But, I wonder if the Digital Economy Bill goes far enough? After all if you download thousands of hours of illegally distributed music and films, your ISP might cut you off. But that merely prevents you from downloading any more.

I say, if the record industry thinks you’re downloaded a significant amount, then they can ask your electricity supplier to turn off your electricity. Then, not only would you not be able to continue downloading, but you won’t get the benefit of enjoying any ill gotten gains you’ve already downloaded!

Surely this makes sense…

I just got a new camera and I’ve been having fun taking pictures of my daughter. But every time I take a picture, I’m probably violating somebody’s copyright or design patent, or whatever.

The painting in the dining room, the tv screen in the background, the chair from the famous design house. All of these things are covered by some sort of right of control by the creator.

So, can you imagine if my camera, spotting a painting in the frame could query the painting to determine if it was legal to photograph. The painting’s DRM would say “No, All Rights Reserved!” and the shutter on the camera would refuse to fire.

Perhaps with a friendly “PC MOVE CAMERA” (that’s an obscure film joke btw).

You might think this is far fetched, but let me point out two things:

1. The technology to achieve this is either here today, or not far off. The biggest obstacle is co-ordination among the technology companies.

2. The technology companies are hard at work implementing this at the behest of the media companies.

There are already proposals to make video cameras stop recording if they detect copyrighted content. So, just as you start to capture the first steps of your child, you’d better hope it’s not in front of the television.

Technorati Tags:
drm

The DMCA makes it illegal to break an encryption key used to protect copyrighted content. In plain english, while Apple can ship iTunes with the ability to rip CDs, they can’t, by law, add the ability to rip DVDs to iTunes.

There is no technical challenge to ripping DVDs, any more than CDs. It’s simply that they would be breaking the law.

Absent the ability to rip DVDs, the only use for Apple TV is to buy movies from the iTunes Store.

President Bush is quoted as saying, in part, that one of the artists on his iPod is The Beatles.

As you may know, none of The Beatles songs are available on the iTunes Store or on any other online music store. The only way to get them onto an iPod is to copy them from a Beatles CD.

Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG’s the head of litigation, recently testified, when asked if it was “okay if a consumer makes just one copy of a track they’ve legally purchased. She said no — that’s “a nice way of saying, ‘steals just one copy.’”

So, it seems the position of Sony BMG is that George W. Bush is a thief. I wonder when they’ll file the lawsuit.

Microsoft’s sabre rattling over possible patent violations in Linux and other open source software is incredible because of what it says about Microsoft. If they thought they could beat open source by building a better mousetrap, they would. But they can’t. And their standard tactic of buying the competition just won’t work here.

So instead, they’re threatening open source users with patent lawsuits. Amazing. It makes me think they are in more of a panic than anyone thought. And, to be honest, it’s not surprising.

A lot of people are talking about the fact that Linus Torvalds has stated he won’t move the Linux kernel over to GPLv3. And, while a shame, doesn’t actually mean much. You see, the kernel is only one of the many critical pieces of Linux. Sure, it’s got the highest profile and is the brains of the OS, but a brain without a heart can’t survive.

The FSF is not just a supplier of licenses. They are also the copyright holder on a number of critical components of any Linux distribution. They hold the copyright on:

* The Bash shell
* The GCC compiler
* The glibc C library
* The fileutils package

etc. So without the above, you might be able to boot your kernel, but you won’t have a shell, a userspace library, or a compiler for your OS.

And, of course, the FSF is certainly going to move all of their own software to GPLv3 as soon as possible. So while the kernel might still be under the GPLv2 licenses, you won’t be able to distribute a usable Linux (the OS) without becoming subject to the GPLv3.

Interesting times indeed.

*PC Magazine* is reporting that the case is now moving to trail. Kaleidescape is, according to the article, arguing that the copying done by their system falls under the “Fair Use” exception to copyright.

However, Kaleidescape is not being sued for Copyright Infringement, for which a defence of Fair Use might apply.

They are being sued for violating the terms of a contract. Namely, when they signed a contract to license the CSS playback system, they allegedly agreed to not do what they are doing.

So, I suspect this case will rest of the terms of the contract and the court won’t make a ruling on the broader question of fair use in relation to the DMCA.

If Kaleidescape had not signed a license for CSS, then their product would be violating the DMCA (bypassing a technological protection measure) and then they’d be liable to a copyright infringement lawsuit from the movie studios. That would have lead to a better test of a fair use for format shifting right than this case will be.

In my next post, I’ll explain more about what this system does and why the DVD Copy Control Association does not want it to exist (in my opinion).

Just like the iPod and CDs, most people already have a number of movies on DVD that they won’t want to buy again through the Apple Store. What they’d like is a way to rip the DVDs into iTunes, just like they can with their CDs.

Most of the songs on an iPod come from people’s CDs, not from music they bought through the iTunes Store. Similarly, I expect that most of the value of the Apple TV for most people will be to watch the DVDs they’ve already purchased.

And, in fact, many threads on the newly create Apple Discussion [Forum for the Apple TV](http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1133) are people asking for help in doing exactly that.

Now, two things to note:

1. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes ripping DVDs **illegal**.
2. Apple’s Terms of Service for the discussion forum state:

>3. Keep within the Law
>No material may be submitted that is intended to promote or commit an illegal act.

Now follow along with me:

* Apple wants people to perceive the Apple TV as a worthwhile purchase.
* The Apple TV becomes much more valuable if people can rip their DVDs
* Ripping DVDs is illegal
* Asking about illegal acts are a violation of Apple’s Terms of Use for the discussion forum.

The solution? On every post is a handy link to report a post as a violation. Use it to report any DVD ripping posts you find.

Why? Because maybe it will make the average Joe more aware of the flaws in the DMCA. Or, perhaps it will push Apple into spending more money lobbying for copyright reform.

OK, I’m mostly joking. But really, go join [EFF](http://www.eff.org) or [The Open Rights Group](http://www.openrightsgroup.org).

There are two differences that I think will be interesting. First, Google (and YouTube) have always had, and followed, a procedure for the removal of infringing content on complaint of the copyright holder. They are going to argue that this shields them from liability under the DMCA safe harbour provisions. Viacom, on the other hand, doesn’t want to spend the time and money required to police Google’s site. They’d rather someone else spent the money to protect their precious content.

Now, this is going to lead to a lot of arguments about the exact limits of the DMCA safe harbour provisions. How much does a service provider have to do and what’s reasonable for them to know before they loose their shield. Mark Cuban [argues](http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/03/13/you-go-viacom/) that Google has lost their safe harbour because they know there is lots of infringing content. But, that’s not the standard. At least, it wasn’t the standard when Sony was sued over the VCR.

Also, if Viacom wins, what does this mean for the safe harbour provision? Will it become just another defence like Fair Use? I.e., you can claim you have a DMCA safe harbour procedure that you follow, but anyone can still come along and sue you and have a reasonable chance of success. Faced with such legal uncertainty, what is a service provider to do? Also, this would open the door to people like the RIAA suing UUNET for not pro-actively stopping infringement on file sharing networks.

The second thing that makes this more interesting is that, unlike Grokster, Google is a “good client” as [EFF](http://www.eff.org/) likes to say. What I mean is that, with Grokster, it was easy to argue that they had no redeeming value and that, were the Grokster network to shut down, it wouldn’t matter that much. Google, on the other hand, is a darling of Wall Street with the stock price to match. They are well liked by everyone, not just those in the tech community. Going after them is going to be harder because Viacom isn’t going to be able to simply paint them as bad guys.

So, lets see what the truth behind the RIAA facts actually are. I’ve picked out the most egregious answers, but you should read the whole thing

Frequently Asked Questions

Just as a personal pet peeve, I hate this convention. These are not frequently asked questions. They are “questions we feel like answering…” Anyway.

Who are the plaintiffs in these lawsuits?
The plaintiffs are the labels, subsidiaries and affiliates of EMI Music, SONY BMG Music Entertainment, universal Music Group and Warner
music Group.

Am I being sued by the RIAA?
No. The record companies are members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and the RIAA acts as counsel to the record companies in these cases.

So, to start of, they’re doing well. The man on the street hears “RIAA lawsuits” and doesn’t necessarily know that it’s actually these companies with household names that are doing the suing. Good for them for being honest here.

What evidence prompts a lawsuit?
If you’ve been sued, it is because you have been identified as uploading or downloading copyrighted music without authorization.

This is a lie. An IP address that, according to the ISPs records, was assigned to a broadband modem registered to your account. They have not identified you at all.

Is this a civil or a criminal case?
The lawsuits are civil, not criminal, and seek monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Strictly speaking, this is true. However, you should be careful when you settle. While it is a civil case, the settlement demanded by the RIAA allegedly includes an admission of guilt for copyright infringement. You will be swearing an oath that you’ve committed a crime and making it easier for other rights holders to sue you all over again.

If I have Wi-Fi at home, how can you be sure it was me who did the downloading?
The fact that a wireless connection is involved does not mean that the individual engaging in copyright infringement cannot be identified. Cases are routinely pursued where a wireless connection is involved.

Notice they don’t actually answer the question. The truth is, they can’t be sure it was you. And just because they’ve got enough money to try suing other people in that situation doesn’t change the facts.

If the record companies negotiated a settlement with the P2P service I used, can they still sue me?
Yes. You are still responsible for your actions and the harm that you have caused.

Of course, in the US, anyone can sue anyone. Just because they can sue you, it doesn’t mean they would win. Whether or not the settlement with Kazaa covers Kazaa users is still an open question.

What is the advantage to settling before a suit has been filed?
The settlement amount is generally lower if the case is settled before the record companies’ incur the costs of a litigation. Additionally, settling before the filing of a lawsuit will not result in a judgment. Any settlement that is negotiated after a lawsuit is brought against you in your name could include the entry of a judgment.

Of course, if they still require you to admit guilt in the settlement terms, then it doesn’t matter that there isn’t a judgement against you as it amounts to the same thing. And, of course, they don’t point out that settling helps them fund more lawsuits against your neighbour.

Does it matter that I did not know my activity was illegal?
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But it is also important to note that the music community has for years undertaken vigorous educational efforts to inform people about the laws.

Yeah Sony! You see, when RIAA members get caught doing criminal damage to people’s computer systems, well that’s just an honest mistake that nobody really cared about…

Where can I find a list of legal music services and/or learn more about U.S. copyright law?
www.MusicUnited.org is an excellent resource for questions about copyright law. It is a website designed to educate consumers about the issues associated with the downloading, uploading and consumer copying of music.

And full of RIAA propaganda. You’d be much better off with:

• http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/
• http://www.openrightsgroup.org/
• http://copyfight.corante.com/