Blackboard patent Bollywood style

Blackboard patent aficionados with a sense of humour should check out Randy Thornton's The Adventures of Bollywood Blackboardwala

"The mashups are made with snippets of classic Hindi Bollywood films, overlaid with user created subtitles, from a fun online tool called BombayTV from Grapheine.

The role of Blackboardwala is played by none other than Amitabh Bacchan, of course.

• Ep. 1 Paying The Annual Licensing Fee
• Ep. 2 Dealing with Customers Looking at the Open Source Alternative"

There are 9 amusing short episodes. Highly recommended.

EU Digital Libraries Initiative on orphan works

From the newsroom of the EU Commissioner on the Information Society:

"An agreement on copyright was signed today by libraries, archives and right holders, in the presence of Commissioner Viviane Reding. The Memorandum of Understanding on orphan works will help cultural institutions to digitise books, films and music whose authors are unknown, making them available to the public online.

(04/06/2008) This Memorandum is a major step for bringing Europe's rich literary and audiovisual heritage online, as it deals with the issue of orphan works – books, films, photographs or songs for which it is impossible to identify or locate the rightholders. As a consequence, rights cannot be cleared and therefore the works cannot be digitised or made available to the public. It clarifies how searches for rightholders have to be handled for libraries and archives and representatives of publishers, photographers, authors, record and film companies. Orphan works represent a substantial part of the collections of Europe's cultural institutions: for example, the British Library estimates that 40 percent of its copyrighted collections are orphan works. 50,000 requests were also made for re-using orphan works in Europe's film archives according to a recent survey from the Association des Cinémathèques Européennes.

In parallel, the High Level Group on Digital Libraries, chaired by Viviane Reding, adopted practical guidelines for partnerships between cultural institutions and private organisations. These partnerships such as the existing collaboration between the British Library and Cengage Gale on historical newspapers – are essential to provide funding and expertise for digitisation projects

In relation to copyright issues, the High Level Group adopted a final report in which it endorsed a new model license for making works that are out of print or out of distribution accessible for all on the internet. It also gave guidance on copyright issues related to the preservation of web-content by cultural institutions. In the area of scientific information, publishers and scientists presented the progress of a large scale project on the effects of open access to scientific journals."

US Supreme Court: Patents are for promoting progress not creating private fortunes

The US Supreme Court ruled yesterday in an important patent case that will be unfamiliar to all but IP and Supreme Court geeks, LG Electronics Inc. v Quanta Computer Inc. The WSJ has the story (unfortunately behind a pay wall) but it is worth scanning the decision itself as there are some real gems from Justice Thomas (who delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court) in there. The WSJ says:

"The Supreme Court relaxed the grip that patent owners hold over third-party uses of their inventions, continuing a recent recalibration of intellectual-property law intended to foster competition and innovation.

The opinion delivered Monday involved a U.S. patent for computer chipsets, which South Korea's LG Electronics Inc. licensed to Intel Corp., of Santa Clara, Calif. Intel made the chips and sold them to computer manufacturers. When one of those manufacturers, Quanta Computer Inc. of Taiwan, used them in its products, LG sued for infringement, arguing Quanta needed a separate license from LG to install them in computers."

The Court essentially disagreed with LG Electronics and said the company was not entitled to control downstream use of the patent due to the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Justice Thomas said:

"For over 150 years this Court has applied the doctrine of patent exhaustion to limit the patent rights that survive the initial authorized sale of a patented item...

The longstanding doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item. This Court first applied the doctrine in 19th-century cases addressing patent extensions on the Woodworth planing machine. Purchasers of licenses to sell and use the machine for the duration of the original patent term sought to continue using the licenses through the extended term. The Court held that the extension of the patent term did not affect the rights already secured by purchasers who bought the item for use "in the ordinary pursuits of life." Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 549 (1853); see also ibid. ("[W]hen the machine passes to the hands of the purchaser, it is no longer within the limits of the monopoly")...

Although the Court permitted postsale restrictions on the use of a patented article in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1 (1912),² that decision was short lived. In 1913, the Court refused to apply A. B. Dick to uphold price-fixing provisions in a patent license. See Bauer & Cie v. O'Donnell, 229 U. S. 1, 14-17 (1913). Shortly thereafter, in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U. S. 502, 518 (1917), the Court explicitly overruled A. B. Dick. In that case, a patent holder attempted to limit purchasers' use of its film projectors to show only film made under a patent held by the same company. The Court noted the "increasing frequency" with which patent holders were using A. B. Dick-style licenses to limit the use of their products and thereby using the patents to secure market control of related, unpatented items. 243 U. S., at 509, 516-517. Observing that "the primary purpose of our patent laws is not the creation of private fortunes for the owners of patents but is 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts,' " id., at 511 (quoting U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8), the Court held that "the scope of the grant which may be made to an inventor in a patent, pursuant to the [patent] statute, must be limited to the invention described in the claims of his patent." 243 U. S., at 511. Accordingly, it reiterated the rule that "the right to vend is exhausted by a single, unconditional sale, the article sold being thereby carried outside the monopoly of the patent law and rendered free of every restriction which the vendor may attempt to put upon it." Id., at 516."

That a Supreme Court Justice in a 2008 patent decision should find the need, in a unanimous decision, to cite historical Court doctrine from 1853 ("[W]hen the machine passes to the hands of the purchaser, it is no longer within the limits of the monopoly") and 1917 ("the primary purpose of our patent laws is not the creation of private fortunes for the owners of patents but is 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts,' ") is really interesting.

The court was also particularly wary of patent holders voiding patent exhaustion doctrine through the use of patents on methods:

" LGE argues that the exhaustion doctrine is inapplicable here because it does not apply to method claims, which are contained in each of the LGE Patents. LGE reasons that, because method patents are linked not to a tangible article but to a process, they can never be exhausted through a sale. Rather, practicing the patent--which occurs upon each use of an article embodying a method patent--is permissible only to the extent rights are transferred in an assignment contract. Quanta, in turn, argues that there is no reason to preclude exhaustion of method claims, and points out that both this Court and the Federal Circuit have applied exhaustion to method claims. It argues that any other rule would allow patent holders to avoid exhaustion entirely by inserting method claims in their patent specifications.

Quanta has the better of this argument. Nothing in this Court's approach to patent exhaustion supports LGE's argument that method patents cannot be exhausted. It is true that a patented method may not be sold in the same way as an article or device, but methods nonetheless may be "embodied" in a product, the sale of which exhausts patent rights...

Eliminating exhaustion for method patents would seriously undermine the exhaustion doctrine. Patentees seeking to avoid patent exhaustion could simply draft their patent claims to describe a method rather than an apparatus.⁵ Apparatus and method claims "may approach each other so nearly that it will be difficult to distinguish the process from the function of the apparatus." United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 559 (1904). By characterizing their claims as method instead of apparatus claims, or including a method claim for the machine's patented method of performing its task, a patent drafter could shield practically any patented item from exhaustion.

This case illustrates the danger of allowing such an end-run around exhaustion. On LGE's theory, although Intel is authorized to sell a completed computer system that practices the LGE Patents, any downstream purchasers of the system could nonetheless be liable for patent infringement. Such a result would violate the longstanding principle that, when a patented item is "once lawfully made and sold, there is no restriction on [its] use to be implied for the benefit of the patentee." Adams, 17 Wall., at 457. We therefore reject LGE's argument that method claims, as a category, are never exhaustible."

Who needs drm when you've got backward incompatibility

Last week the Open University joined Stanford, MIT, Yale and other world-class universities in publishing materials via Apple’s iTunes U service. The project, which looks great btw and congrats to all involved,


had been an open secret in the OU for a couple of months but those in the know were banned from mentioning it to anyone.

In any case, so far so good - the OU is now on iTunes

Now for reasons too long-winded and uninteresting to mention most of my day job business is conducted in my office at the Open University on an ancient Windows 2000 PC. Unfortunately that means the even more ancient Apple v Microsoft antipathy comes calling if I want to look at the OU on iTunes in the office.

If I click on the "Visit the OU on iTunes" button I get a message saying "We are unable to find iTunes on your computer". I do get a button to click to claim I have indeed got iTunes, following which I get an external protocol request asking that I launch an external application, which I agree to do and up duly comes my version 4 (yes I never got round to upgrading it on this particular computer) of iTunes with the snazzy OU frontpage.


Great. Except that when I click on one of the offerings, say the Vice Chancellor's introduction, to see what it looks like on iTunes, I get a message telling me this item needs a later version of iTunes (version 6 or higher) and offering me a click button to upgrade. The click opens a browser window on the Apple site offering me the opportunity to download iTunes 7.6. Unfortunately iTunes 7.6 is incompatible with Windows 2000...

A search for iTunes 6 (easier to find via Google btw than the Apple search facility) finally locates a 36 MB downloadable file. 4 minutes later I find myself with an executable upgrade to version 6.0.5. 14 minutes later still, having installed the software and re-started the machine as per instructions I'm now in a position, finally to view the OU material.

Well nearly. I need to go through the 'you haven't got iTunes' accusation again and the threat er... sorry... the external protocol request that I need to launch an external application. Except that on this occasion agreeing to do so brings up an iTunes software licensing agreement that I need to accept before going any further. So accepted. Followed by iTunes opening up accompanied by a message: "iTunes could not connect to the music store. The network connection was terminated unexpectedly."

Oh dear. It seems as though I'm destined not to experience the Vice Chancellor's words of wisdom from the office. Never mind.

No blast it. I won't be put off. One last try for the summit. Tap tap tappity tap. Click click clickity clicky click and iTunes 6.0.5.20 is finally showing the OU front page on my screen. I nervously push the mouse in the direction of the VC's smiling face. The cursor reaches the annointed spot... my forefinger hovers over the left button of the mouse... dare I allow it to engage? Done. Progress at last! I'm through to the screen where I can "get tracks". Again, almost subconsciously the mouse moves, I've clicked on the button, the task bar indicates it is 'accessing music store' and it's downloading 1 of 5. I'm in! The download progress bar is halfway... three quarters... done. Now click on "Vice Chancellor" in the menu to the left of my screen and I get a window with the five tracks.

Double click number 1 and she's finally there 56 minutes after I first thought I might take a quick look at our iTunes offerings. A less than smooth experience you might say and it certainly brings back compatibility problems experienced over Christmas with my wife's iPod. Interestingly, in her closing comments the VC says we at the OU don't want the technology to get in the way of accessibility, yet it is exactly monetization through controlled and pay per view/ad/click accessibility that major commercial operations like Apple, the entertainment industry, retailers like Amazon, publishers, broadcasters, the big tech companies like Google and Microsoft and trade negotiators are trying to shape the market on.

UK Intellectual Property Advisory Board

The UK's 'Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property' has officially come into being this week. Here's the announcement from the IPO in full:

"Launch of Intellectual Property Advisory Board

Increasing the evidence base for intellectual property (IP) policy is vital for the Government to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and globalised IP environment, the head of the new Strategic Advisory Board for IP (SABIP) outlined last night (June 5 2008).

Joly Dixon, Chairman of the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property, set out his vision for the organisation at a reception in London to mark SABIP's formal establishment:.

Mr Dixon said:

"We live in a knowledge based economy in which economic prosperity and social wellbeing increasingly depend on our wise stewardship of intellectual property. Globalisation, technological change, and changing economic and social structures are challenging many of the past relationships between intellectual property rights and innovation.

"SABIP will work strenuously to increase the evidence base for policy by offering well-researched and independent advice to Government."

The UK's first Minister for Intellectual Property, Baroness Delyth Morgan, welcomed the establishment of SABIP:

"I want SABIP to drive the thinking on emerging IP issues in this country. Its research programme will be vital in creating a firm evidence base for policy making.

"Members of the SABIP have broad experience of IP issues. That will help ensure they can deliver advice of the quality and independence that I expect.

Notes to editors

* SABIP was officially established on June 2 2008. This follows the appointment of SABIP chairman Joly Dixon on March 7 2008 and the appointment of five members to the SABIP board on May 2 2008.

* SABIP is a Non-Departmental Public Body with the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) as its sponsor department.

* Its role is to advise Ministers and the UK-IPO Chief Executive on the development of intellectual property (IP) policy. In formulating this advice, SABIP will provide an overview of IP policy, provide independent input into Government policy-making, and advise on the UK's stance in international negotiations."

This is a very important development for the IP landscape in the UK and I wish them well in gathering a sound empirical evidence base to underpin policymaking in this crucially important area.

Update from Michael Holloway at ORG: "Speech by our first IP Minister, given on IP day (25 April) http://www.dius.gov.uk/speeches/morgan_IPday_250408.html"

Investigating P2P Enforcement

The University of Washington has just published a new report on the processes being used by the entertainment industry to track down and prosecute file sharers on P2P networks. The authors purport to be surprised by their findings. They suggest:
"

• Practically any Internet user can be framed for copyright infringement today.
  By profiling copyright enforcement in the popular BitTorrent file sharing system, we were able to generate hundreds of real DMCA takedown notices for computers at the University of Washington that never downloaded nor shared any content whatsoever.

  Further, we were able to remotely generate complaints for nonsense devices including several printers and a (non-NAT) wireless access point. Our results demonstrate several simple techniques that a malicious user could use to frame arbitrary network endpoints.

• Even without being explicitly framed, innocent users may still receive complaints.
  Because of the inconclusive techniques used to identify infringing BitTorrent users, users may receive DMCA complaints even if they have not been explicitly framed by a malicious user and even if they have never used P2P software!
• Software packages designed to preserve the privacy of P2P users are not completely effective.
  To avoid DMCA complaints today, many privacy conscious users employ IP blacklisting software designed to avoid communication with monitoring and enforcement agencies. We find that this software often fails to identify many likely monitoring agents, but we also discover that these agents exhibit characteristics that make distinguishing them straightforward.

While our experiments focus on BitTorrent only, our findings imply the need for increased transparency in the monitoring and enforcement process for all P2P networks to both address the known deficiencies we have exposed as well as to identify lurking unknown deficiencies.

More details about our findings and our experimental methodology are available in our online FAQ. A more thorough treatment is available in our technical report."

Brad Stone at the NYT says:

"The paper finds that there is a serious flaw in how these trade groups finger alleged file-sharers. It also suggests that some people might be getting improperly accused of sharing copyrighted content, and could even be purposely framed by other users.

In two separate studies in August of 2007 and May of this year, the researchers set out to examine who was participating in BitTorrent file-sharing networks and what they were sharing. The researchers introduced software agents into these networks to monitor their traffic. Even though those software agents did not download any files, the researchers say they received over 400 take-down requests accusing them of participating in the downloads.

The researchers concluded that enforcement agencies are looking only at I.P. addresses of participants on these peer-to-peer networks, and not what files are actually downloaded or uploaded—a more resource-intensive process that would nevertheless yield more conclusive information.

In their report, the researchers also demonstrate a way to manipulate I.P. addresses so that another user appears responsible for the file-sharing."

Adverse affect of formal child protection systems

The excellent ARCH blog has drawn my attention to this letter from the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS) to the government’s Chief Medical Officer. It covers the kinds of effects that the mass data collection and suspicion-by-default mindset amongst the child professionals are having on children and families.

"When instructions went out to all staff in contact with children to report concerns about risk, this seems to have been done with little prior thought, without consultation, and without provision for training. The result was the post-Climbie cover-your-back syndrome: 'when in the slightest doubt, report to social services.' We see a huge variety of standards, misunderstandings, prejudices, ill-informed interpretation of risk factors, cultural incompetence and even racism, in the initiation of cases from health visitors, teachers, midwives, nurses, doctors and others. Quite apart from the damage to families, each one of these reports pre-empts resources and often leads to substantial, and unnecessary, cost. Ironically, the basic, simple help or real support families would like, is unavailable because resources are lacking, that is not the focus of social work activity, and anyway nowadays many parents are afraid to ask because any contact with social services is too risky.

Community information grapevines work, and effectively circulate information about what people see as the growing risk of being investigated or labelled as a dangerous parent after contact with medical care. The risk is not merely perceived: it is real, and the consequences are devastating. Damage to the whole family structure (sometimes the extended family network and its support structure), to parental confidence and self-esteem, to children's sense of security and safety, and their sense of security that their parents can and will protect them - these are very serious adverse effects. Often we find it is the most sensitive parents, to whom family life means everything, who are most damaged. We also have many concerns about damage we have seen to authority of black parents vis-a-vis their children, many of whom are already coping with multiple racial prejudice problems. As we have pointed out to NICE as stakeholders in their consultation of diagnosis of child abuse, such potential for harm must now be considered, and it is long overdue. The sheer cultural incompetence of many social workers has to be seen to be believed."

Recommended reading about what happens in practice when mass surveillance is substituted for effective targetted support of professional services. A case in point: Logging on to Beat the Bullies

"The approach Bexley chose was to deploy Vantage Technologies’ Sentinel Anti-Bullying software. This solution allows staff to report bullying incidents securely over the Internet into a central database, which is managed and monitored by Bexley. This web-based approach allows our schools to monitor bullying and racism incidents in real-time, providing effective support for all pupils.
The launch of this new initiative was announced at Bexley’s Southern Anti-Bullying Conference earlier this year. Two Bexley services were the driving force behind the proposal."

So instead of getting the head teacher and other talented teachers who are good with child behaviour out in the playground and dealing with it on the spot at source, they buy a piece of software and create a massive reporting system which schools can consult to see what's going on in their school! Bizarre when you put even the slightest thought into it.

SCOTUS backs free speech over IP in baseball data case

Earlier this week the US Supreme Court denied petition for a writ of certiorari in MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, ET AL. V. C.B.C. DISTRIBUTION & MARKETING. This relatively technical legal decision may have important implications for the conflict between intellectual property and free speech involving the use of sports statistics.

The folks at IP Justice seem to think that this is a big win for free speech advocates in this context in a world where there is an increasing level of commercialisation of the data associated with sports; including situations where journalists get thrown out of sports stadia for live blogging what's happening on the field.

A 10-year old's copyright questions

My ten year old was examining the back of the box of one of his (currently) favorite CDs when I got home yesterday. After a repeated and thorough inspection he told me he didn't think the CD was copyrighted because it didn't have the © symbol. He was pleased because he's been thinking about doing a re-mix of some of the tracks.

I explained that just because the copyright symbol wasn't on the box did not mean the CD was not copyrighted...

"Ok then dad. How do I know if something is copyrighted or not?"

"Good question. And funny enough it's not too easy to answer. There is nowhere - no single place anyway - we can go to check up on whether something is covered by copyright or not. Usually if something is recently recorded you'll find it is protected by copyright, even if it doesn't have the © symbol."

"But how do I know if it is not copyrighted?"

"Well. It might have a notice on the box saying it was released under a creative commons licence." (We had the CC talk a long time ago)

"What about if it is not CC?"

"Well then it depends on when the copyright-protected thing was made up and how long the copyright lasts. So Mozart's music which was created hundreds of years ago is not protected by copyright."

"How long does copyright last then?"

"Ah... well for an author or a music composer it will last for the life of the author/composer plus seventy years. So it runs out 70 years after the author dies."

"Hmmm... is it really that long? That seems a lot."

"Yes it is quite a long time but it also depends on what is covered by the copyright. So the copyright in a sound recording only lasts fifty years."

"What? What's a sound recording when it comes to copyright?"

"What's on your CD is the sound recording. So the person that wrote the music gets copyright in the composition until 70 years after they die. And the person who sings the song or plays the instruments in a recording studio gets 50 years copyright coverage for recording the song. Or often it can be the company that owns the studio where the song was recorded that gets the 50 years worth of copyright protection."

"Hang on. You're saying there are lots of different copyrights in the same thing? Is that right?"

"Yes."

"That's a bit complicated isn't it. Lots of copyrights for lots of people and companies. 50 years, 70 years after someone dies. So copyright can last for 140 years or more? Isn't that really a bit too long."

"Lots of people think so. You know when copyright started in England in 1709 it only lasted for 14 years. The author could ask for it to go on for another 14 years after that but the basic cover was 14 years."

"Now that's much more sensible."

So it would seem that Jack has come to the same conclusion as Cambridge economist Rufus Pollock. Is it that because, like Phillip Pulllman's Lyra Belacqua and her alethiometer, he is just able to see things more clearly now and when he reaches adulthood he'll have to engage in detailed and arduous research to attain the same understanding at a deeper level? Or is it because the copyright system is so out of synch with what it should be that even (or maybe especially) a ten year old can tell it needs fixing?

Government education policy is damaging its own objectives

Letter to the Independent today from respected education experts:

"Government education policy is damaging its own objectives

Sir: We are specialists with considerable experience collectively in the different phases of education who have come independently to the same conclusion; that government policy is no longer the solution to the difficulties we face but our greatest problem.

We have the same objectives as this Government in wanting to offer a first-class education and training to all and, in particular, to narrow the attainment gap between the most and least advantaged. We have, however, become increasingly dismayed by ministers who are intent on permanent revolution of every aspect of the education system: in so acting, they demonstrate a deep lack of trust in the professional education community.

It is not only the torrent of new policy that rains down on each sector, the constant changes in direction and the automatic rubbishing of any discomforting evidence by ministers: it's also the failure of successive ministers to appreciate that reform has to be accompanied by continuity if the stability of our educational institutions and the high quality of their courses are to be preserved.

For example, despite its rhetorical advocacy of lifelong learning, the reality of government policy is that there are now 1.4million fewer adult learners in the FE sector, broadly defined, than there were two years ago. Similarly, the new policy in HE of withdrawing funding support for all those learners studying for an equivalent or lower qualification (ELQ) to that which they already possess, will reduce dramatically the numbers of adult learners in the system. These policies are being pursued despite near universal condemnation – the Select Committee report on ELQs was particularly damning.

Despite significant, additional investment in education since 1997, our research shows that government policy is now working against the government's own intentions and that the current frenetic pace of change must slow down to what is pedagocially (and structurally) possible.

We need a more consultative, democratic and inclusive way of developing and enacting policy for all the public services. The one change we need above all is for government to consult the professionals and learners before it announces policies which will damage the objectives that we all share.

Emeritus Professor Frank Coffield Institute of Education, University of London

Professor Richard Taylor Director of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Cambridge,

Professor Sir Peter Scott, Vice-Chancellor, University of Kingston,

Professor Stephen Ball Institute of Education, University of London"

And so say all of us!

Finnish appeals court overturns controversial CSS ruling

From Afterdawn: Finnish appeals court overturns controversial CSS ruling

"The Helsinki Court of Appeals has overturned a controversial ruling made last year, which found that CSS copy protection in use on almost all retail movie DVDs was "ineffective". Finnish copyright law (amended in 2006 by adoption of EUCD) prohibits circumventing "effective technological measures", but the court original found that CSS cannot be described as an "efficient copy protection mechanism" anymore...

However, there have been two major errors claimed in the appeals court decision. Firstly, the court claimed that circumventing an access control would have been legal but that the defendants had circumvented a full copy protection system (CSS). In reality, the defendants actually had only circumvented an access control.

Secondly, the court found that the circumvention was only legally ok if no additional software was installed to perform the process, and claimed that you always need to install some form of "hack" software to watch DVDs on Linux. Again, this is not true as you can get legal players that can play DVDs"

Thanks to Rob Myers via the ORG list for the link.

ACTA takes aim at iPods

From the Ottawacitizen:

"The Canadian government is secretly negotiating an agreement to revamp international copyright laws which could make information on iPods, laptops and other personal electronic devices illegal and greatly increase the difficulty of travelling with such devices.

The agreement could also impose strict regulations on Internet service providers, forcing those companies to hand over customer information without a court order.

Called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the new plan would see Canada join other countries, including the United States and members of the European Union, to form an international coalition against copyright infringement.

Details of the agreement, which is expected to be tabled at July's meeting of G8 nations in Tokyo, were leaked on the Internet on Friday.

The agreement is being structured much like the North American Free Trade Agreement, except it would create rules and regulations regarding private copying and copyright laws. Federal trade agreements do not require parliamentary approval.

The agreement would create an international regulator that would turn border guards and other public security personnel into copyright police. The security officials would be charged with checking laptops, iPods and even cellular phones for content that "infringes" on copyright laws, such as ripped CDs and movies.

The guards would also be responsible for determining which content infringes on copyright laws."

The ACTA document is available here and here.

Blackberry spurns Indian spy call

From th BBC: Blackberry spurns Indian spy call

"The Canadian manufacturer of Blackberry mobile phones has rejected demands by the Indian government that it help decrypt suspicious text messages.

Research in Motion says its technology does not allow any third party - even the company itself - to read information sent over its network.

The Indian authorities have been reluctant to allow the widespread use of Blackberries in the country.

They fear militants and criminals may take advantage of the secure system.

A number of other countries around the world have expressed similar fears. "

Jury hands feds first guilty verdict for Web music piracy

From CNet news blog:

"For the first time ever, the federal government has successfully won a jury verdict against someone accused of illegally downloading music, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice.

A jury in Alexandria, Va, found Barry Gitarts, 25, allegedly a member of Internet music piracy group, Apocalypse Production Crew (APC), was found guilty of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement.

Gitarts faces up to five years in prison, a fine of $250,000 and must make full restitution, according to a statement released by the DOJ. "

Belgian copyright group demands Google pay up to €49 million

From the IHT: Belgian copyright group demands Google pay up to €49 million
"Belgian French-language newspapers said Tuesday they want search engine Google Inc. to pay up to €49 million (US$77 million) in damages for publishing and storing their content without permission.

The newspaper copyright group Copiepresse said it had summoned Google to appear again before a Brussels court in September that will decide on their claim that they suffered damages of between €32.8 million (US$51.7 million) and €49.2 million (US$77.5 million).

The group called on Google to pay a provisional amount of €4 million (US$6.3 million)."

Nottingham student to be deported for accessing 'terrorism manual' on US government site

On the face of it, this story about a student being arrested and marked for imminent deportation because he dowloaded a research document - described by the Gaurdian as 'the al-Qaida training manual' - from a US government website, should be of concern not just to academics, students and university administrators, but to every citizen. The government's repeated leaning on universities and academics to report any student that might possibly engage in suspicious behaviour showed shades of Mao's cultural revolution and the former eastern bloc communist states. But few outside of the civil liberties community took them too seriously because of the "it could never happen here" mindset and the relatively benign and generally welcoming nature of the UK and its governing infrastructure.

It is difficult to know for sure, without complete details of the case, what parameters in particular led to the authorities' decision to deport the man at the centre of this controversy. Inevitably, though, when paranoia and fear are widely promoted, as they have been by politicians and the media in the wake of the 11th September 2001 attacks, innocent people suffer. Friends of Hicham Yezza, the student facing deportation, have set up a website to campaign for his release.

Polly Curtis and Martin Hodgson at the Guardian say:

"A masters student researching terrorist tactics who was arrested and detained for six days after his university informed police about al-Qaida-related material he downloaded has spoken of the "psychological torture" he endured in custody.

Despite his Nottingham University supervisors insisting the materials were directly relevant to his research, Rizwaan Sabir, 22, was held for nearly a week under the Terrorism Act, accused of downloading the materials for illegal use. The student had obtained a copy of the al-Qaida training manual from a US government website for his research into terrorist tactics.

The case highlights what lecturers are claiming is a direct assault on academic freedom led by the government which, in its attempt to establish a "prevent agenda" against terrorist activity, is putting pressure on academics to become police informers.

Sabir was arrested on May 14 after the document was found by a university staff member on an administrator's computer. The administrator, Hisham Yezza, an acquaintance of Sabir, had been asked by the student to print the 1,500-page document because Sabir could not afford the printing fees. The pair were arrested under the Terrorism Act, Sabir's family home was searched and their computer and mobile phones seized. They were released uncharged six days later but Yezza, who is Algerian, was immediately rearrested on unrelated immigration charges and now faces deportation...

A spokesman for Nottingham University said it had a duty to inform police of "material of this nature". The spokesman said it was "not legitimate research material", but later amended that view, saying: "If you're an academic or a registered student then you have very good cause to access whatever material your scholarship requires. But there is an expectation that you will act sensibly within current UK law and wouldn't send it on to any Tom, Dick or Harry."

At its annual conference next week the University and College Union will debate a motion on "assaults on academic freedom by the DIUS [Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills]". Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU, said: "If we really want to tackle problems like extremism and terrorism, then we need to be safe to explore the issues and get a better understanding. The last thing we need is people too frightened to discuss an issue or research a subject because they fear being arrested or reported."

The higher education minister, Bill Rammell, said: "The government does not want to or has never asked for staff or students to spy on their colleagues or friends. We want universities to work with staff and students on campus to isolate and challenge the very small minority who promote violent extremism.""

I suspect Mr Hicham Yezza and his friends and colleagues at Nottingham will derive little consolation from such sophistry on the part of the minister, who as someone in charge of Higher Education, should know better. Could I suggest the minister read ( or re-read?) Professor Ian Loader's letter to Tony Blair when he was the Prime Minister advising him about balance in the criminal justice system.

Update: The Resistance Studies Network at the University of Göteborg are suggesting academics should protest by downloading the manual. They provide a link containing the files but the DOJ has now removed the manual from its website.

DRM on Nokia phones

The drm on nokia phones locks N-Gage games to individual handsets, so when you upgrade you need to buy a new copy of the game. Nokia gamers are not very happy.

"Nokia has said it is "working on a solution" to allow people to transfer N-Gage games between handsets.

The announcement was made following anger by gamers who found out that titles bought for a handset were locked to the device forever.

Nokia said it had made the decision to lock down the system to prevent piracy and guarantee revenue for games makers."

FTC Proposes Online Behavioral Advertising Privacy Principles

In the US the FTC has proposed some online advertising behavioral principles.

"To address the need for greater transparency and consumer control regarding privacy issues raised by behavioral advertising, the FTC staff proposes:

• Every Web site where data is collected for behavioral advertising should provide a clear, consumer-friendly, and prominent statement that data is being collected to provide ads targeted to the consumer and give consumers the ability to choose whether or not to have their information collected for such purpose.
  

To address the concern that data collected for behavioral advertising may find its way into the hands of criminals or other wrongdoers, and concerns about the length of time companies are retaining consumer data, the FTC staff proposes:

• Any company that collects or stores consumer data for behavioral advertising should provide reasonable security for that data and should retain data only as long as is necessary to fulfill a legitimate business or law enforcement need.
  

To address the concern that companies may not keep their privacy promises when they change their privacy policies, FTC staff proposes:

• Companies should obtain affirmative express consent from affected consumers before using data in a manner materially different from promises the company made when it collected the data.

To address the concern that sensitive data – medical information or children’s activities online, for example – may be used in behavioral advertising, FTC staff proposes:

• Companies should only collect sensitive data for behavioral advertising if they obtain affirmative express consent from the consumer to receive such advertising.
  
• FTC staff also seeks comment on what constitutes “sensitive data” and whether the use of sensitive data should be prohibited, rather than subject to consumer choice.

The staff is seeking additional information about whether tracking data is being used for purposes other than behavioral advertising and whether such secondary uses, if they occur, merit some form of heightened protection."

Defence giant could give UK secrets to US spies

Also in this morning's times: MPs warn that defence giant could give census secrets to US spy chiefs

"Personal details from the next census could be disclosed to US authorities if an American defence company wins the contract to run it, the Treasury Select Committee says today. MPs on the committee are demanding that the Government seeks firm assurances that detailed information about the UK population will not be at risk of being handed to US intelligence agencies...

Two companies, Lockheed Martin, the US defence group, and the German telecommunications company TSystems, are bidding for the £450 million contract to run the 2011 Census.

The US Patriot Act allows personal data held by companies in the US to be made available to the intelligence agencies.

Angela Eagle, a Treasury minister, said that if Lockheed won the contract, provisions preventing the removal from the UK of census information would be put in the contract"

Someone should inform the minister that in the US, the PATRIOT Act trumps contract law and any such provisions in the contract wouldn't be worth the paper they were written on.

Police forces spending £40 million on PR

According to the Times, police forces in the UK are spending £40 million per year on public relations and news management.

Given that their political masters at the Home Office now measure police performance partly against public perception of crime, the only real surprise should be that the figure is not significantly bigger.