The copyright blog from up north...

From the Lessig blog:

http://www.copyrightwatch.ca/

I wonder if Canada and the US will go in divergent directions...

What would happen if encryption was involved...

I wonder if the DMCA could be used to prevent the EFF from researching this topic?

What I find interesting with this topic is the simple solution Xerox implemented. Obviously, it's easy for me to say this now that they have solved the problem, but a rectangular grid with no obfuscation sounds like an easy thing to crack. The next release will certainly try to encrypt the data, and we know where that typically leads to.

Even if Xerox doesn't give away the relationship between the serial number and the person who bought the machine, you can now establish a relationship between various printed documents. It's scary to know that your color printer is doing that on your behalf, with no say whatsoever.

I guess you should always print with a yellow background...

Really good read...

On the (potential) impact of the DMCA on research...

One thing I like about the presentation of the article is that it really focuses on the research. It's easy to look on the overall impact of the DMCA but maybe a better way to approach it is to look at it's impact on individual sections or targets.

For the purpose of this Article, let us assume that the basic objective of the anti-circumvention provisions—the desire to help copyright owners use technology to protect their works—is a good one, or at least unobjectionable. In pursuing this objective, what impact does the DMCA, as currently drafted, have on the ability of academic encryption researchers to pursue their scientific research? And how should we evaluate this impact, as a normative matter?

One thing I would add, which I think is touched upon in a tangential manner, is: imagine the lock in the bicycle is a two step process, and that the researcher wants to study the second part but doesn't have the technical know-how to address the first part. Clearly, he might (or will) not have the ability to go find that knowledge, particularily if the people he would ask for help aren't part of the "circle" of people allowed to break into such technology. This would be another hurdle preventing the researcher from studying a particular encryption technology.

Did Grokster really win?

This is an interesting take on the MGM vs Grokster case.

Still, I don't agree with the writer. Towards the end, there is this paragraph:

As long as the courts apply high standards for inducement liability - requiring proof of overt acts of inducement, underlying acts of infringement, and a specific intent to induce infringement - there should be ample room for innovative technologies to continue to thrive. Engineers will need to watch what they say during the development process, and firms will need to think carefully about how they should go about building markets for their products and services. But shouldn't they be exercising such care even without the Court's guidance about inducement liability?

My problem is, now that there is the opening "What are engineers saying", there will be tons of lawsuits file, some valid, some invalid that will attempt to prove that engineers said "We are trying to do legally something illegal here". This definitely have a chilling effect on innovation, at the very least in the US. The development team will have to constantly worry about every word that comes out of their mouth, and even if they are careful, well, they might still be sued because some company will be claiming they could have done better, etc.

Imagine the following exchange in the development department:

John: Jack, do you think we could implement a filter that checks if a song is part of the library of illegal files?

Jack, in his head: If I say yes and we don't do it, that might be held against us, but if I say no and we don't do it, then some third party will argue we could have done it and weren't serious about it, but if I say say and we do it and we fail, then they will claim we didn't try hard enough...

Jack, whispering: What was that question again? Is there a microphone in the room?

I don't think this sounds like a innovation conducing environment...

Filed under p2p

Really good article...

It would be funny to know that we are assisting to the creation of the next Microsoft...

One thing the article fails to suggest is the music companies getting together and buying Apple or creating their own DRM technology. I'm surprised they haven't started working on this yet. On the other hand, why bother? They haven't given Apple perpetual rights to their content so they clearly can cut the flow of music whenever they want.

Just like the drug addict...

Just like the drug addict who buys illegal drugs that are dangerous because they are not the real drugs but really poison, here comes this:

Malware turns PSP into expensive brick

I wonder if this will cost Sony any money because people start returning or sending to technical support their broken PSPs. Why is this happening? Because Sony chose to lock down their platform, and people just couldn't resist to hack it...

Can a balanced law be crafted?

From the US Copyright Office:

The Copyright Office is conducting this rulemaking proceeding mandated by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which provides that the Librarian of Congress may exempt certain classes of works from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works.

Last time, they did issue some exemptions.

One question I have, is that while exemptions were granted, how does one exercise his fair use right? Do you have to not only be the person that wants to exercise those rights and be the one to devise the method to use to achieve that? Can you mandate somebody else to create the method to circumvent those protections? This is particularly tricky if the tool you create can be used to also circumvent the protection around non-exempt work.

Hum, maybe that title could be clearer...

From The Register:

EMI recalls DRM-encumbered CD

But if you read the article itself, what did they replace it by?

Now EMI says it's removing the settings, which it says were put in place accidentally, and is offering an exchange. Fans can swap a version of the CD that doesn't allow any copies to be made for one that permits three burns - as the record company intended.

This reminds me of the recent TiVo story where TiVo started listening to the new macrovision broadcast flag, and where a provider inadvertently blocked a show from being kept longer than 7 days or so.

Anyways, I'm not sure the "fans" will be MUCH happier.

Will this really have an impact?

I wonder if PVP-OPM will really have an impact... Why? If you look at the content being pirated these days, how many people that pirate are very selective about the quality of what they pirate?
I think unless they kill the DVD format, this will not have an impact in the short run, and will come at great cost to the tech industry because of all the confusion this will generate.

What is "Mandatory managed copy"?

It took me a while to figure it out... at first I thought it was some limitation scheme. Why? The choice of words...

• Mandatory?
• Managed?
• Copy? Well that one does sounds positive...

Turns out it's a alternate way of saying "fair use rights", although it seems to come with some limitations, because it seems to be still some kind of DRM mechanism. At least the good news is that it would be mandatory, which means you would always have the ability to copy a HD-DVD using somekind of DRM.