History of copyright law

History of copyright law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright was invented after the advent of the printing press and subsequent widening of public literacy. As a legal concept, its origins in Britain were from a reaction to printers’ monopolies at the beginning of the eighteenth century. In Britain the King of England and Scotland was concerned by the unregulated copying of books and used the royal prerogative to pass the Licensing Act of 1662 which established a register of licensed books and required a copy to be deposited with the Stationers Company, essentially continuing the licensing of material for the benefit of printers that had long been in effect. The Statute of Anne in 1709 was the first real copyright act, and gave the author in the new nation of Britain rights for a fixed period, after which the copyright expired. Internationally, the Berne Convention in 1887 set out the scope of copyright protection, and is still in force to this day. Copyright has grown from a legal concept regulating copying rights in the publishing of books and maps to one with a significant effect on nearly every modern industry, covering such items as sound recordings, films, photographs, software, and architectural works.

Chronology
Prehistory of copyright
Authors, patrons, and owners of works throughout the ages have tried to direct and control how copies of such works could be used once disseminated to others. Mozart’s patron, Baroness von Waldstätten, allowed his compositions created for her to be performed, while Handel’s patron, George I, jealously guarded “Water Music.”
Modern copyright has been influenced by an array of older legal rights that have been recognized throughout history, including the moral rights of the author who created a work, the economic rights of a benefactor who paid to have a copy made, the property rights of the individual owner of a copy, and a sovereign’s right to censor and to regulate the printing industry. Prior to the invention of movable type in the West in the mid-fifteenth century, texts were copied by hand and the small number of texts generated few occasions for these rights to be tested. Even during a period of a prospering book trade, during the Roman Empire when no copyright or similar regulations existed,[1] copying by those other than professional booksellers was rare. This is because books were, typically, copied by literate slaves, who were expensive to buy and maintain. Thus, any copier would have had to pay much the same expense as a professional publisher. Roman book sellers would sometimes pay a well regarded author for first access to a text for copying, but they had no exclusive rights to a work and authors were not normally paid anything for their work.[2]
During the centuries following the destruction of the Roman Empire, European literary undertakings were confined almost entirely to the monasteries. The Roman usage, under which authors could dispose of their works to booksellers and the latter could be secure of some commercial control of the property purchased, was entirely forgotten. (In Ken Follet’s novel The Pillars of the Earth, a character is astonished to meet a woman who actually owns books, which were normally owned only by churches and monasteries.)
Before legal and economic restrictions on print ownership came into being, one would occasionally find an author’s or archivist’s book curse inscribed in a given volume. Beyond this, however, two major developments in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries seem to have provoked the development of modern copyright. First, the expansion of mercantile trade in major European cities and the appearance of the secular university helped produce an educated bourgeois class interested in the information of the day. This helped spur the emergence of a public sphere, which was increasingly served by entrepreneurial stationers who produced copies of books on demand. Second, Gutenberg’s development of movable type and the development and spread of the printing press made mass reproduction of printed works quick and much cheaper than ever before. Before printing, the process of copying a work could be nearly as labor intensive and expensive as creating the original, and was largely relegated to monastic scribes. It appears that publishers, rather than authors, were the first to seek restrictions on the copying of printed works. Given that publishers of music and films in particular commonly now obtain the copyright from a creator (although rarely a book author) as a condition of mass reproduction of a work, one of the criticisms of the current system is that it benefits publishers more than it does creators. This is one of the chief arguments in favor of peer-to-peer file sharing systems, making an analogy with the changes wrought by printing.
An interesting attempt at copyright in the early modern period was the notice attached to the ha- Shirim asher li-Shelomo , a setting of the Psalms by the composer Salomone Rossi, which happened to be the first music to be printed with a Hebrew type-face text (1623). It included a rabbinical curse on anyone who copied the contents.

Movable type
The printing press brought the possibility of compensation for literary labor. Very speedily, however, the unrestricted rivalry of printers brought into existence competing and unauthorized editions of various works, which diminished prospects of any payment, or even entailed loss, for the authors, editors, and printers of the original issue, and thus discouraged further undertaking. Any person with a press and some skills could use movable type to publish books and other items. Scribes and scriveners were no longer needed.
Protection for the authors and their representatives was sought through special privileges obtained for separate works as issued. According to Elizabeth Armstrong (whom the Curators of the Bodleian Library awarded the Gordon Duff Prize in 1965 for her essay on Printers’ and authors’ privileges in France and the Low Countries in the sixteenth century), “The republic of Venice granted its first privilege for a particular book in 1486. It was a special case, being the history of the city itself, the ‘Rerum venetarum ab urbe condita opus’ of Marcus Antonius Coccius Sabellicus”.[3] “Venice began regularly granting privileges for particular books in 1492. The first, 3 January that year, went to Petrus Franciscus de Ravenna, a teacher of canon law at Padua University, who had devised a system of training the memory, which he embodied in a book entitled “Foenix”. [4]
Most early Italian enactments in regard to literature were framed not so much with reference to the protection of authors as for the purpose of inducing printers (acting as publishers) to undertake certain literary enterprises which were believed to be important to the community. The Republic of Venice, the dukes of Florence, and Leo X and other Popes conceded at different times to certain printers the exclusive privilege of printing for specific terms (rarely exceeding 14 years) editions of classic authors; not so much to secure profits for the printers, but rather to encourage, for the benefit of the community, literary ventures on the part of the editors and printers.
The first copyright privilege in England bears date 1518 and was issued to Richard Pynson, King’s Printer, the successor to William Caxton. The privilege gives a monopoly for the term of two years. The date is 15 years later than that of the first privilege issued in France. Early copyright privileges were called “monopolies,” particularly during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who frequently gave grants of monopolies in articles of common use, such as salt, leather, coal, soap, cards, beer, and wine. The practice was continued until the Statute of Monopolies was enacted in 1623, ending most monopolies, with certain exceptions, such as patents; after 1623, grants of Letters patent to publishers became common. The period of common-law copyright for Great Britain was brought to a close by the Act of Queen Anne in 1709. The Act had a certain effect in the British Colonies, therefore it is regarded as being the first copyright law that affected the future United States.
The earliest German privilege of which there is trustworthy record was issued in 1501 by the Aulic Council to an association entitled the Sodalitas Rhenana Celtica, for the publication of an edition of the dramas of Hroswitha of Gandersheim, which had been prepared for the press by Konrad Keltes. In 1512 an Imperial privilege was issued to the historiographer John Stadius for all that he should print, the first European privilege which was made to cover more than a single work, or undertaking to protect books not yet published. In 1794 legislation was enacted in the Prussian Parliament which was accepted by the other states of Germany (except Württemberg and Mecklenburg), under which all German authors, and foreign authors whose works were represented by publishers taking part in the book fairs in Frankfurt and Leipzig, were to be protected throughout the states of Germany against unauthorized reprints. This Berlin enactment may be credited as the first step towards a practical recognition of international copyright. Enforcement of the provisions of interstate enactments proved to be difficult, at least until after 1815.[citation needed]

Earliest copyright disputations
One of the earliest copyright disputes reputedly took place in 557 A.D. between Abbot Finnian of Moville and St. Columba over St. Columba’s copying of a Psalter belonging to an Abbot. The dispute over ownership of the copy led to the Battle of Cúl Dreimhne (also know as Battle of Cooldrumman), in which 3,000 men were killed.[5] In 1557, the English monarch, Mary I, chartered a London guild of printers, bookbinders, and booksellers known as the Stationers’ Company, probably in an attempt to prevent the spread of the Protestant Reformation. Only Guild members were allowed to practice the art of printing and the master and wardens of the society were empowered to search, seize, and burn all prohibited books, and to imprison any person found to be printing without a license. In return for their role in preventing the publication of books deemed heretical or seditious, the Guild’s members enjoyed the economic benefits of a monopoly over the printing industry. From 1557 to 1641, the English Crown exercised authority over printing and the Stationers’ Company through the Star Chamber. After the abolition of the Star Chamber in 1641, the English Parliament continued to extend the Stationers’ Company’s censorship/monopoly arrangement through a series of ordinances and Licensing Acts between 1643 and 1692.
During its time, the Stationers’ Company developed a private system for handling disputes between its members (sometimes referred to as a Stationer’s Copyright). Under this system, specific Guild members held monopoly rights in a particular work that were treated as being perpetual. Although Guild members could purchase a manuscript from an author, authors could not become members of the Guild and were not entitled to any royalties or additional payments after purchase. Members were allowed to buy and sell rights over particular works to each other. As a method to keep track of which members claimed rights in what works, the Guild required that copyrights be recorded in a registration book at the Guild’s Hall. The Licensing Act of 1662 also required printers to deposit a copy of each work with the Guild to prevent changes to the work after it was reviewed by censors. Many aspects of the Stationers’ system were later incorporated into modern copyright laws.
Following the English Civil War, which was partly fought over the Crown’s abuse of monopolies, the Stationers’ power was threatened when the last Licensing Act expired in 1694. Without their monopolies, London’s booksellers faced an unregulated influx of cheap texts printed outside Britain, and in Scotland, that began flooding the English market. After years of lobbying Parliament by authors and members of the Conger, the world’s first modern copyright statute was enacted – the Statute of Anne, 8 Anne, ch. 19 (1710).

The birth of modern copyright
England’s Statute of Anne (1710) is widely regarded as the first copyright law. The statute’s full title was “An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.” This statute first accorded exclusive rights to authors (i.e., creators) rather than publishers, and it included protections for consumers of printed work ensuring that publishers could not control their use after sale. It also limited the duration of such exclusive rights to 28 years, after which all works would pass into the public domain. Although the Statute of Anne created a system of monopoly rights similar in many ways to the Stationers’ Company’s private system, it introduced three major changes.
Unlike previous laws that gave broad monopoly power to the Stationers’ Company, who would then administer a private system of copyright between Guild members, the Statute of Anne directly outlined a public copyright system that applied to the public in general. Second, the Statute recognized a copyright as originating in the author, rather than a Guild member. Lastly, it placed a time limitation on the monopoly enjoyed by holders of a copyright. Specifically, the Act provided that an owner of the copyright in any book already printed should have the exclusive right of publishing it for twenty-one years. For works not yet published, the act provided an exclusive right to publish for fourteen years from the time of first publication, with the stipulation that the right could be extended by an author for another 14 years. However, printers argued that the texts were property owned by the authors, and therefore could be sold as such to the printers, who would then own the rights.
There were territorial loopholes in the 1710 Act. It did not extend to all British territories, but only covered England, Scotland and Wales. Many reprints of British copyright works were consequently issued both in Ireland and in North American colonies, without any license from the copyright holder required. These works were frequently issued without payment to British copyright holders, so they were cheaper than London editions. They were popular with book-buyers, but were not copyright infringements in the formal sense of the word, being within the law. The term was used, however.
In Ireland and North America there were reprint publishers who sought out formal arrangements with and made payments to British copyright holders. This illicit reprint trade was also engaged in by some Scottish publishers. These publishers were sometimes prosecuted.
Irish reprints became a matter of great concern to London publishers. Their reprints undermined direct sales to Ireland. They also crossed the border into England, and were especially sold in English provincial markets which were becoming increasingly important to London publishers. Booksellers who sold these reprints in England, Scotland, and Wales were subject to prosecution.
Between 1710-1774 there was legal debate about what length of time was meant in the 1710 act.
In the 1730s, publishers in Scotland began to reprint titles that they no longer considered to be covered by copyright. Scottish publishers printed what they perceived to be public domain English works whose copyright had expired. They sold these titles in Scotland, and in the English provinces. English publishers objected to this, on the basis of what they saw as common-law rights and property (under the concept of common-law rights in the English system), which predated the Copyright Act. Under common-law rights, rights in published works were held to continue into perpetuity.
The case of Donaldson vs Beckett, in 1774, brought disagreements on the length of copyright to an end. The outcome of the case resulted in the decision that Parliament could, and had, put a limit on copyright length. This decision reflected a shift in English ideas of copyright. The English lords who made the decision in 1774 decided that it was not in the public’s best interest to have London publishers control books in perpetuity, particularly as English publishers commonly kept prices high. There were some notions that this was a cultural or class issue. Works in perpetual copyright were seen to have limited access by some citizens to the cultural history of their own land.
Concepts of the roles of the author and publisher, of copyright law, and of general Enlightenment notions, interacted in this period. Authors had been previously seen to be divinely inspired. Patronage was a legitimate way to support authors, in part because of this. Authors who were paid, rather than entering into patron-relationships, were often regarded as hacks, and looked down upon. However, the notion of individual genius was becoming more common during the 1770s (the generation after Donaldson v Beckett), and being a paid author therefore became more accepted.
In Great Britain’s North American colonies, reprinting British copyright works without permission had long happened episodically, but only became a major feature of colonial life after 1760. It became more commonplace to reprint British works in the colonies (mostly in the 13 American colonies). The impetus for this shift came from Irish and Scottish master printers and booksellers who had moved to the North American colonies in the mid 18th century. They were already familiar with the practice of reprinting and selling British copyright works, and continued the practice in North America, and it became a major part of the North American printing and publishing trade. Robert Bell was an example. He was originally Scottish, and had spent almost a decade in Dublin before he moved to British North America in 1768. His operations, and those of many other colonial printers and booksellers, ensured that the practice of reprinting was well-established by the time of the American Declaration of Independence in 1776. Weakened American ties to Britain coincided with the increase of reprinting outside British copyright controls.
The Irish also made a flourishing business of shipping reprints to North America in the 18th century. Ireland’s ability to reprint freely ended in 1801 when Ireland’s Parliament merged with Great Britain, and the Irish became subject to British copyright laws.
The printing of uncopyrighted English works for the English-language market also occurred in other European countries. The British government responded to this problem in two ways: 1) it amended its own copyright statutes in 1842, explicitly forbidding import of any foreign reprint of British copyrighted work into the UK or its colonies, and 2) it began the process of reciprocal agreements with other countries. The first reciprocal agreement was with Prussia in 1846. The US remained outside this arrangement for some decades. This was objected to by such authors as Dickens and Mark Twain.

The natural rights debate
As the first copyrights under the Statute began to expire, a legal battle erupted over what rights, if any, existed after a copyright term expired. The book publishers argued that a perpetual common law copyright existed beyond the term outlined in the Statute, akin to the situation prior to passage of the Statute. The publishers argued that copyright was a natural right. The first major victory for the book publishers came in the case of Millar v. Taylor. The case involved the poet James Thomson’s book, “The Seasons.” A bookseller, Andrew Millar, purchased the publishing rights to “The Seasons” in 1729. After the copyright’s term expired, Robert Taylor began publishing his own competing publication, which contained Thomson’s poem. The judge assigned to the case sided with the publishers, finding that common law rights were not extinguished by the Statute of Anne. Under Mansfield’s ruling, the publishers had a perpetual common-law right to publish a work for which they had acquired the rights.
The decision in Millar, however, was made by an English court and so did not extend to Scotland, where a reprint industry continued to thrive and a Scottish court rejected the notion of a perpetual common-law copyright in Hinton v. Donaldson. The debate culminated in the landmark case of Donaldson v. Beckett. The decision by the House of Lords in February of 1774 rejected common-law copyright. Lord Camden, attacked the publisher’s foundation for a common-law right:
The arguments attempted to be maintained on the side of the respondents, were founded on patents, privileges, Star Chamber decrees, and the bye (sic) laws of the Stationers’ Company; all of them the effects of the grossest tyranny and usurpation; the very last places in which I should have dreamt of finding the least trace of the common law of this kingdom; and yet, by a variety of subtle reasoning and metaphysical refinements, have they endeavored to squeeze out the spirit of the common law from premises in which it could not possibly have existence.
Although the decision in Donaldson firmly established that, in England, works to which a copyright has expired fall to the public domain, the debate itself has resurfaced in the United States and elsewhere in the years since.

Early internationalisation
The Berne Convention of 1886 first established the recognition of a common copyright amongst several sovereign nations. (International recognition of copyright was also provided by the Universal Copyright Convention of 1952, but that convention is today largely of only historical interest.) Contrary to English tradition, copyright is granted automatically to creative works under the Berne Convention; an author does not have to actively register or otherwise apply for copyright to be applied to the work. As soon as the work is “fixed”, that is, written or recorded on some physical medium (e.g. words written on page, music recorded onto tape, etc.), its author is automatically granted exclusive rights to the distribution of the work and any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires.
* Evolution to deal with successive waves of new technology.
* Origins of collecting societies.
* Conflicts (then resounding lack of conflict) over term extensions.

Diversion: copyright and communism
Historically, many societies governed by socialist governments have viewed copyright as a welfare or support mechanism for artists, instead of (or in addition to) a legal right. These ideas probably found their strongest expression in Scandinavian law.
The Eastern European communist states professed to employ socialist principles in rewarding their artists and authors, but the reality of their copyright systems was deeply entangled with censorship and state control of culture. Cultural workers in the Soviet Union did well if they could employ “blat” to their advantage and convince the right party officials to favour their work.
The Soviet Union did have a number of interactions with the international copyright system:
* Unsuccessful lawsuits brought by Western lawyers in an attempt to make the Soviet state recognise foreign copyrights or pay royalties to foreign authors (the USSR did occasionally pay foreign authors for the use of their works, but only if they were of a suitable ideological colour).
* Accession to the Universal Copyright Convention, with the intention of allowing the Soviet state to appropriate international copyright in works by dissident Soviet authors, and thereby control the distribution of those works outside the Communist bloc.

Modern US copyright legislation
* Enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976.
* Enactment of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
* Enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
* Enactment of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act.

Recent history: globalization and technological crisis
* Digital technology introduces a new level of controversy into copyright policy.
* Inclusion of software as copyright subject matter on the recommendation of CONTU and then later with the EU Computer Programs Directive.
* Enactment of TRIPS.
* Controversy over the copyrightability of databases (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service and contradictory cases); links to the debate over sui generis Database rights.
* Enactment of the WIPO Copyright Treaty; nations begin passing anti-circumvention laws.
* Some copyrighted works are more difficult to protect. Music, for example, may be played or sung by anyone after it has been published. But if it is performed for profit, the performers must pay a fee, called a royalty, to the copyright owner. A similar principle applies to performances of plays. As a written work, a play is protected in the same way as a book; anyone who wants to perform it must pay a royalty.

Analysis: recurring themes in the history of copyright
The history of copyright has several key themes: responses to innovations in media technologies, expansions in the definition, scope and operation of copyright, and international dissemination of the evolutions occurring in particular states.

Responses to technological innovation
The genesis of copyright can be seen as a process through which capitalist societies found a way to wed the printing press and the marketplace (see also print culture).
This commercial regulatory system, designed for the printing press, was successively expanded to include photography, phonography, film, broadcasting, photocopying (reprography) and computer programs as those technologies became widespread. These expansions were at first controversial but over time became stable components of commerce in the relevant industries.
The placement of present disputes over copyright in this historical trajectory is an interesting problem. Some commentators would add the Internet and digitised works in general to the end of the above list of technological expansions. In that view, the same functions of copyright (especially creating marketplace incentives for the production of works) remain necessary or desirable for digital material and will therefore eventually become stable and consensual. In contrast, commentators such as Barlow (1994) have argued that digital copyright is fundamentally different and will remain persistently difficult to enforce; others such as Stallman (1996) have argued that the Internet deeply undermines the economic rationale for copyright in the first place. These perspectives may lead to the consideration of alternative compensation systems in place of exclusive rights.

Expansions in scope and operation
* Move from common law and ad-hoc grants of monopoly to copyright statutes.
* Expansions in subject matter (largely related to technology).
* Expansions in duration.
* Creation of new exclusive rights (such as performers’ and other neighbouring rights).
* Creation of collecting societies.
* Criminalisation of copyright infringement.
* Creation of anti-circumvention laws.
* Courts’ application of secondary liability doctrines to cover file sharing networks

Regulatory leadership and internationalisation
* Early role of the UK; reciprocity and the Berne convention; the United States as a “pirate nation.”
* Shift to leadership by the US during the 20th century (though some expansions continued to flow from Europe); the South and the Far East as centres of copyright breaking.
[edit] Notes
1. ^ Martial, The Epigrams, Penguin, 1978, James Mitchie
2. ^ Martial, The Epigrams, Penguin, 1978, James Mitchie
3. ^ Armstrong, Elizabeth. Before Copyright: the French book-privilege system 1498-1526. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1990, p. 3
4. ^ Armstrong, Elizabeth. Before Copyright: the French book-privilege system 1498-1526. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1990, p. 6
5. ^ Gantz, John and Rochester, Jack B. (2005), Pirates of the Digital Millennium, Upper Saddle River: Financial Times Prentice Hall, p. 30-33; ISBN 0-13-146315-2
[edit] References
1. Eaton S. Drone, A Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions, Little, Brown, & Co. (1879).
2. Dietrich A. Loeber, ‘”Socialist” Features of Soviet Copyright Law’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 23, pp 297–313, 1984.
3. Joseph Lowenstein, The Author’s Due : Printing and the Prehistory of Copyright, University of Chicago Press, 2002
4. Christopher May, “The Venetian Moment: New Technologies, Legal Innovation and the Institutional Origins of Intellectual Property”, Prometheus, 20(2), 2002.
5. Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303, 98 Eng. Rep. 201 (K.B. 1769).
6. Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective, Vanderbilt University Press, 1968.
7. Brendan Scott, “Copyright in a Frictionless World”, First Monday, volume 6, number 9 (September 2001), http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_9/scott/index.html.
8. Charles Forbes René de Montalembert, The Monks of the West from St Benedict to St Bernard, William Blackwood and Sons, London, 1867, Vol III.
9. Augustine Birrell, Seven Lectures on the Law and History of Copyright in Books, Rothman Reprints Inc., 1899 (1971 reprint).
10. Drahos, P. with Braithwaite, J., Information Feudalism, The New Press, New York, 2003. ISBN 1-56584-804-7(hc.)
11. Paul Edward Geller, International Copyright Law and Practice, Matthew Bender. (2000).
12. New International Encyclopedia
13. Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992)
14. Armstrong, Elizabeth. Before Copyright: the French book-privilege system 1498-1526. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge: 1990)
15. Gantz, John and Rochester, Jack B. (2005), Pirates of the Digital Millennium, Upper Saddle River: Financial Times Prentice Hall; ISBN 0-13-146315-2

Copyright infringement of software

Copyright infringement of software
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The copyright infringement of software (also known as software piracy) refers to several practices which involve the unauthorized copying of computer software. Copyright infringement of this kind is extremely common in the United States, Mexico, China, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, Zimbabwe and several other parts of the world. Most countries have copyright laws which apply to software, but they are better enforced in some countries than others. Since a dispute over WTO membership between Iran and USA, which led to the legalization in Iran of the distribution of software without the permission of any copyright holder (see Iran and copyright issues), there have been fears that world governments might try to use copyright laws and enforcement politically.
The rate of copyright infringement of software in the Asia-Pacific region has been estimated at 53% for 2004[1] China is the largest producer of pirated products in the world – software is no exception. The Business Software Alliance estimates that in 2006 82% of the PC software used in China was pirated. After joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) China has adjusted its Intellectual Property (IP) laws to comply with the WTO Agreement on Trade – Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The laws are in place but are ignored.[2]

Activities that may constitute infringement
Copyright infringement of software may refer to the following kinds of practices when done without the permission of the copyright holder:
* Creating a copy and/or selling it. This is the act that some people refer to as “software piracy”. This is copyright infringement in most countries and is unlikely to be fair use or fair dealing if the work remains commercially available. In some countries the laws may allow the selling of a version modified for use by blind people, students (for educational product) or similar. Differences in legislation may also make the copyright void in some jurisdictions, but not the others.
* Creating a copy and giving it to someone else. This constitutes copyright infringement in most jurisdictions. It is not infringing under specific circumstances such as fair use and fair dealing.
* Creating a copy to serve as a backup. This is seen as a fundamental right of the software-buyer in some countries, e.g., Germany, Spain, Brazil and Philippines. It can be infringement, depending on the laws and the case law interpretations of those laws, currently undergoing changes in many countries. In the US, legal action was taken against companies which made backup copies while repairing computers (see MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. (1993)) and as a result, US law was changed so that making temporary backup copies of software while repairing computers is not copyright infringement.
* Renting the original software. Software licenses often never restrict the usual right of a purchaser of a copyrighted work to let others borrow the work. In some jurisdictions the validity of such restrictions are disputed, but some require permission from the copyright holder to allow renting the software.
* Buying the original software. Licenses never say that the buyer does not buy the software but instead pays for the right to use the software. In the US, the first-sale doctrine, Softman v. Adobe [3] and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. ruled that software sales are purchases, not licenses, and resale, including unbundling, is lawful regardless of a contractual prohibition. The reasoning in Softman v. Adobe suggests that resale of student licensed versions, provided they are accurately described as such, is also not infringing.
* Bulletin Board Sharing/Internet Piracy- Albacea et al (2005) states that this infringement occurs when System Operators share (by electronic transfer) copyrighted materials on bulletin boards or the internet for users to download.

Existing and proposed laws
To many of these attempts at circumventing these end user license agreements (EULA) software vendors counter that if a user somehow obtains software without agreeing to or becoming bound by the end user license agreement, then they do not have any license to use the software at all.
In most third world countries, the term of a copyright never exceeds any useful life a program may have. The oldest legacy computer systems used today are still less than 40 years old. The copyright on them will not expire in the United States and Europe until about 2030. Changes in computer hardware, operating systems, network environments and user expectations usually make programs obsolete much faster than in 70 years (the current copyright length).
Under the proposed US Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), a controversial model law that has been adopted in Virginia and Maryland, software manufacturers are granted broad rights to shut down unauthorized software copiers without court intervention similar to some of the provisions found in Title II of the US DMCA, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which allows copyright holders to demand that an online service provider (OSP) expeditiously block access to infringing materials. If the OSP complies, it is granted a safe harbor, providing it immunity from infringement claims. If it doesn’t comply, it doesn’t become liable, but may instead rely on the protection of the Communications Decency Act.
Title I of the US DMCA, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act has provisions that prevent persons from “circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work”. Thus if a software manufacturer has some kind of software, dongle or password access device installed in the software any attempt to bypass such a copy prevention scheme may be actionable — though the US Copyright Office is currently reviewing anticircumvention rulemaking under DMCA — anticircumvention exemptions that have been in place under the DMCA include those in software designed to filter websites that are generally seen to be inefficient (child safety and public library website filtering software) and the circumvention of copy prevention mechanisms that have malfunctioned, have caused the software to become inoperable or which are no longer supported by their manufacturers.
Most commercially exploited proprietary software is developed in the United States, Japan and Europe, hence for those located in economically disadvantaged economies it can be prohibitively expensive to pay for all the end user licenses for those products rather than to purchase just one license and then copy the software without paying any additional licensing fees. Some critics in the developing countries of the world see this as an indirect technology transfer tax on their country preventing technological advancement and they use this type of argument when refusing to accept the copyright laws that are in force in most technologically advanced countries. This idea is often applied to patent laws as well.
Mere possession of unauthorized copy could be a ground for an offense depending on provisions of existing laws of a country.

The effects of copyright infringement on digital culture
Peer to peer (P2P) file sharing technologies have lowered the threshold of knowledge needed to acquire massive amounts of information. Large networks have been created which are dedicated to share knowledge, but these same networks can be used to distribute infringing material. Identifying infringing material isn’t always trivial, since the users can modify the name of material being shared.
Software piracy is illegal due to the perceived economic loss it inflicts on the copyright owner. Even if it is assumed that only a portion of those infringing the author’s copyright would ever have bought the software, the author will still suffer an economic loss as a result.
Software authors suggest that copyright infringement negatively affects the economy by decreasing the profits that allow for further development and growth within the software industry. The U.S. is the country most affected, as they provide about 80% of the world’s software.[1] Software counterfeiting is claimed to be a large problem by some, resulting in a revenue loss of US $11-12 billion, China and Vietnam being the biggest offenders [2].
It has been suggested that counterfeit software will decline so much as to be eliminated in the future, but there are measures being taken and rules being put into place to work towards this goal. “In the United States, for example, the level of piracy has been reduced from 48% in 1989 to 25% in 2002.”[4] Rise of quality in free alternative software also helps to lower the use of copied software worldwide. Illegally copying software is seen by some software producers as a “lesser evil” than actually buying or illegally copying a competitor’s software. Jeff Raikes, a Microsoft executive, stated that “If they’re going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else.” He also added [3] that “We understand that in the long run the fundamental asset is the installed base of people who are using our products. What you hope to do over time is convert them to licensing the software.”
Traian Băsescu, the president of Romania, stated that “piracy helped the young generation discover computers. It set off the development of the IT industry in Romania.”[5]

Types of copyright infringement of software
According to the Business Software Alliance, copyright infringement of software takes several forms, which include the following.
“CD-R infringement” is the illegal copying of software using CD-R recording technology.
“Commercial Use of Non-commercial Software” is using educational or other commercial-use-restricted software in violation of the software license is a form of copyright infringement.
“Counterfeiting” is the duplication and sale of unauthorized copies of software in such a manner as to try to pass off the illegal copy as if it were a legitimate copy produced or authorized by the legal publisher. This is also often a violation of trademark laws.
“Hard-disk loading” occurs when an individual or company sells computers preloaded with illegal copies of software.
“Internet infringement” is the illegal uploading of software on to the Internet for anyone to copy.
“OEM infringement/unbundling” is known as OEM (original equipment manufacturer) software, is only legally sold with specified hardware. Whether misappropriating OEM software constitutes copyright infringement is subject to interpretation – a software publisher would have a difficult time prosecuting a person who has successfully purchased a genuine OEM copy but who, according to the license agreement, would have been supposed to purchase a retail copy. This is because a court must also consider laws relating to the commercial sales of goods such as the Uniform Commercial Code in the United States, which are more established in law and which can be interpreted to prohibit or nullify licensing terms that negate the established nature of a common sale transaction.
“Softlifting” is a neologism invented by anti-copyright infringement advocates, and is a term used to describe when a person purchases a single licensed copy of a software program and loads it on several machines, in violation of the terms of the license agreement.
“Unrestricted client access infringement” occurs when a copy of a software program is copied onto an organization’s servers and the organization’s network “clients” are allowed to freely access the software in violation of the terms of the license agreement.

Objections to the term “piracy”
Copyright Infringement has been called piracy since at least 1703. In the forward to Daniel Defoe’s corrected edition of The True-Born Englishman, the author makes reference to “pirates and paragraph men” who distributed copies of his poem on the streets. [6] Some modern groups object to the term “software piracy”, however, believing that such a term unfairly equates copyright violators with murderers and thieves. Evidence of this can be seen in the Free Software Foundation’s list of confusing words [7]

Types of Software Piracy
Industrial piracy
An individual or group attempts duplication and distribution on a large scale for profit.
Corporate piracy
Unprotected contents are shared through networks such as peer-to-peer, LAN and Internet.
Reseller piracy
Involves computer hardware companies selling machines with illegal copies of software preloaded on their hard drive.
Home piracy
Includes everything from trading disks with friends to running a not-for-profit bulletin board for the purpose of illegal software distribution.
[edit] Impact on Workplaces
According to the journal published by Frederick Gallegos[citation needed], they found that 90% of business employees believed that their colleagues copied software illegally.[citation needed] They also found that over 50% of managers indicated that they had committed software piracy.[citation needed] Males copied software illegally more frequently than females and younger students were more likely to pirate software than older students.[citation needed]

References
1. International Journal of Research in Marketing, December 2003 (Volume 20, No. 4), “How many pirates should a software firm tolerate?”
2. Journal of Business, 2004, (Volume 77, No. 2),“Software Piracy: Market penetration in the Presence of Network Externalities”
3. Albacea, E., Payongayong M. T. and A. Pinpin (2005) Computer Ethics.UPOU Los Baños Philippines. p 78.
4. G.Frederick, (2007) Software Piracy: Some Facts, Figures, and Issues.
1. ^ BSA – 2007 Global Piracy Study
2. ^ http://w3.bsa.org/globalstudy//upload/2005-2006%20Global%20Piracy%20Study.pdf:U.S. – China Economic and Security Review Commission June 8, 2006. Hearings USCC.gov http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/20006hearings/written_testimonies/06_06_08wrts/06_06_7_8_chow_daniel.php
3. ^ Softman-V-Adobe Linux Journal
4. ^ Software and Information Industry Association page on Piracy
5. ^ Nathan Davis. Thanks for letting us pirate. 5 February 2007.
6. ^ Ken Hunt, Dont’ Fear The Pirates,Toronto Globe & Mail, Nov. 27, 2007
7. ^ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html].

Phishing

Phishing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An example of a phishing e-mail, disguised as an official e-mail from a (fictional) bank. The sender is attempting to trick the recipient into revealing secure information by “confirming” it at the phisher’s website.
An example of a phishing e-mail, disguised as an official e-mail from a (fictional) bank. The sender is attempting to trick the recipient into revealing secure information by “confirming” it at the phisher’s website.
In computing, phishing is the process of attempting to criminally and fraudulently acquire sensitive information, such as usernames, passwords and credit card details, by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. PayPal, eBay and online banks are common targets. Phishing is typically carried out by e-mail or instant messaging,[1] and often directs users to enter details at a website. Phishing is an example of social engineering techniques used to fool users.[2] Attempts to deal with the growing number of reported phishing incidents include legislation, user training, public awareness, and technical security measures.
A phishing technique was described in detail as early as 1987, while the first recorded use of the term “phishing” was made in 1996. The term is a variant of fishing,[3] probably influenced by phreaking,[4][5] and alludes to the use of increasingly sophisticated baits used in the hope of a “catch” of financial information and passwords.

History and current status of phishing
A phishing technique was described in detail as early as 1987, in a paper and presentation delivered to the International HP Users Group, Interex.[6] The first recorded mention of the term “phishing” is on the alt.online-service.America-online Usenet newsgroup on January 2, 1996,[7] although the term may have appeared earlier in the print edition of the hacker magazine 2600.[8]
Early phishing on AOL
Phishing on AOL was closely associated with the warez community that exchanged pirated software. Those who would later phish on AOL during the 1990s originally used fake, algorithmically generated credit card numbers to create accounts on AOL, which could last weeks or possibly months. After AOL brought in measures in late 1995 to prevent this, early AOL crackers resorted to phishing for legitimate accounts.[9]
A phisher might pose as an AOL staff member and send an instant message to a potential victim, asking him to reveal his password.[10] In order to lure the victim into giving up sensitive information the message might include imperatives like “verify your account” or “confirm billing information”. Once the victim had revealed the password, the attacker could access and use the victim’s account for criminal purposes, such as spamming. Both phishing and warezing on AOL generally required custom-written programs, such as AOHell. Phishing became so prevalent on AOL that they added a line on all instant messages stating: “no one working at AOL will ask for your password or billing information”.
After 1997, AOL’s policy enforcement with respect to phishing and warez became stricter and forced pirated software off AOL servers. AOL simultaneously developed a system to promptly deactivate accounts involved in phishing, often before the victims could respond. The shutting down of the warez scene on AOL caused most phishers to leave the service, and many phishers—often young teens—grew out of the habit.[11]
Transition from AOL to financial institutions
The capture of AOL account information may have led phishers to misuse credit card information, and to the realization that attacks against online payment systems were feasible. The first known direct attempt against a payment system affected E-gold in June 2001, which was followed up by a “post-911 id check” shortly after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.[12] Both were viewed at the time as failures, but can now be seen as early experiments towards more fruitful attacks against mainstream banks. By 2004, phishing was recognized as a fully industrialized part of the economy of crime: specializations emerged on a global scale that provided components for cash, which were assembled into finished attacks.[13][14]

Recent phishing attempts
More recent phishing attempts have targeted the customers of banks and online payment services. E-mails, supposedly from the Internal Revenue Service, have also been used to glean sensitive data from U.S. taxpayers.[15] While the first such examples were sent indiscriminately in the expectation that some would be received by customers of a given bank or service, recent research has shown that phishers may in principle be able to determine which banks potential victims use, and target bogus e-mails accordingly.[16] Targeted versions of phishing have been termed spear phishing.[17] Several recent phishing attacks have been directed specifically at senior executives and other high profile targets within businesses, and the term whaling has been coined for these kinds of attacks.[18]
Social networking sites are also a target of phishing, since the personal details in such sites can be used in identity theft;[19] in late 2006 a computer worm took over pages on MySpace and altered links to direct surfers to websites designed to steal login details.[20] Experiments show a success rate of over 70% for phishing attacks on social networks.[21]
Almost half of phishing thefts in 2006 were committed by groups operating through the Russian Business Network based in St. Petersburg.[22]


Phishing techniques
Link manipulation
Most methods of phishing use some form of technical deception designed to make a link in an e-mail (and the spoofed website it leads to) appear to belong to the spoofed organization. Misspelled URLs or the use of subdomains are common tricks used by phishers, such as this example URL, http://www.yourbank.example.com/. Another common trick is to make the anchor text for a link appear to be valid, when the link actually goes to the phishers’ site, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine.
An old method of spoofing used links containing the ‘@’ symbol, originally intended as a way to include a username and password (contrary to the standard).[23] For example, the link http://www.google.com@members.tripod.com/ might deceive a casual observer into believing that it will open a page on www.google.com, whereas it actually directs the browser to a page on members.tripod.com, using a username of www.google.com: the page opens normally, regardless of the username supplied. Such URLs were disabled in Internet Explorer,[24] while Mozilla[25] and Opera present a warning message and give the option of continuing to the site or cancelling.
A further problem with URLs has been found in the handling of Internationalized domain names (IDN) in web browsers, that might allow visually identical web addresses to lead to different, possibly malicious, websites. Despite the publicity surrounding the flaw, known as IDN spoofing[26] or a homograph attack,[27] no known phishing attacks have yet taken advantage of it.[citation needed] Phishers have taken advantage of a similar risk, using open URL redirectors on the websites of trusted organizations to disguise malicious URLs with a trusted domain.[28][29][30]


Filter evasion
Phishers have used images instead of text to make it harder for anti-phishing filters to detect text commonly used in phishing e-mails.[31]

Website forgery
Once the victim visits the website the deception is not over.[32] Some phishing scams use JavaScript commands in order to alter the address bar. This is done either by placing a picture of a legitimate URL over the address bar, or by closing the original address bar and opening a new one with the legitimate URL.[33]
An attacker can even use flaws in a trusted website’s own scripts against the victim.[34] These types of attacks (known as cross-site scripting) are particularly problematic, because they direct the user to sign in at their bank or service’s own web page, where everything from the web address to the security certificates appears correct. In reality, the link to the website is crafted to carry out the attack, although it is very difficult to spot without specialist knowledge. Just such a flaw was used in 2006 against PayPal.[35]
A Universal Man-in-the-middle Phishing Kit, discovered by RSA Security, provides a simple-to-use interface that allows a phisher to convincingly reproduce websites and capture log-in details entered at the fake site.[36]
To avoid anti-phishing techniques that scan websites for phishing-related text, phishers have begun to use Flash-based websites. These look much like the real website, but hide the text in a multimedia object.[37]

Phone phishing
Not all phishing attacks require a fake website. Messages that claimed to be from a bank told users to dial a phone number regarding problems with their bank accounts.[38] Once the phone number (owned by the phisher, and provided by a Voice over IP service) was dialed, prompts told users to enter their account numbers and PIN. Vishing (voice phishing) sometimes uses fake caller-ID data to give the appearance that calls come from a trusted organization.[39]


Phishing examples
PayPal phishing example
In an example PayPal phish (right), spelling mistakes in the e-mail and the presence of an IP address in the link (visible in the tooltip under the yellow box) are both clues that this is a phishing attempt. Another giveaway is the lack of a personal greeting, although the presence of personal details would not be a guarantee of legitimacy. Other signs that the message is a fraud are misspellings of simple words and the threat of consequences such as account suspension if the recipient fails to comply with the message’s requests.
Damage caused by phishing
The damage caused by phishing ranges from denial of access to e-mail to substantial financial loss. This style of identity theft is becoming more popular, because of the readiness with which unsuspecting people often divulge personal information to phishers, including credit card numbers, social security numbers, and mothers’ maiden names. There are also fears that identity thieves can add such information to the knowledge they gain simply by accessing public records.[40] Once this information is acquired, the phishers may use a person’s details to create fake accounts in a victim’s name. They can then ruin the victims’ credit, or even deny the victims access to their own accounts.[41]
It is estimated that between May 2004 and May 2005, approximately 1.2 million computer users in the United States suffered losses caused by phishing, totaling approximately US$929 million. United States businesses lose an estimated US$2 billion per year as their clients become victims.[42] In 2007 phishing attacks escalated. 3.6 million adults lost US $ 3.2 billion in the 12 months ending in August 2007.[43] In the United Kingdom losses from web banking fraud—mostly from phishing—almost doubled to £23.2m in 2005, from £12.2m in 2004,[44] while 1 in 20 computer users claimed to have lost out to phishing in 2005.[45]
The stance adopted by the UK banking body APACS is that “customers must also take sensible precautions … so that they are not vulnerable to the criminal.”[46] Similarly, when the first spate of phishing attacks hit the Irish Republic’s banking sector in September 2006, the Bank of Ireland initially refused to cover losses suffered by its customers (and it still insists that its policy is not to do so[47]), although losses to the tune of €11300 were made good.[48]
Anti-phishing
There are several different techniques to combat phishing, including legislation and technology created specifically to protect against phishing.


Social responses
One strategy for combating phishing is to train people to recognize phishing attempts, and to deal with them. Education can be effective, especially where training provides direct feedback.[49] One newer phishing tactic, which uses phishing e-mails targeted at a specific company, known as spear phishing, has been harnessed to train individuals at various locations, including West Point Military Academy. In a June 2004 experiment with spear phishing, 80% of 500 West Point cadets who were sent a fake e-mail were tricked into revealing personal information.[50]
People can take steps to avoid phishing attempts by slightly modifying their browsing habits. When contacted about an account needing to be “verified” (or any other topic used by phishers), it is a sensible precaution to contact the company from which the e-mail apparently originates to check that the e-mail is legitimate. Alternatively, the address that the individual knows is the company’s genuine website can be typed into the address bar of the browser, rather than trusting any hyperlinks in the suspected phishing message.[51]
Nearly all legitimate e-mail messages from companies to their customers contain an item of information that is not readily available to phishers. Some companies, for example PayPal, always address their customers by their username in e-mails, so if an e-mail addresses the recipient in a generic fashion (“Dear PayPal customer”) it is likely to be an attempt at phishing.[52] E-mails from banks and credit card companies often include partial account numbers. However, recent research[53] has shown that the public do not typically distinguish between the first few digits and the last few digits of an account number—a significant problem since the first few digits are often the same for all clients of a financial institution. People can be trained to have their suspicion aroused if the message does not contain any specific personal information. Phishing attempts in early 2006, however, used personalized information, which makes it unsafe to assume that the presence of personal information alone guarantees that a message is legitimate.[54] Furthermore, another recent study concluded in part that the presence of personal information does not significantly affect the success rate of phishing attacks,[55] which suggests that most people do not pay attention to such details.
The Anti-Phishing Working Group, an industry and law enforcement association, has suggested that conventional phishing techniques could become obsolete in the future as people are increasingly aware of the social engineering techniques used by phishers.[56] They predict that pharming and other uses of malware will become more common tools for stealing information.
Technical responses
Anti-phishing measures have been implemented as features embedded in browsers, as extensions or toolbars for browsers, and as part of website login procedures. The following are some of the main approaches to the problem.
Helping to identify legitimate sites
Since phishing is based on impersonation, preventing it depends on some reliable way to determine a website’s real identity. For example, some anti-phishing toolbars display the domain name for the visited website.[57] The petname extension for Firefox lets users type in their own labels for websites, so they can later recognize when they have returned to the site. If the site is suspect, then the software may either warn the user or block the site outright.
Browsers alerting users to fraudulent websites
Another popular approach to fighting phishing is to maintain a list of known phishing sites and to check websites against the list. Microsoft’s IE7 browser, Mozilla Firefox 2.0, and Opera all contain this type of anti-phishing measure.[58][59][60] Firefox 2 uses Google anti-phishing software. Opera 9.1 uses live blacklists from PhishTank and GeoTrust, as well as live whitelists from GeoTrust. Some implementations of this approach send the visited URLs to a central service to be checked, which has raised concerns about privacy.[61] According to a report by Mozilla in late 2006, Firefox 2 was found to be more effective than Internet Explorer 7 at detecting fraudulent sites in a study by an independent software testing company.[62]
An approach introduced in mid-2006 involves switching to a special DNS service that filters out known phishing domains: this will work with any browser,[63] and is similar in principle to using a hosts file to block web adverts.
To mitigate the problem of phishing sites impersonating a victim site by embedding its images (such as logos), several site owners have altered the images to send a message to the visitor that a site may be fraudulent. The image may be moved to a new filename and the original permanently replaced, or a server can detect that the image was not requested as part of normal browsing, and instead send a warning image.[64][65]
Augmenting password logins
The Bank of America’s website[66][67] is one of several that ask users to select a personal image, and display this user-selected image with any forms that request a password. Users of the bank’s online services are instructed to enter a password only when they see the image they selected. However, a recent study suggests few users refrain from entering their password when images are absent.[68][69] In addition, this feature (like other forms of two-factor authentication) is susceptible to other attacks, such as those suffered by Scandinavian bank Nordea in late 2005,[70] and Citibank in 2006.[71]
Security skins[72][73] are a related technique that involves overlaying a user-selected image onto the login form as a visual cue that the form is legitimate. Unlike the website-based image schemes, however, the image itself is shared only between the user and the browser, and not between the user and the website. The scheme also relies on a mutual authentication protocol, which makes it less vulnerable to attacks that affect user-only authentication schemes.
A method to prevent simple phishing of transaction numbers (TANs) is to associate each TAN with a “lock number”[citation needed]. The bank’s server sends the lock number as a challenge, and the user provides the corresponding TAN as the response. The server selects the key-lock pair randomly from the list to prevent acquiring two consecutive TANs. Lock numbers are not sequential, so that phishers can only guess correct lock numbers.
Eliminating phishing mail
Specialized spam filters can reduce the number of phishing e-mails that reach their addressees’ inboxes. These approaches rely on machine learning and natural language processing approaches to classify phishing e-mails.[74][75]
Monitoring and takedown
Several companies offer banks and other organizations likely to suffer from phishing scams round-the-clock services to monitor, analyze and assist in shutting down phishing websites.[76] Individuals can contribute by reporting phishing to both volunteer and industry groups,[77] such as PhishTank.[78]


Legal responses
Globe icon
On January 26, 2004, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission filed the first lawsuit against a suspected phisher. The defendant, a Californian teenager, allegedly created a webpage designed to look like the America Online website, and used it to steal credit card information.[79] Other countries have followed this lead by tracing and arresting phishers. A phishing kingpin, Valdir Paulo de Almeida, was arrested in Brazil for leading one of the largest phishing crime rings, which in two years stole between US$18 million and US$37 million.[80] UK authorities jailed two men in June 2005 for their role in a phishing scam,[81] in a case connected to the U.S. Secret Service Operation Firewall, which targeted notorious “carder” websites.[82] In 2006 eight people were arrested by Japanese police on suspicion of phishing fraud by creating bogus Yahoo Japan Web sites, netting themselves 100 million yen ($870,000 USD).[83] The arrests continued in 2006 with the FBI Operation Cardkeeper detaining a gang of sixteen in the U.S. and Europe.[84]
In the United States, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005 on March 1, 2005. The federal anti-phishing bill proposes that criminals who create fake web sites and send bogus e-mails in order to defraud consumers could be fined up to $250,000 and be jailed for up to five years.[85] The UK strengthened its legal arsenal against phishing with the Fraud Act 2006,[86] which introduces a general offence of fraud that can carry up to a ten year prison sentence, and prohibits the development or possession of phishing kits with intent to commit fraud.[87]
Companies have also joined the effort to crack down on phishing. On March 31, 2005, Microsoft filed 117 federal lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The lawsuits accuse “John Doe” defendants of obtaining passwords and confidential information. March 2005 also saw a partnership between Microsoft and the Australian government teaching law enforcement officials how to combat various cyber crimes, including phishing.[88] Microsoft announced a planned further 100 lawsuits outside the U.S. in March 2006,[89] followed by the commencement, as of November 2006, of 129 lawsuits mixing criminal and civil actions.[90] AOL reinforced its efforts against phishing[91] in early 2006 with three lawsuits[92] seeking a total of $18 million USD under the 2005 amendments to the Virginia Computer Crimes Act,[93][94] and Earthlink has joined in by helping to identify six men subsequently charged with phishing fraud in Connecticut.[95]
In January 2007, Jeffrey Brett Goodin of California became the first defendant convicted by a jury under the provisions of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. He was found guilty of sending thousands of e-mails to America Online users, while posing as AOL’s billing department, which prompted customers to submit personal and credit card information. Facing a possible 101 years in prison for the CAN-SPAM violation and ten other counts including wire fraud, the unauthorized use of credit cards, and the misuse of AOL’s trademark, he was sentenced to serve 70 months. Goodin had been in custody since failing to appear for an earlier court hearing and began serving his prison term immediately.[96][97][98][99]

References
1. ^ Tan, Koon. Phishing and Spamming via IM (SPIM). Internet Storm Center. Retrieved on December 5, 2006.
2. ^ Microsoft Corporation. What is social engineering?. Retrieved on August 22, 2007.
3. ^ Spam Slayer: Do You Speak Spam?. PCWorld.com. Retrieved on August 16, 2006.
4. ^ “phishing, n.” OED Online, March 2006, Oxford University Press.. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved on August 9, 2006.
5. ^ Phishing. Language Log, September 22, 2004. Retrieved on August 9, 2006.
6. ^ Felix, Jerry and Hauck, Chris (September 1987). “System Security: A Hacker’s Perspective”. 1987 Interex Proceedings 1: 6.
7. ^ “phish, v.” OED Online, March 2006, Oxford University Press.. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved on August 9, 2006.
8. ^ Ollmann, Gunter. The Phishing Guide: Understanding and Preventing Phishing Attacks. Technical Info. Retrieved on July 10, 2006.
9. ^ Phishing. Word Spy. Retrieved on September 28, 2006.
10. ^ Stutz, Michael. “AOL: A Cracker’s Paradise?”, Wired News, January 29, 1998.
11. ^ History of AOL Warez.
12. ^ GP4.3 – Growth and Fraud – Case #3 – Phishing. Financial Cryptography (December 30, 2005).
13. ^ In 2005, Organized Crime Will Back Phishers. IT Management (December 23, 2004).
14. ^ The economy of phishing: A survey of the operations of the phishing market. First Monday (September 2005).
15. ^ Suspicious e-Mails and Identity Theft. Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved on July 5, 2006.
16. ^ “Phishing for Clues”, Indiana University Bloomington, September 15, 2005.
17. ^ What is spear phishing?. Microsoft Security At Home. Retrieved on July 10, 2006.
18. ^ Goodin, Dan. “Fake subpoenas harpoon 2,100 corporate fat cats”, The Register, April 17, 2008.
19. ^ Kirk, Jeremy. “Phishing Scam Takes Aim at MySpace.com”, IDG Network, June 2, 2006.
20. ^ Malicious Website / Malicious Code: MySpace XSS QuickTime Worm. Websense Security Labs. Retrieved on December 5, 2006.
21. ^ Tom Jagatic and Nathan Johnson and Markus Jakobsson and Filippo Menczer. Social Phishing. To appear in the CACM (October 2007). Retrieved on June 3, 2006.
22. ^ Shadowy Russian Firm Seen as Conduit for Cybercrime, by Brian Krebs, Washington post, October 13, 2007
23. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim. Uniform Resource Locators (URL). IETF Network Working Group. Retrieved on January 28, 2006.
24. ^ Microsoft. A security update is available that modifies the default behavior of Internet Explorer for handling user information in HTTP and in HTTPS URLs. Microsoft Knowledgebase. Retrieved on August 28, 2005.
25. ^ Fisher, Darin. Warn when HTTP URL auth information isn’t necessary or when it’s provided. Bugzilla. Retrieved on August 28, 2005.
26. ^ Johanson, Eric. The State of Homograph Attacks Rev1.1. The Shmoo Group. Retrieved on August 11, 2005.
27. ^ Evgeniy Gabrilovich and Alex Gontmakher (February 2002). “The Homograph Attack”. Communications of the ACM 45(2): 128.
28. ^ Leyden, John. “Barclays scripting SNAFU exploited by phishers”, The Register, August 15, 2006.
29. ^ Levine, Jason. Goin’ phishing with eBay. Q Daily News. Retrieved on December 14, 2006.
30. ^ Leyden, John. “Cybercrooks lurk in shadows of big-name websites”, The Register, December 12, 2007.
31. ^ Mutton, Paul. Fraudsters seek to make phishing sites undetectable by content filters. Netcraft. Retrieved on July 10, 2006.
32. ^ Mutton, Paul. Phishing Web Site Methods. FraudWatch International. Retrieved on December 14, 2006.
33. ^ “Phishing con hijacks browser bar”, BBC News, April 8, 2004.
34. ^ Krebs, Brian. Flaws in Financial Sites Aid Scammers. Security Fix. Retrieved on June 28, 2006.
35. ^ Mutton, Paul. PayPal Security Flaw allows Identity Theft. Netcraft. Retrieved on June 19, 2006.
36. ^ Hoffman, Patrick. “RSA Catches Financial Phishing Kit”, eWeek, January 10, 2007.
37. ^ Miller, Rich. Phishing Attacks Continue to Grow in Sophistication. Netcraft. Retrieved on December 19, 2007.
38. ^ Gonsalves, Antone. “Phishers Snare Victims With VoIP”, Techweb, April 25, 2006.
39. ^ “Identity thieves take advantage of VoIP”, Silicon.com, March 21, 2005.
40. ^ Virgil Griffith and Markus Jakobsson. Messin’ with Texas, Deriving Mother’s Maiden Names Using Public Records. ACNS ‘05. Retrieved on July 7, 2006.
41. ^ Krebs, Brian. “Phishing Schemes Scar Victims”, washingtonpost.com, November 18, 2004.
42. ^ Kerstein, Paul. “How Can We Stop Phishing and Pharming Scams?”, CSO, July 19, 2005.
43. ^ McCall, Tom. “Gartner Survey Shows Phishing Attacks Escalated in 2007; More than $3 Billion Lost to These Attacks”, Gartner, December 17, 2007.
44. ^ “UK phishing fraud losses double”, Finextra, March 7, 2006.
45. ^ Richardson, Tim. “Brits fall prey to phishing”, The Register, May 3, 2005.
46. ^ Miller, Rich. Bank, Customers Spar Over Phishing Losses. Netcraft. Retrieved on December 14, 2006.
47. ^ Latest News
48. ^ Bank of Ireland agrees to phishing refunds – vnunet.com
49. ^ Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Yong Woo Rhee, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Cranor, Jason Hong and Elizabeth Nunge (November 2006). Protecting People from Phishing: The Design and Evaluation of an Embedded Training Email System. Technical Report CMU-CyLab-06-017, CyLab, Carnegie Mellon University.. Retrieved on November 14, 2006.
50. ^ Bank, David. “‘Spear Phishing’ Tests Educate People About Online Scams”, The Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2005.

Diana, Princess of Wales

Diana, Princess of Wales
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diana, Princess of Wales, (Diana Frances;[1] née Spencer; July 1, 1961 – August 31, 1997) was the first wife of Charles, Prince of Wales. Their sons, Princes William and Henry (Harry), are second and third in line to the thrones of the United Kingdom and fifteen other Commonwealth Realms.
A public figure from the announcement of her engagement to Prince Charles, Diana remained the focus of near-constant media scrutiny in the United Kingdom and around the world up to and during her marriage, and after her subsequent divorce. Her sudden death in a car crash was followed by a spontaneous and prolonged show of public mourning – what many considered “their own personal this life” (Requiem for Diana, Collins Hanley). Contemporary responses to Diana’s life and legacy have been mixed but a popular fascination with the Princess endures. The long awaited Coroner’s Inquest reported in April 2008 that Diana had been unlawfully killed by the driver and the following paparazzi.[2]

Early life
Diana Frances Spencer, born into the British aristocracy, was the youngest daughter of Edward John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, later John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer, and his first wife, Frances Spencer, Viscountess Althorp (formerly the Honourable Frances Burke Roche, and later Frances Shand Kydd). She was born at Park House, Sandringham in Norfolk, England on 1 July 1961 at 6.45 in the evening. She was baptised at St. Mary Magdalene Church by the Rt. Rev. Percy Herbert (rector of the church and former Bishop of Norwich and Blackburn); her godparents included John Floyd (the chairman of Christie’s). She was the third child to the couple, her four siblings being The Lady Sarah Spencer (born 19 March 1955), The Lady Jane Spencer (born 11 February 1957), The Honourable John Spencer (born and died 12 January 1960), and Charles Spencer (born 20 May 1964). Following her parents’ acrimonious divorce in 1969 (over Lady Althorp’s affair with wallpaper heir Peter Shand Kydd), Diana’s mother took her and her younger brother to live in an apartment in London’s Knightsbridge, where Diana attended a local day school. That Christmas the Spencer children went to celebrate with their father and he subsequently refused to allow them to return to London with their mother. Lady Althorp sued for custody of her children, but Lady Althorp’s mother’s testimony against her daughter during the trial contributed to the court’s decision to award custody of Diana and her brother to their father.
In 1976 Lord Spencer married Raine, Countess of Dartmouth, the only daughter of romantic novelist Barbara Cartland, after he was named as the “other party” in the Dartmouths’ divorce. During this time Diana travelled up and down the country, living between her parents’ homes—with her father at the Spencer seat in Northamptonshire, and with her mother, who had moved to the Island of Seil off the west coast of Scotland. Diana, like her siblings, did not get along with her stepmother.

Royal descent
Diana was born into the Spencer family. On her mother’s side, Diana had Irish, Scottish, English, American and remote Armenian ancestry. One of her great-grandmothers was the New York heiress Frances Work. On her father’s side, she was a descendant of King Charles II of England through two sons:
She was also a descendant of King James II of England through a daughter, Henrietta FitzJames. Henrietta’s mother was Arabella Churchill, the sister of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. Her other notable ancestors included Robert the Bruce; Mary Boleyn; Lady Catherine Grey; Maria de Salinas; John Egerton, 2nd Earl of Bridgewater; and James Stanley, 7th Earl of Derby.
Diana was also a descendant of the Plantagenet line from Henry III King of England via Mary Boleyn. Diana is also descendant of the Tudor line from Henry VII King of England via Lady Catherine Grey. Her ancestry is thus as linked to Plantagenent, Tudor and Stuart royal lines as much as her royal inlaws (the Windsors).
The Spencers had been close to the British Royal Family for centuries, rising in royal favour during the 1600s. Diana’s maternal grandmother, Ruth, Lady Fermoy, was a long-time friend and a lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.

Education
Diana was first educated at Silfield School Kings Lynn, Norfolk, then at Riddlesworth Hall in Norfolk and at West Heath Girls’ School (later reorganised as the New School at West Heath, a special school for boys and girls) in Sevenoaks, Kent, where she was regarded as a poor student, having attempted and failed all of her O-levels twice.[3] In 1977, at the age of 16, she left West Heath and briefly attended Institut Alpin Videmanette, a finishing school in Rougemont, Switzerland. At about that time, she first met her future husband, who was dating her sister, Lady Sarah. Diana reportedly excelled in swimming and diving and longed to be a ballerina. She studied ballet for a time, but at 5′10″ was too tall.
Diana moved to London before she turned seventeen. An apartment was purchased for her at Coleherne Court in the Earls Court area, and she lived there until 1981 with three flatmates.

Marriage
Prince Charles’ love life had always been the subject of press speculation, and he was linked to numerous glamorous and aristocratic women. In his early thirties, he was under increasing pressure to marry. Legally, the only requirement was that he could not marry a Roman Catholic; a member of the Church of England was preferred. In order to gain the approval of his family and their advisers, any potential bride was expected to have a royal or aristocratic background, be a virgin, as well as be Protestant.

Engagement and wedding
Their engagement became official February 24, 1981[4] with the heir to the throne presenting the princess with a walnut-sized £30,000 ring consisting of 14 diamonds and a sapphire. [5]
The 20-year-old princess married at St Paul’s Cathedral, which offered more seating than Westminster Abbey which was previously used for royal nuptials, on 29 July 1981 in what was widely billed as a “fairytale wedding” watched by a global television audience of 750 million.[6] [7] At the altar Diana accidentally reversed the order of Charles’ names saying Charles Arthur Philip George instead. [8] The wedding started at 11:20 A.M. BST, and Diana wore a gown valued at £9000 with 25 foot train and the finest lace.[9]

Problems and separation
In the late 1980s, the marriage of Diana and Charles fell apart, an event at first suppressed, then sensationalised, by the world media. Both the Prince and Princess of Wales allegedly spoke to the press through friends, each blaming the other for the marriage’s demise. Charles resumed his old, pre-marital affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles. Asked what part Camilla had played in the break-up of her marriage, Diana commented during the BBC programme Panorama, “Well there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.” [10] Diana had an affair with her riding instructor, James Hewitt. She confirmed this during the Panorama television interview. [11] Charles had confirmed his own affair over a year earlier in a televised interview with Jonathan Dimbleby.[12] The Prince and Princess of Wales were separated on 9 December 1992. [13] While she blamed Camilla Parker-Bowles for her marital troubles, as early as October 1993, Diana was writing to a friend that she believed her husband was now in love with Tiggy Legge-Bourke and wanted to marry her.[14] On 3 December 1993, Diana announced her withdrawal from public life.[15]

Divorce
In December 1995, the Queen asked Charles and Diana for “an early divorce”.[16] This followed shortly after Diana’s accusation that Tiggy Legge-Bourke had aborted Charles’s child, causing Tiggy to instruct Peter Carter-Ruck to demand an apology.[16] Two days before this story broke, Diana’s secretary Patrick Jephson resigned, later claiming that Diana had “exulted in accusing Legge-Bourke of having had an abortion”.[17] On 20 December 1995, Buckingham Palace publicly announced that the Queen had sent letters to Charles and Diana advising them to divorce. The Queen’s move was backed by the Prime Minister and by senior Privy Councillors, and, according to the BBC, was decided after two weeks of talks.[18]. Prince Charles immediately agreed with the suggestion. In February 1996, Diana announced her agreement as well.
The divorce was finalised on 28 August 1996.[15]
Diana received a lump sum settlement of around £17,000,000 along with a legal order preventing her from discussing the details.[19]
Days before the decree absolute of divorce, Letters Patent were issued by Queen Elizabeth containing general rules to regulate the titles of people who married into the Royal Family after divorce. In accordance with those rules, as she was no longer married to the Prince of Wales, and so had ceased to be a Royal by marriage, Diana lost the style, Her Royal Highness and instead was styled, Diana, Princess of Wales. Buckingham Palace issued a press release on the day of the day the decree absolute of divorce was issued, announcing Diana’s change of title.
Buckingham Palace stated that Diana was still officially a member of the Royal Family, since she was the mother of the second- and third-in-line to the throne. This was confirmed by the Deputy Coroner of the Queen’s Household, Baroness Butler-Sloss, who after a pre-hearing on 8 January 2007 ruled that: “I am satisfied that at her death, Diana, Princess of Wales continued to be considered as a member of the Royal Household.”[2] This appears to have been confirmed in the High Court judicial review matter of Al Fayed & Ors v Butler-Sloss. In that case, three High Court judges accepted submissions that the “very name ‘Coroner to the Queen’s Household’ gave the appearance of partiality in the context of inquests into the deaths of two people, one of whom was a member of the Royal Family and the other was not.”[20]

Personal life after divorce
After the divorce, Diana retained her apartment in Kensington Palace, completely redecorated, and it remained her home until her death.
She publicly dated the respected heart surgeon from Pakistan, Hasnat Khan, who was called “the love of her life” [21], for almost two years, before Khan ended the relationship due to cultural differences.[22][23] She soon after began her relationship with Dodi Al-Fayed. These details were confirmed by witnesses at her inquest in November/December 2007.
After her divorce, Diana worked particularly for the Red Cross and campaigned to rid the world of land mines. Her work was on a humanitarian rather than a political level. She was extremely aware of her status as mother of a future king and was prepared to do anything to prevent harm to her sons. She pursued her own interests in philanthropy, music, fashion and travel—although she still required royal consent to take her children on holiday or to represent the UK abroad. Without a holiday or weekend home, Diana spent most of her time in London, often without her sons, who were with Prince Charles or at boarding school.

Charity work
Starting in the mid- to late 1980s, the Princess of Wales became very well known for her support of several charity projects. This stemmed naturally from her role as Princess of Wales—she was expected to engage in hospital visits where she comforted the sick and in so doing, assumed the patronage of various charitable organisations—and from an interest in certain illnesses and health-related matters. Diana was a supporter of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, a campaign that went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997.[24]

AIDS awareness
In April 1987, the Princess of Wales was one of the first high-profile celebrities to be photographed touching a person infected with HIV at the ‘chain of hope’ organization. Her contribution to changing the public opinion of AIDS sufferers was summarized in December 2001 by Bill Clinton at the ‘Diana, Princess of Wales Lecture on AIDS’:
” In 1987, when so many still believed that AIDS could be contracted through casual contact, Princess Diana sat on the sickbed of a man with AIDS and held his hand. She showed the world that people with AIDS deserve no isolation, but compassion and kindness. It helped change the world’s opinion, and gave hope to people with AIDS. “
—Bill Clinton

Landmines
The pictures of former Princess Diana touring an Angolan minefield, in a ballistic helmet and flak jacket, were seen worldwide. It was during this campaign that some accused the Princess of meddling in politics and declared her a ‘loose cannon.’[25] In August 1997, just days before her death, she visited Bosnia with the Landmine Survivors Network. Her interest in landmines was focused on the injuries they create, often to children, long after a conflict is over.
She is believed to have influenced the signing, though only after her death, of the Ottawa Treaty, which created an international ban on the use of anti-personnel landmines.[26] Introducing the Second Reading of the Landmines Bill 1998 to the British House of Commons, the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, paid tribute to Diana’s work on landmines:
” All Honourable Members will be aware from their postbags of the immense contribution made by Diana, Princess of Wales to bringing home to many of our constituents the human costs of landmines. The best way in which to record our appreciation of her work, and the work of NGOs that have campaigned against landmines, is to pass the Bill, and to pave the way towards a global ban on landmines.[27] “
—Robin Cook
The United Nations appealed to the nations which produced and stockpiled the largest numbers of landmines (China, Japan, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States) to sign the Ottawa Treaty forbidding their production and use, for which Diana had campaigned. Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), said that landmines remained “a deadly attraction for children, whose innate curiosity and need for play often lure them directly into harm’s way”.[28]

Death
On 31 August 1997, Diana died after a high speed car crash in the Pont de l’Alma road tunnel in Paris along with Dodi Al-Fayed and the acting security manager of the Hôtel Ritz Paris, Henri Paul, who was instructed to drive the hired Mercedes-Benz through Paris secretly eluding the paparazzi.[29] Their black 1994 Mercedes-Benz S280 (registration no. 688 LTV 75) crashed into the thirteenth pillar of the tunnel. The two-lane tunnel was built without metal barriers in front of the pillars, so a slight change in vehicle direction could easily result in a head-on collision with a tunnel pillar. None of the four occupants wore seatbelts.[30]
The paparazzi, who had been trailing the car, arrived at the Alma underpass at different stages. Serge Arnal, Christian Martinez and Stéphane Darmon appear to have arrived first, quickly followed by Serge Benhamou. Records supplied by mobile telephone operators Itinéris and SFR support Serge Arnal’s claim that he attempted to call the emergency services. Film seized from the cameras of Christian Martinez and Serge Arnal showed that they were taking photographs of the car and/or the occupants almost immediately after arrival at the scene – there were no emergency services near the car visible in their photographs.
Blood analysis showed that Henri Paul was illegally intoxicated with alcohol whilst driving. He drove at high speed in order to evade the pursuing paparazzi. Tests showed he had consumed amounts of alcohol three times that of the French legal limit. However suspicions were raised by the fact that the same blood sample contained twenty percent carbon monoxide. Such a high level of carbon monoxide would make even a healthy human being unable to drive a vehicle. There is doubt, therefore, that this sample belonged to Henri Paul as is claimed. Fayed’s bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, who was in the passenger seat, was closest to the point of impact and yet he was the only survivor of the crash. Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed were killed instantly, and Diana—unbelted in the back seat- slid forward during the impact and, having been violently thrown around the interior, “submarined” under the seat in front of her, suffering massive damage to her heart with subsequent internal bleeding.[31] She was eventually, after considerable delay, transported by ambulance to the Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, but on the way she went into cardiac arrest twice.[31] Despite lengthy resuscitation attempts, including internal cardiac massage, she died at 4 a.m. local time.[32] Her funeral on 6 September 1997 was broadcast and watched by an estimated 2.5 billion people worldwide.[33]
An eighteen-month French judicial investigation concluded in 1999 that the car crash that killed Diana was caused by Paul, who lost control of the car at high speed while intoxicated and under the influence of antidepressants. [34]
Since February 1998, Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al-Fayed (the owner of the Hôtel Ritz, for which Paul worked) has claimed that the crash was a result of a conspiracy [35], and has since contended that the crash was orchestrated by MI6 on the instructions of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. [36]
Fayed’s claims that the crash was a result of a conspiracy were dismissed by a French judicial investigation [37], and Operation Paget, a Metropolitan police inquiry that concluded in 2006. [38]
An inquest headed by Lord Justice Scott Baker into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed began at the Royal Courts of Justice, London on 2 October 2007 and was a continuation of the original inquest that began in 2004.[39] A jury decided on 7 April 2008 that Diana had been unlawfully killed by the grossly negligent driving of chauffeur Henri Paul and press photographers.[40] The following day Mr. Fayed announced he would end his 10 year campaign for the sake of Diana’s children. Despite all that he is set to release a movie claiming the inquest was a cover up.

Tribute, funeral and burial
Diana’s funeral took place in Westminster Abbey on 6 September 1997. The previous day, Queen Elizabeth II paid tribute to her former daughter-in-law in a live television broadcast:
” Since last Sunday’s dreadful news we have seen, throughout Britain and around the world, an overwhelming expression of sadness at Diana’s death. …. I want to pay tribute to Diana myself. She was an exceptional and gifted human being. In good times and bad, she never lost her capacity to smile and laugh, nor to inspire others with her warmth and kindness. I admired and respected her – for her energy and commitment to others, and especially for her devotion to her two boys. … No-one who knew Diana will ever forget her. Millions of others who never met her, but felt they knew her, will remember her. I for one believe there are lessons to be drawn from her life and from the extraordinary and moving reaction to her death. I share in your determination to cherish her memory.[41] “
Diana’s funeral saw a widespread outpouring of grief at her passing. [42] It was attended by all members of the royal family. Her sons, William and Harry, walked behind her casket along with their father, Prince Charles, and grandfather, Prince Phillip together with Diana’s brother, Earl Spencer. During the service, Elton John sang a new version of “Candle In The Wind”, his hit song about Marilyn Monroe. He changed the title to “Goodbye England’s Rose” and the lyrics to refer to Diana. The burial occurred privately, later the same day. The Prince of Wales, Diana’s sons, her mother, siblings, a close friend, and a clergyman were present. Diana’s remains had been dressed in a black long-sleeved dress designed by Catherine Walker; ironically she had chosen the dress a few weeks before. A set of rosary beads had been placed in her hands, a gift she received from Mother Teresa, who died the same week as Diana. Her grave is on an island within the grounds of Althorp Park, the Spencer family home.[43]
The original plan was for Diana to be buried in the Spencer family vault at the local church in nearby Great Brington, but her younger brother, Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer, said that he was concerned about public safety and security and the onslaught of visitors that might overwhelm Great Brington. He decided that he wanted his older sister to be buried where her grave could be easily cared for and visited in privacy by her sons and other relations.
The island is in an ornamental lake known as The Round Oval within Althorp Park’s gardens. A path with thirty-six oak trees, marking each year of her life, leads to the Oval. Four black swans swim in the lake, guarding the island. In the water there are water lilies, which, in addition to white roses, were Diana’s favourite flowers.
On the southern verge of the Round Oval sits the Summerhouse, previously in the gardens of Admiralty House, London, and now adapted to serve as a memorial to Diana.[44] An ancient arboretum stands nearby, which contains trees planted by Prince William and Prince Harry, other members of her family, and Diana herself.

Memorials
Immediately after her death, many sites around the world became briefly ad hoc memorials to Diana, where the public left flowers and other tributes. The largest was outside the gates of Kensington Palace. Permanent memorials include:
* The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain in Hyde Park, London opened by Queen Elizabeth II.
* The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Playground in Kensington Gardens, London.
* The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Walk, a circular path between Kensington Gardens, Green Park, Hyde Park and St James’s Park, London
In addition, there are two memorials inside Harrods department store, owned by Dodi Al-Fayed’s father Mohamed Al-Fayed, in London. The first memorial consists of photos of the two behind a pyramid-shaped display that holds a wine glass still smudged with lipstick from Diana’s last dinner as well as an ‘engagement’ ring Dodi purchased the day before they died.[45] The second, unveiled in 2005 and titled “Innocent Victims”, is a bronze statue of the two dancing on a beach beneath the wings of an albatross.[46]

Memorabilia
Following Diana’s death, the Princess Diana Memorial Fund was granted intellectual property rights over her image [47]. In 1998, after refusing the Franklin Mint an official license to produce Diana merchandise, the fund sued the Franklin Mint, accusing it of illegally selling Diana dolls, plates and jewellery [48]. In California, where the initial case was tried, a suit to preserve the right of publicity may be filed on behalf of a dead person, but only if that person is a Californian. The Memorial Fund therefore filed the lawsuit on behalf of the estate, and upon losing the case but were required to pay the Franklin Mint’s legal costs of £3 million, which when combined other fees, caused the Memorial Fund to freeze their grants to charities [49]
In 2003 the Franklin Mint countersued, and the case was eventually settled in 2004, with the fund agreeing to an out-of-court settlement, which was donated to mutually agreed charitable causes [50].
Today, pursuant to this lawsuit, two California companies remain and continue to sell Princess Diana memorabilia with impunity and without the need for any permission from Diana’s estate: the Franklin Mint and Princess Ring LLC.

Recent events
On 13 July 2006 Italian magazine Chi published photographs showing the princess receiving oxygen in the wreckage of the car crash, [51] despite an unofficial blackout on such photographs being published.[52] The photographs were taken minutes after the accident, and show the Princess slumped in the back seat while a paramedic attempts to fit an oxygen mask over her face. The editor of Chi defended his decision by saying that he published the photographs for the very simple reason that they had not been seen before, and that he felt the images do not disrespect the memory of the Princess.[52]
Fresh controversy arose over the issue of these photographs when Britain’s Channel 4 broadcast them during a documentary in June 2007.[53]
July 1, 2007 marked a concert held by her two sons celebrating the 46th anniversary of her birth. The concert was held at Wembley Stadium and featured many well known and popular acts on the bill.
The 2007 docudrama Diana: Last Days of a Princess details the final two months of her life.
On an October 2007 episode of The Chaser’s War on Everything, Andrew Hansen mocked Diana in his now infamous “Eulogy Song”, which immediately created considerable controversy in the Australian media.[54]

Conspiracy theories
The circumstances surrounding the death of Diana have been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories, perpetrated by Mohamed Al-Fayed, whose son, Dodi Al-Fayed also died in the accident. Fayed has contended that the crash was orchestrated by MI6 on the instructions of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. [55], Fayed has also accused the British and French intelligence, police and medical services, Henri Paul, Tony Blair, Robin Cook, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, Rosa Monckton, Charles, Prince of Wales, Lord Stevens, Lord Condon, Lord Mishcon, Lord Fellowes, Sir Michael Jay, and the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, The Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph of being involved in covering up or participating in her death [56].
In 2006 the results of an inquiry convened by Lord Stevens, former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Operation Paget, was published and dismissed all allegations of conspiracy as without foundation.
On October 2, 2007 an inquest began into her death and was scheduled to last for at least six months. During his summing up at the inquest, the coroner stated: “The conspiracy theory advanced by Mohamed Al Fayed has been minutely examined and shown to be without any substance”.[57] The jury decided on 7 April 2008 that Diana had been unlawfully killed by the grossly negligent driving of chauffeur Henri Paul and paparazzi photographers.[40] [58]

Contemporary opinions
An iconic presence on the world stage, Diana was noted for her sense of compassion, [59] style, charisma, and high-profile charity work, yet her philanthropic endeavours were overshadowed by her difficult marriage to Prince Charles.
From the time of her engagement to the Prince of Wales in 1981 until her death after a car accident in 1997, Diana was one of the most famous women in the world—a pre-eminent celebrity of her generation. During her lifetime, she was often described as the world’s most photographed woman. One biographer suggested that Diana was possibly suffering from Borderline personality disorder. [60] Diana admitted to struggling with depression, and the eating disorder bulimia, which recurred throughout her adult life. Royal biographer, Sarah Bradford commented, “The only cure for her (Diana’s) suffering would have been the love of the Prince of Wales which she so passionately desired, something which would always be denied her. His was the final rejection; the way in which he consistently denigrated her reduced her to despair.” [61] Diana herself commented, “My husband made me feel inadequate in every possible way that each time I came up for air he pushed me down again …” [62]

Titles, styles, honours and arms
Titles and styles
* The Honourable Diana Frances Spencer, 1 July 1961 – 9 June 1975
* The Lady Diana Frances Spencer, 9 June 1975 – 29 July 1981
* Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales, 29 July 1981 – 28 August 1996
* Diana, Princess of Wales, 28 August 1996 – 31 August 1997
Posthumously, as in life, she is most popularly referred to as “Princess Diana”, a title she never held.[63] Still, she is sometimes referred to incorrectly in the media as “Lady Diana Spencer”, or simply as “Lady Di”. After Tony Blair’s famous speech she is also referred to as the People’s Princess.[64]
Diana’s full style, while married, was Her Royal Highness the Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland.[65]

Honours
British honours
* Royal Family Order of Queen Elizabeth II
Foreign honours
* Flag of the Netherlands Grand Officer, House Order of Orange

Arms
As the wife of the Prince of Wales, Diana used arms that included the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom with a plain, three-point label and the inescutcheon of the Coat of Arms of the Principality of Wales (the arms of the Prince of Wales), impaled with a shield bearing 1st and 4th quarters plain white, and the 2nd and 3rd quarters bearing a golden fret on a red background defaced with three escallopes (the arms of the Earl Spencer, her father). The supporters were the crowned golden lion from the Royal Arms, and a winged griffin from the Spencer arms. The shield was topped by the Prince of Wales crown. Her motto was Dieu Defend le Droit (English: God defends the right), also used in the Spencer arms.
After her divorce and before her death, Diana used the arms of the Spencer family, crowned by a royal coronet.

Legacy
* Diana’s interest in supporting and helping young people led to the establishment of the Diana Memorial Award, awarded to youths who have demonstrated the unselfish devotion and commitment to causes advocated by the Princess. In 2002, Diana was ranked 3rd in the 100 Greatest Britons poll, outranking Queen Elizabeth II and other British monarchs.
* On August 29, 2007, Peruvian photographer Mario Testino announced that on November 20, he would auction a signed photo of Diana for the benefit of Peru earthquake (in London by Phillips de Pury & Co). The photo appeared in a 1997 Vanity Fair issue, and shows Diana wearing a black dress.[66]
* The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Playground was erected in Kensington gardens at a cost of £1.7 million.[2]
* The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Walk was dedicated to the memory of Diana, Princess of Wales, it stretches between Kensington Gardens, Green Park, Hyde Park and St James’s Park.
* On July 6, 2004 Queen Elizabeth II officially opened the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain. It is located in the southwest corner of Hyde Park in London.
* In 1999 the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Award for Inspirational Young People was established.

Fashion

Fashion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fashion refers to styles of dress (but can also include cuisine, literature, art, architecture, and general comportment) that are popular in a culture at any given time. Such styles may change quickly, and “fashion” in the more colloquial sense refers to the latest version of these styles. Inherent in the term is the idea that the mode will change more quickly than the culture as a whole.
The terms “fashionable” and “unfashionable” are employed to describe whether someone or something fits in with the current or even not so current, popular mode of expression. The term “fashion” is frequently used in a positive sense, as a synonym for glamour, beauty and style. In this sense, fashions are a sort of communal art, through which a culture examines its notions of beauty and goodness. The term “fashion” is also sometimes used in a negative sense, as a synonym for fads and trends, and materialism. A number of cities are recognized as global fashion centers and are recognized for their fashion weeks, where designers exhibit their new clothing collections to audiences. These cities are New York City, Milan, Paris, and London. Other cities, mainly Los Angeles, Berlin, Tokyo, Rome, Miami, Hong Kong, São Paulo, Sydney, Madrid, Vienna, and Dubai also hold fashion weeks and are better recognized every year.

Areas of fashion
Fashions are social phenomena common to many fields of human activity and thinking. The rise and fall of fashions has been especially documented and examined in the following fields:
* Architecture, interior design, and landscape design
* Arts and crafts
* Body type, clothing or costume, cosmetics, personal grooming, hairstyle, and personal adornment
* Dance and music
* Forms of address, slang, and other forms of speech
* Economics and spending choices, as studied in behavioral finance
* Entertainment, games, hobbies, sports, and other pastimes
* Etiquette
* Management, management styles and ways of organizing
* Politics and media, especially the topics of conversation encouraged by the media
* Philosophy and spirituality (One might argue that religion is prone to fashions, although official religions tend to change so slowly that the term cultural shift is perhaps more appropriate than “fashion”)
* Social networks and the diffusion of representations and practices
* Sociology and the meaning of clothing for identity-building
* Technology, such as the choice of computer programming techniques
* Hospitality industry such as designer uniforms custom made for a hotel, restaurant, casino, resort or club, in order to reflect a property and brand. see “uniforms”
Of these fields, costume especially has become so linked in the public eye with the term “fashion” that the more general term “costume” has mostly been relegated to only mean fancy dress or masquerade wear, while the term “fashion” means clothing generally, and the study of it. This linguistic switch is due to the so-called fashion plates which were produced during the Industrial Revolution, showing novel ways to use new textiles. For a broad cross-cultural look at clothing and its place in society, refer to the entries for clothing and costume. The remainder of this article deals with clothing fashions in the Western world.[1]

Clothing
The habit of people continually changing the style of clothing worn, which is now worldwide, at least among urban populations, is generally held by historians to be a distinctively Western one. At other periods in Ancient Rome and other cultures changes in costume occurred, often at times of economic or social change, but then a long period without large changes followed. In 8th century Cordoba, Spain, Ziryab, a famous musician – a star in modern terms – is said to have introduced sophisticated clothing styles based on seasonal and daily timings from his native Baghdad and his own inspiration.
The beginnings of the habit in Europe of continual and increasingly rapid change in styles can be fairly clearly dated to the middle of the 14th century, to which historians including James Laver and Fernand Braudel date the start of Western fashion in clothing.[2][3] The most dramatic manifestation was a sudden drastic shortening and tightening of the male over-garment, from calf-length to barely covering the buttocks, sometimes accompanied with stuffing on the chest to look bigger. This created the distinctive Western male outline of a tailored top worn over leggings or trousers which is still with us today.
The pace of change accelerated considerably in the following century, and women’s fashion, especially in the dressing and adorning of the hair, became equally complex and changing. Art historians are therefore able to use fashion in dating images with increasing confidence and precision, often within five years in the case of 15th century images. Initially changes in fashion led to a fragmentation of what had previously been very similar styles of dressing across the upper classes of Europe, and the development of distinctive national styles, which remained very different until a counter-movement in the 17th to 18th centuries imposed similar styles once again, finally those from Ancien Régime in France.[4] Though fashion was always led by the rich, the increasing affluence of early modern Europe led to the bourgeoisie and even peasants following trends at a distance sometimes uncomfortably close for the elites – a factor Braudel regards as one of the main motors of changing fashion.[5]
The fashions of the West are generally unparalleled either in antiquity or in the other great civilizations of the world. Early Western travellers, whether to Persia, Turkey, Japan or China frequently remark on the absence of changes in fashion there, and observers from these other cultures comment on the unseemly pace of Western fashion, which many felt suggested an instability and lack of order in Western culture. The Japanese Shogun’s secretary boasted (not completely accurately) to a Spanish visitor in 1609 that Japanese clothing had not changed in over a thousand years.[6] However in Ming China, for example, there is considerable evidence for rapidly changing fashions in Chinese clothing,[7]
Ten 16th century portraits of German or Italian gentlemen may show ten entirely different hats, and at this period national differences were at their most pronounced, as Albrecht Dürer recorded in his actual or composite contrast of Nuremberg and Venetian fashions at the close of the 15th century (illustration, right). The “Spanish style” of the end of the century began the move back to synchronicity among upper-class Europeans, and after a struggle in the mid 17th century, French styles decisively took over leadership, a process completed in the 18th century.[8]
Though colors and patterns of textiles changed from year to year,[9] the cut of a gentleman’s coat and the length of his waistcoat, or the pattern to which a lady’s dress was cut changed more slowly. Men’s fashions largely derived from military models, and changes in a European male silhouette are galvanized in theatres of European war, where gentleman officers had opportunities to make notes of foreign styles: an example is the “Steinkirk” cravat or necktie.
The pace of change picked up in the 1780s with the increased publication of French engravings that showed the latest Paris styles; though there had been distribution of dressed dolls from France as patterns since the 16th century, and Abraham Bosse had produced engravings of fashion from the 1620s. By 1800, all Western Europeans were dressing alike (or thought they were): local variation became first a sign of provincial culture, and then a badge of the conservative peasant.[10]
Although tailors and dressmakers were no doubt responsible for many innovations before, and the textile industry certainly led many trends, the history of fashion design is normally taken to date from 1858, when the English-born Charles Frederick Worth opened the first true haute couture house in Paris. Since then the professional designer has become a progressively more dominant figure, despite the origins of many fashions in street fashion.
Modern Westerners have a wide choice available in the selection of their clothes. What a person chooses to wear can reflect that person’s personality or likes. When people who have cultural status start to wear new or different clothes a fashion trend may start. People who like or respect them may start to wear clothes of a similar style.
Fashions may vary considerably within a society according to age, social class, generation, occupation sexual orientation, and geography as well as over time. If, for example, an older person dresses according to the fashion of young people, he or she may look ridiculous in the eyes of both young and older people. The terms “fashionista” or “fashion victim” refer to someone who slavishly follows the current fashions
One can regard the system of sporting various fashions as a fashion language incorporating various fashion statements using a grammar of fashion. (Compare some of the work of Roland Barthes.)

Changes
Fashion, by description, changes constantly. The changes may proceed more rapidly than in most other fields of human activity (language, thought, etc). For some, modern fast-paced changes in fashion embody many of the negative aspects of capitalism: it results in waste and encourages people qua consumers to buy things unnecessarily. Other people enjoy the diversity that changing fashion can apparently provide, seeing the constant change as a way to satisfy their desire to experience “new” and “interesting” things. Note too that fashion can change to enforce uniformity, as in the case where so-called Mao suits became the national uniform of mainland China.
At the same time there remains an equal or larger range designated (at least currently) ‘out of fashion’. (These or similar fashions may cyclically come back ‘into fashion’ in due course, and remain ‘in fashion’ again for a while.)
Practically every aspect of appearance that can be changed has been changed at some time, for example skirt lengths ranging from ankle to mini to so short that it barely covers anything, etc. In the past, new discoveries and lesser-known parts of the world could provide an impetus to change fashions based on the exotic: Europe in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, for example, might favor things Turkish at one time, things Chinese at another, and things Japanese at a third. A modern version of exotic clothing includes club wear. Globalization has reduced the options of exotic novelty in more recent times, and has seen the introduction of non-Western wear into the Western world.
Fashion houses and their associated fashion designers, as well as high-status consumers (including celebrities), appear to have some role in determining the rates and directions of fashion change.

Media
An important part of fashion is fashion journalism. Editorial critique and commentary can be found in magazines, newspapers, on television, fashion websites, social networks and in fashion blogs.
At the beginning of the 20th century, fashion magazines began to include photographs and became even more influential than in the past. In cities throughout the world these magazines were greatly sought-after and had a profound effect on public taste. Talented illustrators drew exquisite fashion plates for the publications which covered the most recent developments in fashion and beauty. Perhaps the most famous of these magazines was La Gazette du Bon Ton which was founded in 1912 by Lucien Vogel and regularly published until 1925 (with the exception of the war years).
Vogue, founded in the US in 1902, has been the longest-lasting and most successful of the hundreds of fashion magazines that have come and gone. Increasing affluence after World War II and, most importantly, the advent of cheap colour printing in the 1960s led to a huge boost in its sales, and heavy coverage of fashion in mainstream women’s magazines – followed by men’s magazines from the 1990s. Haute couture designers followed the trend by starting the ready-to-wear and perfume lines, heavily advertised in the magazines, that now dwarf their original couture businesses. Television coverage began in the 1950s with small fashion features. In the 1960s and 1970s, fashion segments on various entertainment shows became more frequent, and by the 1980s, dedicated fashion shows like FashionTelevision started to appear. Despite television and increasing internet coverage, including fashion blogs, press coverage remains the most important form of publicity in the eyes of the industry.

Intellectual property
Within the fashion industry, intellectual property is not enforced as it is within the film industry and music industry.[11] While brand names and logos are protected, designs are not.[12] Smaller, boutique, designers have lost revenue after their designs have been taken and marketed by bigger businesses with more resources.[13] Some observers have noted, however, that the relative freedom that fashion designers have to “take inspiration” from others’ designs contributes to the fashion industry’s ability to establish clothing trends. Enticing consumers to buy clothing by establishing new trends is, some have argued, a key component of the industry’s success. Intellectual property rules that interfere with the process of trend-making would, on this view, be counter-productive.[11] In 2005, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) held a conference calling for stricter intellectual property enforcement within the fashion industry to better protect small and medium businesses and promote competitiveness within the textile and clothing industries.[14][15]