To ensure a high-quality experience for its entire subscriber base, XOHM may use various tools and techniques designed to limit the bandwidth available for certain bandwidth intensive applications or protocols, such as file sharing.

AT&T has a similar provision on its 3G network, using the (legitimate) argument to keep the FCC off its ass that it's wireless and it simply couldn't handle the traffic.

However, WiMax is promising to be something else entirely—a third pipe (i.e., an alternative to DSL or cable from the big boys), and an open one at that. True, it's right out the gate, barely meeting its promised September launch, but not being able to actually use all that bandwidth it's touting doesn't make it very compelling, to say the least. [Xohm via Silicon Alley Insider]

• He asked Congress to spend $1 billion to monitor peer-to-peer activity. (In fairness, much of this is to prevent child pornography, but the tactic is apparently a little blunt.)

• Two Biden bills have been explicitly anti-encryption, because you know, encryption makes it hard for the FBI to read people's e-mails.

• He has expressed support for internet taxes and internet filtering in schools and libraries.

• The RIAA seems to be one of his best buddies: Biden sponsored a bill that would restrict recording of songs from satellite and net radio, and another one that would make it a felony to "trick" a computer into playing back unauthorized songs or running bootlegged videogames. That latter one died when Verizon, Microsoft, Apple, eBay and Yahoo all argued against it.

• Biden was one of just four senators invited to attend a celebration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hosted by the MPAA's Jack Valenti and the RIAA's Hillary Rosen, two of American file-sharer's most wanted.

• When he was asked in 2006 about proposing net-neutrality laws, he said there was no need, since any bit-filtering violations would provoke such a huge public ruckus they'd have to hold congressional hearings anyway—and they'd be standing-room only. (Wonder if Biden reads Gizmodo.) [CNet]

Though the European Parliament has plenty of power, this particular legislation seems to be more for advisory purposes. The BBC says:

The vote has no legal force and leaves national governments free to implement their own anti-piracy plans. But, said the Open Rights Group, it does "signify resistance" among European law makers to the strict measures that nations such as France are implementing.

It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings on his computer ... Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the ".mp3" format. ... Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife's use.

As part of her appeal, she filed to have the damages ruled unconstitutional in their heft, given that they cost labels about 70 cents a song. The Copyright Act allows for statutory damages up to $150,000 a song, which the RIAA argued (and the DoJ agrees) don't have to be anywhere near actual damages. If you want the legalese it goes like this:

Statutory damages compensate those wronged in areas in which actual damages are hard to quantify in addition to providing deterrence to those inclined to commit a public wrong.

[G]iven the findings of copyright infringement in this case, the damages awarded under the Copyright Act's statutory damages provision did not violate the Due Process Clause; they were not 'so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable.

The damages—again, over $9000 a song—might be not "obviously unreasonable" but that doesn't mean they're not fucking unreasonable. [Ars, Image via Flickr]

It's 80 pages long and I am far too busy/lazy to read through the entire thing, but it looks like the general gist of it is that file sharing supports terrorism and corrupts our children. It claims that peer-to-peer networks increase the chances of government workers sharing sensitive data, which is kind of a stupid argument (let's ban phones, while we're at it, so they can't call people and tell them secrets).

An even more backwards argument is that by exposing kids to P2P software they are at a higher risk to pirate music, therefore be sued by copyright holders. The bad news about all this? It will make people protecting their copyrights seem antagonistic. Actually, the copyright holders that are being antagonistic are the ones making themselves seem that way, chief. If any of you out there with too much free time on your hands wants to comb through this beast for some fun quotes, pass em along and we'll post the best ones. –Adam Frucci

Shadowmonkey [via Fark]

Sounds like that Internet bubble is expanding again. There's got to be a catch. – Charlie White

divShare Site [Diversion Web Publishing, LLC]