James Boyle in the FT:

"Imagine a process of reviewing prescription drugs which goes like this: representatives from the drug company come to the regulators and argue that their drug works well and should be approved. They have no evidence of this beyond a few anecdotes about people who want to take it and perhaps some very simple models of how the drug might affect the human body. The drug is approved. No trials, no empirical evidence of any kind, no follow-up. Or imagine a process of making environmental regulations in which there were no data, and no attempts to gather data, about the effects of the particular pollutants being studied. Even the harshest critics of drug regulation or environmental regulation would admit we generally do better than this. But this is often the way we make intellectual property policy."

Read the article to get his wider perspective of the issue and his specific concerns relating to the 1996 EU Database directive and lobbyist attempts to push similar legislation in the US without any supporting empirical evidence about the potential benefits or disadvantages. I particularly like James' rules of thumb for regulators:

1. "when someone with a profit margin over 20% asks you for additional monopoly protection, pause before agreeing."

2. "Do no harm! Do not create rights without strong evidence that the incentive effect is worth the anti-competitive cost."

The British Medical Association are boycotting the new NHS computerised hospital appointment booking system due to fears about confidentiality of patient data. With government pumping about £6 billion into NHS computer systems and a general election looming there will be more than a few irritated government ministers.

"Something Borrowed" from the New Yorker tells an interesting story of Bryony Lavery's play "Frozen" and allegations of plagiarism. The author of the piece, Malcolm Gladwell, is quite sympathetic towards the playwright, despite apparently writing the piece that was one of Ms Lavery's main sources for the play.

Nice round-up at eGov monitor of David Blunkett's speech last week where he was extolling the virtues of ID cards and criticising supermarket loyalty cards. Also includes a note about other speeches made on the day including that of the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, who has serious concerns about the government's proposals.

"Microsoft alum Nathan Myhrvold runs a firm that doesn't make anything, but it's hoarding the key to a new business age: intellectual property" So says this piece at NewsWeek.

In yet another attempt to shift the goalposts on ID cards, David Blunkett tried a new tactic last week of expressing concern for personal privacy and calling for more checks on supermarket loyalty card data collection.

"In a speech, Mr Blunkett said the cards produced key details about people's shopping habits but were accepted because they were run by private firms.

People should not distrust ID cards because they are a state idea, he said."

His concern for our privacy is touching but like Mr Blunkett I don't have a supermarket loyalty card. I wonder why he doesn't have one?

"The scheme would be worthwhile if it reinforced identity and citizenship, he said. If not, he would "be remembered as one of the biggest political failures that Britain has ever produced"."

Political failure is right and by the time that comes to be generally accepted a huge amount of money will have been flushed away (billions of pounds), not to mention the other negative effects.

It seems that the recent breaking of the Internet data transmission record has energised the MPAA into starting talks with high speed Internet researchers, with view to keeping abreast of developments.

Some researchers at the University of California Berkeley have theorised, using statistics and publicly available election data, that President Bush may have got 130000 or more votes in Florida than he was entitled to, due to "irregularites associated with electronic voting machines". Bush won Florida by 350000 votes, so it would not have changed the outcome but the researchers suggest there is a need to examine currently depolyed evoting systems with a view to improving them.

How Hilary learned to love Larry - Hilary Rosen, former chief of the RIAA, has become persuaded of the value of creative commons.

The Internet Archive have offered to host creative commons licenced audio and video files free of charge. Creative Commons have taken advantage by creating software called the Publisher to let you drag and drop files into the Internet Archive.

Ed Felten's recent Princeton President's Lecture, "Rip, Mix, Burn, Sue: Technology, Politics, and the Fight to Control Digital Media" is now online. He links to it from his Freedom-to Tinker blog.

Frank Field says Google are planning a new service for scientists and academic researchers.

"Google Scholar, which was scheduled to go online Wednesday evening at scholar.google.com, is a result of the company’s collaboration with a number of scientific and academic publishers and is intended as a first stop for researchers looking for scholarly literature like peer-reviewed papers, books, abstracts and technical reports.

Google executives declined to say how many additional documents and books had been indexed and made searchable through the service. While the great majority of recent scholarly papers and periodicals are indexed on the Web, many have not been easily accessible to the public."

Privacy International are of the dangers of the misuse of phone cameras.

Apparently nearly a thousand people have endorsed an online petition objecting to the implementation of a national identity card in the UK.

Poland have blocked the EU software patent directive.

The British Airports Authority have lost in their attempt to get control of the gatwick.com domain name. A WIPO UDRP arbitration panel decided that

"The Respondent has never used the Complainant’s trademark. His website content is controlled by him and his US associates as an independent business, operating separately from the Complainant’s airport business. Using his own proprietary rights, he is therefore providing a legitimate directory of services in the Gatwick sub-regional area. He receives an income from this business, which he has the right to operate.

There is no risk of consumers being misled into believing that his site is an official BAA website. It does not display the BAA name nor indicate to those searching the Internet that they have arrived at the Gatwick Airport site. The Complainant cannot prove that the Respondent deliberately selected the name with the sole intention of gaining Internet traffic intended for the Complainant. He has had honest and fair use of the website address for 8 years without opposition from the Complainant.

The Respondent is a software engineer who registered the disputed domain name to provide a directory for a large variety of businesses in the area, initially through emails and public information sites."

In addition the panel refused to pass any judgement on the claim by the owner of the domain, Bob Larkin, that BAA had engaged in a dirty tricks campaign to try and wrestle the domain from his control. They also said BAA has not registered the trademark in the Gatwick name until a number of years after Gatwick.com was registered as a domain name.

Seth Schoen uses the changes TiVo have embraced (ie drm) as a platform to explore the convergence of computers and consumer electronics devices, on Dave Farber's interesting people list.

"the smart cards and set-top boxes would decrypt the programming as it came into
your house and verify that you were authorized to receive it. But
then they would encrypt it again in order to enforce _copyright
holder_ policies about what you could do with it after you had
received it. That re-encryption makes the new generation of pay
TV services (after you've paid for them) different from free TV
services because the pay TV services can be subject to additional
controls after the point of lawful reception.

The FCC was asked to ban this re-encryption -- in a sense, to limit
the use of encryption under the 1996 Act to making sure that you
initially pay for pay TV, not to controlling what you do with it
afterward. In a decision in 2000, the Commission declined to do
this...


This decision was unfortunate in its implications because it vastly
increased the potential leverage that movie studios would have over
technology companies. If the FCC had forbidden re-encryption of
pay TV programming, companies like TiVo would not need to negotiate
with movie studios (or broadcast groups) in order to get lawful access
to pay TV...

And TiVo has chosen to do exactly that...

Of course, that negotiation has come at a corresponding cost: TiVo
implements digital rights management, takes steps (to date not very
strong steps) to control reverse engineering and aftermark
modifications, and generally implements a lot of restrictions on
recorded programming...

TiVo customers are obviously happy enough with this strategy that they
keep buying TiVos in large numbers, although there is a devoted
community of "TiVo hacking" enthusiasts who learn how to add
functionality to their TiVos -- and they have a very complicated
relationship with these restrictions...

There is an alternative -- if you only want to receive unencrypted
TV (free-to-air terrestrial broadcasting and basic-tier cable in
the U.S., and possibly these plus certain types of pay TV in Europe).
You can use a personal computer as a PVR by putting one or more TV
cards inside. Then you can run software that turns the PC into a PVR.
One of the most impressive programs along these lines is an open
source package called MythTV

http://www.mythtv.org/

which has already implemented functionality competitive with TiVo's
PVR functionality, plus features that TiVo won't touch...

The major movie
studios have persuaded the FCC to change the rules for unencrypted
digital television to apply DRM there, in the "broadcast flag" or
"digital broadcast content protection" proceeding. (That's why I
say that the FCC is unlikely to change the DRM requirement for
cable TV!) The result is that the equipment that makes a program
like MythTV work with U.S. digital television will be illegal to
manufacture here from July 1, 2005. If you want to use something
like MythTV for digital TV in the future, your best bet is to buy
the equipment before then. MythTV works well with the pcHDTV
HD-3000 card, which is finally shipping:

http://www.pchdtv.com/ ...

I would not get so worked up about any one action that TiVo takes.
We know their strategy, and it involves co-operating with movie
studios to impose restrictions on end users. The reasons why they
do this are not mysterious. If you want to criticize TiVo -- and
that's fine with me! -- the right place to start is much earlier in
the company's history.

But if you actually want to opt out of the DRM game, it seems to
me that the thing to do is to spread the remaining unrestricted
technologies as far and wide as possible while they're still legal...

I've often thought of writing an essay called "converging up,
converging down?" about the ambiguity of the "convergence" ideal.
PCs and consumer electronics (CE) devices have very different
characteristics -- beyond just the technical differences, veering
into cultural differences -- even though today they are usually
made out of the same chips. Among other things, PCs in the past
were friendlier to user innovation and third party innovation; you
could teach them to do more. CE devices in the past were much more
single-function and fixed-function, and upgrades (if available)
typically had to be provided by the manufacturer. Ultimately PCs
were much more under end user control and CE devices much more
under the manuacturer's control. Movie studios have appreciated
this distinction; they have better, older, and closer relationships
with the CE industries than with the PC industries...

If these device families actually do "converge", on whose terms
will they converge? Will the PC grow more like a DVD player (or
a TiVo), or will the PVR and cell phone grow more like PCs? And,
since "being like a PC" or "being like a CE box" is not just a
single dimension, in _which ways_ will they become more like one
another? Which particular characteristics will each now imitate...

In terms of end user control, there is an opportunity for CE devices
to converge up (enhancing customers' control) and a risk of PC
devices converging down (eroding it). I think the world the
entertainment companies have built is providing exactly the wrong
incentive at every point as this question is worked out."

Spread unrestricted technologies as far and wide as possible whilst they are still legal? Now where have I heard that before? Well Charles Nesson at the Berkman Center has taken this position the introduction of controls to the Internet - the message being don't waste your energy complaining about those terrible entities introducing restrictions for their own ends but rather get on with using the Net creatively and demonstrating to the world what potential it has.

Somebody has asked me if there is a quick way of understanding Larry Lessig's ideas on copyright. Well he's done lots of excellent public lectures and interviews, many available on the Internet, such as this KQED debate with intellectual property lawyer, Jeffrey Knowles.

Ernest Miller is dreaming about the server in the closet of every home.

"I remain enamored of a concept I think of as the "server in the closet." I believe that, eventually, every home will have a fairly sophisticated server as the locus of the many networked device in the home. Everything from the VoIP phone system, presence-enabled media (IM), multimedia (podcasts, broadcatch), etc., etc., etc. There will be fat and thin clients in the home, all of which can be (but not required to) coordinate through home's central server. More importantly, this "server in the closet" will be part of bi-directional communication with the rest of the world wide network, turning every home not only into a receiver, but a transmitter."

James Grimmelmann has some strong words about "Two Skirmishes in the DRM Wars: Half-Life 2 and Halo 2" over at Lawmeme:

"people who tried to log in to Microsoft's X-Box Live service to play Halo 2 with hacked X-Boxes have found their accounts suspended.

And on the other hand, copies of Half-Life 2 have started hitting retail shelves in advance of the "official" release date of November 16. Gamers who rush out to buy (sometimes extortionately priced) copies early, however, are finding themselves stymied: the game won't install without verification from Steam, the online platform Valve (Half-Life 2's creator) uses to deliver its games and coordinate online play. But Steam won't turn the game on until the 16th, per instructions from Vivendi (Half-Life 2's distributor).

Let's call these schemes by their right name: these are both examples of digital rights management working as intended. This is the future of digital media, here today: your copy of the product checks in with home base to determine what you can and can't do with it. And when the company that runs home base decides that it doesn't like what you're doing (be it tampering with your device's hardware or trying--oh the temerity!--to play a game a few days early), it can cut you off at the knees and disable your access to the game. That's what DRM does. Hey, gamers: you're getting a taste of the treatment the music industry has planned for us all. Do you like it?

Now, not all DRM is created equal. Microsoft's choice here was reasonably fair, I think. You can do whatever you want to your 'Box, but don't expect to be able to use a modded 'Box to compete against people who are playing by the rules. I look at X-Box Live as a kind of virtual world; it's not unreasonable for Microsoft to act as a referee by insisting that everyone who enters that world enter it on the same terms...

...The Steam lockout is more frightening, though. First off, note why it is that Valve won't turn the key: a contractual dispute with Vivendi. In fact, Valve and Vivendi are locked in a fierce legal struggle over distribution terms, with Vivendi furious that Steam might undercut its revenues from store-based sales. That's right: your ability to play Half-Life 2 is being held hostage to a licensing fight between two corporations."