Another great example of how copyright is abused

"Eyes on the Prize" ,one of the greatest documentaries of the civil rights movement, has been unavailable for the past 10 years. The reason it is unavailable is due to the fact that one of the scenes in the movie shows a group of people singing 'Happy Birthday'. The people that hold the copyright for this song have threatened to sue if the movie is shown and they do not receive royalties for the use of their song.

Iddiocy. Sheer, unadulterated stupidity. The copyright holder did not invent the song. They did not come up with the original lyrics. This is a tiny collection of words that we sing to each other on our birthdays. With the typical toll-taker mentality of capitalism, the copyright holders have found a way to make money for nothing. They find something that CAN be copyrighted or patented and then set themselves up as toll-takers - if you "infringe" on their copyrigtht or patent, you must pay. They don't do any real work, they just set up little toll booths all over the place and collect money for doing nothing.

Boy do we need a new system.


Link here - http://www.downhillbattle.org/eyes/

US CD sales for 2004 increase by 2.3%

BBC News is reporting that CD sales in the United States rose 2.3% in 2004. In addition to this, legal downloads from authorized sites rose to 6.7 million tracks a week, up from 300,000 a week in 2003. The RIAA contends that online piracy has adversely affected their business, causing them to lose billions of dollars a year in potential income.

The increase in CD sales tells a different story. The huge increase in legally downloaded tracks should more than hint where the RIAA should direct their efforts and resources - consumers do not want to have to buy the entire album when there is only one song that is even worth listening to on the album.

Maybe the RIAA should direct their efforts at stopping the SALE of pirated CD's - which topped 1.1 billion in July of 2004. If each of the CD's had sold at $19 a piece, that equates to a total of $20.9 billion in lost revenue.

RIAA finally loses one.... hip hip hooray!

The RIAA appears to have lost its case against Charter Communications, a cable ISP. The RIAA had tried to subpoena Charter for the identities of some of their users in connection with copyright infringement.

In a direct quote from the courts decision:

"Accordingly, it is hereby ordered the November 17, 2003, order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri enforcing various subpoenas for personal information about Charter's subscribers is hereby vacated. This matter is hereby remanded so the district court may: (1) Order the RIAA to return to Charter any and all information obtained from the subpoenas; (2) Order the RIAA to maintain no record of information derived from the subpoenas; (3) Order the RIAA to make no further use of the subscriber data obtained via the subpoenas; and (d) Grant such other relief not inconsistent with this order the district court deems appropriate in these circumstances."

It's good to see the courts beginning to pay attention to prior decisions and use that information to protect ISP's. What the RIAA tried to do warp the law to benefit themselves in this situation. The ISP cannot be forced to provide the information requested because they had no opportunity to block access to the content in question. Kind of like holding a gun manufacturer responsible for a death caused by one of their weapons.

MPAA destroys another legitimate business...

In it's unceasing efforts to eliminate fair use as we know it, the MPAA has destroyed yet another legitimate business. 321 Studios (link no redirects to a site selling off the last of the companies stock of software), makers of software that lets it's users make backup copies of the DVD's and video games that they already own, was sued out of existence this Tuesday. The backup copies that 321 Studios' software allowed users to make are perfectly legal, allowed under the current definition of fair use rights. The MPAA, video game manufacturers, Hollywood and the RIAA are seeking to redefine or eliminate fair use. They have at least partially succeeded by convincing a judge that their suits against 321 Studios had merit.

Under the current definition of fair use, you are allowed to make a backup of any CD, DVD, VHS or audio cassette that you have purchased, for archival purposes. This is your legal right. Unfortunately, the media corporations and Hollywood have made it all but impossible to create your own backups, due to their inclusion of copy protection measures on all of their media. On October 28, 1998, the Digital millennium Copyright Act or DMCA, after years of intense lobbying and despite the outcry of many rights organizations, was passed into law. The DMCA technically made creating an archival backup illegal, and the media corporations and Hollywood have begun a campaign of lawsuits to destroy any company that tries to sell software products that defeat their copy protection schemes - schemes that were technically illegal in the first place.

It is our job to make sure that the corporate definition of fair use does not become the accepted definition. Join the EFF, write your congressperson or representative, and be as vocal about this issue as you possibly can. If we do not make our voices heard on this issue, I can guarantee that fair use will be legislated into oblivion. Our elected representatives have already shown that they would much rather listen to the media corporation lobbyists - lets change their minds.

Technewsworld.com has the article here.

MPAA is going after BitTorrent trackers

The MPAA is preparing to begin issuing lawsuits against the websites that host BitTorrent 'trackers', which are the servers that provide the torrent files that allow users to download files on the BitTorrent network. The MPAA hopes that by suing these tracker sites, they will discourage the prolific sharing of files that currently occurs on the BitTorrent network.

As we have seen with the RIAA lawsuits, these tactics are not horribly effective. Servers shut down, and two more pop up, in countries that don't respond well to threats from US based lawyers. Take a look at The Piratebay, and click on the 'Legal Threats' link on the right side of the page, towards the top. Even when the countries are amenable to further bullying (take a look at some of the threats on The Piratebay - this is not a mischaracterization) by the USA, multiple, redundant mirrors can make a site all but invulnerable to take-down attempts - take a look at Suprnova for a good example.

Link to full article on Slashdot here.

Reuters.com carries the original press release here.

P2P networks go before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court have agreed to review a lower ruling in favor of Grokster and StreamCast Networks. While the rest of the world cheered and threw parties, major recording and movie industry executives renewed their vows to make the world pay for every song they listen to and every movie they watch.

In a quote from the www.wired.com article:

File sharing is "inflicting catastrophic, multibillion-dollar harm on petitioners that cannot be redressed through lawsuits against the millions of direct infringers using those services," the appeal by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios and other entertainment companies says.

Now, while the rest of us already know that these executives are not being exactly truthful about their monetary losses, they still insist that filesharing is bleeding them dry. Even when solid scientific research says otherwise. In a quote from Jupiter Research, who did a study on filesharing:

"It is safe to say that active usage of online music content is one of the best predictors of increased consumer purchasing," lead author Aram Sinnreich wrote in the report. "Music sellers should devote their limited resources to online marketing and distribution--rather than eradicating the phantom threat of file sharing--if they truly wish to stanch the blood flow and turn the music market around."

The entire Cnet News article can be found here.

Here is a Slashdot article quoting research showing that filsharing has boosted CD sales to an all time high.

And here is a Washingtonpost.com article showing that internet filesharing increases CD sales, especially for music that is getting 'pirated'. Article here.

Apparently, it is easier for the movie and music industries to claim billions (by now it must be trillions) in losses and sue tens of thousands of people, instead of changing their business model and embracing new technology and distribution methods.

Off topic... but a GREAT read

This is an off topic post, kind of, but an absolute must read.

http://www.patentlysilly.com/ is a site that makes hillarious fun of something that can only be called laughable -The US Patent Office. The patent office is obviously outsourcing their approvals to non-English speaking countries, because nobody with who understood what these patents are for would approve them. Either that, or all of their staff is brain dead.

Take the time to browse the site thouroughly - it is well worth your time and effort.

And yet another example of Chinese censorship...

Take a look at the bottom article on this Wired.com post. I've posted a couple of articles on the many and various attempts by the Chinese government to stifle free speech in China. This one is even more ridiculous than previous attempts: It is an attempt to ban a computer game because the game refers to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau and Tibet as countries. Chine has a vested interest in making sure it's citizens never think of these countries as countries - they have to think of them as territories.

Anyone caught selling, buying, downloading or allowing customers to download "Champion Soccer Manager 2005" will be fined. And probably imprisoned. Then shot. Go get 'em Wen Jiabao - make sure nobody thinks anything contrary to the party line.

Link here.

Can anyone tell me what good this move will do in the age of the Internet, and P2P?

In yet another sign of corporate corruption...

As if we needed any more proof that the worlds corporations are corrupt to their cores, ComputerWeekly.com brings us a story of price fixing in the computer DRAM market. What a surprise.

In a quote from the story:
"Four executives at German memory supplier Infineon and its US subsidiary pleaded guilty to charges of illegally setting prices for PC memory chips, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Thursday."

Link here.

The DOJ should get a clue and investigate all the players in the worldwide DRAM market. Infineon could not have accomplished what they did without complicity and collusion from the other players in the market. If you think about what occurs in a price fixing scheme, the other players have to be in on the scheme for it to work. Similar to what happened with the Marsh and McClellan insurance rate fixing scheme, everyone in the market will be involved.

Broadband to be regulated?

Reuters.com has a story conThe U.S. Supreme Court will be decideing whether broadband should be regulated as other telecommunications services, such as traditional telephone services. In the High Courts statement, they say that "broadband via cable companies had a telecommunications component and should be subject to stricter regulations."

Predictably, the broadband companies do not wish to be regulated, and are lobbying against the move to regulate. The FCC, siding with the "broadband-via-cable" companies, determined that they were an information service, and insulated from most regualtions that apply to telephone services. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has overturned that decision.

Link here.

Chinese government continues to stifle online speech

This is a followup to my previous post - here.

Check out this article at www.newscientist.com about the Chinese governments continuing efforts to stifle online speech. It's about how blogs are changing the face of Chinese politics, and how the Chinese government is predictably doing it's best to take that power away from it's citizens.

A completely free press (and let's fact it, blogging is a form of press or media) is a terrible threat to repressive governments, as well as corporations. Governments do NOT like just anyone being able to say anything they like about them, and neither do corporations. Anyone who has a bad experience, or feels an injustice has been done, or who has been mistreated, can just post something about it and it gets read by hundreds or thousands of people.

How the heck do you expect a government or corporation to to be able to get away with what they usually get away with, when every time they do something wrong everybody knows about it? That's just no way to run a business, or a country.

Link here.

Tivo bowing to pressure from Hollywood, advertisers

In a move that consumer rights advocates and Tivo users alike are sure to mutter over, Tivo has decided to move forward with their for restrictions on copying and pop-up ads. Hollywood has been lobbying long and hard for the 'broadcast flag', a digital flag or marker that will prevent or severely limit the ability of Tivo users to record shows on their DVR devices. Advertisers, on the other hand, have complained since Tivo's release that the device allowed consumers to skip commercials, one of their greatest income sources.

The Tivo was originally marketed with the promise of "TV your way". It appears that they have changed their tune, and are now marching to the beat of Hollywood and advertisers. As a Tivo user myself, I'm mad as hell. I bought and paid for a lifetime contract, and I doubt the legality of changing the terms of that service in substantial and very noticeable ways, all of which diminish the value of the service to the customer.

For a great writeup on the changes that are proposed, go to the article at www.wired.com.

The move by Hollywood to introduce the broadcast flag echoes their attempts to keep the VCR from ever hitting the market. They do not want you to be able to record your own copies of any media, unless you pay for every copy, and preferably each and every viewing.

CIA opening new spying frontiers

The CIA is conducting research in to automated sying on Internet Relay Chat channels, or IRC. IRC has been around for at least a decade, and has always been a source for pirated copies of books, movies, music and the ever present pornography. IRC is the network that provides most of the "chat rooms" that you may have heard of.

Link here.

New legislation could make fast-forwarding past commercials illegal

MIT's Technology Review has an article up about new legislation that could make it illegal for you to fast-forward past commercials (one of the BEST features in the TiVO), make it illegal for you to use the sharing capacity of Apple's iTunes (currently legal), and make it a felony to film a movie playing in a theatre with the intent of distributing it via P2P.

With regards to the first two items - get a clue. Americans have fast-forwarded past commercials since the introduction of the VCR. Before that, commercials were the perfect time for a piss break. And the broadcasters and advertisers have moaned and groaned about it from the beginning - 'Sit down and watch my commercial, damn you!'. The ONLY time I ever watch something on TV and want to see the commercials is during the Superbowl. The rest of the time, the commercials are crap - and this year the Superbowl commercials were mostly crap as well. And sharing iTunes with your local network is already legal. Apple has already paid for the right to allow this for iTunes users.

Regarding the third item: is it not already illegal to tape a movie in a theatre? Didn't I hear about some guy that got arrested for it? What if I tape it specifically for my own use, at home, not for rebroadcast or sale or download or sharing? Would'ntr that be fair use?

Link here.

Yahoo! News story about voter fraud in Florida.

Yahoo! News has a story on the release of a report by a research team at UC Berkeley, stating that irregularities associated with electronic voting machines (read Diebold!) may have awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or more excess votes to President George W. Bush in Florida in the 2004 presidential election.

Here is a direct quote from the researchers paper:

Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of Hispanic/Latino population.

Diebold has been plagued with problems and security vulnerabilities from the beginning, yet they seem to be showing up around the country, in county after county, despite the problems with their system. I wish I was able to sell a product like that. It doesn't even have to work, all I need is a couple of powerful friends and voila! I'm a millionaire.

It seems slightly more than suspicious that the major backers for adoption of the Diebold machines is the Republican party, and in counties in Florida that had the machines, Bush won by an unprecedented margin. I wonder if the same is true in other counties around the nation where Diebold was used?

Followup to Marvel v. Cryptic

In a followup to my prior post, Cryptic has responded to the suit Marvel has brought.

Here's a quote from IGNInsider:

Cryptic To Marvel: Lawsuit is Without Merit

November 15, 2004 - Cryptic Studios responded on its company website to threats that Marvel Comics would be suing them on likeness rights regarding its on-going massively multiplayer super hero themed role playing game - City of Heroes:

As reported by The Associated Press, Marvel Enterprises Inc. and Marvel Characters, Inc. have sued NCsoft Corporation and Cryptic Studios. The complaint is meritless. Cryptic Studios is confident that the District Court will reject all of Marvel's claims and fully vindicate Cryptic Studios in all respects.

Way to go Cryptic. I'm glad that they are not just caving, cutting out the ability to freely develop the characters that users want to create, and bowing to the growing pressure and broadening power of copyright owners. Money and corporate power continue to be used to define the scope of copyright far more broadly than the founding fathers ever envisioned. And the courts keep pandering to the copyright holders, worsening the problem. It's easier to settle when a billion dollar corporation files a suit against you, and even if you have the cash and guts to fight them, you cannot rely on the courts to do the right thing.

FCC actually has control of your PC, not you

Arstechnica.com has an excellent article on a recent ruling by the FCC that it has "regulatory power over all instrumentalities, facilities, and apparatus 'associated with the overall circuit of messages sent and received' via all interstate radio and wire communication."

Wow. That's a pretty broad description of the limits of their regulatory power. It's probably easier to think about in terms of what it does NOT cover, as opposed to what it does cover. It does not cover the taoster, the microwave, or the blender. Everything else, the FCC has regulatory power over.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041115-4402.html

Adding legitimacy to P2P networks...

BBC News has an article covering the recent emergence of paid-for advertising on the 'illegal' P2P networks. The music industry has been fighting to have these networks shut down from the beginning (Napster) because they want to control how much they can charge per song, and they don't want you to have any input on that pricing. If they have to recognize the P2P networks, they give up a huge amount of their monopoly.

I for one am all for this type of advertising. Think about the millions of music downloaders out there - an ideal audience to advertize any number of products to. Most of the downloaders are tech savvy - advertise new, hot hardware, peripherals, PDA's and MP3 jukebox/players like iPod to them. Offer them 'P2P only' discounts.

If the music industry had wholeheartedly embraced this new business model, they wouldn't have to be whining day and night about lost revenues, and suing their customers left and right.

Intellectual Property Hoarding

Several large corporations are setting up a company that does not even produce anything. They are buying up patents so they can then rent them out to companies that actually DO produce real products.

The companies, including Microsoft, Intel, Sony, Nokia, Apple, Google, and eBay, have contributed over $350 million to bankroll the startup.

Link here and here.

I have a problem with this type of business activity. It reminds me forcefully of what Enron did. They were involved in energy trading - making money without doing any actual work or producing any real product. As a consequence of Enron's activities, billions of dollars were bilked from consumers as they artifivially inflated the 'energy market'. I see the same thing happening here. These companies want to be the toll taker on the road to innovation. Pay them, or you don't get to travel on the road.

Marvel Comics has joined the ranks of the MPAA and the RIAA.

In a move to further line their pockets, increase the power and reach of copyright law, and to further alienate consumers the world over, Marvel has decided to sue Cryptic Studios and NCSOFT, of City of Heroes fame, for copyright infringement.

Here is a direct quote from from the CNN Netscape coverage of the story:

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Marvel Enterprises Inc. is suing two firms behind a computer superhero role-playing game it claims allows players to make virtual characters that are too similar to ``The Hulk,'' ``X-Men'' and other heroes in the comic book company's stable.

Marvel is expected to file additional lawsuits against paper, pen, pencil and photocopier manufacturers, as they too make it too easy for their users to duplicate their copyrighted heroes.

The only reason that Marvel is suing is that City of Heroes is wildly popular, and they want a piece of the pie. If they had a legitimate complaint, they should have invested directly in the companies involved, and added direct support for generating ALL of their superheroes within the game. Instead, they take the cowards way out, and choose to sue and suppress innovation. Apparently, having a copyright gives you the right to suppress the development of anything that even remotely resembles your product, regardless of the fact that the developers went to extreme lengths to avoid appearing derivative. Just because they hold copyright on a vast array of superheroes, does not mean that they have the right to sue because the users of City of Heroes choose to emulate those heroes. Just like an ISP is not financially responsible for what users do on their networks, and car manufacturers are not responsible for what drivers of their vehicles do.

Link to article here.

On a personal note, I feel kind of betrayed that Marvel would do this. I bought comics as a child and as a teenager, and my favorites were The Hulk, Spiderman, The Flash, and The Inhumans. I know if I played City of Heroes, I would tend to model my characters on the heroes from the comics I read as a child. Now Marvel is saying that is infringement, and I shouldn't do that.

Off Topic - but I couldn't shut up on this one...

While watching tonight's newscast, I saw something that struck me as very wrong. Channel 7 was covering the Bush-Blair talks on the mideast peace process (Israel/Palestine). One of the speech segments that were televised was Bush saying the following:

"We'll hold their feet to the fire to make sure that democracy prevails," Bush said, referring to Palestine.

I thought it was very revealing that he would mix metaphors here - stirring in torture metaphors with the power and purity of democracy. Bush seems to think we can use brute force to encourage other nations to adopt democracy. I suppose this statement was a sop to his hardline conservative backers, but it really rubbed me wrong.

Here are two links to stories that contain the quote:

Here and here.

At the end of the segment, Channel 7 was covering the death of Arafat. His wife is to receive $22,000,000 a year to cover her living expenses in Paris. It turns out that Arafat had amassed a personal fortune of well over $4 BILLION dollars. As there are several new multi-millionaires (or billionaires) in Palestine since the passing of Arafat, and since his wife graciously agreed not to try to take the $4 plus billion dollars, it is only fitting that they make sure that she is provided for for life.

Anyone else find it odd that a politician, a servant of the people, had a hidden personal fortune of over $4 billion dollars? If anyone can come up with a valid reason why he had this much money, PLEASE post a comment and tell me. I would be delighted to know. I could very well be wrong, but it appears he was using his position of power to amass a huge personal fortune... a lot like American politicians do. The Palestinians deserve that money, not his cabinet members. He could build a new house for each and every Palestinian family for that much money. And for the money his wife is getting every year, they could all be fed. And clothed.

With an average daily wage of $15.00US and an unemployment rate that varies widely and seasonally from between 30 to 60%, Palestinians deserve that money more that Arafat's wife, or his cabinet members. They have a duty to their countrymen, and that duty should not be met with greed and corruption. This reminds me of the "golden-parachute" clauses that corporate officers around the world commonly use. They extort millions for doing a job, at the expense of shareholders and employees alike. Any board that agrees to these multi-million dollar salaries and severance packages is not performing due-diligence. They are not looking out for the best interests of the shareholders or the companies or the employees. They are looking only to lining their own pockets.

Take a look at Enron, or WorldCom... or Haliburton or Haliburton or Haliburton.

And yet another Haliburton link.

Now imagine what happens when an entire country is run by people like this... wait, you don't have to imagine at all. America is just like that. I hope the same thing doesn't happen in Palestine. I don't agree with the suicide bombings, but I don't think their leadership is helping matters by using their influence and position to become billionaires, when their people are suffering.

Followup to California and Internet taxation

Slashdot.org has a followup to my previous post, in which the FCC has decided that VoIP is immune to state regulation. This means we won't see cities like Burbank and El Monte inventing new regressive taxes, but may not mean the end to the possibility of new Internet VoIP taxes... from the Feds themselves.

Best Buy is EVIL. Evil, I tell you.

Best Buy keeps a detailed database of all their customers, which includes purchasing habits, how many sales items you buy, how many returns you make... and apparently exactly how much money they make off of you. They believe that 20% of their customers are just not stupid enough to be money makers for them, and have thrown out the old addage that says "the customer is always right".

If they don't make enough off you, they don't want your business. In fact, they would rather you went elsewhere. If you don't fit into their new profiling scheme, chances are they are going to suggest you go to Staples or Circuit City.

Arstechnica.com has the full story.

California attempting to tax Internet Telephony

Burbank and El Monte are trying to add a tax of $1.40 to the bill of each Internet phone service subscriber that claims their "place of primary use" is within their cities. This appears to be a last minute money grab before the Federal Communications Commission meets. The agency is expected to deregulate Internet phone services, barring states from imposing their own telecommunications fees. This attempt is unsurprising, given the cash-strapped financial situation most California cities are in. There is nothing quite like a nifty new tax to help balance the budget, especially in cities that have been financially irresponsible in the past. With the Governator robbing from city and county coffers to try to (and failing to) balance the state deficit, cities are left with little choice but to find new income sources. Instead of cutting pork projects, or tightening their own belts and taking a salary cut, politicians tend to look for new, uniquely regressive forms of taxation. A regressive tax is one that hits those in the lowest tax brackets the hardest - unfortunately most taxes are regressive. It's almost impossible to get taxes increased for the rich, but apparently easy to justify new taxes that hurt the lowest tax brackets the most.

News.com has the entire story.

Interview with MPAA CEO Dan Glickman

USAToday has posted an interview with Dan Glickman, the new CEO of the MPAA. In the interview, he reveals his plan to begin suing movie downloaders, adopting the tactics of the RIAA. Unlike the RIAA though, the MPAA cannot claim that downloading has adversely affected their bottom line - last year they say $9.5 BILLION in box office recipts, the second largest figure ever. Maybe that's not enough money?

Dan is saying that the MPAA loses $3.5 billion a year due to internet piracy - based on the assumption that every single download is a lost sale. A faulty assumption, IMHO.

Southwest Airlines - 1000% Satisfaction Rating

Just a little public 'Thank You!':

My stepmother passed away on a Southwest flight from Missouri to Arizona on October 25th, 2004. She was with my father, her son, her daughter-in-law, and her grandson.

She turned to my father while the plane was over Kansas, and told him that she was having trouble breathing. From the moment my father pressed the call light, the crew of that flight did everything in their power to keep her alive. She was having a major heart attack, and unfortunately even an emergency landing takes a long time.

They performed CPR on her for close to a half-hour, never giving up, doing everything they possibly could. They did it professionally... but they acted like they were family. They showed compassion, and heartfelt grief when she passed away. They cried as if they had lost their own mother. They were endlessly and selflessly giving and caring. They went out of their way to make sure that everyone got home to Arizona, by calling another airline and asking them to fly my family members out of Wichita to Phoenix the next day.

My father has told and retold the tale of their kindness to all the relatives that flew out for my stepmothers memorial service, tears in his eyes every time. It's not often that you hear of a company that treats you like more than a credit card. And companies that do treat you like you are a living, breathing, feeling human being deserve to be rewarded.

If any of you out there have a choice in who you fly with, the next time you fly, choose Southwest. I know I will never fly with another airline - if they fly to my destination, I fly with them.

God bless everyone at Southwest Airlines.

Irresponsible voting practices...

I saw something VERY disturbing today. I went up to the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters and voted early, as I have to fly down to Arizona tonight for my step-mothers funeral and memorial service.

While I was sitting there taking my time filling out the ballots and reading my voter information guide - there are 4 ballots, double sided, for Sonoma County - I watched several people come in and fill them out beside me. Two men and one woman in particular frightened and angered me. They were in an obvious hurry, and upset at the lines that had formed. When they got up to vote, all of them picked their presidential candidate and council person and congressman - then proceed to either mark all "Yes" or all "No" on every single one of the measures. They did not even read them.

It scared me because I wondered how many people simply do not have the time any more to pay attention to all the issues on the ballot, and angered me because voting is sacred to me. I have never missed an election, local or national, since I came of age. And I always try to read all the information I can about every ballot item.

I don't pay attention to any of the rhetoric about our votes not counting. If you don't bother to vote, there is no way your voice will EVER be heard, and you have to stay involved with the Democratic process. If you don't vote, you should just keep quiet about any of the issues at hand, because you have'nt even TRIED to change things for the better.

China Closes 1,600 Internet Cafes in Crackdown

Reuters.com has an article about the closing of 1,600 Internet Cafe's (or Bars as they are called in China). Link here.

Over $12 million in fines were levied for allowing children to play violent or "adult" games and other violations, state media said.

Quote from the article:
"Porn, gambling, violence and similar problems have adversely affected the healthy development of the Internet in China," Zhang was quoted as saying.

I find it amazing that the Chinese government takes this active a role in determining what the average Chinese citizen can and cannot do on the internet. It must be hugely expensive for them to fund the investigations and keep the personnel to properly track activity in the over 1.8 MILLION Internet Bar's in China. How the heck could there be that many Internet Cafe's in china??

Riaa strikes again...

Cnet Asia has a story on the latest attempts by the RIAA to discourage internet file swapping via P2P. Link here.


The timing of this lawsuit flurry is a bit suspicious, as it comes just days after a recent study that found peer-to-peer traffic had remained constant or risen up to the early days of 2004, despite the pressure of recording industry lawsuits.

I find it interesting that with evidence that their mass-lawsuit tactics do not work, they continue to file the lawsuits.

Department of Homeland Security enforcing expired patents

Slashdot has a story up EVERYBODY should read...

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/29/0014250&tid=155&tid=187&tid=1

Now I've seen everything. A national security bureau enforcing an expired patent. For everyone that doubted that our government has gone f@#$ing nuts. I'm going to contact the EFF and see if they will start up an automatic email and fax page to protest directly to Tom Ridge. This is corporate protectionism at it's finest. Next, we will see them enforcing copyright, and imprisioning filesharers.

Donnie Darko vs. Alyssa Milano's Mom

LawGeek has another great article on Fair Use and the right to publicly comment on celebrities. They discuss the producers efforts to get a scene which included a reference to Alyssa Milano and the main actor having fantasized about her. Ms. Milano's mother threatened to sue the producers if they included the shot - a total of 6 seconds of film.

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly announce that I have, in fact, fantisized about Alyssa Milano. Yes, it's true. She is very attractive, and sexy as well. Please ask your mother not to sue me, Alyssa.

It might help if anyone that reads this post could leave a comment saying whether or not they think Alyssa is hot too.

Link here - http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/copyright_hall_of_horrors/index.html

Static Control wins against Lexmark

Static Control Corporation has won its appeal against Lexmark. Lexmark was claiming that Static Control, in reverse engineering Lexmarks' 'handshake' between printer and cartridge, was in violation of the DMCA, and questioned Static Controls' right to produce after-market replacement cartridges for Lexmark printers. This is a HUGE decision in regards to the power and scope of the DMCA, and could have only served to stifle creativity and competition if upheld.

LawGeek has some information here - http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2004/10/

EFF has more information here - http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Lexmark_v_Static_Control/

Legal opinion here - http://lawgeek.typepad.com/04a0364p-06.pdf

John Kerry and the DMCA

ZDNET asks the question - and Kerry gives a semi-noncommittal answer. The discussion is good simple for the good comparison that is made between Bush and Kerry on several topics of interest.

Link here - http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5425019.html

Kerry neatly sums up his positioon on the DMCA with the following statement:

Kerry's survey response said he is "open to examining" whether to change current law "to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes" or transfer it to another device. CompTIA's open-ended question had merely asked "What should federal policy be toward protecting intellectual property on the Internet?"--without mentioning backup copies.

Spitzer is on a roll...

New York Attorney General has taken on four of the major record labels (UMG, BMG, EMI, WMG) is his continuing efforts to punish corporations that repeatedly break the law. In this particular case, he is going after the record laws for blatant violation of the Federal Payola Laws, which forbid record companies from paying radio broadcasters for playing specific songs.

Link here - http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/22/1226255&tid=141&tid=123

Kerry should question Bush about these accounting practices

MSNBC has a news item up describing how hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in Iraq on "Iraqi projects" - and little or no effort has been made to monitor or justify the expenditures. Now, I may be wrong, but that sounds more than a little fishy to me - anyone care to bet me that our President/Vice President know of and approve of this little accounting error?

Story can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6252074/


My favorite quote from the story:

“We found one case where a payment ($2.6 million) was authorized by the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) senior adviser to the Ministry of Oil,” the report said. “We were unable to obtain an underlying contract” or even “evidence of services being rendered.”

In a program to allow U.S. military commanders to pay for small reconstruction projects, auditors questioned 128 projects totaling $31.6 million. They could find no evidence of bidding for the projects or, alternatively, explanations of why they were awarded without competition.

Want to bet that $31.6 million dollars is just a drop in the bucket, the tiniest tip of the iceberg?

Good Bad Attitude

'Good Bad Attitude' is the latest essay from Paul Graham (quick bio: Harvard Comp Sci PhD, wrote the first web-based application in 1995, Viaweb, which was acquired by Yahoo in 1998, described first Bayesian spam filter).

My favorite quote from the essay - which is an absolute MUST read for anyone interested in IP rights, fair use, or hacking:

The latest intellectual property laws impose unprecedented restrictions on the sort of poking around that leads to new ideas. In the past, a competitor might use patents to prevent you from selling a copy of something they made, but they couldn't prevent you from taking one apart to see how it worked. The latest laws make this a crime. How are we to develop new technology if we can't study current technology to figure out how to improve it?

As we keep extending the reach and restriction of the laws surrounding intellectual property, we are making illegal what used to be considered creative activities. Under current laws - the DMCA in particular - if you want to take apart anything, hardware or software, and try to build something better, you are breaking the law.

Another great take on what I have felt for a long time, and been writing about in this blog:

Data is by definition easy to copy. And the Internet makes copies easy to distribute. So it is no wonder companies are afraid. But, as so often happens, fear has clouded their judgement. The government has responded with draconian laws to protect intellectual property. They probably mean well. But they may not realize that such laws will do more harm than good.

If we continue in the direction we are headed, simply saving or printing a copy of anything on the web will be a potential crime, depending on whether or not the 'owner' chooses to prosecute.

Read the entire essay at http://paulgraham.com/gba.html

P2Pnet.net has an interesting take on it...

The folks over at P2P have an interesting take on the big British Phonographic Industry (BPI) case in the UK. Similar to the RIAA case here in the USA and the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) in Canada, the record labels are fighting for the right ot get the user information from the ISP's in the UK - and they won.

What bothers me the most about all this is the fact that none of the cases have gone to court. Each and every single one has been settled out of court. Huge corporations with billion dollar lawyers are scaring every one of the infringers (including grandmothers and 12 year olds) into paying up - and no judge or jury ever gets to decide whether this is lawful.

Link here - http://p2pnet.net/story/2722

Wal-Mart puts the squeeze on the Record Labels - yaaaaaay!

Rolling Stone has an article about how Wal-Mart is using it's vast bulk purchasing/marketing power to put the squeeze on the Record Labels. Wal-Mart wants to be able to sell ALL CD's to its customers at $10 - meaning they will pay less than that. The record labels are, predictably, squealing out loud.

Link here or here.

Favorite quote from the article:

"This wasn't framed as a gentle negotiation," says one label rep. "It's a line in the sand -- you don't do this, then the threat is this." (Wal-Mart denies these claims.) As a result, all of the major labels agreed to supply some popular albums to Wal-Mart's $9.72 program. "We're in such a competitive world, and you can't reach consumers if you're not in Wal-Mart," admits another label executive.

RIAA/MPAA reacting, well, predictably...

CNET News has a story here about the RIAA/MPAA's latest efforts to overturn lower court decisions that P2P networks/software have "substantial non-infringing uses". The fact that a lot of file swapping occurs on these networks has led Holywood and the music industry to try to have them ruled illegal - instead of embracing new technology and adapting your business model, they would rather stifle innovation.

Again. Same story, different day.

EFF fighting the Broadcast Flag

The EFF, along with the American Library Association and Public knowledgee, are challenging the FCC's jurisdiction to issue a broadcast flag ruling - link to PDF's, including the Opening Brief, Table of Authorities, Summaries, and Issues to be Raised here.

Here is a direct quote from the EFF press release:
_________________________

EFF, Public Interest Groups Challenge Legality of the Broadcast Flag

Lawsuit Questions FCC's Authority to Mandate Copy Protection on All Hardware That Receives Digital TV Signals

Washington, DC - When the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) broadcast flag mandate goes into effect next year, it will be unlawful to sell devices that can tune in digital television without imposing copy protection on the signal. Many groups have argued that the mandate will hobble people's ability to make fair use of their media. And late yesterday, nine public interest organizations -- including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Public Knowledge (PK), and the American Library Association (ALA) -- told the US Appeals Court, DC Circuit, that the FCC exceeded its authority by imposing the broadcast flag regime.

The "flag" is a small amount of data included in a digital TV signal that gives instructions on how the programming may be used by devices that directly receive the signal. This has the potential to severely limit the lawful distribution, use, and backup of digital programs.

"This is a crucial case that will determine how much control the government and Hollywood will have over current and future digital media devices consumers love now and will in the future," said Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge and co-counsel for the groups.

EFF staff attorney Wendy Seltzer said, "Right now, you can put an HDTV tuner card into a PC and build a digital video recorder that lets you watch digital television as you choose. We shouldn't have to trade that freedom for government-designed TV's."

The brief argues that the FCC has no authority to regulate digital TV sets and other digital devices unless specifically instructed to do so by Congress. While the FCC does have jurisdiction over TV transmissions, transmissions are not at issue here. The broadcast flag limits the way digital material can be used after the broadcast has already been received. "Bowing to a group of copyright holders led by the MPAA, the FCC promulgated a rule drafted by those corporate interests that will dictate design aspects of a vast array of consumer electronics - televisions, DVD recorders, TiVo's, digital VCRs, iPods, and cell phones - for years to come," the brief reads.

ALA legislative counsel Miriam M. Nisbet said, "Two years ago Congress passed a law allowing for use of copyrighted works for distance education. Yet now the FCC through the broadcast flag would prevent schools from using an entire category of those works -- high definition television programs -- in distance education."

Filing the brief along with EFF, PK, and the ALA were the Association of Research Libraries, American Association of Law Libraries, Medical Library Association, Special Libraries Association, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumers Union.

Contacts:

Wendy Seltzer
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
wendy@eff.org

Art Brodsky
Communications Director
Public Knowledge
abrodsky@publicknowledge.org

Posted at 04:18 PM

_________________________

It is understandable that our government is trying to help these corporations stay solvent and profitable through tough economic times. You have to ask how far they are willing to go, though. As we have seen in the "war on terror", our rights and freedom are sometimes the first victims in the war. How many more rights do we have to give up before a balance is found?

Hollywood, the MPAA and the RIAA have been eroding the Betamax decision since the day it was made. We have the legal right to make backup, personal use copies of any and all of the media we purchase, including broadcast television, but all movies and most music CD's/DVD's have copy protection schemes, in violation of our right to fair use. Now they want to add the "broadcast flag" to television, and call you a pirate and charge you with a violation of the DMCA if you make a copy of it.

Many people who make backups of their music and video disks view the programs that help them copy those disks as a boon, simply allowing them to do what they have a right to do - by law I might add. But our government has been unhelpful in the extreme when it comes to preserving fair use. Corporations that have huge lobbying budgets have caught the ears of our lawmakers. It is only through the persistent efforts of organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation that the public ever gets to be heard.

Bad news from the Vivendi/Blizzard case

Fair Use takes another beating at the hands of the courts. The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has a writeup a decision in the Vivendi/Blizzard case here. Quote from the article - (link here) BnetD is an open source program that lets gamers play popular Blizzard titles like Warcraft with other gamers on servers that don't belong to Blizzard's Battle.net service. Blizzard argued that the programmers who wrote BnetD violated the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions and that the programmers also violated several parts of Blizzard's EULA, including a section on reverse engineering.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), co-counsel for the defendants, argued that programming and distributing BnetD was fair use. The programmers reverse-engineered Battle.net purely to make their free product work with it, not to violate copyright.

EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz said, "Consumers have a right to choose where and when they want to use the products they buy. This ruling gives Blizzard the ability to force you to use their servers whether you want to or not. Copyright law was meant to promote competition and creative alternatives, not suppress them."

A quote from Slashdot.org gives a good idea of just how damaging this decision could be if allowed to stand -

A clickthrough EULA isn't unconscionable (and thus enforceable); Fair Use rights can be waived in a EULA; First Sale rights (!) can be waived in a EULA; The DMCA's interoperability provisions are not a defense. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it will allow one-sided EULAs to force the waiver of the rights of First Sale and Fair Use. This, combined with the Supreme Court's recent assent to perpetual copyright, a few decades at a time, will destroy any semblance of balance in U.S. copyright law. Fortunately, the EFF plans to appeal the ruling.

A PDF of the actual court decision can be found here.

The DMCA is the corporate worlds way of strangling our rights and removing our ability to make any choices about the equipment/media/programs that we purchase. They want to control every aspect of everything they sell to us, perpetually. If they get their way we will pay each and every time we use/view/listen/play anything. The fact that the Bush Administration allowed this bill to pass demonstrates that he is bought and paid for. He has no concern whatsoever for individual rights - as a Republican, only the corporation matters to him, and their huge contributions demonstrate how pleased they are with Dubya.

Ok... one more off-topic post...

Elveta Francis, another fellow Journalism 68 student, posted the following -
____________________
George Bush, Sr. wrote the following [in his memoirs] to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Well, we did "apprehend Saddam," but the rest of it is chillingly accurate.
____________________

My question is this: Why hasn't every news organization on the planet jumped all over this? All the things Bush Senior was worried about have come to pass - his son did what he was afraid to do. And Dubya seems to think we'll get out of this OK - I'm sure the words "acceptable losses" pop up in his every day vocabulary now. It's like stepping through the looking glass, guys and gals... only on this side of the glass it's not looking too much like Wonderland. His father warned him what would happen... why did he go ahead and do it? Couldn't he have found a safer, saner way to accomplish the goal of making the world a safer place? A way that didn't end up making America more hated, more of a target?

Two really good links...

Here are two links from a post by Nanette L. von Berg from my Journalism 68 class.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/10/1350224

I know, I know... neither have anything to do with P2P or fair use, but I just had to post them. The first link is to a story linking the First Family, our own royalty, His Imperial Majesty George W. Bush to none other than Hitler. If you don't believe me, just read the article. For them to have even published this, they must have a huge amount of supporting evidence.

Who would have guessed... Bush has links to Nazi Germany. Now it's all starting to make more sense, this whole damn-the-consequences occupy and conquer strategy.

The second link is to a great alternative media source http://www.democracynow.org/
The link is to a post about "Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire", a documentary that examines how the Bush administration used 9/11 to transform American foreign policy and enter a phase of so-called preemptive warfare while rolling back civil liberties and social programs at home. (quoted from site)

Check out both links - it's important that you at least know what is being said about the man the Supreme Court appointed President in 2000 (as opposed to the man that won the popular vote), even if you don't believe or agree with it.

Slashdot has an interesting article/discussion about the EU reaction to the impending implementation of SoftPats, or Sofrware Patents. The EU is concerned that the passage of this law, which the US has been pressuring them to do for years, will stifle creativity, decrease competition, and create greater barriers to overcome for startups. Sounds like the US market in a nutshell.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/09/23/1213222.shtml?tid=155

Judge Harold Baer Jr. - A man with a spine.

The BBC is carrying a story about a New York judge that decided to stand up to the RIAA. Judge Harold Baer Jr. feels that the current ban on bootleg recordings of live performances grants perpetual protection and should be revised.

The RIAA is, predictably, very upset. They have fought long and hard for perpetual copyright... and they came so close, too. Kudos to Judge Bear.

So THAT'S what they're doing...

I found an article posted by a lawyer, Kevin J. Heller, that gives a very good argument that the commercial P2P networks are working toward a deal with the RIAA/MPAA on licensing. No big news there. He also states that they have been doing this from the very beginning, and that they are trying to force the adoption of a new business and licensing model on the media giants by weathering all of the RIAA/MPAA attempts to force them out of business. This may or may not be a revelation you, but it certainly sheds some light on the situation. All of the "illegal P2P pirates" are simply pawns in someone else's attempt to get rich. Sharman Networks (read Kazaa) and the other commercial P2P networks are attempting to force the RIAA/MPAA to recognize and legitimize their distribution channels, and the media corporations do not like it.

What sweet irony! The giants that have been screwing us for decades with grossly inflated pricing and trying to get rid of fair use completely, are getting their arms twisted. Sweet, sweet irony. Sick em', Kazaa :)

http://techlawadvisor.com/2004/07/is-p2p-going-legit.html

Don't you feel protected now?

Read the article up here (long url won't wrap on Blogger).

Imagine having to open yourself up to every spammer on the planet every time you post a song that you just made, or a movie of your child's first birthday on your family website. Does this include still pictures?

Slashdot has a great discussion up here (long url won't wrap on Blogger).

And Edonkey takes the lead...

Probably has a lot to do with the scare tactics of the RIAA/MPAA, and the fact that RIAA servers now regularly distribute corrupt versions of all the new music on Kazaa. Try finding a complete, un-doctored version of any new music on Kazaa - very difficult. Not that that's a bad thing. I wish they would just place a surcharge on all internet users, say a buck or two each, allow free online trading, and save us all time and grief.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/22/2312201&tid=95

The MPAA suffers from alzheimer's...

Slashdot has a great story highlighting the idiocy of the MPAA in action. These guys really need to take a look at the letters they are sending out and actually view the 'movies' they say are in violation:

"News.com has a story on how the MPAA sent a takedown notice to Linux Australia for the movies 'Twisted' and "Grind.' What was actually hosted with Linux Australia is Twisted (being a Python framework) and Valgrind (being a tool for finding memory management problems in programs). An interesting question that the article raises is whether automatic takedown notices based on blind keyword searches constitutes spam."

Not just an interesting question but a vital question. I wonder how much money and time it takes to actually fight one of these 'takedown' notices? You can bet that your ISP will believe (and cower from) the MPAA before they believe you.

Good article...

I found a good article at http://lsolum.typepad.com/copyfutures/2004/09/in_defense_of_f.html

It's dated September 2nd, 2004, and deals with the apparent damage done to fair use by the DMCA - and what may be a turn in the tide of judgements in DMCA related cases. Good reading for those intrerested.

The most informative portion of the article is the discussion and the links. This is a link to a post on the blog - check the whole site for lots more information and links.

Another research link...

For those interested in the link between lengthening of copyright protection and the erosion of Fair Use rights - http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew87.php

The Jurist, billed as "Legal Intelligence for Democracy", is a fantastic source for legal information about current events around the world. The publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Professor Bernard Hibbitts, has a very impressive resume. He is a Canadian Rhodes Scholar and former law clerk to Justice Gerald LeDain and Chief Justice Bora Laskin of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Don't let his country of origin fool you - he knows more about our Supreme Court than any other ten people you can name.

New site with cool info...

Here's a great site if you are interested in P2P/DRM/INDUCE related news - http://www.digitalconsumer.org/

Two great links on the top of the page - both are an easy way to send faxes to your representatives in the House and Senate regarding INDUCE and the Broadcast Flag.

Fair Use and Digital Rights Management

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has a great article that helps explain Fair Use and DRM for the layman... http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html - take a look at it even if you think you know what it's all about.

Favorite quote from the article:

"In 1976, Universal City Studios and the Walt Disney Company sued Sony, seeking to have the Betamax VCR impounded as a tool of piracy. In their view, there were virtually no noninfringing uses of the VCR, since home taping of television was thought to violate the copyright owner's reproduction right. The Supreme Court in 1984 disagreed, ruling that home taping of television programs for later viewing ("time-shifting") constituted a fair use."

Sound familiar? This same discussion is going on right now regarding P2P, the new generation of DVR's, set-top boxes, Tivo/ReplayTV, and the latest Dual-Layer DVD burners. If I buy media, I have a right to make an archival copy, for my own use. Period. But that is not in the best interests of the media megacorporations. They would much prefer that I pay for each and every single use of any of their media, and that is where we are headed. Ask the artists if they ever see anything except a vanishingly small percentage of what the media corporations take in from their music or movies. Listen to Jadakiss' "Why?" to see how he feels about it.

Most of you were not alive when VCR's came out, but they were the coolest new must-have gadget anyone had ever seen. There were rumors about them for at least two years prior to their release, and everyone was excited. Finally, a way to view something that you saw on TV more than once. You could even create your own library of movies/sitcoms/sporting events. You could even have your VCR record shows that you would normally miss, like late night or during the day when you worked. You could even rent or buy old and new movies - look at Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.

But the media corporations didn't like this at all. They wanted you to only be able to view the programs when they aired as they aired. None of this copying for your own use stuff. Who cared if you were working or sick or asleep when it aired. From the article - "the motion picture studios argued to the court that Sony should build a sensor into every VCR that would detect 'no copy' signals that would be embedded into television broadcasts, thereby enabling copyright owners to mark their movies as 'not for copying.'"

LOL... Sound familiar yet? Then they got wind of the fact that VCR's could be used to duplicate tapes that people had bought or rented. That was when they decided to take the law into their own hands, and started to use Macrovision on every single tape that came out, effectively preventing buyers from making any copies of the tapes they had bought. Now, I know what you are saying. The tapes were being pirated, and sold in huge quantities in other countries. But they were other countries - not subject to our laws, and most certainly not the primary market for the movies in the first place. Piracy rings here in the USA were shut down quickly and efficiently, with stiff fines in addition to prison terms. The majority of all income from tape sales came from US customers... so who were they really trying to prevent from copying tapes?

I went out and bought a Video Signal Stabilizer, on sale at Radio Shack for $49.95. That's what the product packaging said, anyway. In actuality, it was a Macrovision signal stripper. I could now copy all of my tapes, make backups, view them at a friends house or with family, and not worry if the dog chewed on it of the baby threw it in the toilet - I had the original, if anything happened. I even loaned out my Stabilizer, so friends and family could make copies of their tapes. I never felt guilty. I was righting a wrong, retaking a right that had been granted me in the highest court of the land. When the media corporations took the law into their own hands, and started preventing fair use, it was like they crossed a line. Everyone talked about it. We knew they were only concerned with their bottom line, that they were ripping off the consumer with outrageous pricing and copy protection. It wasn't right, it wasn't fair. It was illegal. But nothing was done to prevent it - so we did something about it ourselves.

Come on... some of this has to sound familiar by now. You guys are fimiliar with the CD and the DVD. Did you know it was several years before they came out with a consumer version of the CD writer? They were arguing that all CD writers have a sensor that prevented copying of protected content. And of course, the old fight over controlling the ability to make backups boiled up again. It only took a couple of years before they started selling CD's with protection schemes anyway. This time there was a bit more resistance, and they had to fight several legal battles. The end result was that we still have the right to fair use, ostensibly anyway, but the media corporations continue to implement new copy protection schemes - now called Digital Rights Management or"DRM". Whose rights are they protecting, exactly? Certainly not our right to fair use.

Now the fight is about TV shows and movies again. Set-top boxes should all have sensors that prevent copying of protected content. DVD writers should all have sensors that prevent copying of protected content. DVR's should all have sensors that prevent copying of protected content. MP3 players should all have sensors that prevent copying of protected content. P2P networks (one of the most ingenious inventions I have ever seen, and with substantial non-infringing uses, I might add) will be required to implement technology that prevents the copying of protected content.

If we extend this trend just a little further forward in time, we end up with a world where no device that we have bought and paid for will let us make backup copies of media that we have paid for. These new forms of copy protection will be in hardware, not software, and much much harder to defeat. There won't be any magic Radio Shack Video Signal Stabilizers - Radio Shack would get sued out of existence if the INDUCE Act is passed.

And you know who gets to decide what is protected content, don't you?

Sound familiar?

An afternoon on the phone...

I called Congressperson Nancy Pelosi (202-225-4965 ), Congressperson Tom DeLay (202-225-5951), and Senator William Frist (202-224-3344), as I had agreed to when I signed up at http://www.savebetamax.org. Interesting. I got the distinct feeling that I wasn't the only person to call in today :)

They were polite and businesslike - when I actually got a person on the line. The call to Pelosi was answered by a woman named Melissa, who actually seemed to know what I was talking about. I told her about my concerns that the bill not only treatens to stifle innovation but would limit or remove our rights to fair use. I told her that even now I was finding it hard to make backups of some of my own purchased copies of CD's and DVD's, and that this law would make it even harder. She told me that she didn't see Pelosi supporting the bill.

The calls to both DeLay and Frist resulted in voicemail massages. I hate voicemail. Ever catch yourself saying "Uhmmmm..." between all your sentences? That's why I hate voicemail... I always do that when leaving a message.

All told, it took about 10 minutes total. Who knew Democracy could be so fun?

Better late than never!

I know this is last second - go to http://savebetamax.org and http://savebetamax.org/fax.php sometime today. Read the info on the main page - I'm sure you will see the importance of getting involved. Please sign up and make some calls, or use their very simple online fax, linked above, to fax your representatives. You can add your own comments directly to the fax.

Big media is trying to make it impossible for us to make backups of the music and movies we have already purchased. They want to be able to sue any company that makes any hardware/player/ recorder that allows you to make your own backups, so you can protect your investment (and God knows they charge premium prices for a CD with ONE good song on it).

CD/DVD media has a maximum lifespan of 10-15 years. That is most certainly not what this media was first advertised as. I have several CD's that are just over 5 years old and are starting to get errors - they will not play correctly on any of several players that I have. By law, I have the right to make a full backup for my own use. The RIAA, MPAA and Big Media are lobbying Congress to pass laws that make it impossible for me to do this.

Go to http://savebetamax.org and help keep the INDUCE Act from becoming a reality.

First post... a manifesto of sorts

Like it says above, this site is devoted to covering online file sharing networks, the law, the link to big media, and the erosion of our Fair Use rights. It will focus on activism and education, with an emphasis on currents events and simple things that you can do to influence them.

Apathy and thinking there is nothing you can do that will make a difference guarantees that you will not make a difference. It's just like not voting. Your voice will never be heard if you never say anything.