Companies with a long history of paying dividends and consistently hiking them remain appealing to income-focused investors. Gilead Sciences, Verizon Communications and ManpowerGroup have rewarded their shareholders for several decades and recently ...

Gilead Sciences, Verizon Communications And ManpowerGroup Are Winners For Passive Income

MOVEit drove a big chunk of the increase, but social engineering and failure to patch led to a doubling of data breaches since 2023, said Verizon Business.

Verizon DBIR: Basic Security Gaffes Cause Breach Surge

Attacks targeting unpatched systems and devices now account for 14% of all breaches, according to the Verizon data breach report.

Verizon Data Breach Report: Bad Actors Are Exploiting Vulnerabilities Way More Than They Did Last Year - Telecompetitor

CJ Website | LinkedIn 0:00 /0:08 1× Verizon, Capital One Shopping &amp; CJ Grow 775% With Targeted Offers &amp; Content Over two decades, the collaboration between Sephora and Rakuten Advertising has consistently propelled Sephora to the forefront of the beauty industry.

Best Technology & Telecoms Partnership – Verizon, Capital One Shopping, and CJ

Verizon executives warned that cyber defenders are struggling with fatigue amid a surge in cyberattacks targeting zero-day exploits and other vulnerabilities. It

Verizon DBIR: Cyber Defenders Are Facing Exploit Fatigue

Through its cloud platform for network functions, Verizon has opted for the do-it-yourself route when it comes to placing 5G core and other functions into the cloud.

Verizon boasts 'own' cloud platform after dissing hyperscaler deals

Healthcare news, analysis, guidance, and strategy for hospital and health system leaders related to healthcare technology.

5 key takeways from Verizon's 2024 Data Breach Investigations Report

Data breaches and attempted data breaches doubled between 2022 and 2023.

Verizon: Online security incidents reach new high in 2023 | Chain Store Age

With its current low P/E ratio and generous yield, any growth could trigger a valuation expansion for Verizon Communications. Find out if VZ stock is a buy.

Verizon: Poised To Break Out (Technical Analysis) (NYSE:VZ) | Seeking Alpha

Verizon Communications

verizon

. This brings insight from the company’s large cyber-security incident investigation operation to enterprises. Verizon announced a new threat intelligence platform This means that cyber-security threat intelligence that’s derived from Verizon’s network is being available through integration with Anomali Threat Platform. Because of Verizon’s new announcement, we can see that they are attempting to add threat intelligence within their overall infrastructure. The intelligence that Verizon provides benefits from it’s Verizon Risk Report (VRR) and Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR). Both can be used to provide more insight into finding cyber risks. “We’re in a special place within the security context because we are placed between victims and the cyber criminals that attack them”, Bryan Sartin, the executive director of Verizon’s Global Security Services told eWEEK, “This places us in a position of using certain optics, and is a by-product of the optics and creating intelligence that can make a difference for detection, and in response to severe cyber attacks that are in motion”. Verizon is now making plans to take cyber attack history and intelligence and makes it available to help identify recent and previous threats, according to Bryan. For instance, he said that a company could search and check to see if there is an IP address that’s been seen before an associated risk level and an attack. Types of Threat Intelligence With Verizon’s new development of threat intelligence, it leaves the open question “What types of threat intelligence platforms are out there?”. Knowing each form of threat intelligence platform will help you create a system to help your IT team. Threat Intelligence Platforms Threat intelligence platforms are used to organize feeds of data (up to the thousands) into single containers. The platforms allow you to configure alerts on your data from feeds and helps by making it consumable by removing extra entries and enabling you to prioritize these data sources. The advantage of using a is that you can configure alerts on data from feeds and makes it more consumable by removing additional entries and allows you to prioritize the sources of data. threat intelligence platform The biggest advantage of this platform has over threat feeds is its integration with incident response platforms or SIEMs. And you can bring in any form of threat data that you have access to in a central view. On the other hand, your IT team still has to configure every feed, and there isn’t a real analysis of the data until it reaches a person. Ultimately, your threat intelligence platform will only be as good as the data you place into it. Without having real context around indicators, security teams will have issues trying to investigate every issue available, realize it’s not possible, and risk not being able to respond to issues altogether. Threat Data Feed Providers These data feeds are a main point for making threat intelligence programs. This is because it gives users potential threat indicators such as file hashes, IP addresses, and domains. The issue is that while the data can arrive quickly, there is no context to those indicators. On its own, the data is unable to answer important questions such as: Are there any indicators that are connected to the attack? Are they related to a malware program? What role do they play in creating a dangerous infrastructure? Human Intelligence Service and Providers This service has their roots in a system called HUMIT (military tradition of human intelligence). At first, HUMIT was used by humans to help assist other humans, but this process evolved to humans analyzing and collecting data from machine and human sources to show information on ongoing and emerging threats — in this scenario, cyber threats. For instance, human analysts can work from a single incident to create a picture of procedures, techniques, and tactics that help make an intelligence report that can be useful for other industries that are affected. Usually, these reports display the information in full detail. The results of the report can be updated to a searchable database for users to access later on. The only drawback of this threat intelligence platform is that the data needs to be collected manually. This data can be gathered from a multitude of random or inappropriate sources (deep web, dark web, open web). This means that it can take a significant amount of time to be produced. Leading service providers start to make use of machine learning techniques and advanced analytics to increase analytical efficiency since the reports can be made faster without removing the vital context. Complete Threat Detection Solution A complete threat detection solution brings together the functionality and capabilities of feeds, platforms, and providers, with each of these pieces giving users the opportunity to receive the most from intelligence that’s available. They are designed to retrieve data from multiple sources to make it in a real-time view. One would expect that machine learning and automation capabilities that can connect the dots automatically and provide context across through these sources to make some threat content. Plus, this type of technology was made to provide a solution faster than that of a human analyst, resulting in faster intelligence. Complete threat detection solution will allow users to centralize any form of data that you have access to. And it lets you customize the intelligence for integrating with other parts of security intelligence. The advantage of this solution is obvious. Users can use technology that can balance the access to makes it suitable for complete threat intelligence. This makes it easier for users to stay with one vendor that can acknowledge your technology demands. And, you’ll be able to keep your company safe from any inside and outside threats. Conclusion We believe that the future of threat intelligence platforms will have more responsive machine learning systems. Since Verizon is creating their own platform, we can see that large corporations are starting to take charge in the right direction. Conclusively, as threat intelligence technology grows, it will save businesses time, money, and help them effectively solve problems. Do you have any questions related to threat intelligence? Tell us in the comments below! Sources: //threatconnect.com/blog/how-retailers-get-started-with-threatconnect/ //www.recordedfuture.com/threat-intelligence-vendors/ //www.enisa.europa.eu/news/enisa-news/enisa-publishes-first-study-on-cyber-threat-intelligence-platforms

The Strategy Behind Verizon‘s New Threat Intelligence Platform

We Discovered Disparities in Internet Deals: Here's How We Did It

An investigation by The Markup found that AT&T, Verizon, EarthLink, and CenturyLink disproportionately offered lower-income and least-White neighborhoods slow internet service for the same price as speedy connections they offered in other parts of town. Credit: Joel Eastwood and Gabe Hongsdusit. Sources: The Markup analysis of AT&T, CenturyLink, Verizon; U.S. Census Bureau This Article Is Copublished With A.P. News Read on our collaborator's site A couple of years into the pandemic, Shirley Neville had finally had enough of her crappy internet service. “It was just a headache,” said Neville, who lives in a middle-class neighborhood in New Orleans whose residents are almost all Black or Latino. “When I was getting ready to use my tablet for a meeting, it was cutting off and not coming on.” Neville said she was willing to pay more to be able to Zoom without interruption, so she called AT&T to upgrade her connection. She said she was told there was nothing the company could do. In her area, AT&T only offers download speeds of 1 megabit per second or less, trapping her in a digital Stone Age. Her internet is so slow that it doesn’t meet Zoom’s minimum for group video calls, doesn’t come close to the FCC’s of broadband, currently 25 Mbps, and is worlds below median home internet speeds in the U.S., which 167 Mbps. recommended definition average “In my neighborhood, it’s terrible,” Neville said. But that’s not the case in other parts of New Orleans. AT&T offers residents of the mostly White, upper-income neighborhood of Lakeview internet speeds almost 400 times faster than Neville’s—for the same price: $55 a month. The vast gulf between the quality of service AT&T offered these neighborhoods for the same cost is not a fluke. The Markup gathered and analyzed more than 800,000 internet service offers from AT&T, Verizon, Earthlink, and CenturyLink in 38 cities across America and found that all four routinely offered fast base speeds at or above 200 Mbps in some neighborhoods for the same price as connections below 25 Mbps in others. The neighborhoods offered the worst deals had lower median incomes in nine out of 10 cities in the analysis. In two-thirds of the cities where The Markup had enough data to compare, the providers gave the worst offers to the least-White neighborhoods. These providers also disproportionately gave the worst offers to formerly redlined areas in every one of the 22 cities examined where historical maps were available. digitized These are areas a since-disbanded agency created by the federal government in the 1930s had deemed “hazardous” for financial institutions to invest in, often because the residents were Black or poor. Redlining was outlawed in 1968. By failing to price according to service speed, these companies are demanding some customers pay dramatically higher unit prices for advertised download speed than others. CenturyLink, which showed the most extreme disparities, offered some customers service of 200 Mbps, amounting to as little as $0.25 per Mbps, but offered others living in the same city only 0.5 Mbps for 400 times as much—$100 per Mbps. Residents of neighborhoods offered the worst deals aren’t just being ripped off; they’re denied the ability to participate in remote learning, well-paying remote jobs, and even family connection and recreation—ubiquitous elements of modern life. “It isn’t just about the provision of a better service. It’s about access to the tools people need to fully participate in our democratic system,” said Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. “That is a far bigger deal and that’s what really worries me about what you’re finding.” Christopher Lewis, president and CEO of the nonprofit Public Knowledge, which works to expand internet access, said The Markup’s analysis shows how far behind the federal government is when it comes to holding internet providers to account. “Nowhere have we seen either the FCC nor the Congress, who ultimately has authority as well, study competition in the marketplace and pricing to see if consumers are being price gouged or if those service offerings make sense.” None of the providers denied charging the same fee for vastly different internet speeds to different neighborhoods in the same cities. But they said their intentions were not to discriminate against communities of color and that there were other factors to consider. The industry group USTelecom, speaking on behalf of Verizon, said the cost of maintaining the antiquated equipment used for slow speed service plays a role in its price. “Fiber can be hundreds of times faster than legacy broadband—but that doesn’t mean that legacy networks cost hundreds of times less,” USTelecom senior vice president Marie Johnson said in an email. “Operating and maintaining legacy technologies can be more expensive, especially as legacy network components are discontinued by equipment manufacturers.” AT&T spokesperson Jim Greer said in an emailed statement that The Markup’s analysis is “fundamentally flawed” because it “clearly ignored our participation in the federal Affordable Connectivity Program and our low-cost Access by AT&T service offerings.” The Affordable Connectivity Program was launched in 2021 and pays up to $30 a month for internet for low-income residents, or $75 on tribal lands. “Any suggestion that we discriminate in providing internet access is blatantly wrong,” he said, adding that AT&T plans on spending $48 billion on service upgrades over the next two years. Recent looking at 30 major cities found only about a third of eligible households for the federal subsidy, however, and use it to help cover cellphone bills, which also qualify, rather than home internet costs. research had signed up the majority Connectivity advocates told The Markup that it’s hard to get people to jump through the bureaucratic hoops needed to sign up for the program when service is slow. Greer declined to say how many or what percentage of AT&T’s internet customers are signed up for either the ACP or the company’s own low-cost program for low-income residents. In a to the FCC, AT&T insisted its high-speed internet deployments are driven by “household density, not median incomes.” letter But when The Markup ran a statistical test controlling for density, it still found AT&T disproportionately offered slower speeds to lower-income areas in three out of four of the 20 cities where we investigated their service. “We do not engage in discriminatory practices like redlining and find the accusation offensive,” Mark Molzen, a spokesperson for CenturyLink’s parent company, Lumen, wrote in an email. He said that The Markup’s analysis is “deeply flawed” without specifying how. He did not respond to requests for clarification. EarthLink, which doesn’t own internet infrastructure in the examined cities but rather rents capacity from other providers, did not provide an official comment despite repeated requests. Internet prices are not regulated by the federal government because unlike telephone service, internet service is not considered a utility. As a result, providers can make their own decisions about where they provide service and how much to charge. The FCC declined a request to comment on the findings. The investigation is based on service offers collected from the companies’ own websites, which contain service lookup tools that list all available plans for specific addresses, using a method pioneered by researchers at . Princeton The Markup analyzed price and speed for nearly 850,000 offers for addresses in the largest city in 38 states where these providers operate. //themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-megabits-you-may-be-paying-400-times-as-much-as-your-neighbor-for-internet-service?embedable=true#in-most-cities-poorer-neighborhoods-were-offered-worse-internet-plans-more-often Las Vegas is one city where large swaths of CenturyLink’s offers were for slow service. Almost half didn’t meet the current federal definition of broadband. These fell disproportionately on Las Vegas’s lower-income and least-White areas. Las Vegas councilwoman Olivia Diaz said that in the summer of 2020, she approached families where children had stopped showing up to virtual lessons the previous school year to find out what went wrong. City schools were preparing to begin their second school year marked by COVID-19 lockdowns. “We kept hearing there were multiple children trying to connect in the household, but they weren’t able to,” said Diaz, who represents a district that’s predominantly Latino and on the lower end of the city’s income spectrum. More than 80 percent of CenturyLink’s internet offers in her district were for service slower than 25 Mbps. Education advocacy group Common Sense Media recommends at least 200 Mbps download speeds for a household to reliably conduct multiple, simultaneous video conferencing sessions. “I think it’s unfair knowing that it is slow service that we’re paying for that is not commensurate with the faster speeds that they have in the other parts of the city that are paying the same price,” Diaz said. “It just breaks my heart to know we’re not getting the best bang for our buck.” Diaz said city officials have asked CenturyLink to expand high-speed service in her district, but the company declined, citing the prohibitive cost of deploying new infrastructure in the area. CenturyLink did not respond to emails asking about this request. Some officials told The Markup they’ve been yelling for years about bad service for high prices. “If I was paying $6 a month,” Joshua Edmonds, Detroit’s director of digital inclusion, “well you get what you’re paying for.” But he objects to people being asked to pay premium rates for bad service. “What I pay versus what I get doesn’t really make sense.” In a 2018 , Bill Callahan, who runs the online accessibility organization , coined the term “tier flattening” to describe charging internet customers the same rate for differing levels of service. report Connect Your Community He said The Markup’s findings show how much of America’s internet market is based on the “basic unfairness” of internet service providers deciding to deprioritize investing in new, high-speed infrastructure in marginalized areas. “They’ve made a decision that those neighborhoods are going to be treated differently,” said Callahan. “The core reason for that is they think they don’t have enough money in those neighborhoods to sustain the kind of market they want.” The FCC under a provision of the 2021 infrastructure bill aimed at “preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin.” is currently drafting rules A coalition of 39 groups led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Accessible Technology to take aggressive action rectifying broadband inequality by examining the socioeconomics of the neighborhoods getting the slowest speeds and the prices they pay—regardless of whether the companies intended to discriminate. urged the FCC //themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-megabits-you-may-be-paying-400-times-as-much-as-your-neighbor-for-internet-service?embedable=true#in-most-cities-households-in-the-least-white-areas-were-offered-the-worse-internet-plans-much-more-often AT&T insisted in filings with the agency that the standard for discrimination should be explicit, deliberate efforts to avoid building infrastructure in areas that are populated by people of color or lower-income residents. It also asked for subsidies to build high-speed internet in lower-income neighborhoods because, as AT&T asserted in its to the FCC, “most or all deficiencies in broadband access appear to result not from invidious discrimination, but from ordinary business-case challenges in the absence of subsidy programs.” letter Advocates say that’s just not true. “There are very few places in the country where it is not economically feasible to deploy broadband,” said Brian Thorn, who served as a senior researcher for the Communication Workers of America, a union representing telecom employees, which has been vocal on the issue and to the FCC. filed its own comment (Full disclosure: The CWA is the parent union of The NewsGuild-CWA, which represents The Markup’s employees.) He said members are tired of seeing their employers make inequitable infrastructure deployment decisions. “We would hear from members all the time that they’re out laying lines on one side of the neighborhood and not on the other,” he said. In a to the FCC, the coalition asserted that “broadband users are experiencing discriminatory impacts of deployment that are no different than the impacts of past redlining policies in housing, banking, and other venues of economic activity.” letter The term “redlining” derives from efforts by the federal government to stem the tide of foreclosures during the Great Depression by drawing up maps, with the help of real estate agents, to identify areas that were safe for mortgage lending. Predominantly White neighborhoods were consistently rated better than less-White neighborhoods, which were shaded in red. Echoes of these maps still reverberate today in things like and . rates of home ownership prenatal mortality on the historical map explaining why one part of Kansas City, Mo., was redlined cited “Negro encroachment from the north.” Notes In that same area, AT&T offered only slow service to every single address The Markup examined. Across Kansas City, AT&T offered the worst deals to 68 percent of addresses in redlined areas, compared to just 12 percent of addresses in areas that had been rated “best” or “desirable.” //themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-megabits-you-may-be-paying-400-times-as-much-as-your-neighbor-for-internet-service?embedable=true#2022-broadband_kansas_city_redlining Redlining maps frequently tracked neatly with the disparities The Markup found. Addresses in redlined areas of 15 cities from Portland to Atlanta were offered the worst deals at least twice as often as areas rated “best” or “desirable.” Minneapolis, which is served by CenturyLink, displayed one of the most striking disparities: Formerly redlined addresses were offered the worst deals almost eight times as often as formerly better-rated areas. Pamela Jackson-Walters, a 68-year-old longtime resident of Detroit’s Hope Village, said she needs the internet to work on her dissertation in organizational leadership at University of Phoenix online and to virtually attend church services. The slow speeds AT&T offered were a constant annoyance. “They still haven’t installed the high-speed internet over here,” she said. “How do we get it? Are we too poor of a neighborhood to have the better service?” Hope Village has a per capita income of just over $11,000 and is almost entirely Black. To add insult to injury, last fall, AT&T internet service across Hope Village went down for 45 days before being restored. This summer, Jackson-Walters’s internet went down again, this time for four weeks, she said. Jeff Jones, another longtime Hope Village resident, noted a bitter irony amid all the service problems. “To add to the insult, I can look out my bedroom window literally, maybe 150 yards, is the AT&T service facility,” he said with a weary laugh. “I’m like, please help me! You’re right there! How can you ignore this problem that is just right in front of your face?” Until The Markup told Hope Village residents its findings about AT&T’s pricing practices in Detroit, they didn’t know that lower-income areas were more often asked to pay the same price for slower internet. “That’s the big piece,” said Angela Siefer, the executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, which advocates for broadband access. “Folks don’t know that they’re being screwed.” Credits: & Leon Yin Aaron Sankin Also published here Photo by on Thomas Jensen Unsplash

Are You Paying 400 Times More for Your Internet Than Your Neighbor? You Might Be

With the breathless pace at which new digital innovations are emerging every day, many are now wondering when broadband will finally be rendered obsolete. Despite the possibility of alternatives like 5G taking over, however, many critics and proponents of broadband alike have yet to really determine once and for all whether it can replace broadband entirely. Is there a 5G future beyond our current broadband-defined era? Many companies are trying to make a 5G world the new reality, but doubts remain about whether it can truly replace broadband. Cable companies are pushing 5G initiatives Despite the fact that many proponents of broadband argue that 5G is only being pushed by would-be disruptors who want to stiff cable companies, it’s a simple matter of fact that some of today’s biggest industry names are actually pouring hefty sums of investment into 5G technology. Verizon recently claimed that it launched the first real 5G initiative in the world, for instance, and actually asserts that it’s Verizon 5G Home initiative can survive and thrive at the low rate of just $50. Verizon’s new efforts to aren’t entirely honest, however; the company is bragging about providing the first 5G network really as a method of bolstering public awareness about its bold gambit more than anything else. In other words, it’s a clever marketing scheme. Furthermore, not everybody in the areas Verizon is claiming to represent will have access to 5G services, which critics continue to disdain as being lackluster and incapable of living up to their promise. This isn’t to say that broadband isn’t without its own critics, but rather to point out that many of 5G’s most important pioneers have yet to produce the wondrous results they’re promising in terms of affordable network management software. push 5G onto the world Many still posit that 5G can replace broadband over the next decade or so as costs plummet and the availability of services, like Botox, picks up. After all, many people who presently rely on broadband are sick and tired of their service and in dire need of an overhaul, especially for those in rural areas. Despite continued innovation within the realm of digital technology, rural broadband access remains one of the most pressing problems of the developed world, with poor people in isolated communities struggling to gain internet access. This is causing a hefty demand for alternatives to broadband which some proponents of 5G see as a valuable opportunity to show their stuff to the world. 5G is better, but it’s not quite revolutionary The simple reality of modern telecommunications technologies and their associated infrastructure is that the world isn’t yet ready for 5G. This isn’t to say that investment won’t keep picking up in 5G services, or that cellphones and digital services of the future won’t enjoy faster speeds and more secure connections, but rather to state the obvious that wired connections are likely here to stay. Companies that are very clear about their deals know this. Despite the fact that many consumers despise the downsides of broadband, it’s still fast and reliable in a number of ways that 5G services simply aren’t right now. 5G will have provide many benefits to those who opt to invest in it, but wired internet services will always remain the more secure and cheaper option for a enough people that broadband will endure. Modern 5G initiatives should really be viewed as little more than live betas of an exciting innovation that’s yet to truly come into its own. Verizon’s famous gambit in particular is likely just a laboratory experiment being conducted with little intention of taking it national. Nonetheless, images of a home internet replacement will continue to tantalize investors and savvy IT professionals for years to come. Broadband just isn’t that popular in many cases, especially in rural areas where wire services are so shoddy that in some cases they literally don’t exist at all. In these communities, the allure of 5G technologies will seem almost irresistible, and many marketing experts and digital professionals will doubtlessly push exciting new 5G services to these areas in an effort to vacuum up some additional funding for themselves. Replacing broadband entirely, however, is a herculean task that even the best 5G networks will likely find themselves incapable of achieving. It’s true that 5G technology is about to change the way we receive our internet services, and companies like Verizon will doubtlessly keep pushing this new innovation for as long as they see the potential to profit from it. Nonetheless, consumers shouldn’t fear a widespread end of their broadband services and those who are pushing for a 5G-dominated future should consider stepping on the breaks until this new technology has proven itself a little more. The rise of 5G, as impressive as it is, simply isn’t enough to displace broadband entirely. The hectic pace of the digital age has upended many ways of doing business, but some established monoliths like broadband services likely won’t be going away anytime soon.

Can 5G Replace Broadband?

This is the memo Marissa Mayer meant to send Yahoo employees Editor’s note: We have obtained what appears to be an early draft of a memo allegedly written by Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer. It was found last night on an abandoned thumb drive in the parking lot of a Pollos Hermanos restaurant, shortly after the 2-for-1 margarita happy hour. Though we cannot vouch for its authenticity, we present it for your consideration: Beloved Yahoos: As you’ve probably read on the Internet by now, Yahoo has finalized a deal to transfer its operating business to Verizon Communications. This is a great day for all who wear the purple, not just those of us who stand to take home hundreds of millions of dollars with this transaction. Yahoo is a company that changed the world. Before Yahoo, the Internet was just a bunch of nerds eating chimichangas while playing Magic: The Gathering in their mom’s basement. Yahoo brought the Internet to everyone, including people who probably should not be allowed anywhere near a keyboard. I am extremely proud of all we accomplished in the 4 years, 9 days, 8 hours, and 27 minutes I have served as CEO. As we embark upon a new adventure as Verizonauts, I’d like to reflect on our journey to date. Over the last four years we: * Acquired Tumblr and maintained its position as one of the most tastefully curated collections of GIF pornography on the Web. * Proudly maintained Yahoo’s position in the Guinness Book of World Records for the World’s Largest Yodel. * Served as the launch pad for hundreds of new startups, many of them operating under Yahoo’s own roof while their founders drew a much-needed regular paycheck. * Launched a groundbreaking series of cold and hot luncheon options. * Acqui-hired top talent from hundreds of startups that no one outside their own walls had ever heard of, briefly rescuing them from obscurity before sending them back again. * Created billions of dollars of new value, mostly in the form of restricted stock units for executives who were acqui-hired and are no longer with the company. * Helped to add such colorful terms as “resting and vesting,” “snackin’ and slackin,” and “twerkin’ not workin’’’ to our industry’s vernacular. * Created one of the industry’s first sites devoted exclusively to eSports, causing tens of thousands of people to say, “What the f**k is eSports?” * Initiated a much needed overhaul of the Nautilus equipment in the corporate workout center (slated to be completed in December 2018). * Burning Love, Sin City Saints, and Other Space FTW!!! * Achieved unparalleled levels of corporate opacity with our vaunted FYI weekly speaking series; by the end, even I couldn’t understand what anyone was talking about. * Single-handedly kept Kim, Kanye, Kourtney, Khloe, Kris, Kylie, Kendall, Korky, and (K)aitlyn at the front of America’s Konsciousness. * Continued to pioneer the use of pointless punctuation in company logos. Of course, there is still much work to be done managing the transition of Yahoo’s vast content holdings to its new Verizon masters. To help smooth the transition I have appointed a special team composed of Level 1 executives who have not yet cashed out their stock options and assigned them the inevitable horsey acronym. Our team of CRAVENS will be available 24/7 to not answer your questions and ignore your concerns. For their extraordinary efforts they will receive a healthy retention bonus consisting of thousands of shares of Alibaba stock and their body weight in Kind bars, for as long as supplies last. I will always bleed purple. MM

This is the memo Marissa Mayer meant to send Yahoo employees

Why? For me, self-hosting is like having my own personal playground where I can experiment, tinker, and learn. It’s a great way to explore new technologies, try out different setups, and have fun with my projects. As part of my job, I need to have a deep understanding of developer experience. The best way to build this understanding is to be the developer, both initial experience with any development tool, as well as day-to-day work with these systems. Self-hosting is in a way, building empathy with the developer community. Understanding differences, and good/bad versions. My main reason is “learning.” There are a bunch of other reasons one may choose to do this: Privacy: your data
Full control: You own it (well, both good and bad)
Cost-effective: (may not be always true, but mostly true) You Shouldn’t Do This… But if You Really Want to… I don’t suggest this route for the majority of the people. It’s hard, you’ll hit walls way more frequently than you want. You have to be a warrior. If your reason is similar to mine, go for it. There is a strong determining factor though, your connectivity. Let’s get started. I’ll start the connectivity, then the hardware and software. Sounds Common but Not So Common: It’s a Privilege to Be on Fios While high-speed internet has become more commonplace, it’s still a privilege, especially in the United States. We’re (I’m) definitely taking it for granted. I use Verizon Fios is a fiber internet service. If it wasn’t for this, I wouldn’t self-host my stuff. The big practical separation for Fios is how stable it is, regardless of the “mpbs/gbps” package you have. I used Fios in residential and office setups in New York City for years. I got off as I moved to different neighborhoods, and I really really missed it when I didn’t have it, even though I got 1gbps service packages from other providers. Back in the day when we used dial-ups and tried to play Half-Life (or Counter-Strike) online, your connection speed mattered but “lag” mattered even more. I lived in Turkey back then, and we had a cable internet provider vs ADSL services the difference was that you were getting super low lag/ping in cable network even though you were 1/4, 1/3th of the connection speed you had compared to other services that bragged how fast they were. Didn’t matter when playing online. I have 300/300mbps which is what’s called a “symmetrical” connection. 300mbps is already way higher than the average internet connectivity worldwide (although certain countries/cities regions have way faster networks, overall world citizen gets access to the internet at lower speeds). But it would be ok even if it was slower because it’s a Fiber network, and it’s symmetrical which means download and upload speeds are the same. Often, you see traditional ISPs advertise something ridiculous with high speeds like 500mbps, but it’s often only referred to as download speeds. And in the majority of consumer scenarios, this is fine. But you need the upload speed to be high and consistent/stable when you want to serve upstream. Hardware Since it’s hobby purposes, I initially searched some “old” servers (like servers sitting on racks) on eBay. Then I realized it had a million combinations of hardware components, like CPU architectures, and network interfaces. I quickly went down the rabbit hole of Reddit threads both fun and scary stories. These “serious” server hardware were electric eating, heating sources that are also giant, require space kinda machines turned me off, and I backed out quickly. Then I explored mini PCs, which are more common computers that could handle my applications really easily. Think like you’re looking for a computer that you could use, but instead, you just host stuff and it sits somewhere in your home in a closet, without being a fire risk or a thing that you need to worry about how to keep it cool. I bought an “HP Elite Desk Mini” which is a decent computer if I were to use it as my desktop. It has 16GB memory, an i7 quad-core CPU, and 510 GB SSD. I think I bought it under $150 on Amazon. You can go fancier with a much beefier machine with a few hundred dollars if you’re being much more serious about this. I’m thinking of buying another (same machine) and stacking them. The footprint of this machine is super small. It snuck under my Verizon router in a closet, has almost zero noise, and barely heats. I’m sure if I find an ARM version of this thing (or a Raspberry Pi) I can go smaller and have almost no heat but I’ve never seen overheating on these. Whether this machine is a good or bad hardware decision, it’s debatable, but I’m really happy a few years in. Software: Ubuntu & Docker The first thing I did was to clean it up and install Ubuntu (LTS). Almost bare-bones Ubuntu then right away docker installed. I have Nginx and PHP on it for some early play of a WordPress blog (not this one) but then abandoned it. I run almost everything exclusively in Docker (more on this below). I try to update & upgrade Ubuntu once a year. Nothing else. Access: Cloudflare Zero Trust The machine itself is completely closed to direct internet access. Its IP Tables don’t allow connections even from the local network (except SSH port accepts local network IP range). Traditionally, the machine needs to open ports outside, then have a router port forwarding and set up all public IP sort things. More than 2 decades ago, I did that with static IP from my ISP. Man, all the hustle… None of that is necessary anymore. I use Cloudflare Access and Tunnels which has an agent always running in the server, and from remote configuration, I can listen to any internal port (without opening it up) and forward the port directly to a subdomain of my domains. This shortcut the DNS works for me too. On top of that, most of my private apps run on subdomains that are protected by Cloudflare Zero Trust access (only me). I love Cloudflare’s feature that solves 2 to 3 problems at once. One might wonder, what happens if Cloudflare has an outage, and their Zero Trust tools stop working, does it open my apps to the public all of a sudden? No, because my apps are not open to the public in the first place. Zero Trust tunnel has to work in order to open it up to the public, and if Zero Trust authentication is down, the subdomain will also not be accessible (because it’s proxied through Zero Trust “application” record. Worst case scenario, I lose access to my private apps from outside. Even with that, I can SSH to my server and create a tunnel, port forwarding to the specific port the app is running. On a normal day, I simply join to Zero Trust network using Cloudflare’s desktop app WARP, which replaces VPN for me. All things considered, I’m sure there are still holes and paranoia in this plan. You can go through a more traditional route that is not any different than hosting this instance in Digital Ocean or AWS and replicate what you think is “more secure”, but I’m pretty happy with the baseline Cloudflare brings, and solves a few unnecessary things I have to take care (like no need to do reverse proxy for all apps I’m running). Deploy Apps: Portainer + Gitops I use Portainer to both set up deployments and manage my containers. Portainer is essentially a nice UI version of your docker command line tools. But where it shines is the gitops integration that integrates with GitHub via webhooks, so when I push any change to any of my app repos (which all have docker-compose.yml that includes their infra and application configurations), my apps get re-deployed by portainer. This makes spinning up a new app, or an open-source tool in my server, a breeze. I covered Portainer and its gitops integration in this article: Portainer + gitops ❤️: A simple way to deploy and manage your self-hosted applications Why? For me, self-hosting is like having my own personal playground where I can experiment, tinker, and learn. It’s a great way to explore new technologies, try out different setups, and have fun with my projects. As part of my job, I need to have a deep understanding of developer experience. The best way to build this understanding is to be the developer, both initial experience with any development tool, as well as day-to-day work with these systems. Self-hosting is in a way, building empathy with the developer community. Understanding differences, and good/bad versions. My main reason is “learning.” There are a bunch of other reasons one may choose to do this: Privacy: your data Full control: You own it (well, both good and bad) Cost-effective: (may not be always true, but mostly true) Privacy : your data Privacy Full control : You own it (well, both good and bad) Full control Cost-effective : (may not be always true, but mostly true) Cost-effective You Shouldn’t Do This… But if You Really Want to… I don’t suggest this route for the majority of the people. It’s hard, you’ll hit walls way more frequently than you want. You have to be a warrior. If your reason is similar to mine, go for it. There is a strong determining factor though, your connectivity. Let’s get started. I’ll start the connectivity, then the hardware and software. Sounds Common but Not So Common: It’s a Privilege to Be on Fios While high-speed internet has become more commonplace, it’s still a privilege, especially in the United States. We’re (I’m) definitely taking it for granted. I use Verizon Fios is a fiber internet service. If it wasn’t for this, I wouldn’t self-host my stuff. The big practical separation for Fios is how stable it is, regardless of the “mpbs/gbps” package you have. I used Fios in residential and office setups in New York City for years. I got off as I moved to different neighborhoods, and I really really missed it when I didn’t have it, even though I got 1gbps service packages from other providers. Back in the day when we used dial-ups and tried to play Half-Life (or Counter-Strike) online, your connection speed mattered but “lag” mattered even more. I lived in Turkey back then, and we had a cable internet provider vs ADSL services the difference was that you were getting super low lag/ping in cable network even though you were 1/4, 1/3th of the connection speed you had compared to other services that bragged how fast they were. Didn’t matter when playing online. I have 300/300mbps which is what’s called a “symmetrical” connection. 300mbps is already way higher than the average internet connectivity worldwide (although certain countries/cities regions have way faster networks, overall world citizen gets access to the internet at lower speeds). But it would be ok even if it was slower because it’s a Fiber network, and it’s symmetrical which means download and upload speeds are the same. Often, you see traditional ISPs advertise something ridiculous with high speeds like 500mbps, but it’s often only referred to as download speeds. And in the majority of consumer scenarios, this is fine. But you need the upload speed to be high and consistent/stable when you want to serve upstream. Hardware Since it’s hobby purposes, I initially searched some “old” servers (like servers sitting on racks) on eBay. Then I realized it had a million combinations of hardware components, like CPU architectures, and network interfaces. I quickly went down the rabbit hole of Reddit threads both fun and scary stories. These “serious” server hardware were electric eating, heating sources that are also giant, require space kinda machines turned me off, and I backed out quickly. Then I explored mini PCs, which are more common computers that could handle my applications really easily. Think like you’re looking for a computer that you could use, but instead, you just host stuff and it sits somewhere in your home in a closet, without being a fire risk or a thing that you need to worry about how to keep it cool. I bought an “HP Elite Desk Mini” which is a decent computer if I were to use it as my desktop. It has 16GB memory, an i7 quad-core CPU, and 510 GB SSD. I think I bought it under $150 on Amazon. You can go fancier with a much beefier machine with a few hundred dollars if you’re being much more serious about this. I’m thinking of buying another (same machine) and stacking them. The footprint of this machine is super small. It snuck under my Verizon router in a closet, has almost zero noise, and barely heats. I’m sure if I find an ARM version of this thing (or a Raspberry Pi) I can go smaller and have almost no heat but I’ve never seen overheating on these. Whether this machine is a good or bad hardware decision, it’s debatable, but I’m really happy a few years in. Software: Ubuntu & Docker The first thing I did was to clean it up and install Ubuntu (LTS). Almost bare-bones Ubuntu then right away docker installed. I have Nginx and PHP on it for some early play of a WordPress blog (not this one) but then abandoned it. I run almost everything exclusively in Docker (more on this below). I try to update & upgrade Ubuntu once a year. Nothing else. Access: Cloudflare Zero Trust The machine itself is completely closed to direct internet access. Its IP Tables don’t allow connections even from the local network (except SSH port accepts local network IP range). Traditionally, the machine needs to open ports outside, then have a router port forwarding and set up all public IP sort things. More than 2 decades ago, I did that with static IP from my ISP. Man, all the hustle… None of that is necessary anymore. I use Cloudflare Access and Tunnels which has an agent always running in the server, and from remote configuration, I can listen to any internal port (without opening it up) and forward the port directly to a subdomain of my domains. This shortcut the DNS works for me too. On top of that, most of my private apps run on subdomains that are protected by Cloudflare Zero Trust access (only me). I love Cloudflare’s feature that solves 2 to 3 problems at once. One might wonder, what happens if Cloudflare has an outage, and their Zero Trust tools stop working, does it open my apps to the public all of a sudden? No, because my apps are not open to the public in the first place. Zero Trust tunnel has to work in order to open it up to the public, and if Zero Trust authentication is down, the subdomain will also not be accessible (because it’s proxied through Zero Trust “application” record. Worst case scenario, I lose access to my private apps from outside. Even with that, I can SSH to my server and create a tunnel, port forwarding to the specific port the app is running. On a normal day, I simply join to Zero Trust network using Cloudflare’s desktop app WARP, which replaces VPN for me. All things considered, I’m sure there are still holes and paranoia in this plan. You can go through a more traditional route that is not any different than hosting this instance in Digital Ocean or AWS and replicate what you think is “more secure”, but I’m pretty happy with the baseline Cloudflare brings, and solves a few unnecessary things I have to take care (like no need to do reverse proxy for all apps I’m running). Deploy Apps: Portainer + Gitops I use Portainer to both set up deployments and manage my containers. Portainer is essentially a nice UI version of your docker command line tools. But where it shines is the gitops integration that integrates with GitHub via webhooks, so when I push any change to any of my app repos (which all have docker-compose.yml that includes their infra and application configurations), my apps get re-deployed by portainer. This makes spinning up a new app, or an open-source tool in my server, a breeze. I covered Portainer and its gitops integration in this article: Portainer + gitops ❤️: A simple way to deploy and manage your self-hosted applications Portainer + gitops ❤️: A simple way to deploy and manage your self-hosted applications

How I Hosted My Hobby Projects From a Cheap HP Mini Desktop From My Closet (Verizon Fios)

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 11 of 11. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues that are so triable. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 11 of 11. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 11 of 11. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here JURY TRIAL DEMAND Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues that are so triable. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Record Labels Demand Jury Trial in Verizon Copyright Infringement Case

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. YYou can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 10 of 11. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment from this Court against Verizon as follows: a. For a declaration that Verizon willfully infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights; b. For statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in an amount up to the maximum provided by law, arising from Verizon’s willful violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the U.S. Copyright Act or, in the alternative, at Plaintiffs’ election, Plaintiffs’ actual damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including Verizon’s profits from infringement, in an amount to be proven at trial; c. For an award of Plaintiffs’ costs in this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505; d. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the applicable rate on any monetary award made part of the judgment against Verizon; and e. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. YYou can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 10 of 11. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . YYou can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 10 of 11. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment from this Court against Verizon as follows: a. For a declaration that Verizon willfully infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights; b. For statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in an amount up to the maximum provided by law, arising from Verizon’s willful violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the U.S. Copyright Act or, in the alternative, at Plaintiffs’ election, Plaintiffs’ actual damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including Verizon’s profits from infringement, in an amount to be proven at trial; c. For an award of Plaintiffs’ costs in this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505; d. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the applicable rate on any monetary award made part of the judgment against Verizon; and e. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Music Industry Demands Statutory Damages from Verizon in Copyright Lawsuit

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. YYou can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 9 of 11. Count II – Vicarious Infringement 97. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 as if fully set forth herein. 98. Plaintiffs own or exercise exclusive control over rights in the sound recordings listed in Exhibit A, which represent an illustrative and non-exhaustive list of Plaintiffs’ works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers. All of the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A have been duly registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or, for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, submitted to and publicly indexed by the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1401. 99. Verizon’s subscribers, using Internet access and services provided by Verizon, have unlawfully and without authorization reproduced and distributed via BitTorrent thousands of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings, including those listed on Exhibit A and many others. 100. The foregoing activity by Verizon’s subscribers constitutes direct infringement in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501, et seq. and the Music Modernization Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1401. 101. Verizon is liable as a vicarious infringer for the direct infringements described above. 102. Verizon has the legal and practical right and ability to supervise and control the infringing activities that occur through the use of its network, including through the enforcement of its AUP and its Copyright Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy. 103. At all relevant times, Verizon has had a financial interest in, and derived direct financial benefit from, the infringing use of its network. Verizon has derived an obvious and direct financial benefit from its customers’ infringement. The ability to use Verizon’s high-speed Internet network and facilities to illegally download Plaintiffs’ works has served to draw, maintain, and generate higher fees from paying subscribers to Verizon’s service. Among other financial benefits, by failing to terminate the accounts of specific repeat infringers known to Verizon, Verizon has profited from illicit revenue through user subscription fees that it would not have otherwise received from repeat infringers and by drawing new subscribers to Verizon’s services for the purpose of illegally downloading and distributing protected works. The specific infringing subscribers identified in Plaintiffs’ notices, including the particularly egregious infringers identified herein, knew Verizon would not terminate their accounts despite receiving multiple notices identifying them as infringers, and they remained Verizon subscribers to continue illegally downloading and distributing Plaintiffs’ works. 104. Verizon is vicariously liable for the unlawful reproduction and distribution of Plaintiffs’ works, including but not limited to those listed on Exhibit A, in violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the copyright laws of the United States. 105. Each infringement of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings constitutes a separate and distinct act of infringement. Plaintiffs’ claims of infringement against Verizon are timely because they all fall within the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations set forth at 17 U.S.C. § 507, as extended by a tolling agreement between the parties. 106. The foregoing acts of infringement by Verizon have been willful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Indeed, the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A represent a non-exhaustive list of works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers after those particular subscribers were identified to Verizon in multiple prior infringement notices. 107. As a direct and proximate result of Verizon’s willful infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights and other exclusive rights, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in an amount of up to $150,000 with respect to each work infringed. Alternatively, at Plaintiffs’ election, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to their actual damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including Verizon’s profits from the infringements, as will be proven at trial. 108. Plaintiffs are also entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. YYou can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 9 of 11. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . YYou can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 9 of 11. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here Count II – Vicarious Infringement 97. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 as if fully set forth herein. 98. Plaintiffs own or exercise exclusive control over rights in the sound recordings listed in Exhibit A, which represent an illustrative and non-exhaustive list of Plaintiffs’ works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers. All of the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A have been duly registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or, for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, submitted to and publicly indexed by the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1401. 99. Verizon’s subscribers, using Internet access and services provided by Verizon, have unlawfully and without authorization reproduced and distributed via BitTorrent thousands of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings, including those listed on Exhibit A and many others. 100. The foregoing activity by Verizon’s subscribers constitutes direct infringement in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501, et seq. and the Music Modernization Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1401. 101. Verizon is liable as a vicarious infringer for the direct infringements described above. 102. Verizon has the legal and practical right and ability to supervise and control the infringing activities that occur through the use of its network, including through the enforcement of its AUP and its Copyright Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy. 103. At all relevant times, Verizon has had a financial interest in, and derived direct financial benefit from, the infringing use of its network. Verizon has derived an obvious and direct financial benefit from its customers’ infringement. The ability to use Verizon’s high-speed Internet network and facilities to illegally download Plaintiffs’ works has served to draw, maintain, and generate higher fees from paying subscribers to Verizon’s service. Among other financial benefits, by failing to terminate the accounts of specific repeat infringers known to Verizon, Verizon has profited from illicit revenue through user subscription fees that it would not have otherwise received from repeat infringers and by drawing new subscribers to Verizon’s services for the purpose of illegally downloading and distributing protected works. The specific infringing subscribers identified in Plaintiffs’ notices, including the particularly egregious infringers identified herein, knew Verizon would not terminate their accounts despite receiving multiple notices identifying them as infringers, and they remained Verizon subscribers to continue illegally downloading and distributing Plaintiffs’ works. 104. Verizon is vicariously liable for the unlawful reproduction and distribution of Plaintiffs’ works, including but not limited to those listed on Exhibit A, in violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the copyright laws of the United States. 105. Each infringement of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings constitutes a separate and distinct act of infringement. Plaintiffs’ claims of infringement against Verizon are timely because they all fall within the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations set forth at 17 U.S.C. § 507, as extended by a tolling agreement between the parties. 106. The foregoing acts of infringement by Verizon have been willful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Indeed, the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A represent a non-exhaustive list of works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers after those particular subscribers were identified to Verizon in multiple prior infringement notices. 107. As a direct and proximate result of Verizon’s willful infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights and other exclusive rights, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in an amount of up to $150,000 with respect to each work infringed. Alternatively, at Plaintiffs’ election, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to their actual damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including Verizon’s profits from the infringements, as will be proven at trial. 108. Plaintiffs are also entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Verizon Faces Vicarious Infringement Lawsuit Over Subscriber Piracy

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 8 of 11. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I – Contributory Infringement 85. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 as if fully set forth herein. 86. Plaintiffs own or exercise exclusive control in the U.S. over rights in the sound recordings listed in Exhibit A, which represent an illustrative and non-exhaustive list of Plaintiffs’ works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers. All of the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A have been duly registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or, for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, submitted to and publicly indexed by the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1401. 87. Verizon’s subscribers, using Internet access and services provided by Verizon, have unlawfully and without authorization reproduced and distributed via BitTorrent thousands of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings, including those listed on Exhibit A and many others. 88. The foregoing activity by Verizon’s subscribers constitutes direct infringement in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501, et seq. and the Music Modernization Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1401. 89. Verizon is liable as a contributory infringer for the direct infringements described above. 90. Through Plaintiffs’ infringement notices and other means, Verizon had knowledge that its network was being used to infringe Plaintiffs’ works on a massive scale, and also knew of specific subscribers engaged in such repeated and flagrant infringement of specific works. 91. Verizon nevertheless facilitated, encouraged, and materially contributed to such infringement by continuing to provide its services, network, and the facilities necessary for its subscribers to commit repeated infringements. Verizon had the means to withhold that assistance upon learning of specific infringing activity by specific users but failed to do so. 92. By purposefully ignoring and turning a blind eye to its subscribers’ flagrant and repeated infringements, Verizon knowingly caused and materially contributed to the unlawful reproduction and distribution of Plaintiffs’ works, including but not limited to those listed on Exhibit A, in violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the copyright laws of the United States. 93. Each infringement of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings constitutes a separate and distinct act of infringement. Plaintiffs’ claims of infringement against Verizon are timely because they all fall within the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations set forth at 17 U.S.C. § 507, as extended by a tolling agreement between the parties. 94. The foregoing acts of infringement by Verizon have been willful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Indeed, the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A represent a non-exhaustive list of works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers after those particular subscribers were identified to Verizon in multiple infringement notices. 95. As a direct and proximate result of Verizon’s willful infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights and other exclusive rights, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in an amount of up to $150,000 with respect to each work infringed. Alternatively, at Plaintiffs’ election, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to their actual damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including Verizon’s profits from the infringements, as will be proven at trial. 96. Plaintiffs are also entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 8 of 11. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 8 of 11. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I – Contributory Infringement 85. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 as if fully set forth herein. 86. Plaintiffs own or exercise exclusive control in the U.S. over rights in the sound recordings listed in Exhibit A, which represent an illustrative and non-exhaustive list of Plaintiffs’ works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers. All of the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A have been duly registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or, for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, submitted to and publicly indexed by the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1401. 87. Verizon’s subscribers, using Internet access and services provided by Verizon, have unlawfully and without authorization reproduced and distributed via BitTorrent thousands of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings, including those listed on Exhibit A and many others. 88. The foregoing activity by Verizon’s subscribers constitutes direct infringement in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501, et seq. and the Music Modernization Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1401. 89. Verizon is liable as a contributory infringer for the direct infringements described above. 90. Through Plaintiffs’ infringement notices and other means, Verizon had knowledge that its network was being used to infringe Plaintiffs’ works on a massive scale, and also knew of specific subscribers engaged in such repeated and flagrant infringement of specific works. 91. Verizon nevertheless facilitated, encouraged, and materially contributed to such infringement by continuing to provide its services, network, and the facilities necessary for its subscribers to commit repeated infringements. Verizon had the means to withhold that assistance upon learning of specific infringing activity by specific users but failed to do so. 92. By purposefully ignoring and turning a blind eye to its subscribers’ flagrant and repeated infringements, Verizon knowingly caused and materially contributed to the unlawful reproduction and distribution of Plaintiffs’ works, including but not limited to those listed on Exhibit A, in violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the copyright laws of the United States. 93. Each infringement of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings constitutes a separate and distinct act of infringement. Plaintiffs’ claims of infringement against Verizon are timely because they all fall within the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations set forth at 17 U.S.C. § 507, as extended by a tolling agreement between the parties. 94. The foregoing acts of infringement by Verizon have been willful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Indeed, the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A represent a non-exhaustive list of works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers after those particular subscribers were identified to Verizon in multiple infringement notices. 95. As a direct and proximate result of Verizon’s willful infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights and other exclusive rights, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in an amount of up to $150,000 with respect to each work infringed. Alternatively, at Plaintiffs’ election, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to their actual damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including Verizon’s profits from the infringements, as will be proven at trial. 96. Plaintiffs are also entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Stories, News & Mentions about VERIZON

Verizon’s Stories on HackerNoon

Verizon's News & Mentions