IP Notes

Gizmodo Gizmodo, the gadget guide. So mesmerized by shiny new toys. It's unnatural.

Economy of Scales: Tune Plug In Peripherals: Storage While record labels and publishers are locked in lawsuits and legal hair-pulling, independent artists are using Creative Commons (CC) licenses as a new publicity tool: keep your copyright, but let consumers copy or even sample your song. Your next Flash Drive might even have albums on it (or is that the other way around?): indie online label Magnatune and manufacturer Hana Micro have loaded up the TunePlug USB drive with ten albums under a CC license. The first 'volume' starts at $19.99; the $69.99 512MB model has all ten albums on it pre-loaded. More details on CDM. Peter Kirn, editor of createdigitalmusic, checks in regularly with gear too cool for only musicians to be in the know.

# posted by John @ 11:49 AM 0 comments

> Digitalconsumer.org is a consumer-advocacy group started in 2001 with a mission to restore the balance of copyright law so that artists and creators can prosper while citizens have reasonable flexibility to use content in fair and legal ways. The group is composed of entrepreneurs, investors and consumers, and it is proposing a set of principles - a Consumer Technology Bill of Rights - that it intends to have passed into law. These principles would preserve consumers' historic fair-use rights that have been recently diminished by changes in copyright law made at the request of media companies.
>
> they claim over 50,000 members and are members of the alliance for digital progress, a Silicon Valley industry group.
>
> co founded by Joe Kraus and Graham Spencer. Kraus is ceo of Jot Spot, " the first application-wiki company" and a founder of the former Excite.com. Spence was CTO at Excite. DigitalConsumer seems to be housed at JotSpot.
>
> They held a digital rights summit in 2003:
>
> AEA, Intel and DigitalConsumer.org are convening a Digital Rights Summit to discuss present and future regulation of the distribution, use, and manipulation of digital media./...IT industry executives, Congressional policymakers, consumer representatives, and industry analysts will gather to discuss how Washington> '> s debate over digital rights is affecting Silicon Valley businesses today.
>
>
>

# posted by John @ 11:10 AM 0 comments

Subject: The False Mathematics of the RIAA

The feedback on the P2P downloading debate has been terrific; Let me
add a few additional bullet points into our repertoire of arguments:

The False Mathematics of the RIAA
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/02/the_false_mathe.html

First, let's consider what actual P2P losses are to the industry.

They are much more difficult to calculate than the RIAA would have
you believe. Why? First, downloaders pull songs they would never buy;
I have Outkast's "Hey Ya" somewhere; I consider it a goofy novelty
song, and the only reason I have it is that someone else sync'ed it
to a Peanuts animation (everyone on stage dancing to Schroder's
piano). It was an amusing but unauthorized use, which I downloaded,
smiled at, and never saw again.

Oh ya: The CD that song came from -- OutKast's 2003's release,
Speakerboxxx/The Love Below -- sold 10-million plus copies.

Lost sales? Hardly.

Consider the biggest of all downloaders -- mostly-broke college
students. They have a computer their parents bought them, and the
campus gives them a big, fat pipe. They get access to music they
would never have bought, resulting in future post-college sales. But
the one-to-one lost sales argument is transparently false.

Next, let's consider what the damages to the industry are. Consider
the issues of substitution: What would it cost to purchase an
"unlimited amount" of digitally distributed music? The answer is
found in the Napster-to-Go model:

"The Napster to Go model . . . shows that the RIAAs claims of a
lost sale for every download to be demonstrably false. If you can
download an unlimited number of songs via napster and play them for
as long as you continue to subscribe, then the maximum loss the RIAA
suffers from a single downloader cannot exceed $15/month no matter
how many songs a person downloads." -- via boingboing

Over the course of 10 years, that represents total gross losses of
$1,800, of which Napster keeps between 15 and 20%. Net loss: $1,500
dollars.

But wait, there's more: The Rhapsody Music Subscription from Real
Networks charges only $10 per month. That's $120 per year. Over a
decade, the net loss downloaders present to the industry by not
signing up for Rhapsody are: lost revenue of $1,200 (gross). In
other words, the total net industry losses are ~$1,000 per decade.
Hardly as apocalyptic as portrayed.

By approving the Napster/Rhapsody subscription models, the music
industry has unwittingly created a viable legal defense, at least
when it comes to damages portion of their litigation, for defendants
in a RIAA P2P litigation. The claims of losses in the $100,000 or
even $10,000 are silly -- as long as this $1,000 net loss per decade
option exists.

Of course, that doesn't consider studies (such as the one from
Harvard/UNC CHapel Hill) that shows P2P drives CD and concert ticket
sales. I only buy music that I hear and like. Since that hardly
happens via the radio anymore, P2P is my most common source of new
music (that, and Apple adverts).

Further, the industry's disingenous claims that its the artists are
getting ripped off by downloaders are rather misleading. (Putting
aside the industry's own long and storied history of ripping off
their artists for another day).

A recent NYT article reveals that most musicians make their bread and
butter not by selling CDs, but by touring and performing:

"According to a new list of the 50 top-earning pop stars
published in Rolling Stone, over the hill is the new golden pasture.
Half the top 10 headliners are older than 50, and two are over 60.
Only one act, Linkin Park, has members under 30.

The annual list, which entails some guesswork, reverses the
common perception of pop music. Not only is it not the province of
youth; it's also not the province of CD sales, hit songs and smutty
videos.

While sexy young stars take their turn strutting on the Billboard
charts or MTV - or on the cover of Rolling Stone - the real pop
pantheon, it seems, is an older group, no longer producing new hits,
but re-enacting songs that are older than many of today's pop idols."

This has serious financial repurcussions for the business model the
industry is presently wed to. And the list of artists who are making
the big bucks reveals industry mismanagement has led to mostly
ignoring the key economic demographic driver of our century: The baby
boomers.

Here's a little secret the RIAA would rather not have you know:
Musicians make most of their money performing and touring -- not
selling CDs or downloads. Rolling Stone has a detailed analysis of
the top 50 acts . . . here's a top 10 list to whet your appetite:

2004 Music Money Makers
1. Prince $56.5 MILLION
2. Madonna $54.9 MILLION
3. Metallica $43.1 MILLION
4. Elton John $42.9 MILLION
5. Jimmy Buffett $36.5 MILLION
6. Rod Stewart $34.6 MILLION
7. Shania Twain $33.2 MILLION
8. Phil Collins $33.2 MILLION
9. Linkin Park $33.1 MILLION
10. Simon and Garfunkel $31.3 MILLION

Note that 9 of the top 10 grossing performers aren't the hot new
thing -- they are the better known rock classics -- which the labels
have mostly also been paying little attention to for so many years.

The industry can scapegoat P2P for all their woes, but a closer
analysis of the math demonstrates the claim is illusory.
(Mis)management is the primary sources of the industry problems.

Sources:
Balding Rockers and Big Money
JOHN LELAND
NYT, Sunday, February 13, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/weekinreview/13lela.html

Napster-to-Go reviewed, math done
boingboing, Sunday, February 13, 2005
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/13/napstertogo_reviewed.html

Money Makers
Robert Lafranco
Rolling Stone, Posted Feb 10, 2005
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6959138/prince?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single2

The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis
Felix Oberholzer, Harvard Business School
Koleman Strumpf, UNC CHapel Hil
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

# posted by John @ 11:07 AM 0 comments

Extremetech Core Technology How-to, Reviews, News and Commentary

DRM Stripped From iTunes Downloads Jon Johansen, also known as "DVD Jon," has developed a new program that strips the DRM restrictions from iTMS, the software used to protect Apple Computer's iTunes.

# posted by John @ 2:38 PM 0 comments

>
> http://www
> .variety.com/article/VR1117919672?categoryid=18&cs=1
>
>
>
> WASHINGTON--With less than two weeks to go before the curtain goes up on
> the Grokster case at the Supreme Court, the two sides traded accusations
> and near-insults at an industry conference here Wednesday.
>
> Appearing on a panel with Consumer Electronics Assn. prexy Gary Shapiro,
> RIAA topper Mitch Bainwol accused the hardware rep of engaging in
> "ridiculous hyperbole" about the case.
>
> "You keep saying we're trying to kill technology when you know that's
> ridiculous," Bainwol said. "You know, the federal government filed a brief
> in this case and I think they're a pretty good neutral observer. And they
> said we're right and your wrong."
>
> Shapiro returned fire, accusing the studios and record companies of
> demanding a veto over future technological innovation.
>
> "What you're saying is that before any technology developer can do
> anything, they have to predict all the ways their technology could be
used,
> and then think of how they could have designed it differently to prevent
> uses that might be infringing. That's what it says in your (legal) brief."
>
> The heated remarks reflect how high passions are running as Hollywood and
> the technology industries prepare for the courtroom showdown.
>
> Oral arguments in the case are slated for March 29, and a decision is
> likely by summer.
>
> Legal experts both inside and outside the industry regard the case as the
> most important copyright question to reach the high court since the
> Betamax case in 1984.
>
> In Betamax, the court ruled that technologies such as the VCR could not be
> banned even if some people used them to infringe copyrights.
>
> In Grokster, the robes area being asked to decide whether the Betamax
> standard should apply to peer-to-peer file trading over the Internet.
>
> On Wednesday, each side predicted dire consequences should the other side
> prevail.
>
> "I don't think this is just a Washington issue, or even just a Hollywood
> issue," MPAA prexy Dan Glickman said. "This case really has to do with
> what has made this country the great liberal democracy that it is. I'm not
> saying we would lose that democracy if we lose on Grokster, but it would
> have very profound implications for our society's ability to be culturally
> productive and innovative."
>
> HDNet CEO Mark Cuban was equally adamant.
>
> "If Grokster loses we're in deep shit," the one-time software entrepreneur
> said. "I remember trading pictures on CompuServe in 1988. People were
> downloading music over what became AOL. If the rules they're asking for
> today had been in place then, AOL would have been decimated before it
> began."
>
> One point on which the two sides agree is that the Supreme Court is
> unlikely to fully settle the matter, whatever it decides.
>
> Both sides are already working Capitol Hill to line up support for
> legislation to undo whatever the court does should the decision go against
> them.
>
> On Wednesday, Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) introduced a bill that would write
> the Betamax standard into law as well as expand consumers' rights to make
> fair use of encrypted programming.
>
> Boucher bill is co-sponsor by House Commerce and Energy Committee chairman
> Joe Barton (R-Tex.), insuring it will at least get a hearing.
>
> In the Senate, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is expected to reintroduce his Induce
> Act should the court side with Grokster.
> Web Only
>
> --
> -----
> The Godwin's Law Blog can be found at http://www.godwinslaw.org .
> -----
> Mike Godwin can be reached by phone at 202-518-0020 x 101.
> The new edition of his book, CYBER RIGHTS, can be ordered at
> http://www.panix.com/~mnemonic .
> -----
_______________________________________________
LawfulUse mailing list
LawfulUse@publicknowledge.org
http://lists.publicknowledge.org/mailman/listinfo/lawfuluse

# posted by John @ 11:57 AM 0 comments

By David McGuire
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Thursday, March 17, 2005; 5:15 PM     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44361-2005Mar17.htm

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), one of the entertainment industry's most powerful congressional allies, will remain at the forefront of the national debate over copyright and illegal downloading after being named to head a new subcommittee on intellectual property.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) today officially christened the panel, which will have jurisdiction over copyright, trademark and patent law, as well as treaties intended to protect American intellectual property overseas.

The mounting dangers that piracy poses to the U.S. economy helped spur the move, Specter said after the announcement. "It's a big, tough subject. We lose billions each year. We have a national treasure named Orrin Hatch who is happy to take over the subcommittee, and I was happy to establish it," Specter said.

Given the full slate of non-copyright issues before the full Judiciary Committee, the new panel will help keep intellectual property issues on the front burner, said Mitch Glazier, the Recording Industry Association of America's senior vice president of government and industry relations.

"Any time you have a subcommittee whose job it is to focus on your issues, that's a positive," Glazier said.

Hatch, who chaired the Judiciary Committee until term limits forced him to turn in his gavel at the end of last year's session, has been one of the most vocal proponents of expanding copyright protections in cyberspace in a bid to contain unlicensed downloading. That often put him and colleague Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) -- the committee's top Democrat -- at odds with technology companies and consumer advocates, who complained that the lawmakers' efforts to protect entertainment companies too often suppressed technological innovation and infringed consumer rights.

Last year, Hatch and Leahy authored a controversial bill targeting peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, Morpheus and eDonkey that allow users to swap copyrighted content for free. Music and movie industry lobbyists threw their weight behind the bill, but opponents said it was worded too broadly and would also undermine legal protections for popular devices like the iPod music player and TiVo television recorder.

Talks on the bill collapsed shortly before the November election after a coalition of high-tech companies, consumer advocates and conservatives formed to oppose it. Reintroducing the bill will not be on the new subcommittee's "immediate agenda," Hatch spokesman Adam Elggren said.

"We've all been a little bit surprised by how willing they've been to carry the content industry's water," Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn said of Hatch and Leahy. She said, however, that the formation of the subcommittee wasn't a surprise, and would probably be a "wash" for groups like hers that oppose many of the copyright measures backed by the entertainment industry.

Those groups had hoped Specter's ascension would bring a shift in a battle they say has been stacked against them. But, Sohn added, there was never any doubt that Hatch would continue to be a major player in the debate, subcommittee or no.

"If you thought Hatch was going to ride off into the sunset and not participate in this issue," Sohn said, "you're not in touch with reality."

In addition to piracy and copyright infringement, Leahy hopes to work through the committee to address the new threats of "phishing" and "pharming" -- forms of electronic fraud in which perpetrators impersonate trusted banks, retailers and financial institutions to steal Internet users' personal data, spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.

In a statement, Hatch declared that the panel would have an "aggressive agenda" and highlighted the issue of patent reform, saying, "We need strong patent protection to give incentives for innovation and economic growth."

# posted by John @ 11:56 AM 0 comments

http://www.techweb.com//wire/networking/60407548

# posted by John @ 9:03 PM 0 comments

from john parres, to IP:

I just noticed the cool WIRED story "Around the World in 80 Clicks"
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/start.html?pg=7 about NASA's
World Wind open source app that displays 10 terabytes of Earth imagery
on demand so I thought I would give it a spin (heh).

The story says "...When project manager Patrick Hogan unleashed World
Wind, one of NASA's servers collapsed under a deluge of download
requests - 100,000 a day - and the service went offline. This spring,
it's back, with a bigger server..." and a BitTorrent link!
http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/download.html

It's nice to see USA government scientists making use of P2P to save
taxpayers' money.

JP

# posted by John @ 9:43 AM 0 comments

WIPO pulls out dirty tricks to kill participation from consumer groups

By Cory Doctorow

Cory Doctorow: EFF and its friends are making amazing progress at the World Intellectual Property Organization: we've got dozens of non-governmental organizations in the pipe to attend the meetings in Geneva, and it's clear that the rightsholders are scared. At the last meeting we attended, our documents were stolen and dropped in the trash in the toilets . Now, with a meeting coming up to discuss the "Development Agenda" -- a catch-all term for WIPO initiatives that make new copyright and patent rules that try to help developing countries, rather than exploit them -- the International Bureau is cooking the process. They've decided to exclude "ad-hoc observers" (the category that nearly all of the copyright reform groups fall under) in favor of "permanent observers" (a category dominated by motion picture studios, broadcasters and other gigantic rightsholder interests). Check it out:

Right-owners are now in FULL MOBILIZATION on the WIPO development agenda. The only thing I have seen like this are the campaigns relating to the 1998-1999 WHO resolution on trade and public health and the 2001 WTO Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. Like then, the right-owners effort is closely coordinated behind the scenes, with enormous cooperation and pressure from the US and other developed counties. The US has formed an inter-agency task force to attack the DA. It would be good to have some details on the EC organization on this. I assume the worst, but there is a new Commission, so we need to check. Note that the US, the EC and European governments will put huge pressure on developing country governments to abandon/isolate Brazil or India on this, which is exactly what happened on the WTO negotiations over paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration, and which was a disaster.

It appears as though the WIPO secretariat is entirely committed to defending corporate right-owners and entirely trying to undermine consumer interests. I would love to be wrong about this, but one has to face the evidence we have seen so far, including for example the recent USPTO and Casablanca meetings, and the rejection of applications for ad hoc observer status to groups like ICSTD and others, and the lack of a real dialogue with civil society NGOs.

Ten year ago, WIPO nearly killed the net with its destructive "Internet Treaties." These treaties are the reason that Dmitry went to jail, that 2600 magazine was censored, and that Verizon got thousands of bogus subpoenas demanding that it turn over customer info. These treaties are why the Church of Scientology and Diebold are able to censor their critics by calling them infringers. They're why WIPO has the same relation to bad copyright that Mordor has to evil.

Now that we're on the verge of reversing some of that harm with a rational treaty that treats the Internet like a solution, not a problem, they're pulling out all the dirtiest tricks they can think of. If I were you, I'd be mad as hell. I know I am. Link (via Copyfight )

# posted by John @ 7:31 AM 0 comments

EFF Releases HD PVR Cookbook and Build-In Kit

San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF) announced the next stage in its challenge to the
Federal Communications Commission's "Broadcast Flag"
technology mandate. The organization released a
step-by-step guide, the "HD PVR Cookbook," that teaches
people how to build a high-definition digital television
(HDTV) recorder unaffected by the technological constraints
of the Broadcast Flag. In addition, EFF is encouraging
people to protest the FCC rule by holding Build-Ins --
gatherings around the country to build unfettered HDTV
recorders and experience first-hand the kind of innovation
stifled by the government mandate.

The Broadcast Flag, which places copy controls on DTV
signals, is aimed at stopping people from making digitally
perfect copies of television shows and redistributing them.
Yet it also stops people from making perfectly legitimate
personal copies of broadcasts. More disturbing, the
Broadcast Flag will outlaw the manufacture and import of a
whole host of TiVo-like devices that send DTV signals into
a computer for backup, editing, and playback. After the
Broadcast Flag regulations go into effect, all personal
video recorder (PVR) technologies must be Broadcast
Flag-compliant and "robust" against user modification --
and that means, once again, that the entertainment industry
is trying to tell you what you can do with your own
machines.

Now individuals can fight back by hosting a Build-In before
the Broadcast Flag goes into effect on July 1, 2005. EFF
held the first Build-In at its offices in late January,
inviting a number of local programmers, TV fans, and
bloggers to try out the Cookbook and test-bake their own
HDTV recorders using standard computers equipped with HD
tuner cards. The results were smashing: the dozen attendees
created five working PVRs over the course of the day, using
the KnoppMyth distribution of the open-source MythTV
software package. Groups who want to host their own
Build-Ins can contact EFF for a "Throw Your Own Build-In"
kit, which includes a hard copy of the HD PVR Cookbook, a
KnoppMyth CD-ROM, and (of course!) free EFF t-shirts and
stickers.

EFF releases its technological challenge to the Broadcast
Flag on the same day that the organization and other civil
liberties groups challenge the FCC in the courtroom. In ALA
v. FCC, the groups -- including the American Library
Association and Public Knowledge -- argue that the FCC has
overstepped its authority in mandating the Broadcast Flag
and that the rule should be struck down.

"Even as we're suing the FCC to stop this interference with
technological innovation, we're also helping television
watchers to get off the couch and build their own fully
capable PVRs," said EFF Special Projects Coordinator Wendy
Seltzer, who organized the Build-In. "Every MythTV built
helps demonstrate the creative development that may be cut
off by bad regulation."

HD PVR Cookbook:
http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/cookbook/

Pictures of the EFF Build-In:
http://wendy.seltzer.org/photos/mythtv/build-in/

Throw Your Own Build-In:
http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/cookbook/buildin.php

More about the Broadcast Flag:
http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag

For this release:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_02.php#003356

About EFF

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil
liberties organization working to protect rights in the
digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and
challenges industry and government to support free
expression and privacy online. EFF is a member-supported
organization and maintains one of the most linked-to
websites in the world at http://www.eff.org/

-end-

_______________________________________________
presslist mailing list
https://pigeon.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/presslist

# posted by John @ 1:32 PM 0 comments

Beatallica.org shut down, more Sony nastygrams fly

By Xeni Jardin

Xeni Jardin: David Dixon, "Webmaster of Puppets" for Beatles/Metallica parody-mashup act Beatallica , says:

Beatallica.org has been taken down by our ISP:

"Even though we have received your counter notice, we are required by law to disable access to the infringing material. However, we are going to restore that in 10 business days from the date we received the counter notice (February 24, 2005) unless required under the DMCA to do otherwise."

Andy Baio (waxy.org) and Matthew Haughey (music.metafilter.com) both still have Beatallica mp3's up on their sites. I've emailed them to get their okay on linking them up, as they'll likely be getting a ton of traffic (and possible Sony C&D's) as a result.

Also, I just received, via Certified Mail, a cease-and-desist letter of my own! It's directed at me personally, not the website or the band. It basically says the same things as the one our ISP got last Thursday, but also that I must *immediately*:

- cease exploiting Sony/ATV Compositions and all derivative works thereof;
- provide Sony/ATV with information regarding any and all audio and audio-visual product, merchandise and written material (electronic and otherwise), and any other product that incorporates or uses Sony/ATV Compositions yadda yadda
- provide Sony with an accounting of all sums received or earned in connection with the exploitation of the Sony/ATV Compositions... as well as the operation of the Sites
- compensate Sony/ATV in an amount to be discussed

I have ten (10) days to comply. By the way, our message board is still active, as is the online petition (now up to nearly 3000 signatures), if Boing Boing readers want to send some kind words our way.

Previously: Sony nastygrams Beatallica.org , Beatallica fans respond to Sony nastygram , Lars Ulrich of Metallica steps in .

Update Scott Matthews says:

Regarding Beatallica:

1) their site is still available via Archive: Link

2) Matt Haughey is running the audio here: Link

Song titles include "Blackened the USSR," "Got to Get You Trapped Under Ice," and "The Thing That Should Not Let It Be."

And BB reader andy points us to this torrent of the whole heap of Beatallica tunes: Link

# posted by John @ 9:18 AM 0 comments

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/11049112.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Posted on Fri, Mar. 04, 2005

Apple 1, bloggers 0
JUDGE SAYS WEB SITES CAN BE FORCED TO REVEAL SOURCES
By Dawn C. Chmielewski
Mercury News

In a case with implications for the freedom to blog, a San Jose judge tentatively ruled Thursday that Apple Computer can force three online publishers to surrender the names of confidential sources who disclosed information about the company's upcoming products.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg refused to extend to the Web sites a protection that shields journalists from revealing the names of unidentified sources or turning over unpublished material.

Kleinberg offered no explanation for the preliminary ruling. He will hear arguments today from Apple's attorneys and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco digital rights group representing two of the three Web sites Apple subpoenaed -- Apple Insider and PowerPage.

The case raises issues about whether those who write for online publications are entitled to the same constitutional protections as their counterparts in more traditional print and broadcast news organizations.

Apple sought subpoenas in December against two online news sites that focus exclusively on its products: PowerPage (www.power page.org) and Apple Insider (www.appleinsider.com). The company filed a separate suit against Think Secret (www.thinksecret.com) on Jan. 4.

Apple's argument

Apple maintains that disclosures about an unreleased product, code-named ``Asteroid,'' constituted a trade secret violation. The company asked the court to force the Web sites to identify the source of the leaks.

In its court filings, Apple argued that neither the free speech protections of the United States Constitution nor the California Shield Law, which protects journalists from revealing their sources, applies to the Web sites. The company said such protections apply only to ``legitimate members of the press.''

Subpoena fight

The court earlier authorized Apple to serve subpoenas on the Web sites, seeking all documents related to Asteroid and information about anyone with knowledge of the postings about the product.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation fought the subpoenas, arguing the online publishers, like their print and broadcast counterparts, frequently rely on confidential sources to report on issues in the public interest.

``Compelled disclosure of journalists' sources would have a devastating effect on the free flow of information,'' said Kurt Opsahl, an EFF attorney. ``It's the lifeblood of a functioning democracy. Therefore the courts have to understand the vital connection between the confidentiality of sources and the freedom of the press.''

An Apple spokesman declined to comment on the case.

Adding support

Thomas Goldstein, a former dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism who worked as a reporter for the New York Times, filed a brief in support of the Web sites.

``Just because Apple does not want these publications to report on its activities does not mean that they are not news publications,'' Goldstein wrote.

# posted by John @ 8:42 AM 0 comments

"Love the quotes from Berman. Interesting that he's unsure of who will
win."
------
"We want to get all the votes done before the Grokster decision in
June," Smith said. "After that we'll probably have to have hearings and
consider legislation."

Berman agreed, saying it is important to act swiftly.

"The winner side won't want to see any copyright legislation," he said.

House panel OKs camcorder bill

By Brooks Boliek
WASHINGTON -- A key House panel unanimously approved copyright
legislation Thursday that would make it illegal to camcord a movie and
indemnify from lawsuits companies that make products that edit
offensive content.

While the House Judiciary Committee's copyright subcommittee approved
the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act without a "no" vote, it
didn't do so without controversy.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., decried the bill's provision that
protects the ClearPlay VCR and other devices that edit purportedly
offensive content from movies.

"I'm voting for it in spite of the Family Movie Act," Berman said.

Berman told the panel that the introduction and subsequent approval of
the Family Movie Act ended negotiations between the DGA and the motion
picture studios over a way to license edited movies to ClearPlay and
the manufacturers of similar devices.

The technology is part of a lawsuit between the Utah-based company and
the DGA and the studios. If the bill becomes law, it would effectively
end the suit.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the subcommittee, defended the
Family Movie Act saying it was but another tool parents can use to keep
smut out of their homes.

"Parents should be able to mute or skip over anything they want if they
feel it's in the best interests of their children," said Smith. "Just
as the author of a book should not be able to force someone to read
that book in any particular manner or order, a studio or director
should not be able to force parents or their children to watch a movie
in a particular way."

Berman disagreed, saying those provisions really take the control of a
creative work out of the creator's hands and puts it under the thumb of
owners of another enterprise.

"I don't want to debate the chairman, but you're really authorizing the
'Profits for ClearPlay' legislation," Berman said.

While Thomson Electronics began distributing the device, it pulled it
off the shelves after a competing manufacturer filed a
patent-infringment lawsuit arguing that ClearPlay stole its technology,
Berman said.

Berman and many other members of the committee voted for the
legislation because it includes three other provisions, the
anti-camcorder provision, legislation designed to make it easier for
law enforcement officials to combat the growing problem of music and
movies being distributed on file-sharing networks and circulating on
the Internet before they are released and renews the Library of
Congress' film preservation program.

Both the camcorder law and the predistribution clause have been
long-sought goals for the entertainment industry. The Family Movie Act,
however, was not. The studios were forced to end their objections to
that bill once it was married up with the other legislation.

The Senate has already approved FECA. Both sides of the Capitol
approved the legislation the last congress, but final action was
stalled because of debate over unrelated legislation.

Smith and Berman said they hoped to get a vote in the full House
Judiciary Committee within a month and a vote on the House floor before
the Supreme Court makes a decision on the Grokster case probably in
June.

The Grokster decision will determine whether P2P technology is a
violation of copyright law or not. Once that decision is made the
losing side is sure to petition congress for relief. That debate is
likely to swamp all copyright legislation.

"We want to get all the votes done before the Grokster decision in
June," Smith said. "After that we'll probably have to have hearings and
consider legislation."

Berman agreed, saying it is important to act swiftly.

"The winner side won't want to see any copyright legislation," he said.

# posted by John @ 6:43 AM 0 comments

--------------------
Film Download, Search Firms to Link Services
--------------------

The Movielink-Blinkx tie-up, enabling Web surfers to buy or rent movies and TV shows, could be a preview of coming attractions.

By Chris Gaither
Times Staff Writer

February 28 2005

SAN FRANCISCO — A deal between two little-known California technology companies is the first step, some experts say, in what could be the next big thing on the Web: search engines that let you find movies and TV episodes — and then buy or rent them.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-blinkx28feb28,0,3058333.story?coll=la-home-headlines

# posted by John @ 11:32 AM 0 comments

-----Original Message-----
From: John [mailto:johnsbracken@gmail.com]
Sent: Mon 2/28/2005 8:46 AM
To: Bracken, John
Cc:
Subject: [IP Notes] Lessig interview
[http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/27/0457219]

Via /., an interview with Lessig.

tres3 writes "In an interview with the O'Reilly Network Mr. Lessig discusses many current issues that may have future legal implications. He starts with MGM's request for Certiorari in the Grokster case . His conclusion is that ReplayTV was forced out of business by a legal challenge, not a legal victory. Lessig continues on to discuss, among other things, The Creative Commons and their new Sampling License and how it may affect the way that some movies and music, that contain samples from other sources, are made in the future. From the article: 'So the same act of creativity in some sense, you know, taking, creating, mixing out of what other people do, is legal in the text world and illegal in the digital media world.'"

--
Posted by John to IP Notes at 2/28/2005 06:42:00 AM

# posted by John @ 12:42 PM 0 comments

FYI, for those fans of our Grokster case archive, we've also recently 
put up an archive of the Sony v. Universal case for your perusing and 
personal enjoyment:

http://eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/

Make sure to check out Universal's Supreme Court Petition for Rehearing 
(http://eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/betamax_petition_rehearing.pdf), 
where they argue, among other fascinating theories, that there is 
additional evidence of market harm because surveys show some people are 
choosing to stay home and watch time-shifted movies instead of going to 
the theater and waiting in line.  Also, the document includes 
declarations from the NBA and NHL objecting to commercial skipping and 
Dr. Gene Scott objecting to home-recording of his TV sermons because it 
would allow rogue ministers to hold home bible study sessions that 
conflict with his religious beliefs.

# posted by John @ 9:06 AM 0 comments

from farber'ls list:

Dave,

The latest "DayThink" short MP3 audio feature looks at the upcoming
Supreme Court arguments over whether or not file-sharing system
firms should be held responsible for the music and film piracy
of their users.

It's called:

"File-Sharing Systems: No Way Out"

and is playable via:

http://daythink.vortex.com

# posted by John @ 9:05 AM 0 comments

A prominent group of musicians and artists, breaking with colleagues and the major entertainment studios, is urging the Supreme Court not to hold online file-sharing services responsible for the acts of users who illegally trade songs, movies and software.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61254-2005Feb28.html?referrer=emailarticle

# posted by John @ 6:20 AM 0 comments