I've been thinking about using a different video for activity 1 of T182 Law the Internet and Society based on Larry Lessig's book, The Future of Ideas. Whilst digging out Lessig's Inaugural Meredith and Kip Frey Lecture in Intellectual Property, in March 23, 2001, at Duke University, I came across a terrific session with James Boyle:
Private Censorship and Perfect Choice: The Future of the Internet? Second Annual Duke Magazine Forum, featuring Duke Law Professor James Boyle in conversation with UNC Law Professor Adrienne Davis.
Articulate, entertaining and informative as ever, Jamie also gets put on the spot in relation to his perspective of the Napster case and explains the issues in the case in a way you just don't get in the usual polemics (both for and against). Although there were sound legal arguments in favour of Napster, the music industry also had a case and hence he did not sign up to the amicus brief supporting Napster. One example in Napster's favour was that intellectual property had never really concerned itself with private acts because it was really a form of industrial regulation. Also the Sony Betamax argument - Napster hadn't done anything itself any more than Sony with their video recorders, in relation to infringing copyright. Nevertheless, neither did he sign up to the specific overreaching arguments made by the music industry in the case because they would have effectively entailed making the open architecture of the Internet illegal. But in the end he came to the decision of not directly supporting Napster through asking the question: is this technology really going to encourage innovation in the long term or is this not-sanctioned use threatening innovation in the long term. Although the music industry's argument was questionable they did have a point. His friends said they should be allowed to engage in the kind of tactics that the music industry used. Jamie thinks that there is a serious issue in terms of making supported properly researched sensible and scholarly arguments in favour of real balance in the area of intellectual property. (As well as acting as activists supporting balance). We have to get away from the polemic dichotomy and emotive soundbites on both sides, if we are really going to make any progress towards that goal.
Couldn't agree more. Jamie still finds the Napster case hard and although Larry Lessig has eloquently made the argument about Naspter as a celestial jukebox, the public debate never really got a handle on precisely the kinds of difficulties with the case Jamie articulates. It's a real pity we live in such a soundbite culture where if you have can't get an idea across in three seconds you automatically lose the argument. It undermines the real world possibility of getting to a satisfactory resolution of difficult problems, like balance in intellectual property in a digital age.
The Naspter discussion happens about 47 minutes into the recording, just in case you're thinking of fast forwarding to that bit. Jamie, unlike his namesake of the Kellner (Turner Broadcasting) variety, doesn't believe that fast forwarding is theft.
Monday, October 27, 2003
Insightful paper by Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis, edited by J.D Lassica, senior editor Online Journalism Review, on the future of participatory journalism, currently best represented by blogs. Dan Gilmore writes the Foreword and includes his much repeated meme that his "audience, never shy to let me know when I get something wrong, made me realize something: My readers know more than I do. This has become almost a mantra in my work." If you want understand blogs and what participatory journalism could be all about, you could do a lot worse than spend some time on this paper.
My colleague, John Naughton, is amongst the people alerting us to the notion that is might not be a great idea to buy into Microsoft's Office 2003 sales pitch.
Michael Robertson is possibly going a bit far in suggesting the software is a virus but I agree with John, that "You would have to be exceedingly stupid to fall for it."
Unfortunately, however, most organisations have a kind of built in blindness to stupidity when it comes to this kind of thing. And the force of Microsoft's publicity will likely be more than strong enough to overcome voices of reason, thereby causing millions within and without organisations to turn from people into sheeple, and sign up in droves.
Like I said yesterday, potentially we can influence more with our purchasing power than our votes but we don't seem to see it that way. There seems to be wide spread apathy to the reality of voter or consumer power. And if you don't use it you'll lose it.
The Guardian on Saturday did a longish piece on the increasing scale of identity theft in the UK. This really is a growing problem and people would do well to be aware of it. 74 766 cases reported in the UK last year. And that's just the reported cases.
"In a survey last year, Experian, a
credit reference agency, found that 53 out of 71 local authorities
reported bin raiding was taking place in their areas, and getting
noticeably worse.
In a further analysis of 400 domestic bins, the agency found that
72% contained a full name and address, 40% contained a credit
card number and expiry date linked to an individual, and 20%
held a bank account number and sort code alongside a name.
Rifling through rubbish pays off. As does trawling through the
internet. To find more details of you, a fraudster could check out
the electoral roll, the national phone book and the directors'
database, as well as a few other data sources such as the land
registry (which holds your mortgage details)."
Nick Cohen in his latest polemic against the government says "Basic civil liberties are in dire jeopardy when anti-terrorist laws are used for day-to-day policing."
"For the past few weeks, the High Court in London has been considering the possibility that not even the threat of mass murder can make the British state grow up. Before it is an account of what happened to demonstrators who gathered in September outside Europe's biggest arms fair in London's Docklands. Cluster bombs, conventional bombs, each and every type of bomb, were on sale to buyers from pretty much every dictatorship on the planet. The demonstrators' number included Quakers and nuns...
Dozens of protesters were arrested and searched under Straw's anti-terrorism legislation none the less. Pennie Quinton wasn't even demonstrating. She was an accredited journalist who was making a film of the demo...
Her case was taken up by the civil rights group, Liberty, which asked the High Court to decide whether the police were using what were meant to be emergency powers against potential psychopaths as 'another tool in the kit of day-to-day policing'. Liberty's lawyers discovered that it has become routine for the police to declare the whole of London a special zone for anti-terrorist operations.
No one knew what the Met was up to because orders akin to the announcement of martial law were declared and confirmed in secret. From 13 August for 28 days and from 11 September for 28 days, the police had unconstrained power to treat everyone in London as a terrorist, and stop, search and hold them without cause or reasonable suspicion. "
Cohen is not Tony Blair's favorite journalist.
The New York Times is suggesting that Brazil is now a hotspot for cyber criminals. The journalist seems to be basing that assertion on a conversation with a computer savvy 22-year old Brazilian, the publisher of a hacker magazine in Brazil and a consultancy firm in London.
Michael Robertson is possibly going a bit far in suggesting the software is a virus but I agree with John, that "You would have to be exceedingly stupid to fall for it."
Unfortunately, however, most organisations have a kind of built in blindness to stupidity when it comes to this kind of thing. And the force of Microsoft's publicity will likely be more than strong enough to overcome voices of reason, thereby causing millions within and without organisations to turn from people into sheeple, and sign up in droves.
Like I said yesterday, potentially we can influence more with our purchasing power than our votes but we don't seem to see it that way. There seems to be wide spread apathy to the reality of voter or consumer power. And if you don't use it you'll lose it.
The Guardian on Saturday did a longish piece on the increasing scale of identity theft in the UK. This really is a growing problem and people would do well to be aware of it. 74 766 cases reported in the UK last year. And that's just the reported cases.
"In a survey last year, Experian, a
credit reference agency, found that 53 out of 71 local authorities
reported bin raiding was taking place in their areas, and getting
noticeably worse.
In a further analysis of 400 domestic bins, the agency found that
72% contained a full name and address, 40% contained a credit
card number and expiry date linked to an individual, and 20%
held a bank account number and sort code alongside a name.
Rifling through rubbish pays off. As does trawling through the
internet. To find more details of you, a fraudster could check out
the electoral roll, the national phone book and the directors'
database, as well as a few other data sources such as the land
registry (which holds your mortgage details)."
Nick Cohen in his latest polemic against the government says "Basic civil liberties are in dire jeopardy when anti-terrorist laws are used for day-to-day policing."
"For the past few weeks, the High Court in London has been considering the possibility that not even the threat of mass murder can make the British state grow up. Before it is an account of what happened to demonstrators who gathered in September outside Europe's biggest arms fair in London's Docklands. Cluster bombs, conventional bombs, each and every type of bomb, were on sale to buyers from pretty much every dictatorship on the planet. The demonstrators' number included Quakers and nuns...
Dozens of protesters were arrested and searched under Straw's anti-terrorism legislation none the less. Pennie Quinton wasn't even demonstrating. She was an accredited journalist who was making a film of the demo...
Her case was taken up by the civil rights group, Liberty, which asked the High Court to decide whether the police were using what were meant to be emergency powers against potential psychopaths as 'another tool in the kit of day-to-day policing'. Liberty's lawyers discovered that it has become routine for the police to declare the whole of London a special zone for anti-terrorist operations.
No one knew what the Met was up to because orders akin to the announcement of martial law were declared and confirmed in secret. From 13 August for 28 days and from 11 September for 28 days, the police had unconstrained power to treat everyone in London as a terrorist, and stop, search and hold them without cause or reasonable suspicion. "
Cohen is not Tony Blair's favorite journalist.
The New York Times is suggesting that Brazil is now a hotspot for cyber criminals. The journalist seems to be basing that assertion on a conversation with a computer savvy 22-year old Brazilian, the publisher of a hacker magazine in Brazil and a consultancy firm in London.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Techlawadviser, Kevin Heller, thinks in the wake of the MPAA campaign in schools maybe someone "should create a legitimate lesson plan and offer it to volunteers to teach middle school and high school kids about copyright law instead of allowing them to be inundated with corporate propaganda."
Donna thinks it is a good idea and is looking for volunteers.
Donna thinks it is a good idea and is looking for volunteers.
A couple of Spiked reports right on the button with respect to the mid week BBC programme, The Secret Policeman, exposing a handful of racist police officers. As Josie Appleton says, the
"report showed the impact of
diversity policies: most people had learnt the approved terms to use
in public, whatever their private views. But enforcing this kind of
personal etiquette won't help to reduce real racism, and indeed may
increase resentment of ethnic minorities."
John Dean served as President Richard Nixon's White House lawyer for about three years. He has written two books about the experience and the Watergate scandal, Blind Ambition (1976) and Lost Honor (1982). He's none too impressed at the performance of the current White House resident, George Bush and has regularly criticised him in the mainstream press. His latest critique draws on details recently published in a book by the editor of the Nation, David Corn, called The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the politics of Deception. It has to be said that Corn is not exactly a fan of the president either. Dean seems to believe that Bush merits his own special prosecutor in the Kenneth Starr mould to investigate a range of areas from Iraq's WMDs to his relationship with Enron chairman Ken Lay, and including stem cell research, alleged criminal expose of a CIA operative, management of pre and post September 11th, and his tax plans amongs others. Bush, Blair and spin certainly haven't done a whole lot for the credibility of politicians but then I wonder if nowadays we can have more influence with the pound (or dollar or euro) we spend rather than the vote we cast? Sorry state of affairs.
The Miscrosoft settlement judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
"urged government lawyers Friday to investigate why only nine companies so far have paid Microsoft to license its technology for their own software products, agreements central to the success of a landmark settlement negotiated with the Bush administration." Microsoft could be looking at many more court dates ahead.
The case of Bret McDanel is another example of why computer security folk need to be very careful how they tred. McDanel served 16 months in prison technically for transgressing the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. His crime was that he spotted serious security flaws in his company's software. He reported these to the management but they ignored them. After quitting the company he then decided to email their customers to point out the flaws. His former employers didn't take too kindly to this and got the authorities involved. McDanel was prosecuted convicted and jailed. After the event, and with the support of the tenacious Jennifer Granick at Stanford the prosecutors have now agreed that McDanel was wrongfully convicted and are supporting his appeal to get the conviction overturned. This doesn't happen very often so credit must go to the officials involved.
Major League baseball are planning to sue websites describing games for intellectual property infringement.
"Bob Bowman, who oversees Major League Baseball Advanced Media, says it's time to assert property rights: "One way to exhibit a live baseball game is TV. Then there's radio. The third is offering real-time data online. To us, there's no difference.""
That could have come straight out of the mouth of Jamie Kellner of Turner Broadcasting who believes taping tv programmes and fast forwarding the ads is theft.
In the wake of Swarthmore college authorities harsh treatment of the students civil disobendience campaign against Diebold, students from other univerities such as MIT are signing up.
Looks like the ubiquitous Jack Valenti may be finally thinking of retiring after 37 years as head of the MPAA.
"report showed the impact of
diversity policies: most people had learnt the approved terms to use
in public, whatever their private views. But enforcing this kind of
personal etiquette won't help to reduce real racism, and indeed may
increase resentment of ethnic minorities."
John Dean served as President Richard Nixon's White House lawyer for about three years. He has written two books about the experience and the Watergate scandal, Blind Ambition (1976) and Lost Honor (1982). He's none too impressed at the performance of the current White House resident, George Bush and has regularly criticised him in the mainstream press. His latest critique draws on details recently published in a book by the editor of the Nation, David Corn, called The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the politics of Deception. It has to be said that Corn is not exactly a fan of the president either. Dean seems to believe that Bush merits his own special prosecutor in the Kenneth Starr mould to investigate a range of areas from Iraq's WMDs to his relationship with Enron chairman Ken Lay, and including stem cell research, alleged criminal expose of a CIA operative, management of pre and post September 11th, and his tax plans amongs others. Bush, Blair and spin certainly haven't done a whole lot for the credibility of politicians but then I wonder if nowadays we can have more influence with the pound (or dollar or euro) we spend rather than the vote we cast? Sorry state of affairs.
The Miscrosoft settlement judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
"urged government lawyers Friday to investigate why only nine companies so far have paid Microsoft to license its technology for their own software products, agreements central to the success of a landmark settlement negotiated with the Bush administration." Microsoft could be looking at many more court dates ahead.
The case of Bret McDanel is another example of why computer security folk need to be very careful how they tred. McDanel served 16 months in prison technically for transgressing the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. His crime was that he spotted serious security flaws in his company's software. He reported these to the management but they ignored them. After quitting the company he then decided to email their customers to point out the flaws. His former employers didn't take too kindly to this and got the authorities involved. McDanel was prosecuted convicted and jailed. After the event, and with the support of the tenacious Jennifer Granick at Stanford the prosecutors have now agreed that McDanel was wrongfully convicted and are supporting his appeal to get the conviction overturned. This doesn't happen very often so credit must go to the officials involved.
Major League baseball are planning to sue websites describing games for intellectual property infringement.
"Bob Bowman, who oversees Major League Baseball Advanced Media, says it's time to assert property rights: "One way to exhibit a live baseball game is TV. Then there's radio. The third is offering real-time data online. To us, there's no difference.""
That could have come straight out of the mouth of Jamie Kellner of Turner Broadcasting who believes taping tv programmes and fast forwarding the ads is theft.
In the wake of Swarthmore college authorities harsh treatment of the students civil disobendience campaign against Diebold, students from other univerities such as MIT are signing up.
Looks like the ubiquitous Jack Valenti may be finally thinking of retiring after 37 years as head of the MPAA.
Friday, October 24, 2003
Young Aaron Swartz is annoyed about Diebold using copyright law to cut off the publication of their embarrassing internal memos.
Meanwhile the Swarthmore students who have set up a campaign of civil disobedience against Diebold are beingopposed by their college authorities. Next step the ACLU or similar group launching a legal suit to fight for the students' constitutional rights anyone? Especially after the university decided to start terminating the internet accounts of any student linking to any site that links to a political protest site that links to the Diebold memos.
Bruce Schneier does a typically incisive piece on the data mining I was talking about yesterday
"There's a common belief - generally mistaken - that if we only had enough data we could pick terrorists out of crowds...
Security is always a trade-off: How much security am I getting, and what am I giving up to get it? These "data-mining" programs are not very effective. Identifiable future terrorists are rare, and innocents are common. No matter what patterns you're looking for, far more innocents will match the patterns than terrorists because innocents vastly outnumber terrorists. So many that you might as well not bother. And that assumes that you even can predict terrorist patterns. Sure, it's easy to create a pattern after the fact; if something identical to the 9/11 plot ever happens again, you can be sure we're ready. But tomorrow's attacks? That's much harder."
All is not well on the IPR front at Cambridge University. Dr M.R. Clark of the Department of Pathology has "detailed practical experience of how the University policy was operated for many years by the Wolfson Industrial Liaison Office (WILO) and also more recent experience of the Research Services Division (RSD) and the Technology Transfer Office (TTO). What I can say immediately is that there has been a profound philosophical change in the way that the TTO operates
when compared to the WILO, particularly with regard to the involvement of University academics in the discussions over commercial exploitation of their IPR."
Via such routes does the abuse of intellectual property interfere with education.
A report commissioned by the Danish government concluded in early October that open source software was critical for any serious attempt at "e-government".
"RightsWatch is the name of a research project aimed at developing consensus and
promoting awareness of self-regulatory notice and takedown (NTD) procedures for
Europe, as a tool to achieve prompt removal of copyright-infringing material from the
Internet."
They've just produced a white paper that summarises their work. "The RightsWatch partners would welcome your views on the project's findings. "
Reporters without Borders have just published their Second world press freedom ranking. Finland, Iceland, Netherlands and Norway top the rankings. Ireland is 17th, the UK 27th.
"The ranking distinguishes behaviour at home and abroad in the cases of the United States and Israel. They are ranked in 31st and 44th positions respectively as regards respect for freedom of expression on their own territory, but they fall to the 135th and 146th positions as regards behaviour beyond their borders. "
The EU gets good ratings apart from Italy (54th) and Spain (equal 42th).
Meanwhile the Swarthmore students who have set up a campaign of civil disobedience against Diebold are beingopposed by their college authorities. Next step the ACLU or similar group launching a legal suit to fight for the students' constitutional rights anyone? Especially after the university decided to start terminating the internet accounts of any student linking to any site that links to a political protest site that links to the Diebold memos.
Bruce Schneier does a typically incisive piece on the data mining I was talking about yesterday
"There's a common belief - generally mistaken - that if we only had enough data we could pick terrorists out of crowds...
Security is always a trade-off: How much security am I getting, and what am I giving up to get it? These "data-mining" programs are not very effective. Identifiable future terrorists are rare, and innocents are common. No matter what patterns you're looking for, far more innocents will match the patterns than terrorists because innocents vastly outnumber terrorists. So many that you might as well not bother. And that assumes that you even can predict terrorist patterns. Sure, it's easy to create a pattern after the fact; if something identical to the 9/11 plot ever happens again, you can be sure we're ready. But tomorrow's attacks? That's much harder."
All is not well on the IPR front at Cambridge University. Dr M.R. Clark of the Department of Pathology has "detailed practical experience of how the University policy was operated for many years by the Wolfson Industrial Liaison Office (WILO) and also more recent experience of the Research Services Division (RSD) and the Technology Transfer Office (TTO). What I can say immediately is that there has been a profound philosophical change in the way that the TTO operates
when compared to the WILO, particularly with regard to the involvement of University academics in the discussions over commercial exploitation of their IPR."
Via such routes does the abuse of intellectual property interfere with education.
A report commissioned by the Danish government concluded in early October that open source software was critical for any serious attempt at "e-government".
"RightsWatch is the name of a research project aimed at developing consensus and
promoting awareness of self-regulatory notice and takedown (NTD) procedures for
Europe, as a tool to achieve prompt removal of copyright-infringing material from the
Internet."
They've just produced a white paper that summarises their work. "The RightsWatch partners would welcome your views on the project's findings. "
Reporters without Borders have just published their Second world press freedom ranking. Finland, Iceland, Netherlands and Norway top the rankings. Ireland is 17th, the UK 27th.
"The ranking distinguishes behaviour at home and abroad in the cases of the United States and Israel. They are ranked in 31st and 44th positions respectively as regards respect for freedom of expression on their own territory, but they fall to the 135th and 146th positions as regards behaviour beyond their borders. "
The EU gets good ratings apart from Italy (54th) and Spain (equal 42th).
According to Silicon.com MIT are winding down their RFID research and closing their Auto ID Center that did the research. Expect RFID tags to get widely deployed by the retail value chain in the none too distant future.
Gator have been suing to stop their name being associated with the term "spyware." In "See you later, anti-Gators?" at News.com, Paul Festa reports:
'In response to a libel lawsuit, an antispyware company has settled with Gator and pulled Web pages critical of the company, its practices and its software. And other spyware foes are getting the message.
"There is this feeling out there that they won the lawsuit, and people are starting to get scared," said one employee of a spyware-removal company, who asked not to be named. "We haven't been sued, but we've heard that other companies are being sued for saying this and that, so we've changed our language" on the company Web site... '
...Companies like Gator are the Goliath that average computer users are up against in the war for online privacy," Ed English, CEO of InterMute, said last month.'
Personally I detest pop up ads, whatever you call them. I'm no fan of the surreptitious collection of personal data either.
The Australian ISP that has been sued by the music industry is denying that it acted as a host for copyright infringing files.
'In response to a libel lawsuit, an antispyware company has settled with Gator and pulled Web pages critical of the company, its practices and its software. And other spyware foes are getting the message.
"There is this feeling out there that they won the lawsuit, and people are starting to get scared," said one employee of a spyware-removal company, who asked not to be named. "We haven't been sued, but we've heard that other companies are being sued for saying this and that, so we've changed our language" on the company Web site... '
...Companies like Gator are the Goliath that average computer users are up against in the war for online privacy," Ed English, CEO of InterMute, said last month.'
Personally I detest pop up ads, whatever you call them. I'm no fan of the surreptitious collection of personal data either.
The Australian ISP that has been sued by the music industry is denying that it acted as a host for copyright infringing files.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
The Max Planck Society this week issued "The Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities." Extract:
"The Internet has fundamentally changed the practical and economic realities of distributing scientific knowledge and cultural heritage. For the first time ever, the Internet now offers the chance to constitute a global and interactive representation of human knowledge, including cultural heritage and the guarantee of worldwide access.
We, the undersigned, feel obliged to address the challenges of the Internet
as an emerging functional medium for distributing knowledge. Obviously,
these developments will be able to significantly modify the nature of
scientific publishing as well as the existing system of quality assurance.
In accordance with the spirit of the Declaration of the Budapest Open
Acess Initiative, the ECHO Charter and the Bethesda Statement on Open
Access Publishing, we have drafted the Berlin Declaration to promote the
Internet as a functional instrument for a global scientific knowledge base and
human reflection and to specify measures which research policy makers,
research institutions, funding agencies, libraries, archives and museums need
to consider.
Goals
Our mission of disseminating knowledge is only half complete if the
information is not made widely and readily available to society. New
possibilities of knowledge dissemination not only through the classical form
but also and increasingly through the open access paradigm via the Internet
have to be supported. We define open access as a comprehensive source
of human knowledge and cultural heritage that has been approved by the
scientific community.
In order to realize the vision of a global and accessible representation of
knowledge, the future Web has to be sustainable, interactive, and
transparent. Content and software tools must be openly accessible and
compatible."
Very noble.
"The Internet has fundamentally changed the practical and economic realities of distributing scientific knowledge and cultural heritage. For the first time ever, the Internet now offers the chance to constitute a global and interactive representation of human knowledge, including cultural heritage and the guarantee of worldwide access.
We, the undersigned, feel obliged to address the challenges of the Internet
as an emerging functional medium for distributing knowledge. Obviously,
these developments will be able to significantly modify the nature of
scientific publishing as well as the existing system of quality assurance.
In accordance with the spirit of the Declaration of the Budapest Open
Acess Initiative, the ECHO Charter and the Bethesda Statement on Open
Access Publishing, we have drafted the Berlin Declaration to promote the
Internet as a functional instrument for a global scientific knowledge base and
human reflection and to specify measures which research policy makers,
research institutions, funding agencies, libraries, archives and museums need
to consider.
Goals
Our mission of disseminating knowledge is only half complete if the
information is not made widely and readily available to society. New
possibilities of knowledge dissemination not only through the classical form
but also and increasingly through the open access paradigm via the Internet
have to be supported. We define open access as a comprehensive source
of human knowledge and cultural heritage that has been approved by the
scientific community.
In order to realize the vision of a global and accessible representation of
knowledge, the future Web has to be sustainable, interactive, and
transparent. Content and software tools must be openly accessible and
compatible."
Very noble.
How do we use data mining to catch the bad guys whilst at the same time not catching or undermining the civil liberties of the good guys? According to Wired, "A panel of lawmakers, think tankers, data miners and civil libertarians" on Tuesday "couldn't even begin to make up their minds."
I'm not surprised. As I've said before, it appears intuitively obvious that he best available technologies should be put at the disposal of the good guys in order to stop/catch the bad guys. The real world is not quite so simple, however, and the checks and balances as well as the information overload and resource issues associated with this are anything but intuitively obvious. Not to mention the fact that the good guys and bad guys cannot be easily identifed by their respective white and black clothing.
I'm not surprised. As I've said before, it appears intuitively obvious that he best available technologies should be put at the disposal of the good guys in order to stop/catch the bad guys. The real world is not quite so simple, however, and the checks and balances as well as the information overload and resource issues associated with this are anything but intuitively obvious. Not to mention the fact that the good guys and bad guys cannot be easily identifed by their respective white and black clothing.
The MPAA has launched its classroom campaign to educate children about "digital citizenship." (No I'm not kidding). The associated propaganda sheet... er, sorry... I mean booklet... is called "What's the Diff? A Guide to Digital Citizenship." All the usual soundbites are in there. According to Donna Wenthworth, Wendy Seltzer of the EFF and Berkman Center at Harvard has done her own interpretation of some of the soundbites:
* To legally own it, legally buy it.
Sorry, kids--no more birthday presents!
* If you haven't paid for it, you've stolen it.
The library will now be closing its doors.
* Copying a movie or CD for a friend is illegal.
Mommy taped ABC's "movie of the week" for Sally's
mommy. Now Mommy is going to jail.
* If you wouldn't take a movie or CD from the
shelves of a store without paying for it, then why do
it online?
It only looks like the song is still online on the "shelf."
* To legally own it, legally buy it.
Sorry, kids--no more birthday presents!
* If you haven't paid for it, you've stolen it.
The library will now be closing its doors.
* Copying a movie or CD for a friend is illegal.
Mommy taped ABC's "movie of the week" for Sally's
mommy. Now Mommy is going to jail.
* If you wouldn't take a movie or CD from the
shelves of a store without paying for it, then why do
it online?
It only looks like the song is still online on the "shelf."
Via the EDRi-gram newsletter: The European Parliament's Judicial Affairs Committee (JURI)
should have discussed its Report on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights on Monday.
But 199 amendments have been proposed already and the translators were so overwhlemed they didn't get it translated into the EU's eleven official languages on time. English, Greek and Danish versions of the 159 page document were available just hours before the meeting. So no substantive business was done.
French MEP Janelly Fourtou (who is married to the chief executive of Vivendi Universal, Jean-René Fourtou) wants this directive to become law before the EU elections next summer.
"Mrs. Fourtou has been under attack from a large number of her Parliament colleagues, even from within her own Conservative Group. She is criticised for introducing a set of amendments criminalising even small-scale file sharers - and for her defence of an article in the draft directive that constitutes a violation of the EU's rules of procedure.
Article 20 of the draft directive deals with criminal law provisions for infringements of intellectual property rights. Some of the sanctions foreseen pre-empt a possible decision by a Court of Justice on whether such an infringement has taken place at all, and therefore constitutes so-called substantive law. In the EU's complicated lawmaking process, which foresees different procedures for different fields of competence, creating substantive criminal law is still an intergovernmental competence and can not take place under the co-decision procedure.
4 of the amendments aim at deleting Article 20, but Mrs. Fourtou and Commission officials alike are not willing to even discuss this. The initial discussion of the Report will now, as it seems, take place either on Tuesday, November 4th - the date initially foreseen for the vote in the Committee - or on November 6. The vote in the Committee would then take place either on November 26 or the following day, which would mean the vote in Plenary would have to take place in the week following December 15.
EU Commission: Proposal for a Directive on measures and procedures to
ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights [COM (2003) 46]
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0046en01.pdf
Janelly Fourtou's Draft Report on this Directive
http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20031020/498789en.pdf
199 Amendments to the Fourtou Report
http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20031020/509224en.pdf
Law Professors criticise IPR Enforcement Directive
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/ftp/users/rja14/cornish.pdf
(Contribution by Andreas Dietl, consultant on EU privacy issues)"
should have discussed its Report on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights on Monday.
But 199 amendments have been proposed already and the translators were so overwhlemed they didn't get it translated into the EU's eleven official languages on time. English, Greek and Danish versions of the 159 page document were available just hours before the meeting. So no substantive business was done.
French MEP Janelly Fourtou (who is married to the chief executive of Vivendi Universal, Jean-René Fourtou) wants this directive to become law before the EU elections next summer.
"Mrs. Fourtou has been under attack from a large number of her Parliament colleagues, even from within her own Conservative Group. She is criticised for introducing a set of amendments criminalising even small-scale file sharers - and for her defence of an article in the draft directive that constitutes a violation of the EU's rules of procedure.
Article 20 of the draft directive deals with criminal law provisions for infringements of intellectual property rights. Some of the sanctions foreseen pre-empt a possible decision by a Court of Justice on whether such an infringement has taken place at all, and therefore constitutes so-called substantive law. In the EU's complicated lawmaking process, which foresees different procedures for different fields of competence, creating substantive criminal law is still an intergovernmental competence and can not take place under the co-decision procedure.
4 of the amendments aim at deleting Article 20, but Mrs. Fourtou and Commission officials alike are not willing to even discuss this. The initial discussion of the Report will now, as it seems, take place either on Tuesday, November 4th - the date initially foreseen for the vote in the Committee - or on November 6. The vote in the Committee would then take place either on November 26 or the following day, which would mean the vote in Plenary would have to take place in the week following December 15.
EU Commission: Proposal for a Directive on measures and procedures to
ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights [COM (2003) 46]
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0046en01.pdf
Janelly Fourtou's Draft Report on this Directive
http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20031020/498789en.pdf
199 Amendments to the Fourtou Report
http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20031020/509224en.pdf
Law Professors criticise IPR Enforcement Directive
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/ftp/users/rja14/cornish.pdf
(Contribution by Andreas Dietl, consultant on EU privacy issues)"
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
The music industry have taken their first direct action against an ISP for copyright infringement in Australia.
The CDT have released a report on their concerns about the broadcast flag and how to make it work. Ernie Miller has already taken them to task over it. Donna, as usual, has lots of interesting links on the subject. One of which is to Cory Doctorow, who is really annoyed at a sloppy piece in Wired News on the subject.
A group of students have launched a campaign against Diebold over their attempts to silence the websites providing links to the companies embarrassing internal memos. This one is going to run and run. Ernest Miller likens the students' approach to a game of whack the mole.
A small Texas company, Bluecurrent, has apparently got a US patent on installing software over the internet. Do I see another Microsoft v Eolas on the horizon?
Finally for this evening, yet another member of Congress demonstrates she just does not get the importance of the end to end architecture of the net in freeing up innovation. Congresswoman Diana DeGette accuses a group of companies she calls "the Microsoft crew" of "seeking to dumb-down the heart of the network in order to strengthen" their own power. Now I'm under no illusions that the Microsofts of this world are primarily interested in their own bottom line, but the Congresswoman's belief that you can facilitate freedom by building control into the "heart of the network" is naive at best. I wonder which of the "broadband providers ... teaming with other companies to offer consumers joint products and services" stem from her own district of Colorado?
The CDT have released a report on their concerns about the broadcast flag and how to make it work. Ernie Miller has already taken them to task over it. Donna, as usual, has lots of interesting links on the subject. One of which is to Cory Doctorow, who is really annoyed at a sloppy piece in Wired News on the subject.
A group of students have launched a campaign against Diebold over their attempts to silence the websites providing links to the companies embarrassing internal memos. This one is going to run and run. Ernest Miller likens the students' approach to a game of whack the mole.
A small Texas company, Bluecurrent, has apparently got a US patent on installing software over the internet. Do I see another Microsoft v Eolas on the horizon?
Finally for this evening, yet another member of Congress demonstrates she just does not get the importance of the end to end architecture of the net in freeing up innovation. Congresswoman Diana DeGette accuses a group of companies she calls "the Microsoft crew" of "seeking to dumb-down the heart of the network in order to strengthen" their own power. Now I'm under no illusions that the Microsofts of this world are primarily interested in their own bottom line, but the Congresswoman's belief that you can facilitate freedom by building control into the "heart of the network" is naive at best. I wonder which of the "broadband providers ... teaming with other companies to offer consumers joint products and services" stem from her own district of Colorado?
I mentioned Ross Anderson's and Bill Cornish's objections to the EU intellectual property enforcement directive on Monday. I neglected to mention that the UK Patent Office have launched a public consultation exercise on the proposal.
A federal judge has told Disney that they can go ahead and release 'George of the Jungle 2' on DVD. Caterpillar Inc. had been claiming trademark infringement because the bad guys "drive bright-yellow Caterpillars in a big battle, and Caterpillar argued its reputation would be tarnished by association." The judge found the argument "unpersuasive". You just couldn't make some of these stories up.
The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) have hit the panic button on the likelihood of the Council of Ministers overturning the European Parliament's stance on software patents and adopting a draft text from November last year. The ministers' meeting scheduled for 10th November is to be "negotiated" at a meeting of senior patent officials from across Europe tomorrow, Thursday 23rd October.
FFII want anyone with concerns about the issue to write to their MP immediately.
I can only echo Tim O'Reilly that it defies belief that just because something, which is otherwise obvious, can be done on a computer, that it can be considered new or to involve an inventive step. Yet that is what the proposals from last November would facilitate. Again this is slightly academic because the European Patent Office have been granting these kind of patents since about the mid 1990s. FFII, however, are keen to have any formal EU wide legislation on this firmly put a spoke in that particular works.
They've been very successful lobbying the EU parliament in that regard. They may find it harder to outmanoeuvre the patent officials and the Council of Ministers.
FFII want anyone with concerns about the issue to write to their MP immediately.
I can only echo Tim O'Reilly that it defies belief that just because something, which is otherwise obvious, can be done on a computer, that it can be considered new or to involve an inventive step. Yet that is what the proposals from last November would facilitate. Again this is slightly academic because the European Patent Office have been granting these kind of patents since about the mid 1990s. FFII, however, are keen to have any formal EU wide legislation on this firmly put a spoke in that particular works.
They've been very successful lobbying the EU parliament in that regard. They may find it harder to outmanoeuvre the patent officials and the Council of Ministers.
In the New York Times "Students Find $100 Textbooks Cost $50, Purchased Overseas"
The EU are getting in on the ID card game now, with ministers agreeing on a scheme to introduce "an EU-wide health identity card able to store a range of biometric and personal data on a microchip by 2008."
Wired had a slightly shorter story on electronic voting on Monday than the one I posted earlier. The voting machine companies want to spend money on a PR campaign to convince people their machines are sound, though they are apparently also considering introducing some version of the paper audit trails their critics have been asking for. David Dill said: "The voting machine industry doesn't have a PR problem. It has a technology problem. It is impossible to determine whether their machines, in their current form, can be trusted with our elections."
NewFactor are reporting that Massachusetts has directed the state's chief technology officer to choose open-source and open-standards technologies whenever possible. That's likely to have a bigger impact on Microsoft than all the battles the state has fought on the antitrust front. Massachusetts is the lone state still fighting the Microsoft antitrust settlement, so that is likely to have influenced their decision.
As a colleague recently commented, this story has been hijacked by the open source and the closed source camps.
The original idea was the state should encourage open formats not just open source code. Open formats would mean user access to source code, whether the software was proprietary or not. I guess this is slightly academic because arguably the only really open format software is open source at the moment.
Speaking of Microsoft a report at the weekend suggested that the music buying feature in Windows XP might well violate the company's antitrust settlement of 2001. The company has also launched a PR campaign aimed at Australian MPs, "in the wake of Democrat Bills in the South Australian and federal parliament, that would require governments to give preference to open-source software over proprietary applications."
The EU are getting in on the ID card game now, with ministers agreeing on a scheme to introduce "an EU-wide health identity card able to store a range of biometric and personal data on a microchip by 2008."
Wired had a slightly shorter story on electronic voting on Monday than the one I posted earlier. The voting machine companies want to spend money on a PR campaign to convince people their machines are sound, though they are apparently also considering introducing some version of the paper audit trails their critics have been asking for. David Dill said: "The voting machine industry doesn't have a PR problem. It has a technology problem. It is impossible to determine whether their machines, in their current form, can be trusted with our elections."
NewFactor are reporting that Massachusetts has directed the state's chief technology officer to choose open-source and open-standards technologies whenever possible. That's likely to have a bigger impact on Microsoft than all the battles the state has fought on the antitrust front. Massachusetts is the lone state still fighting the Microsoft antitrust settlement, so that is likely to have influenced their decision.
As a colleague recently commented, this story has been hijacked by the open source and the closed source camps.
The original idea was the state should encourage open formats not just open source code. Open formats would mean user access to source code, whether the software was proprietary or not. I guess this is slightly academic because arguably the only really open format software is open source at the moment.
Speaking of Microsoft a report at the weekend suggested that the music buying feature in Windows XP might well violate the company's antitrust settlement of 2001. The company has also launched a PR campaign aimed at Australian MPs, "in the wake of Democrat Bills in the South Australian and federal parliament, that would require governments to give preference to open-source software over proprietary applications."
In the New York Times "Students Find $100 Textbooks Cost $50, Purchased Overseas"
The EU are getting in on the ID card game now, with ministers agreeing on a scheme to introduce "an EU-wide health identity card able to store a range of biometric and personal data on a microchip by 2008."
Wired had a slightly shorter story on electronic voting on Monday than the one I posted earlier. The voting machine companies want to spend money on a PR campaign to convince people their machines are sound, though they are apparently also considering introducing some version of the paper audit trails their critics have been asking for. David Dill said: "The voting machine industry doesn't have a PR problem. It has a technology problem. It is impossible to determine whether their machines, in their current form, can be trusted with our elections."
The EU are getting in on the ID card game now, with ministers agreeing on a scheme to introduce "an EU-wide health identity card able to store a range of biometric and personal data on a microchip by 2008."
Wired had a slightly shorter story on electronic voting on Monday than the one I posted earlier. The voting machine companies want to spend money on a PR campaign to convince people their machines are sound, though they are apparently also considering introducing some version of the paper audit trails their critics have been asking for. David Dill said: "The voting machine industry doesn't have a PR problem. It has a technology problem. It is impossible to determine whether their machines, in their current form, can be trusted with our elections."
If you've been following the electronic voting machine problems in the US, then William Rivers Pitt's interview with Barbara Simmons, David Dill and Rebecca Mecuri is as terrific insight into the issues.
" DD: You know, being an engineer involves making choices about the appropriate use
of technology. It is not using the highest tech solution to every problem, whether it's
appropriate or not. It's focused on solving the problem by the best means that are
available. The best engineers will use the best means that are available even if they
don't involve any significant technology at all. I think it's the responsibility of everybody
in technology to weigh in with their opinions about the appropriate use of technology
and the inappropriate use of technology. And I think it's particularly important for
academics and educators to do that. I think part of our job in universities is to try to
advise the rest of society, and the policy makers, of what the right things to do are.
And to share our expertise and that's really what we're trying to do.
My greatest worry is really an erosion of confidence in the elections. When people
can no longer trust the elections I think that that will undermine the legitimacy of
everybody in government and I wouldn't like to see that happen.
BS: The confidence is very important. I also fear that if there is the capability of
undermining elections sooner or later. Somebody will exploit this technology to steal an
election. And to me, our democracy and our right to vote and our right to choose the
people who run this country is fundamental and if I feel we've lost that then what makes
this country special is gone.
RM: My feeling is that it is a bamboozling of the American public. We're trading away
a lot of the checks and balances that we have always had in elections. We're trading
this off for high-tech, for faster returns, and it's not true, what we're being told is not
the full truth about what is actually going on and I think that we're giving away much
more than we're getting. We're giving the opportunity to have an entire election stolen,
just because of bad code, not even stolen, just screwed up, fouled up.
DD: We're driving too fast along the side of a mountain road with no guardrail. And
maybe you won't go over the side or maybe you will. Do you want to risk it? If you do it
long enough you'll eventually go off the mountain. "
" DD: You know, being an engineer involves making choices about the appropriate use
of technology. It is not using the highest tech solution to every problem, whether it's
appropriate or not. It's focused on solving the problem by the best means that are
available. The best engineers will use the best means that are available even if they
don't involve any significant technology at all. I think it's the responsibility of everybody
in technology to weigh in with their opinions about the appropriate use of technology
and the inappropriate use of technology. And I think it's particularly important for
academics and educators to do that. I think part of our job in universities is to try to
advise the rest of society, and the policy makers, of what the right things to do are.
And to share our expertise and that's really what we're trying to do.
My greatest worry is really an erosion of confidence in the elections. When people
can no longer trust the elections I think that that will undermine the legitimacy of
everybody in government and I wouldn't like to see that happen.
BS: The confidence is very important. I also fear that if there is the capability of
undermining elections sooner or later. Somebody will exploit this technology to steal an
election. And to me, our democracy and our right to vote and our right to choose the
people who run this country is fundamental and if I feel we've lost that then what makes
this country special is gone.
RM: My feeling is that it is a bamboozling of the American public. We're trading away
a lot of the checks and balances that we have always had in elections. We're trading
this off for high-tech, for faster returns, and it's not true, what we're being told is not
the full truth about what is actually going on and I think that we're giving away much
more than we're getting. We're giving the opportunity to have an entire election stolen,
just because of bad code, not even stolen, just screwed up, fouled up.
DD: We're driving too fast along the side of a mountain road with no guardrail. And
maybe you won't go over the side or maybe you will. Do you want to risk it? If you do it
long enough you'll eventually go off the mountain. "
Monday, October 20, 2003
Frank Field is highlighting a McGill University (Canadian) development studies student's objection to having US company TurnItIn.com vetting all his assignments for plagiarism. Might be interesting to keep tabs on that one.
Derek Slater has pointed me to Pam Samuelson's review of Jessica Litman's book, Digital Copyright. Both the review and the book are well worth a read. Actually, virtually anything by these two formidable scholars of intellectual property is worth a read, if you really want to get to grips with the lie of the IP landscape.
The Digital Imprimatur: How Big Brother and Big Media Can Put the Internet Genie Back in the Bottle by John Walker, who created AutoCAD. He's come round to agreeing with Larry Lessig on the future of the Net, having previously been an optimist on the subject.
Also recommended is Walker's Unicard essay on privacy from 1994.
Also recommended is Walker's Unicard essay on privacy from 1994.
There have been a number of interesting articles published recently on the subject of protecting children from inappropriate content on the Internet. Angela M. Xenakis argues in the North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology that the answer is in technology and not regulation.
Christopher Scott Maravilla in the West Virginia Journal of Law & Technology also suggests the answer might be in zoning and filtering technologies. But, for example, that these should be mandated by government regulation requiring virtual red light district domain names to be used for pornography.
Edgar Burch looks at censoring hate speech also in the North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology. He argues that hate speech on the Net presents real dangers in the wake of the tragedy of 11th September 2001. He concludes:
"The First Amendment and the peripheral rights that it embodies severely restrict the government’s ability to regulate hate speech... calls for implementation of legislation (regulation of Internet-based hate speech) or private procedures
(use of filtering systems) to protect youth who lack the sophistication to truly carry out the marketplace of ideas concept...
If the September 11th attacks on America have not conveyed any other message, they have reminded
people that some rights we have come to value may have to be limited to maintain safety and order in this nation."
I disagree on many fronts but probably most importantly in relation to his notion that young people are incapable of negotiating the marketplace of ideas. Give young people freedom and responsibility and they will amaze you.
Dawn S. Conrad in the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology says that "joint efforts by the government, consumers, parents, law
enforcement, the technology industry, and the adult Internet industry will be required."
Robert Chalmers argues for education not censorship in the Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law.
Finally (for now) the BBC are highlighting an LSE report on Children on the Internet
"While the industry, government, schools and parents should continue to
highlight risks, there are also some exciting opportunities being missed for
engaging with young people online. "
Christopher Scott Maravilla in the West Virginia Journal of Law & Technology also suggests the answer might be in zoning and filtering technologies. But, for example, that these should be mandated by government regulation requiring virtual red light district domain names to be used for pornography.
Edgar Burch looks at censoring hate speech also in the North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology. He argues that hate speech on the Net presents real dangers in the wake of the tragedy of 11th September 2001. He concludes:
"The First Amendment and the peripheral rights that it embodies severely restrict the government’s ability to regulate hate speech... calls for implementation of legislation (regulation of Internet-based hate speech) or private procedures
(use of filtering systems) to protect youth who lack the sophistication to truly carry out the marketplace of ideas concept...
If the September 11th attacks on America have not conveyed any other message, they have reminded
people that some rights we have come to value may have to be limited to maintain safety and order in this nation."
I disagree on many fronts but probably most importantly in relation to his notion that young people are incapable of negotiating the marketplace of ideas. Give young people freedom and responsibility and they will amaze you.
Dawn S. Conrad in the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology says that "joint efforts by the government, consumers, parents, law
enforcement, the technology industry, and the adult Internet industry will be required."
Robert Chalmers argues for education not censorship in the Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law.
Finally (for now) the BBC are highlighting an LSE report on Children on the Internet
"While the industry, government, schools and parents should continue to
highlight risks, there are also some exciting opportunities being missed for
engaging with young people online. "
The New York Times is reporting on the EU's plans for an intellectual property enforcement directive. And if you thought the EUCD and the DMCA were bad, you should see this.
"Lawyers who have studied a draft of the proposed law say that not only could a teenager who downloaded a music file be sent
to jail under it; so too could managers of the Internet service provider that the teenager happened to use, whether they knew
what the teenager was doing or not."
I had not previously appreciated that the lady in charge of shepherding the directive through, Janelly Fourtou, a French member of the European Parliament, is married to the chief executive of Vivendi Universal, Jean-René Fourtou. She doesn't believe she faces a conflict of interest.
FIPR and Ross Anderson in particular have been warning us about this for months.
And world renowned intellectual property specialists such as Bill Cornish, Josef Drexel, Rito Hilty, Annette Kur and others have just published a article seriously criticising the proposals.
"Lawyers who have studied a draft of the proposed law say that not only could a teenager who downloaded a music file be sent
to jail under it; so too could managers of the Internet service provider that the teenager happened to use, whether they knew
what the teenager was doing or not."
I had not previously appreciated that the lady in charge of shepherding the directive through, Janelly Fourtou, a French member of the European Parliament, is married to the chief executive of Vivendi Universal, Jean-René Fourtou. She doesn't believe she faces a conflict of interest.
FIPR and Ross Anderson in particular have been warning us about this for months.
And world renowned intellectual property specialists such as Bill Cornish, Josef Drexel, Rito Hilty, Annette Kur and others have just published a article seriously criticising the proposals.
Courtesy of Donna, who in her turn got it from Lawrence Solum, I learn of an excellent paper by Professor Joseph Liu at Boston College, The DMCA and the Regulation of Scientific Research. From the abstract:
"This Article analyzes the impact of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA) on academic encryption research. In this Article, I argue that for
both legal and practical reasons academic encryption researchers should be
able to conduct and publish certain types of research without significant
fear of liability under the DMCA. However, the DMCA will have a
non-trivial impact on the conditions under which such research takes place,
and this impact can be expected to have several undesirable effects. More
broadly, this impact highlights the problematic way in which the DMCA
regulates scientific research in furtherance of intellectual property rights.
The Article concludes with a number of suggestions for mitigating some of
these negative effects. "
From the paper:
"Specifically, the DMCA: imposes additional hurdles,
which researchers must overcome before engaging in
and publishing their research; limits the universe of
individuals with whom researchers can freely
communicate about their research; requires disclosure of
the intention to engage in research to third-parties;
affects the content of academic research papers; and
limits avenues for publication of the research. "
"This Article analyzes the impact of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA) on academic encryption research. In this Article, I argue that for
both legal and practical reasons academic encryption researchers should be
able to conduct and publish certain types of research without significant
fear of liability under the DMCA. However, the DMCA will have a
non-trivial impact on the conditions under which such research takes place,
and this impact can be expected to have several undesirable effects. More
broadly, this impact highlights the problematic way in which the DMCA
regulates scientific research in furtherance of intellectual property rights.
The Article concludes with a number of suggestions for mitigating some of
these negative effects. "
From the paper:
"Specifically, the DMCA: imposes additional hurdles,
which researchers must overcome before engaging in
and publishing their research; limits the universe of
individuals with whom researchers can freely
communicate about their research; requires disclosure of
the intention to engage in research to third-parties;
affects the content of academic research papers; and
limits avenues for publication of the research. "
There has been a flurry of blogging about the FCC's apparent willingness to adopt the broadcast flag. Donna has many of the interesting links. Nice to see Senator McCain getting back into Larry Lessig's good books with his letter to FCC Chairman, Michael Powell, on the issue. He's concerned about the impact on consumers.
Brad Templeton's new pledge of allegiance is amusing:
"I pledge Allegiance to the Flag
of the prohibition of copying
and to the monopoly for which it stands
One protocol, under Valenti*, innovation-free,
without liberty or fair use for all.
*Unlike God, there is no dispute over whether Valenti's
name can appear in the pledge."
Brad Templeton's new pledge of allegiance is amusing:
"I pledge Allegiance to the Flag
of the prohibition of copying
and to the monopoly for which it stands
One protocol, under Valenti*, innovation-free,
without liberty or fair use for all.
*Unlike God, there is no dispute over whether Valenti's
name can appear in the pledge."
Ernie Miller is taking an idea from Mary Hodder at the Berkeley intellectual property weblog and running with it. The idea?
"The Piracy Meter: if I pirated movies, this is how I'd rate them, as to what's worth clogging my dsl connection
for 24-36 hours to get one."
Prof Miller's expansion:
"he details of the meter aren't quite clear, but might I suggest the following rankings (from worst to best)?:
CAM - Who cares if the movie was recorded in a cinema with a consumer-quality camcorder and/or where the audience can
be seen or heard? The movie is simply not worth the effort of getting a quality copy. Download only when desparate.
Telesync - Better than CAM, still recorded in a cinema, but usually with professional-level equipment and a separate audio
source (so the audience cannot be heard). Getting better, but download only if you're not going to be using your broadband for
a day or so, like during a weekend trip.
Screener - Generally recorded from promotional videotapes or DVDs which have been sent to film critics, marketing firms,
Academy voters, etc. This ranking has been discontinued until further notice upon request of the MPAA.
LD/DVD Rip - Accomplished simply by copying a LaserDisc or DVD. Picture and audio quality are generally very good.
Good movie and definitely worth renting on DVD, but who wants to make the trip to the local Blockbuster? Go ahead and
download, unless you're too busy grabbing MP3s.
Telecine - A high quality copy taken directly from the film reel. Popular with professional pirating operations. Great movie - go
ahead and download even if it makes surfing unbearably slow and then burn to DVD-R."
"The Piracy Meter: if I pirated movies, this is how I'd rate them, as to what's worth clogging my dsl connection
for 24-36 hours to get one."
Prof Miller's expansion:
"he details of the meter aren't quite clear, but might I suggest the following rankings (from worst to best)?:
CAM - Who cares if the movie was recorded in a cinema with a consumer-quality camcorder and/or where the audience can
be seen or heard? The movie is simply not worth the effort of getting a quality copy. Download only when desparate.
Telesync - Better than CAM, still recorded in a cinema, but usually with professional-level equipment and a separate audio
source (so the audience cannot be heard). Getting better, but download only if you're not going to be using your broadband for
a day or so, like during a weekend trip.
Screener - Generally recorded from promotional videotapes or DVDs which have been sent to film critics, marketing firms,
Academy voters, etc. This ranking has been discontinued until further notice upon request of the MPAA.
LD/DVD Rip - Accomplished simply by copying a LaserDisc or DVD. Picture and audio quality are generally very good.
Good movie and definitely worth renting on DVD, but who wants to make the trip to the local Blockbuster? Go ahead and
download, unless you're too busy grabbing MP3s.
Telecine - A high quality copy taken directly from the film reel. Popular with professional pirating operations. Great movie - go
ahead and download even if it makes surfing unbearably slow and then burn to DVD-R."
The RIAA have sent warning letters to 204 more individuals suggesting they might like to settle out of court before they get sued.
I had vaguely registered but in the thick of other things not thought to blog the story about Diebold sending out dozens of cease and desist letters to ISPs, until the EFF alerted me to it again over the weekend. They are embarrassed about the internal memos which suggested they knew about the problems with their voing machines but were not concerned about them. So they are claiming copyright on the memos and copyright infringement against the Independent Media Center (IndyMedia) website which has published links to the memos. As far as the EFF know, every ISP apart from the non profit Online Policy Group (OPG) have taken down the 'offending' page.
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed by Congress in 1998 provides a "safe harbor" as an incentive for ISPs
to take down user-posted content when they receive cease-and-desist letters such as the ones sent by Diebold. By removing
the content, or forcing the user to do so, for a minimum of 10 days, an ISP can take itself out of the middle of any copyright
claim. As a result, few ISPs have tested whether they would face any liability for such user activity in the first place."
I've said before I'm a great believer in the cock up rather than the conspiracy theory of history and it seems that is what is going on here as well. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any funny business has been going on in the way of rigging elections. It is just that the Diebold machines are insecure and sometimes faulty. Rather than trying to close the stable door now the horse has bolted, they should be acting to secure their systems. Computer scientists, such as David Dill at Stanford, don't believe that it is too difficult a task - there is no rocket science involved, just plenty of legwork. Trying to hide the problems gives the impression of cover up, which in turn suggests they have some seriously dark skeletons in the cupboard. Conspiracy theorists get hold of that and they've got the makings of an exciting crime thriller. Somebody is probably already writing it.
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed by Congress in 1998 provides a "safe harbor" as an incentive for ISPs
to take down user-posted content when they receive cease-and-desist letters such as the ones sent by Diebold. By removing
the content, or forcing the user to do so, for a minimum of 10 days, an ISP can take itself out of the middle of any copyright
claim. As a result, few ISPs have tested whether they would face any liability for such user activity in the first place."
I've said before I'm a great believer in the cock up rather than the conspiracy theory of history and it seems that is what is going on here as well. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any funny business has been going on in the way of rigging elections. It is just that the Diebold machines are insecure and sometimes faulty. Rather than trying to close the stable door now the horse has bolted, they should be acting to secure their systems. Computer scientists, such as David Dill at Stanford, don't believe that it is too difficult a task - there is no rocket science involved, just plenty of legwork. Trying to hide the problems gives the impression of cover up, which in turn suggests they have some seriously dark skeletons in the cupboard. Conspiracy theorists get hold of that and they've got the makings of an exciting crime thriller. Somebody is probably already writing it.
Friday, October 17, 2003
The RIAA have apparently sent out a new pile of letters threatening lawsuits. AT the same time the EFF have released a cartoon on the subject. Amusing.
DanGilmore is concerned that the broadcast flag mandate is about to come to fruition. He makes a strong case. And, as Ernest Miller says, "Any rule that mandates DRM is giving too much control to the entertainment industry."
DanGilmore is concerned that the broadcast flag mandate is about to come to fruition. He makes a strong case. And, as Ernest Miller says, "Any rule that mandates DRM is giving too much control to the entertainment industry."
I see Governor Howard Dean, who is running for president in the US has put together a "dream team" to advise him on information policy. Good for him. Mind you I could see him getting on the wrong side of the media moguls, the entertainment industry, the publishing industry and the telecommunications industry if he decides to actually take the advice of these folks, who include Hal Abelson, Larry Lessig, Laura Breeden, Bob Lucky, Dewayne Hendricks, Joi Ito, David Reed, Richard Rowe, David Weinberger. That could be fun!
Given the serious committment of the members of the group to end to end architecture and open networks, the relentless commercial drive to lock up the choke points of our communication infrastructures may well start to to hit some speed bumps! But then, I don't suppose there is a particularly high probably that the governor will get elected?
Given the serious committment of the members of the group to end to end architecture and open networks, the relentless commercial drive to lock up the choke points of our communication infrastructures may well start to to hit some speed bumps! But then, I don't suppose there is a particularly high probably that the governor will get elected?
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Salon have another worrying article by Farhad Manjoo on the current problems with electronic voting.
" Over the past several years, as computer
scientists began expressing concerns about the security of touch-
screen electronic voting machines, elections officials across the
nation have reassured the public with a simple answer: Testing...
But Jeremiah Akin, a 28-year-old computer programmer who
recently observed one of these tests in Riverside County, Calif.,
says that what he saw did nothing to mitigate his concerns about
electronic voting -- indeed, the whole thing made him more worried
than ever."
" Over the past several years, as computer
scientists began expressing concerns about the security of touch-
screen electronic voting machines, elections officials across the
nation have reassured the public with a simple answer: Testing...
But Jeremiah Akin, a 28-year-old computer programmer who
recently observed one of these tests in Riverside County, Calif.,
says that what he saw did nothing to mitigate his concerns about
electronic voting -- indeed, the whole thing made him more worried
than ever."
Ernest Miller from Yale has a new blog called 'The Importance of'. From the biography,
"Ernest Miller - Just some guy who likes to think about the intersection of law and technology.
If you're curious about "The Importance Of" - please see any bibliography of Oscar Wilde."
Now Ernest Miller is more than 'just some guy' who likes to think about law and technology. He's one of the smartest people in the field. So this is another blog that gets added to my list of links.
And from Ernest, I learn that one of the cases that got me really interested in cyberlaw, the Dan Bernstein v DOJ cryptography export case, has finally come to an end. It has been dismissed by the judge due to a DOJ promise not to pursue cryptography researchers. Ernest says:
"The case has gone through many permutations and
procedural twists. It has certainly resulted in changes to government regulations such that encryption software is much less
tightly controlled than it once was. More importantly, the case has been one of the main sources for several once novel legal
arguments, particularly those establishing that computer code is speech protected by the First Amendment."
SunnComm's CEO Peter Jacobs has been complaining about his lot and his complaints have been dissected over at Greplaw and by Derek. I understand why Mr Jacobs is angry - I probably would be too if I was CEO of a company that had $10 million wiped off its share price overnight. But it is usually a good idea, when you find yourself in a hole, to stop digging.
"Ernest Miller - Just some guy who likes to think about the intersection of law and technology.
If you're curious about "The Importance Of" - please see any bibliography of Oscar Wilde."
Now Ernest Miller is more than 'just some guy' who likes to think about law and technology. He's one of the smartest people in the field. So this is another blog that gets added to my list of links.
And from Ernest, I learn that one of the cases that got me really interested in cyberlaw, the Dan Bernstein v DOJ cryptography export case, has finally come to an end. It has been dismissed by the judge due to a DOJ promise not to pursue cryptography researchers. Ernest says:
"The case has gone through many permutations and
procedural twists. It has certainly resulted in changes to government regulations such that encryption software is much less
tightly controlled than it once was. More importantly, the case has been one of the main sources for several once novel legal
arguments, particularly those establishing that computer code is speech protected by the First Amendment."
SunnComm's CEO Peter Jacobs has been complaining about his lot and his complaints have been dissected over at Greplaw and by Derek. I understand why Mr Jacobs is angry - I probably would be too if I was CEO of a company that had $10 million wiped off its share price overnight. But it is usually a good idea, when you find yourself in a hole, to stop digging.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Terrific article by Megan Gray - Confessions of a Copyright Enforcer - which throws a sharp light on the DMCA subpoena process.
Rager Parloff offered his usual sympathetic thoughts to the concerns of the entertainment industry over file sharing recently in Fortune Magazine. The article does a nice job of explaining the relationships between FasTrack, Kazaa, Morpheus, Grokster, Gnutella, Sharman Networks and Streamcast. Morpheus, for example, decided to move to Gnutella after a dispute with Kazaa got them locked out of the FasTrack network.
Amy Harmon at The New York Times has done a nice piece on the pricing of music downloads, What Price Music? She quotes Doug Morris, chairman of Universal Music Group, the world's largest music company:
"This is much bigger than the CD. The CD and the LP and the cassette were all packaged goods. This is about
being able to find all the world's music in one store — a Professor Longhair record, a Benny Goodman record. Where are you
going to find that in a record store now?"
Looks like at least one of the labels is finally getting its act together. It's impossible to say what the long term effect on the music business will be but Morris thinks there will be an increase in overall sales. Nice to see some optimism from such a source.
The NYT also did a nice profile a few days ago of the guys that created Kazaa and their latest adventures with VoIP service Skype. Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis see VoIP having a seismic affect on traditional telephone companies. The article suggests MCI in the US are planning a complete switch to VoIP by 2005. Interesting.
Back to the music business and specifically the RIAA's targetting of file sharers, the EFF seem to have found someone else who has been falsely accused:
"The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier
Foundation on Monday asked lawyers for three
record labels to drop their suit against 35-year-old
Web site designer Ross Plank, asserting that he is the
second target of 261 high-profile suits who is the
victim of mistaken identity. "
"This is much bigger than the CD. The CD and the LP and the cassette were all packaged goods. This is about
being able to find all the world's music in one store — a Professor Longhair record, a Benny Goodman record. Where are you
going to find that in a record store now?"
Looks like at least one of the labels is finally getting its act together. It's impossible to say what the long term effect on the music business will be but Morris thinks there will be an increase in overall sales. Nice to see some optimism from such a source.
The NYT also did a nice profile a few days ago of the guys that created Kazaa and their latest adventures with VoIP service Skype. Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis see VoIP having a seismic affect on traditional telephone companies. The article suggests MCI in the US are planning a complete switch to VoIP by 2005. Interesting.
Back to the music business and specifically the RIAA's targetting of file sharers, the EFF seem to have found someone else who has been falsely accused:
"The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier
Foundation on Monday asked lawyers for three
record labels to drop their suit against 35-year-old
Web site designer Ross Plank, asserting that he is the
second target of 261 high-profile suits who is the
victim of mistaken identity. "
Sunday, October 12, 2003
An FCC Commissioner who gets it, according to Larry Lessig. This paper from Michael Copps is spot on and not the kind of insight you come to expect from officialdom. Good for you Mr Copps.
Friday, October 10, 2003
It seems that SunnComm have decided not to sue Alex Haderman after all.
"SunnComm president and CEO Peter Jacobs said he changed his mind.
Jacobs said in an interview late last night that a successful lawsuit would do
little to reverse the damage done by the paper Halderman published Monday
about his research, and any suit would likely hurt the research community by
making computer scientists think twice about researching copy-protection
technology.
"I don't want to be the guy that creates any kind of chilling effect on
research," Jacobs said."
"SunnComm president and CEO Peter Jacobs said he changed his mind.
Jacobs said in an interview late last night that a successful lawsuit would do
little to reverse the damage done by the paper Halderman published Monday
about his research, and any suit would likely hurt the research community by
making computer scientists think twice about researching copy-protection
technology.
"I don't want to be the guy that creates any kind of chilling effect on
research," Jacobs said."
AT LUNCHTIME TODAY, I moderated a panel discussion on digital downloading and music,
featuring a bunch of musicians, songwriters, and industry people from Nashville. Here's the
scary bit: one of the industry guys said that their big legislative priority is to try to create a
regime where you have to register with a unique, verifiable ID to access the Internet.
No doubt the next step would be to take away that ID as punishment for "misconduct" on the
Internet. Shades of Vernor Vinge's True Names.
posted at 04:12 PM by Glenn Reynolds
featuring a bunch of musicians, songwriters, and industry people from Nashville. Here's the
scary bit: one of the industry guys said that their big legislative priority is to try to create a
regime where you have to register with a unique, verifiable ID to access the Internet.
No doubt the next step would be to take away that ID as punishment for "misconduct" on the
Internet. Shades of Vernor Vinge's True Names.
posted at 04:12 PM by Glenn Reynolds
Alex Halderman, a Princeton student, who discovered that holding down the shift key while loading a CD into a computer, allows you to beat the latest copy protection technology, is about to get sued by the company that produced the technology. I'm with Ernest Miller on this one. I can't see them going ahead with it. It's a pretty lousy PR exercise - a student points out your security is not very good and you react how? By improving the security? No, of course not! You must sue the student, or preferably have the authorities go after him with criminal charges. We're not in the real world, we're in DMCA-land. We'll have our very own version, EUCD-land, in the UK by the end of the month.
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Eolas have filed for an injunction to stop Microsoft distributing their IE browser, in the wake of their recent $520 million patent infringement victory against the software giant.
The UK has passed legislation to implement the EU Copyright directive. The actual legislation is largely unchanged from the original draft regulations that were subject to such a long period of consultation. There now appears to be an exception for researchers. Section 296ZA2 states:
"This section does not apply where a person, for the purposes
of research into cryptography, does anything which circumvents effective
technological measures unless in so doing, or in issuing information
derived from that research, he affects prejudicially the rights of the
copyright owner."
It remains to be seen what "affects prejudicially the rights of the copyright owner" actually means in practice. The DMCA also has an exception for security researchers. Ben Edelman at Harvard wants to get access to a lists of websites blocked by certain commercially available filter software programmes, in order to test their effectiveness.
As a researcher, the DMCA provides an exception which allows him to bypass the digital locks which keep those lists secret. At the same time, however, it makes it illegal for him to build the tool that would enable him to bypass those digital locks. I wonder if Section 296ZA(2) will have a similar effect?
Silicon.com are reporting on a way of beating the latest CD copy protection technology. I wonder how such a report is affected by the implemention of the copyright directive now?
"This section does not apply where a person, for the purposes
of research into cryptography, does anything which circumvents effective
technological measures unless in so doing, or in issuing information
derived from that research, he affects prejudicially the rights of the
copyright owner."
It remains to be seen what "affects prejudicially the rights of the copyright owner" actually means in practice. The DMCA also has an exception for security researchers. Ben Edelman at Harvard wants to get access to a lists of websites blocked by certain commercially available filter software programmes, in order to test their effectiveness.
As a researcher, the DMCA provides an exception which allows him to bypass the digital locks which keep those lists secret. At the same time, however, it makes it illegal for him to build the tool that would enable him to bypass those digital locks. I wonder if Section 296ZA(2) will have a similar effect?
Silicon.com are reporting on a way of beating the latest CD copy protection technology. I wonder how such a report is affected by the implemention of the copyright directive now?
Thursday, October 02, 2003
Nesson Fisher and Zittrain in conversation. Great stuff.
Derek Slater is on form too quizing Prof Nesson's ideas for getting us all out of the P2P cul-de-sac. I need to spend more time on this!
Derek Slater is on form too quizing Prof Nesson's ideas for getting us all out of the P2P cul-de-sac. I need to spend more time on this!
The Times is reporting that Tony Blair has become a convert to David Blunkett's grand plan on national identity cards. Another step in his New Labour leadership style demo. No doubt he wants to be seen to be tough on Labour, tough on the causes of Labour.
Anita Ramasastry has done a typically incisive analysis of the privacy issues related to the recent JetBlue case and the US government's proposals on the CAPPS11. The 1974 Privacy Act in the US only relates to databases compiled by the government and does not cover government's access to private sector databases.
"Soon, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) - which was
involved in the JetBlue data transfer - will begin to implement CAPPS II.
CAPPS II will attempt to update and revamp the existing federal no-fly
list program by employing the same kind of private sector data that
JetBlue provided to Torch Concepts.
Disturbingly, however, CAPPS II currently lacks meaningful privacy and
due process safeguards. Thus, not only should the Privacy Act be
amended, but so should the CAPPS II proposal.
Otherwise, consumers may find that data that they have provided to
companies in the private sector is now being used to target them for the
same scrutiny would-be terrorists receive. "
The defense contractor that analysed the data on 5 million JetBlue passengers, had been contracted by the army "to determine how information from public and private records
might be analyzed to help defend military bases from attack by terrorists
and other adversaries."
The contractor synthesised the JetBlue data with data bought from a large aggregating company and created a set of profiles:
(1) Young Middle Income Home Owners with Short
Length-of-Residence; (2) Older Upper Income Home Owners with
Longer Length-of-Residence; and (3) travellers with "anomalous
records."
As Prof Ramasastry says, "The third category, by definition, might potentially include renters,
students with both home and school addresses, older persons who have
moved recently, and persons with low incomes. Of course, such persons
are in some senses the norm in America. Yet the program may have
deemed them "anomalous" - and, thus a risk from a security standpoint. "
The other problem comes when there are errors in the data or it gets misused by the various actors (or their employees) engaged in the processing or transfer of the data.
The guy that is trying to sell his electronic voting machines to Ohio state, told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed
to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." If you read in a novel you wouldn't believe it. Not, of course, suggesting that we should believe everything we read on the Net. Although, Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc., has been reported as having said similar things in the past.
"Soon, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) - which was
involved in the JetBlue data transfer - will begin to implement CAPPS II.
CAPPS II will attempt to update and revamp the existing federal no-fly
list program by employing the same kind of private sector data that
JetBlue provided to Torch Concepts.
Disturbingly, however, CAPPS II currently lacks meaningful privacy and
due process safeguards. Thus, not only should the Privacy Act be
amended, but so should the CAPPS II proposal.
Otherwise, consumers may find that data that they have provided to
companies in the private sector is now being used to target them for the
same scrutiny would-be terrorists receive. "
The defense contractor that analysed the data on 5 million JetBlue passengers, had been contracted by the army "to determine how information from public and private records
might be analyzed to help defend military bases from attack by terrorists
and other adversaries."
The contractor synthesised the JetBlue data with data bought from a large aggregating company and created a set of profiles:
(1) Young Middle Income Home Owners with Short
Length-of-Residence; (2) Older Upper Income Home Owners with
Longer Length-of-Residence; and (3) travellers with "anomalous
records."
As Prof Ramasastry says, "The third category, by definition, might potentially include renters,
students with both home and school addresses, older persons who have
moved recently, and persons with low incomes. Of course, such persons
are in some senses the norm in America. Yet the program may have
deemed them "anomalous" - and, thus a risk from a security standpoint. "
The other problem comes when there are errors in the data or it gets misused by the various actors (or their employees) engaged in the processing or transfer of the data.
The guy that is trying to sell his electronic voting machines to Ohio state, told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed
to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." If you read in a novel you wouldn't believe it. Not, of course, suggesting that we should believe everything we read on the Net. Although, Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc., has been reported as having said similar things in the past.
Monday, September 29, 2003
I've just lost a large post on electronic voting machines when IE Explorer crashed and I don't have the time to re-generate it, so I'll just point to this flash animation and a Salon article on alleged irregularities on the development of standards on same.
Insightful essay by science fiction writer Orson Scott Card on the problems the music industry is having with MP3s. He has a solution to the copyright term debate too,
"Twenty years after the author's
death or the author's hundredth birthday,
whichever comes last -- that's a workable
standard to provide for the author and his
or her immediate heirs. It comes to an end,
and the work enters the public domain as it
should.
And let's eliminate this nonsense about
corporate authorship. If a corporation
claims to be the "author" for copyright
purposes, then the whole life of the
copyright should be twenty years, period.
They make most of their money in twenty
years, except on a handful of works that
enter the public consciousness...
If you changed the law that way, suddenly
"work for hire" contracts would disappear,
and the real creators would be treated
with more respect by the big companies --
because they'd much rather have a fair
contract with an author whose copyright
will last many decades than to have
outright "authorship" of a twenty-year
copyright."
"Twenty years after the author's
death or the author's hundredth birthday,
whichever comes last -- that's a workable
standard to provide for the author and his
or her immediate heirs. It comes to an end,
and the work enters the public domain as it
should.
And let's eliminate this nonsense about
corporate authorship. If a corporation
claims to be the "author" for copyright
purposes, then the whole life of the
copyright should be twenty years, period.
They make most of their money in twenty
years, except on a handful of works that
enter the public consciousness...
If you changed the law that way, suddenly
"work for hire" contracts would disappear,
and the real creators would be treated
with more respect by the big companies --
because they'd much rather have a fair
contract with an author whose copyright
will last many decades than to have
outright "authorship" of a twenty-year
copyright."
Friday, September 26, 2003
Legal theory blog.
Ernest Miller at Lawmeme. Everything at Lawmeme is worth a look but scroll down for Miller's recent postings on copynorms and thoughts about how to resolve the conflicts in the p2p wars.
Donna Wentworth at Copyfight says:
"If you've got any (copy)fight in you at all, you've been following the
debate over the past 2-3 weeks about how to resolve the P2P wars
peacably--that is,
without harming technological innovation and/or the Net;
without harming people and/or violating their rights;
without harming the creators, producers or publishers of
creative works; and
without (further) harming copyright law by (further) upsetting its
intended balance.
Or, as a subset of the above questions, you may have been asking
yourself
whether the RIAA's legal campaign against P2P users is in any
sense a rational or justified approach to resolving the current
conflicts, and
if it isn't, what are the rational approaches, and finally
what approach is EFF advocating? "
I'm afraid I haven't been keeping up for the past few weeks at all. Sorry Donna. :-( Still totally buried in electronic and paper administrative mountains. Plus my latest batch of 160 or so students are starting my OU course, based on Larry Lessig's book, The Future of Ideas.
Loads of copyfight discussions I need to catch up with and point to but I should mention that the amazing Seth Finkelstein has decided to call it a day on his censorware research. I can only wish him the best of luck in getting financial and legal protection and/or in whatever venture he decides to pursue in the future. As and EFF pioneer award winner, you can't top the plaudits this unsung hero got in 2001 for the work he has tirelessly and singlehandly pursued for many years. Nice thoughts from admirers don't pay the bills or provide legal protection in these litigious times however.
Ernest Miller at Lawmeme. Everything at Lawmeme is worth a look but scroll down for Miller's recent postings on copynorms and thoughts about how to resolve the conflicts in the p2p wars.
Donna Wentworth at Copyfight says:
"If you've got any (copy)fight in you at all, you've been following the
debate over the past 2-3 weeks about how to resolve the P2P wars
peacably--that is,
without harming technological innovation and/or the Net;
without harming people and/or violating their rights;
without harming the creators, producers or publishers of
creative works; and
without (further) harming copyright law by (further) upsetting its
intended balance.
Or, as a subset of the above questions, you may have been asking
yourself
whether the RIAA's legal campaign against P2P users is in any
sense a rational or justified approach to resolving the current
conflicts, and
if it isn't, what are the rational approaches, and finally
what approach is EFF advocating? "
I'm afraid I haven't been keeping up for the past few weeks at all. Sorry Donna. :-( Still totally buried in electronic and paper administrative mountains. Plus my latest batch of 160 or so students are starting my OU course, based on Larry Lessig's book, The Future of Ideas.
Loads of copyfight discussions I need to catch up with and point to but I should mention that the amazing Seth Finkelstein has decided to call it a day on his censorware research. I can only wish him the best of luck in getting financial and legal protection and/or in whatever venture he decides to pursue in the future. As and EFF pioneer award winner, you can't top the plaudits this unsung hero got in 2001 for the work he has tirelessly and singlehandly pursued for many years. Nice thoughts from admirers don't pay the bills or provide legal protection in these litigious times however.
Must read interview with Michael Perelman at info-commons. One quote:
"What we are doing is stifling ideas by creating an atmosphere of secrecy, of litigation, and of restriction, all of which will harm the system's ability to create important ideas in the long run. The idea that information should be private property is absolutely new, absolutely untested, and in my mind absolutely destructive. Again, I would go back to this question of long-term replenishment and say, "Where do you see the private incentives for long-term replenishment?" If you think about the way the system works today, the private sector is very, very good at taking deep, basic, scientific insights and eventually turning them into marketable commodities. But at the same time what they are doing is destroying the system of creating deep, basic, scientific insights by using their financial leverage to force science into devoting more attention to the moneymaking process."
I'd recommend his book, Steal this Idea
But what about that soundbite for the those concerned about the expansion of intellectual property rights beyond their productive boundaries:
"The idea that information should be private property is absolutely new, absolutely untested, and in my mind absolutely destructive."
Takes eight seconds to say, rather than the politicians' preferred maximum of four. But hey, we're trying to raise the level of the debate.
"What we are doing is stifling ideas by creating an atmosphere of secrecy, of litigation, and of restriction, all of which will harm the system's ability to create important ideas in the long run. The idea that information should be private property is absolutely new, absolutely untested, and in my mind absolutely destructive. Again, I would go back to this question of long-term replenishment and say, "Where do you see the private incentives for long-term replenishment?" If you think about the way the system works today, the private sector is very, very good at taking deep, basic, scientific insights and eventually turning them into marketable commodities. But at the same time what they are doing is destroying the system of creating deep, basic, scientific insights by using their financial leverage to force science into devoting more attention to the moneymaking process."
I'd recommend his book, Steal this Idea
But what about that soundbite for the those concerned about the expansion of intellectual property rights beyond their productive boundaries:
"The idea that information should be private property is absolutely new, absolutely untested, and in my mind absolutely destructive."
Takes eight seconds to say, rather than the politicians' preferred maximum of four. But hey, we're trying to raise the level of the debate.
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
A CNN report on a pirate Harry Potter publisher in Venezuela is a reminder of why publishing houses get so upset about copyright infringement. A poor Spanish translation of the latest J.K. Rowling blockbuster is selling like hotcakes for the equivalent of $25. This is despite the fact that the translator admits on nearly every page that there were phrases and sentences s/he could not understand. The official Spanish language translation is not due for months and this character decided to fill a gap in the market.
Thanks to Siva Vaidhyanathan for pointing to this story about the battle between Ontario province in Canada and a US biotech company, Myriad Genetics, with a patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Testing for these can apparently help to predict a woman's risk of developing breast cancer where there is a history of the illness in the family. Myriad are threatening court action unless Ontario stop doing their version of the test, (which is done at one third of the cost and provides results two months faster). Similar threats against British Columbia last year led labs there to discontinue testing, according to the report cited.
Thanks to Siva Vaidhyanathan for pointing to this story about the battle between Ontario province in Canada and a US biotech company, Myriad Genetics, with a patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Testing for these can apparently help to predict a woman's risk of developing breast cancer where there is a history of the illness in the family. Myriad are threatening court action unless Ontario stop doing their version of the test, (which is done at one third of the cost and provides results two months faster). Similar threats against British Columbia last year led labs there to discontinue testing, according to the report cited.
Monday, September 08, 2003
The Foundation for Information Policy Research has released an important new report on the implementation of the EU copyright directive of 2001.
"Implementing the European Union
Copyright Directive
Ian Brown
Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and
related rights in the information society has proven more contentious than
its drafters foresaw. This EU Copyright Directive (EUCD), as it is
commonly known, allowed only 19 months for implementation by
Member States. But controversy in many of the fifteen States meant that
only Denmark and Greece met this deadline.
Given the experience in the United States with a similar piece of legislation
passed in 1998, this may be less surprising than it seems. The EUCD and
the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) both give new
protection to “technological measures:” systems that restrict the use of
literary and other works in digital form based on instructions from their
owners. Even legitimate users of such works are forbidden from
circumventing such measures. Tools that facilitate circumvention are also
banned. This has led to problems in the US for innovators, researchers,
the press, and the public at large.
This guide describes the debate that has occurred within each of the EU
states during this process of implementation. It also describes the options
that are available in implementation, and how these options have been
exercised across the EU. Our aim is to provide information to government
and civil society bodies in the countries that will be joining the EU during
2004, and hence who must also transpose the Directive into national law
as part of that process. These organisations will then be in a better position
to represent the views of copyright users in the debate over transposition,
in order to ensure a proper balance between the rights of rightsholders and
users.
The European Commission is due to report on the operation of the
Directive in December 2004, after which amendments may be made by
the Parliament and Council. Until then, careful use of its flexibility in
implementation may prevent the recurrence in Europe of some of the
problems seen in the US as a result of the DMCA.
The guide will be updated to provide further information as the legal
situation evolves, particularly in those countries that have only very
recently, or are yet to, publish draft legislation (Ireland, Luxembourg and
Sweden.)"
You can see the entire report at the FIPR website.
"Implementing the European Union
Copyright Directive
Ian Brown
Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and
related rights in the information society has proven more contentious than
its drafters foresaw. This EU Copyright Directive (EUCD), as it is
commonly known, allowed only 19 months for implementation by
Member States. But controversy in many of the fifteen States meant that
only Denmark and Greece met this deadline.
Given the experience in the United States with a similar piece of legislation
passed in 1998, this may be less surprising than it seems. The EUCD and
the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) both give new
protection to “technological measures:” systems that restrict the use of
literary and other works in digital form based on instructions from their
owners. Even legitimate users of such works are forbidden from
circumventing such measures. Tools that facilitate circumvention are also
banned. This has led to problems in the US for innovators, researchers,
the press, and the public at large.
This guide describes the debate that has occurred within each of the EU
states during this process of implementation. It also describes the options
that are available in implementation, and how these options have been
exercised across the EU. Our aim is to provide information to government
and civil society bodies in the countries that will be joining the EU during
2004, and hence who must also transpose the Directive into national law
as part of that process. These organisations will then be in a better position
to represent the views of copyright users in the debate over transposition,
in order to ensure a proper balance between the rights of rightsholders and
users.
The European Commission is due to report on the operation of the
Directive in December 2004, after which amendments may be made by
the Parliament and Council. Until then, careful use of its flexibility in
implementation may prevent the recurrence in Europe of some of the
problems seen in the US as a result of the DMCA.
The guide will be updated to provide further information as the legal
situation evolves, particularly in those countries that have only very
recently, or are yet to, publish draft legislation (Ireland, Luxembourg and
Sweden.)"
You can see the entire report at the FIPR website.
The UK cabinet are divided on David Blunkett's plans for a biometrically embedded national identity card.
The national ID card proposal fails security expert Bruce Schneier's 5 step test at the first hurdle:
1. What problem(s) does the proposed solution - in this case a national identity card - solve?
2. How well does it solve it (or them) and how can it fail?
3. What other problems does the solution create?
4. How much does it cost?
5. Is it worth it, given the answers to the first four questions?
What about step 1 then? Well the proponents in government are keen to suggest it solves everything from immigration to terrorism and includes identity fraud, benefit fraud, illegal working, unauthorised access to health care, as some of the bonuses along the way. The ID card appears really to be David's Blunkett's Grand Plan, (in the mould of the BBC's fictional "Yes Prime Minister" Jim Hacker's Grand Design) to be used as a plaform to challenge for the leadership when Blair eventually steps down. In reality, it's a massive expensive, intrusive solution looking for a problem; and the list of problems it is claimed that it will solve grows progressively.
So in answer to Schneier's first question, we don't really know what problem it is supposed to solve. But it's a great platform to bring out a "vocal minority" who can be appropriately demonised in the mass media. (Of the 7000 or so people who responded to the government's exercise on the "entitlement card", about 6000 were against it - but the proponents in government still regularly say that a majority of those who responded to the exercise supported the idea, by a factor of 2 to 1).
How well does it work? Leaving aside the fact that we don't know what problem it will solve, the focus of supporters appears to be on the idea that it can't fail because it will be embedded with biometric information. But somebody should paint this in big bold print at the head of Mr Blunkett's grand plan -
Biometric information may be unique but it is not secret.
We leave bit's of dead skin and hair and our fingerprints on lots of things. Senior political figures have photos taken every day. Will some of those be of suffient quality to give iris scan details? Card's containing people's biometric information can therefore be forged and since there will be a be incentive for organised crime to forge these cards - due to the widely held belief that they can't be forged and the range of services they will provide access to - they are likely to be forged on a large scale.
What other problems does the 'solution' create - see above for starters.
How much? An absolute fortune - in the billions of pounds.
Is it worth it? Er, that's a tough one but on balance I'd say no.
And I'm not even a security specialist. Someone like Schneier could really poke holes in the proposal.
The Telegraph is painting it as the tortises versus the hares, with Blunkett and Blair and co. being the hares. Brown and Prescot are the alleged cautious tortises. Let's hope this one works out like the fable.
The Telegraph is also complaining about the new directory enquiries services in the UK. "Some of the new directory inquiries services were accused of operating a
"stalkers' charter" last night after providing phone numbers for people's
homes without being given the residents' names."
Former Environment minister, Michael Meacher, is painting the war of terrorism as bogus and suggesting "The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination" He's also scathingly critical of the UK support for the US in this context,
"The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the
"global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth
propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the
US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force
command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole
project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this
project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If
there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance,
driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing
saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical
change of course."
Whilst David Blunkett ponders his national identity card, senior police officers, according to the Guardian, are to "call this week for the database of 2m DNA samples to be extended to everyone in the country. " This would apparently help the police to prevent crime and solve crimes more easily.
The national ID card proposal fails security expert Bruce Schneier's 5 step test at the first hurdle:
1. What problem(s) does the proposed solution - in this case a national identity card - solve?
2. How well does it solve it (or them) and how can it fail?
3. What other problems does the solution create?
4. How much does it cost?
5. Is it worth it, given the answers to the first four questions?
What about step 1 then? Well the proponents in government are keen to suggest it solves everything from immigration to terrorism and includes identity fraud, benefit fraud, illegal working, unauthorised access to health care, as some of the bonuses along the way. The ID card appears really to be David's Blunkett's Grand Plan, (in the mould of the BBC's fictional "Yes Prime Minister" Jim Hacker's Grand Design) to be used as a plaform to challenge for the leadership when Blair eventually steps down. In reality, it's a massive expensive, intrusive solution looking for a problem; and the list of problems it is claimed that it will solve grows progressively.
So in answer to Schneier's first question, we don't really know what problem it is supposed to solve. But it's a great platform to bring out a "vocal minority" who can be appropriately demonised in the mass media. (Of the 7000 or so people who responded to the government's exercise on the "entitlement card", about 6000 were against it - but the proponents in government still regularly say that a majority of those who responded to the exercise supported the idea, by a factor of 2 to 1).
How well does it work? Leaving aside the fact that we don't know what problem it will solve, the focus of supporters appears to be on the idea that it can't fail because it will be embedded with biometric information. But somebody should paint this in big bold print at the head of Mr Blunkett's grand plan -
Biometric information may be unique but it is not secret.
We leave bit's of dead skin and hair and our fingerprints on lots of things. Senior political figures have photos taken every day. Will some of those be of suffient quality to give iris scan details? Card's containing people's biometric information can therefore be forged and since there will be a be incentive for organised crime to forge these cards - due to the widely held belief that they can't be forged and the range of services they will provide access to - they are likely to be forged on a large scale.
What other problems does the 'solution' create - see above for starters.
How much? An absolute fortune - in the billions of pounds.
Is it worth it? Er, that's a tough one but on balance I'd say no.
And I'm not even a security specialist. Someone like Schneier could really poke holes in the proposal.
The Telegraph is painting it as the tortises versus the hares, with Blunkett and Blair and co. being the hares. Brown and Prescot are the alleged cautious tortises. Let's hope this one works out like the fable.
The Telegraph is also complaining about the new directory enquiries services in the UK. "Some of the new directory inquiries services were accused of operating a
"stalkers' charter" last night after providing phone numbers for people's
homes without being given the residents' names."
Former Environment minister, Michael Meacher, is painting the war of terrorism as bogus and suggesting "The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination" He's also scathingly critical of the UK support for the US in this context,
"The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the
"global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth
propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the
US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force
command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole
project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this
project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If
there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance,
driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing
saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical
change of course."
Whilst David Blunkett ponders his national identity card, senior police officers, according to the Guardian, are to "call this week for the database of 2m DNA samples to be extended to everyone in the country. " This would apparently help the police to prevent crime and solve crimes more easily.
Friday, September 05, 2003
Fox outfoxed? From Fox News - "Judge Rejects Fox News' Request for Injunction on Franken Book." A 'fair and balanced' Fox News report on the judge's decision to throw out their case. Author Franken and publishers Penguin are pretty pleased with the publicity.
The BBC are planning to open their archive to the public. "Greg Dyke, director general of the BBC, has announced plans to give the public full access to all the corporation's programme archives."
"The service, the BBC Creative Archive,
would be free and available to
everyone, as long as they were not
intending to use the material for
commercial purposes, Mr Dyke added."
"Open-source software maker MontaVista Software is advising customers not to pay any money to The SCO Group" The SCO website has been brought down be a denial of service attack. This is completely counter productive to the aims of the open source community and will only provide ammunition to people who want to discredit them. Eric Raymond put it pretty well: "We're the good guys. But that doesn't matter if we aren't *seen* to be the good guys. We cannot fight our war using vandalism and trespass and the suppression of speech, or SCO will paint us as crackers and maybe win."
"New DVD-copying tools to hit shelves"
Towards the end of August the California Supreme court ruled in favour of the DVD Content Control Association in their case against Andrew Bunner for posting DeCSS code on the Net. Essentially they said that requiring Bunner to respect the DVDCCA's trade secret was not an interference with his right to free speech under the first amendment. The decision has been going back and forth on this as it has worked its way through the courts. Just one, relatively old, question: how is CSS now a trade secret when DeCSS has been so widely distributed? That, at least, remains to be seen, as the Supreme Court has sent the case back to the lower appeal court to determine if Bunner has violated any trade secrets. Cindy Cohen of the EFF (who are supporting Bunner) seems confident of the outcome on that: “The appeals court can now examine the movie industry's fiction that DeCSS is still a secret and that a publication ban is necessary to keep the information secret". Having reflected on the detail of the decision the EFF and the First Amendment Project are even spinning it in a very positive fashion.
The UK government are proposing to set up a database on children, including a listing of their potential criminality. Odd that the usual suspects in the media have not rallied against it. As Ian Brown of Foundation for Information Policy Research says, "Imagine if the government proposed creating a database of "potential troublemakers" that covered 10% of the adult population, based upon the opinions of doctors, social workers or policemen..."
Off topic but Escaped murderers refused return
"When a Hopkins computer scientist declared a new breed of electronic voting machinery to be junk, he cracked open a wide and costly debate."
CAPPS Navigates Unfriendly Skies
Bill Clinton's former privacy czar, Peter Swire, is concerned at the privacy implications of the RIAA's campaign to target individual file sharers. Greplaw have and interview with Glenn Peterson who is representing the woman fighting to keep her identity a secret from the RIAA.
"However, the music industry is pursuing music piracy with strong
arm tactics and subpoena powers that far exceed those available
against violent criminals. It is astounding to me that the law bends
over backward to safeguard the constitutional rights of accused
criminals and then completely ignores the same rights of teenage
kids sharing music in an environment they have every reason to
believe is legal. It is important for me to stress that we do not
condone music piracy or copyright infringement. What we want
to do is clarify what qualifies as music piracy and further to
ensure that the so-called accused pirates have the same minimal
constitutional rights that we afford to those accused of doing
much more serious and harmful things than sharing music...
Arguably the most dangerous consequence, the
subpoena power can be put in the hands of anyone willing to
pretend to have a copyright claim. Without a judge's review,
these fraudulent requests are easily passed of as legitimate
ones, passing under only the minimum, ministerial scrutiny
of a court clerk with a rubber stamp. The potential abuser
categories are limitless, and include everything from
annoying marketers to swindlers, child abductors,
blackmailers, and terrorists."
The RIAA are not giving up on Peterson's client (Nycfashiongirl) or on MIT. They've sent a second subpoena filed in the local jurisdiction of Massachusetts, to get the alleged file sharer on the MIT network identified. Looks like the RIAA and the movie studios are gaining some allies in their fight with Streamcast and Grokster too, with amicus briefs coming from Harvard and NYU professors as well as expected sources such as "copyright holders ranging from Major League Baseball to the Screen Actors Guild. "
The Conservative Party in the UK, the remains of Margaret Thatcher's tories, actually want to shut down the BBC website, according to a report in the Guardian. I won't comment to avoid being impolite.
A group of economists are critical of the proposed Directive on the Patentability of
Computer-Implemented Inventions.
SCO deny they have any plans to sue commercial linux users.
David Blunkett is determined to press ahead with his national identity card in spite of Blair backing awaying from it. He's planning a test run later in the year in a 'small market town'. Cryptome have a copy of a WSJ article on A New Battleground In Web Privacy War: Ads That Can Snoop
Naomi Klein has taken a poke at the international franchise that is the War on Terror.
From The Register Want to visit Britain? Join the fingerprint queue
The MPAA are going after the 321 Studios folk in the UK alledging breach of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988.
Sharman Networks which owns Kazaa have complained to Google about copyright infringement. In response Google pulled the links to the KAzaa imitator complained of, for fear of the DMCA falling on their heads.
Protests on the EU sofware patent issue have delayed the vote in the European Parliament under later this month.
Freenet creator Ian Clarke has decided to leave the US partly due to the restrictive intellectual property laws.
The BBC are planning to open their archive to the public. "Greg Dyke, director general of the BBC, has announced plans to give the public full access to all the corporation's programme archives."
"The service, the BBC Creative Archive,
would be free and available to
everyone, as long as they were not
intending to use the material for
commercial purposes, Mr Dyke added."
"Open-source software maker MontaVista Software is advising customers not to pay any money to The SCO Group" The SCO website has been brought down be a denial of service attack. This is completely counter productive to the aims of the open source community and will only provide ammunition to people who want to discredit them. Eric Raymond put it pretty well: "We're the good guys. But that doesn't matter if we aren't *seen* to be the good guys. We cannot fight our war using vandalism and trespass and the suppression of speech, or SCO will paint us as crackers and maybe win."
"New DVD-copying tools to hit shelves"
Towards the end of August the California Supreme court ruled in favour of the DVD Content Control Association in their case against Andrew Bunner for posting DeCSS code on the Net. Essentially they said that requiring Bunner to respect the DVDCCA's trade secret was not an interference with his right to free speech under the first amendment. The decision has been going back and forth on this as it has worked its way through the courts. Just one, relatively old, question: how is CSS now a trade secret when DeCSS has been so widely distributed? That, at least, remains to be seen, as the Supreme Court has sent the case back to the lower appeal court to determine if Bunner has violated any trade secrets. Cindy Cohen of the EFF (who are supporting Bunner) seems confident of the outcome on that: “The appeals court can now examine the movie industry's fiction that DeCSS is still a secret and that a publication ban is necessary to keep the information secret". Having reflected on the detail of the decision the EFF and the First Amendment Project are even spinning it in a very positive fashion.
The UK government are proposing to set up a database on children, including a listing of their potential criminality. Odd that the usual suspects in the media have not rallied against it. As Ian Brown of Foundation for Information Policy Research says, "Imagine if the government proposed creating a database of "potential troublemakers" that covered 10% of the adult population, based upon the opinions of doctors, social workers or policemen..."
Off topic but Escaped murderers refused return
"When a Hopkins computer scientist declared a new breed of electronic voting machinery to be junk, he cracked open a wide and costly debate."
CAPPS Navigates Unfriendly Skies
Bill Clinton's former privacy czar, Peter Swire, is concerned at the privacy implications of the RIAA's campaign to target individual file sharers. Greplaw have and interview with Glenn Peterson who is representing the woman fighting to keep her identity a secret from the RIAA.
"However, the music industry is pursuing music piracy with strong
arm tactics and subpoena powers that far exceed those available
against violent criminals. It is astounding to me that the law bends
over backward to safeguard the constitutional rights of accused
criminals and then completely ignores the same rights of teenage
kids sharing music in an environment they have every reason to
believe is legal. It is important for me to stress that we do not
condone music piracy or copyright infringement. What we want
to do is clarify what qualifies as music piracy and further to
ensure that the so-called accused pirates have the same minimal
constitutional rights that we afford to those accused of doing
much more serious and harmful things than sharing music...
Arguably the most dangerous consequence, the
subpoena power can be put in the hands of anyone willing to
pretend to have a copyright claim. Without a judge's review,
these fraudulent requests are easily passed of as legitimate
ones, passing under only the minimum, ministerial scrutiny
of a court clerk with a rubber stamp. The potential abuser
categories are limitless, and include everything from
annoying marketers to swindlers, child abductors,
blackmailers, and terrorists."
The RIAA are not giving up on Peterson's client (Nycfashiongirl) or on MIT. They've sent a second subpoena filed in the local jurisdiction of Massachusetts, to get the alleged file sharer on the MIT network identified. Looks like the RIAA and the movie studios are gaining some allies in their fight with Streamcast and Grokster too, with amicus briefs coming from Harvard and NYU professors as well as expected sources such as "copyright holders ranging from Major League Baseball to the Screen Actors Guild. "
The Conservative Party in the UK, the remains of Margaret Thatcher's tories, actually want to shut down the BBC website, according to a report in the Guardian. I won't comment to avoid being impolite.
A group of economists are critical of the proposed Directive on the Patentability of
Computer-Implemented Inventions.
SCO deny they have any plans to sue commercial linux users.
David Blunkett is determined to press ahead with his national identity card in spite of Blair backing awaying from it. He's planning a test run later in the year in a 'small market town'. Cryptome have a copy of a WSJ article on A New Battleground In Web Privacy War: Ads That Can Snoop
Naomi Klein has taken a poke at the international franchise that is the War on Terror.
From The Register Want to visit Britain? Join the fingerprint queue
The MPAA are going after the 321 Studios folk in the UK alledging breach of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988.
Sharman Networks which owns Kazaa have complained to Google about copyright infringement. In response Google pulled the links to the KAzaa imitator complained of, for fear of the DMCA falling on their heads.
Protests on the EU sofware patent issue have delayed the vote in the European Parliament under later this month.
Freenet creator Ian Clarke has decided to leave the US partly due to the restrictive intellectual property laws.
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
I'm way behind with everything, for which I apologise, but some of the following from the past couple of weeks may be of some interest.
"But as technology in general, and the Internet in particular, drives deeper into the fabric of daily life, battles also rage behind the scenes. They are struggles for control over how the Internet should work, over who sets the rules for its pipes and gateways and who owns the material that moves through them. These are the wars fought with armies of corporate lobbyists, technologists and citizen activists but largely ignored by the general public. And none is larger, or carries higher financial stakes, than the issue with the eye-glazing name of intellectual property." Said the Washington Post on 21st August (when I was away) in an article about the lobbying to kill a proposed meeting on open source development to be hosted by the World Intellectual Property Organisation.
Dave Farber's interesting people list has more information on WIPO backing away from this meeting.
The city of Tampa (having finally won the Superbowl for the first time earlier this year) are dropping a face recognition system after a two year trial during which nobody was positively identified.
I see the Linux community are less than impressed with SCO's - so far - publicly presented evidence of intellectual property infringement. The examples are apparently code from the 1970's which is covered by a BSD licence which allows sharing of code. You've got to say this is a nice example of open and collaborative development in action - like the linux folk 'Dear SCO, I wouldn't use this code as the foundation of your case as you are likely to get laughed out of court' At least they've had the opportunity to try out some their evidence before using it in anger.
SCO's lawyer, at least, seems grateful for the tip: "Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under the GPL (GNU General Public License). That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files," Heise said. "So I don't think it's going to have an impact."
Tescos have ended their trial with the RFID chips linked to hidden cameras at their Cambridge store.
Somebody thinks that John Ashcroft's road show to promote the PATRIOT Act is funny.
File swapper fights RIAA subpoena. And the RIAA's tactics may be having an impact on file swapping with the volume being reduced since they decided to target individuals.
The RIAA and MPAA are, not surprisingly, appealing the April decision in favour of Grokster and Streamcast, where the judge declared that the p2p file sharing technologies were not illegal and were, in fact, analagous to home video recorders.
If this report is to be believed, SCO are taking a leaf out of the RIAA's book and going after individual linux users. The chances are that they are still talking about companies with deep pockets rather than individuals.
"But as technology in general, and the Internet in particular, drives deeper into the fabric of daily life, battles also rage behind the scenes. They are struggles for control over how the Internet should work, over who sets the rules for its pipes and gateways and who owns the material that moves through them. These are the wars fought with armies of corporate lobbyists, technologists and citizen activists but largely ignored by the general public. And none is larger, or carries higher financial stakes, than the issue with the eye-glazing name of intellectual property." Said the Washington Post on 21st August (when I was away) in an article about the lobbying to kill a proposed meeting on open source development to be hosted by the World Intellectual Property Organisation.
Dave Farber's interesting people list has more information on WIPO backing away from this meeting.
The city of Tampa (having finally won the Superbowl for the first time earlier this year) are dropping a face recognition system after a two year trial during which nobody was positively identified.
I see the Linux community are less than impressed with SCO's - so far - publicly presented evidence of intellectual property infringement. The examples are apparently code from the 1970's which is covered by a BSD licence which allows sharing of code. You've got to say this is a nice example of open and collaborative development in action - like the linux folk 'Dear SCO, I wouldn't use this code as the foundation of your case as you are likely to get laughed out of court' At least they've had the opportunity to try out some their evidence before using it in anger.
SCO's lawyer, at least, seems grateful for the tip: "Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under the GPL (GNU General Public License). That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files," Heise said. "So I don't think it's going to have an impact."
Tescos have ended their trial with the RFID chips linked to hidden cameras at their Cambridge store.
Somebody thinks that John Ashcroft's road show to promote the PATRIOT Act is funny.
File swapper fights RIAA subpoena. And the RIAA's tactics may be having an impact on file swapping with the volume being reduced since they decided to target individuals.
The RIAA and MPAA are, not surprisingly, appealing the April decision in favour of Grokster and Streamcast, where the judge declared that the p2p file sharing technologies were not illegal and were, in fact, analagous to home video recorders.
If this report is to be believed, SCO are taking a leaf out of the RIAA's book and going after individual linux users. The chances are that they are still talking about companies with deep pockets rather than individuals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)