand

Commenters believing yesterday's indictment had been timed to coincide with recent White House events on anti-piracy, such as the Administration's backing away from SOPA/PIPA, were proven wrong in an early Saturday, New Zealand time, report from the ONE News agency. It quotes a detective inspector with New Zealand's counterpart to the FBI as saying it had conducted a joint investigation with the FBI since early 2011, which led eventually to yesterday's arrests.

New Zealand-based political blogger David Farrar made this interesting observation: "Whether or not [Megaupload founder Kim] Dotcom and others have broken the law, will of course be a matter for the courts. It is worth noting that the NZ courts will not extradite unless the charges are for something that is also an offence under NZ law."

Brazil

Some perspective: A report released today from broadband services provider Sandvine estimated Megaupload's share of all traffic for file storage and backup purposes (which would include cloud storage providers) was less than 1% in the U.S., but 11.4% in Brazil. Its share of all traffic among fixed access networks (i.e., non-mobile) is about 1%, which is somewhat less than the 4% the site claimed in its own music video, but is still a substantial chunk.

A search of Megaupload-related traffic among Brazilian domain names (*.br) today turned up a greater-than-average number of Megaupload search sites - the independently-run, volunteer-maintained indexes referenced in the Justice Dept.'s indictment - plus quite a few Brazilian resellers of Megaupload premium plans. Although basic file sharing is among the features Megaupload typically provides for free, so-called "unlimited" plans, according to the DOJ indictment, enable customers to post suspiciously long media files and enter into rewards programs, giving them rebates when those files become popular. E-mails uncovered through DOJ raids, mentioned in the indictment, indicate that Megaupload's proprietors were particularly interested in the popularity list, giving users advice as to how to rank more highly.

The nature of such advice would make Megaupload no longer eligible for the safe harbor protections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, should the allegations prove true in court.

United Kingdom

At this time last year, U.K.-based search monitoring services provider Envisional made an estimate of the amount of total Internet traffic devoted to obviously (or, put another way, "shockingly") infringing content. Envisional limited its analysis to non-pornographic content, for understandable reasons (its people probably couldn't stomach the idea of wading through all that, and I don't blame them). Non-pornographic infringing content was estimated to consume 23.76% of all fixed access traffic.

Some 5.12% of all fixed access traffic was devoted, by the firm's estimate, to infringing traffic directed to cyberlocker sites, the biggest of which was Megaupload.

In a debate article published earlier today by the U.K.'s Guardian, the political leader of that country's Pirate Party, music teacher Loz Kaye (who is not an MP) debated IFPI Chief Executive Frances Moore.

Kaye argued that it's not really viable to estimate the damage Megaupload may have caused to the movie, recording, and publishing industries based on lost revenue (the DOJ indictment estimated a half-billion dollars) since the business model of these industries are, in his opinion, antiquated and failing. He stated he believes Megaupload could essentially represent the new music industry that should supplant the old one, saying, "We all - pirates and artists - have an interest in a properly functioning and free Internet. Last year 70% of the total volume of British music sales were digital. The [British recording industry group] BPI would do well to remember that its future income is dependent on the very people it is currently antagonizing."

To which Moore responded that the new music industry is represented more by iTunes and digital music stores, not glorified file sharing sites. "We're licensing music widely to sites like iTunes, Spotify and Deezer," Moore writes. "This growing digital music business is fantastic for artists and for consumers. Yet it can't survive in a market rigged by illegal piracy. Events such as the U.S. Justice Department charging Megaupload are important developments - not just for the music industry, but for the whole creative economy."

* Wait, wait a minute, did he say "Mónica Fonseca?" As in, the fashion model, the spokesmodel, the judge on the Latin American version of "Project Runway?" The girl on several relationship-ending posters and calendars all over South America? Yep. The same.

Now, perhaps it's NTN24 policy and perhaps my wife called in to make a special request. But because I don't speak Spanish, when I'm being interviewed by Mónica via Skype, I hear her questions via a translator. Today it was Andrew. And I don't see Mónica asking the questions until after NTN24 makes the replay available online.

Still, if you're wondering, she's a very good interviewer and speaks well to her subject matter. Perhaps through the marvel that is technology, my wife and I will have the opportunity one day to speak more directly with Mónica and her husband, Colombian screen sensation, actor Juan Pablo Raba. (My wife has policies too.)

The advocacy group EFF has been lobbying for these changes for some time due to the overly broad language used previously in the DMCA legislation, which seemingly requires an ongoing list of "exceptions" for so-called fair use activities in order to stay current with the rapidly-changing technology of the Internet era.

"The Copyright Office and Librarian of Congress have taken three important steps today to mitigate some of the harms caused by the DMCA," said Jennifer Granick, EFF's civil liberties director, in regard to today's changes. "We are thrilled to have helped free jailbreakers, unlockers and vidders from this law's overbroad reach." (We believe she means "video creators" there - "vidders" is a new one for us, too.)

Specifically, today's exemptions include the following:

• Permission for cell phone owners to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers or "jailbreak" their device
• Permission to break technical protections on video games to investigate or correct security flaws
• Permission for college professors, film students and documentary filmmakers to break copy-protection measures on DVDs so they can embed clips for educational purposes, criticism, commentary and noncommercial videos
• Permission to enable an e-book's read-aloud function or use a screen reader with the e-book, even when built-in access controls prevent this
• Permission for computer owners to bypass the need for external security devices called dongles if the dongle no longer works and cannot be replaced

This is Bigger than iPhone

Apple claimed that jailbreaking an iPhone allowed people to install unapproved (and often pirated) applications and therefore should not be permitted. The Copyright Office rejected this claim saying that jailbreaking is actually fair use.

Although the EFF reports that over 1 million iPhone owners are suspected of having jailbroken their devices, the bigger (though initially less glamorous) news may be the new permissions for creative types to break copyright in order to include clips of other works into their videos and films. By previously not permitting this activity (legally), the law has stifled the ability for artists to tell their stories and for educators to simply do their jobs without fear of repercussions. Although at first this may mean a lot more "fan-made" videos don't get yanked down from YouTube as quickly as before, we expect to see in the near future, as the EFF does, some "amazing works" of art resulting from this change.

Viacom Plans to Appeal

According to CNET, Viacom intents to appeal this judgement as soon as possible:

"We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions. We intend to seek to have these issues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible.

Viacom Didn't Help Its Own Case

It is worth noting that - in the end - Viacom probably did not help its own case by secretly uploading its own videos to YouTube while still complaining about the face that YouTube hosted these videos. Often, Viacom even "roughed up" these videos to make them look stolen, which YouTube's chief counsel Zahavah Levine noted earlier this year.

"Part of our work involves monitoring the internet and taking action against persons that use, facilitate, enable and/or authorise the use of material in a manner that infringes the rights of the members of BPI and [Phonographic Performance Limited]. We have identified the following links that are available via Google's search engine, and request the following links be removed as soon as possible as they directly link to sound recordings owned by our members," the notice says.

The BPI identified 38 links to 17 songs that they found from Google links to various file sharing services, including works from Christina Aguilera, Lady Gaga, Michael Bublee, Usher, Ke$ha and the cast of Glee to name a few. They even went as far as to identify the 38 various search terms that could lead one to find these files, including phrases like "lady gaga alejandro zippyshare," and "the pretty reckless make me wanna die free download."

Google has been quick to remove copyrighted material from services like YouTube where it hosts the content, but it has not been so quick to remove infringing sites entirely from its search index. Google has, however, removed the 38 requested links at the behest of BPI, but many other file sharing site links remain among the results. In the image above, the third page of results for "dizzee rascal dirtee disco" shows Google's notice that the requested results have been removed. This, of course, is displayed directly below results where the song can be found at other sites.

In section 4 of the DMCA notice, BPI lists 9 different sites that contain these copyrighted files. BPI should have sent 9 different DMCA notices to these sites, not to Google. For better or for worse, Google has become a launch pad from which many people surf the Web. We learned this the hard (and amusing) way earlier this year when a story of ours displaced the typical top result for "Facebook login" on Google, sending wayward Web surfers to our article.

When Googling something is the equivalent of entering the URL in an address bar for many people, you can't place the blame for illegal content on Google. If BPI wants to sue someone over illegal access to music, it should be the sites providing that service, not those simply linking to it.

Yesterday Cryptome published a 22-page PDF called the "Microsoft Global Criminal Compliance Handbook". Cryptome publisher John Young said he believed the document showed "improper use of copyright to conceal [...] violations of trust toward its customers." The Electronic Frontier Foundation said Young was within his fair use rights, but the watchdog site was pulled offline none the less. After 14 years spent posting 40,000 sensitive documents, Cryptome is a legacy resource online. Its return is something to celebrate.

The complaints were due to the fact that Cryptome published a 22-page Microsoft Global Criminal Spy Guide. Microsoft claimed copyright infringement, Cryptome's editor refused to budge, and the site was taken down this afternoon.

The reason Cryptome refused to remove the PDF of Microsoft's so-called "spy guide" was that editor John Young believed its programs, which make it easier for law enforcement to obtain user data, showed "improper use of copyright to conceal [...] violations of trust toward its customers," according to an interview with Geekosystem.

"Copyright law is not intended for confidentiality purposes," he continued.

"We think all lawful spying arrangements should be made public [...] Microsoft should join the others who openly describe [their] procedures." Young named Cisco as one such company.

Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a call today, "We find it troubling that copyright law is being invoked here. Microsoft doesn't sell this manual. There's no market for this work. It's not a copyright issue. John's copying of it is fair use. We don't do this anywhere else in speech law."

For example, in cases involving libel or trade secrets, said Cohn, "You go to court, you make a case and you get an injunction. You don't just file a form. DMCA makes censorship easy."

Cohn also noted she feels the reason Microsoft actually wants the document removed from the Web is because, for a large corporation with millions of users and an aggressive PR agenda, the document raises concerns and sparks conversations the company would rather not confront.

"It's part of a very intense political debate about the role of intermediary companies like Microsoft aiding surveillance for law enforcement. It's embarrassing for Microsoft for their users to see how much the people who carry their email have arrangements with law enforcement.

"All of the people who carry our communications are an easy conduit for our government to spy on us, and a lot of people are unhappy about that. It's a legitimate public debate, and Microsoft doesn't want to be part of that debate."

We hope that Microsoft does, in fact, release their stranglehold on Young and his site and take part in a conversation with their users about how their data can be accessed by others, including law enforcement. We've reached out to them for comment and will update this post if and when we hear back.

In the meantime, let us know your thoughts in the comments.

UPDATE: Still no word from Microsoft, but here's that document they really don't want you (or anyone else) to see. We hope to hear from a Microsoft representative soon to discuss the intentions and implications of this guide.

UPDATE: Microsoft has responded. Read about it here.

Thanks to Glenn Davis of Geekosystem for the tip.

A U.S.-drafted chapter on Internet use would require ISPs to police user-generated content, to cut off Internet access for copyright violators, and to remove content that is accused of copyright violation without any proof of actual violation. The chapter also completely prohibits DRM workarounds, even for archiving or retrieving one's own work. Read on for details and implications.

As with other sections of the treaty, portions of this element have been leaked online. As it stands, the leaks suggest Internet users around the world are headed for a new regime of IP enforcement - a culture of invasive searches, minimal privacy, guilt until innocence is proven and measures that would kill our normative behaviors of file-sharing, free software, media downloading, creative remixing and even certain civil liberties.

Allegedly modeled on sections of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, the treaty would require ISPs to police user activity for possible copyright violation, and ISPs would be held responsible for any infringing content being uploaded or downloaded. This all spells a huge boon to the established entertainment industry and a huge burden for ISPs.

"In order for ISPs to qualify for a safe harbor," writes Michael Geist, who has published the substance of the leaked material, "they would be required establish policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of IP infringing content. Provisions... include policies to terminate subscribers in appropriate circumstances." That means a three-strikes rule would apply to anyone who was accused of violating copyright in any way; ISPs would be required to terminate the user's account after three complaints from the content owner. For something as culturally accepted as downloading music, a user's entire household could be cut off from the Internet and access to information, communication, personal account management, et cetera.

Geist continues, "Notice-and-takedown, which is not currently the law in Canada nor a requirement under WIPO, would also be an ACTA requirement." In other words, whether or not a piece of content or media violates copyright would be arbitrary; the content would be removed by the ISP as soon as a takedown notice was issued. The takedown would be enforced regardless of considerations such as fair use. This policy, which mirrors the DMCA, would be enforced for all nations participating in the treaty.

Finally, the treaty includes a ban on circumventing DRM and other copyright-protecting measures in hardware and software, as well as a ban on the manufacture, import and distribution of circumvention tools. Again, this ban is irrespective of circumstance or content ownership and is inflexible.

Our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, arbiters of freer use of copyrighted material, have this to say:

U.S. negotiators are seeking policies that will harm the U.S. technology industry and citizens across the globe. Three Strikes/ Graduated Response is the top priority of the entertainment industry... The ACTA text appears to leave the door open for major changes to the existing national Internet intermediary liability regimes that have been the global status quo since the mid 1990s, and which have underpinned both tremendous Internet innovation, and citizens' online freedom of expression and the rich world of user generated content that we take for granted today.

European citizens should also be concerned and indignant. As reported, the ACTA Internet provisions would also appear to be inconsistent with the EU eCommerce Directive and existing national law...

Are international treaties governing Internet content and intellectual property even necessary? Insofar as they fly in the face of normative cultural practices and contradict or tighten existing national laws, we find these suggested measures inflexible and unrealistic. But whether they become reality and shape the landscape of the Internet-to-come remains to be seen.

Traditionally the champions of Creative Commons and other, more open methods of IP protection and creative sharing of content online, EFF is now calling out a bevy of big-name media corporations to make examples of them for takedown abuse. According to the EFF blog, "Some of the web's most interesting content has been yanked from popular websites with bogus copyright claims or other spurious legal threats." Read on to see who made the list and why.

"But that hasn't stopped thin-skinned corporations and others from abusing the legal system to get these new works removed from the Internet. We wanted to document this censorship for all to see."

Some of the entities that have made EFF's roundup are as follows:

• NPR, for attempting to stifle a video criticizing same-sex marriage
• DeBeers, for its humorless response to an online parody
• NBC, for issuing a takedown for a satirical Obama video that went viral
• And a personal favorite, Ralph Lauren, who shot out a few takedowns after our good friends at Photoshop Disasters pointed out that, even in already thin models, a woman's head is not likely to be wider than her pelvis

Other honorees include Warner Music Group, CBS News, Universal Music Publishing Group, and the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association.

Is the EFF conducting a witchhunt here, dear readers? Are some of these copyright claims warranted? Or do you, in fact, have an egregious takedown of your own to report? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

Update: According to Google, "the removal appears to be an internal error and not part of a DMCA request."

According to Chilling Effects, a clearinghouse for DMCA takedown notices, the complaint was apparently sent by an adult entertainment company, Gwen Media's Destined Enterprises, which has filed similar complaints with Google before. According to TorrentFreak, the complaint was sent by RemoveYourContent, a company that specializes in sending out DMCA complaints for the adult entertainment industry.

For the time being, the effect of this takedown notice is that PirateBay.com, a scam site that really shouldn't appear in Google's index, now sits at the top of the search results.

It's important to note, though, that this is far from the first time that Google has deleted search results after receiving takedown notices. To the best of our knowledge, however, this is the first time a well-known site like the Pirate Bay has been affected by this.

If you haven't been following the developments in this case closely, here is a quick recap: Firas Alkhateeb, a 20-year-old student in Chicago, created an image that showed President Obama wearing the makeup of the Joker from the last Batman movie. To do so, he used an image of Obama that appeared on the cover of Time magazine on October 23, 2006. According to the LA Times, he uploaded this picture to Flickr on January 18, 2009. By August, someone added the word "socialism" underneath the picture, and it was widely circulated among political bloggers and also started to appear on posters at political rallies.

So far, so good. Even if you don't agree with the politics behind this picture, this is what the online mashup culture is all about. By the middle of August, however, Flickr received a DMCA take-down notice, claiming that the image infringed on somebody's copyright. Complying with the law, Flickr deleted the image from Alkhateeb's account. The problem, however, is that Flickr never shared who actually initiated the take-down notice.

Fake Take-Down Notices on Flickr: They Work

It is starting to become clear now that the take-down notice that Flickr and Alkhateeb received was completely bogus. According to Thomas Hawk, it didn't even feature the name of anyone who owned the copyright to any part of the image. PDN has verified that neither Time magazine, nor DC Comics, nor the photographer who took the Time magazine cover image filed this claim. These are the parties that could potentially claim that their copyright was violated by this image, even though, because this is a parody, their legal claims would be on shaky ground. Instead, the name on the document, according to Hawk, is "bogus."

To make matters worse, Flickr user 3e actually verified that Flickr really doesn't check the names on these notices. 3e just submitted a claim to take down one of his own pictures with a "once-off email address, using the name 'Joe Blow' and giving no identifying information other than an obviously fake address ("Anytown, USA")." Flickr happily obliged and 3e's photo was gone within hours.

If you don't like a picture on Flickr for any reason, you can just have it deleted by sending a DMCA take-down notice. We can only hope that Flickr will institute a better verification process in the near future.

As of now, Flickr doesn't even have the capability to restore an image after it has been deleted. YouTube, which probably has to deal with far more DMCA take-down notices every day than Flickr, at least offers users a recourse to have videos restored if the copyright claim can't be verified.

Nevertheless, in the case of this wedding video, Sony (copyright owners of Forever) chose to capitalize on the clip's success rather than blocking the file. They added a simple pop-up overlay that offers users a chance to purchase the song from iTunes or Amazon. According to YouTube, in the last week, the year-old song has risen to #4 on the iTunes charts and #3 on Amazon.

To Google's glee, Sony's success in working with users is likely to inspire other copyright owners to rethink their past actions with DMCA take-down notices. And this would be a welcome change for many. Take downs have shown a history of hurting user morale, reducing valuable community content and decreasing channels of monetization for content hosts. In the case of the wedding video, while it's obvious that Sony made money, YouTube has likely earned profit from AdWords as well as referral revenue from Amazon and iTunes.

Because Sony left the wedding video up, the community continues to receive free hosting and feedback, the copyright owners profit from their licensed goods, YouTube earns new revenue, and the remix community continues to proliferate. Since last week, some of the remixes and re-creations include the Divorce Entrance Dance, a WIS-TV anchor version and the couple's own appearance on the Today Show.

Perhaps most successful is University of Ottawa professor, Michael Geist's, outspoken stance against the introduction of the Canadian DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). A little over a year ago, Geist launched his Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook Group in the hopes of educating the public about a bill he saw as a "sell out to American pressure". Geist believed that Bill C-60 would have effectively duplicated American copyright legislation and created an unfair imbalance between copyright holders and general consumers. Thousands of Canadians agreed and the Fair Copyright Facebook group gained widespread popularity.

On the day the DMCA was to be voted upon, the Facebook group had more than 25,000 members and Federal Industry Minister Jim Prentice dissolved the legislation in favor of further analysis. While there was no admittance from the Minister that online resistance was the reason, Industry opposition Charlie Angus exclaimed, "They tabled the bill this morning, now 3 hours later he tells me they've got cold feet? Did they just discover Facebook this morning?"

Whether Canadians like it or not, Facebook has changed the landscape of Canadian politics. Geist's Fair Copyright for Canada group currently has more than 89,000 members, and he was named the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer of 2008. Meanwhile, the Conservative government has promised to reintroduce the DMCA, but no date has been set in legislature. For more on the Geist and the Facebook group, check out the coverage on CBC's The Hour.

In return, Craigslist has now filed its own suit in federal court in South Carolina, "seeking declaratory relief and a restraining order with respect to criminal charges he [McMaster] has repeatedly threatened against Craigslist and its executives."

In his ultimatum, McMaster asks Craigslist to "remove the portions of the Internet site dedicated to South Carolina and its municipal regions which contain categories for and functions allowing for the solicitation of prostitution and the dissemination and posting of graphic pornographic material" within ten (10) days." Given that anybody can post anything on Craigslist (except for the new 'Adult Services' section, which is now closely monitored), this is far too broad a statement and Buckmaster rightly argues that Craigslist would just have to close shop in South Carolina.

The South Carolina "adult services" section of Craigslist currently only features a few ads, and they are about as tame as the ads for chatlines for singles that run on late-night TV all over the country. At this point, most ads just feature a (non-pornographic) photo and a phone number.

A number of legal experts have argued that the "safe harbor" provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) protects Craigslist from criminal prosecution, as, according to the DMCA, an "interactive computer service" can not be held responsible for content posted on the service's site.

In order to make an iPod work with an alternative software program - like gtkpod, Winamp, and Songbird, for example - developers need to understand a file called iTunesDB. To prevent people from writing to this file, Apple protects it with a checksum hash which has to be reverse-engineered. Usually that process only takes a couple of days.

With the latest iTunes update, Apple has once again changed the hash, meaning it needs to be reverse-engineered again. The developers doing so collaborate together and share their thoughts on iPodhash, an open-source project hosted on Bluwiki, a free web site that lets users create wiki pages.

Now Apple has asked for that site to come down, a request that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) says is out of line. Earlier this month, a lawyer from Apple's legal firm O'Melveny & Myers sent out a takedown notice to the site stating the content was illegal under the terms of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). According to the cease-and-desist email, the site is "disseminating information designed to circumvent Apple's FairPlay digital rights management system." It continued, "FairPlay is considered anti-circumvention technology under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA explicitly prohibits the dissemination of information that can be used to circumvent such technology."

The EFF has jumped on this case, saying that Apple "doesn't have a DMCA leg to stand on." According to EFF senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann, this move is effectively bending the law in order to stifle free speech. "Apple is essentially saying here that people can't even talk about the mechanisms that Apple uses to lock in its music to the iTunes software," he said.

The EFF web site goes into more details as to why the EFF believes Apple to be in the wrong, listing the numerous reasons why there's no DMCA violation on the site.

Where Does This Leave The Linux Community?

Since the Bluwiki site has complied with the takedown notice, the question is where does this leave the Linux community now? The main reason for the iPodhash project's existence is due to the fact that Apple does not provide a version of iTunes that runs on Linux. The project is an important community effort that helps Linux users create software programs that work with their iPods and iPhones.

Bluwiki's founder, Sam Odio, had said he was unsure if putting the site back online would be possible. Says Odio of his compliance with the takedown notice, "I regret having to do this. I may be able to put the site back online, but quite honestly it's unlikely because I can't afford a legal battle with Apple." Luckily for him, the EFF is now involved, so he will not have to worry with the legal fees.

Apple may only be protecting their very profitable iTunes business, but in this case, they're suggesting that the DMCA covers people merely talking about technical protection measures. If that's so, then as EFF says, "they've got a serious First Amendment problem."

You can follow this case's progress on the EFF's web site, Odio's blog, and on the iPodhash project's homepage.

Even though Joost does not rely on its P2P architecture anymore, the video quality is still high, especially in full-screen mode, but it does not rival that of the 'HD' offering of ABC or Vimeo.

More Social

Joost has also added a wealth of social features to its site. You can now easily share videos with your friends on Joost and join one of the newly established Joost groups. Also, everything you watch is stored in your 'JoostFeed,' which you can choose to make public. If you really do not want your friends to know that you have been watching Brittany Spears videos all night again, you can also turn on a 'Stealth Mode.'

Because of its reliance on a plugin, however, Joost does not offer the ability to embed videos yet. We assume that this feature will be available once Joost has moved over to using Flash.

Too Little, Too Late?

Overall, we think it was about time for Joost to move to the browser. However, a lot of what Joost set out to do in 2006 has already been done on the web. Its biggest competitor is probably Hulu, which has content deals with almost every large TV network and is slowly adding more HD content. Joost will have a hard time competing, unless it can sign up a similarly large number of quality content producers.