Paul Hardwick: Entertainment

Hackers Promise Month of MySpace Bugs.

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:58:02 GMT

Hackers Promise Month of MySpace Bugs. They won't divulge their real names, they call their project a "whiny, attention-seeking ploy," and they appear to take their fashion cues from Beastie Boys music videos. [PC World: Latest Technology News]

Administrivia: Possible unscheduled upgrade of Privacy Digest

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:39:04 GMT

Administrivia: Possible unscheduled upgrade of Privacy Digest.

I might be implementing an unscheduled upgrade of the site due to some problems with the software I am currently using to run the site. I had been working on upgrading the software to implement some new features but may have to implement sooner than originally planned. If you would like to take a peek at the planned software take a visit to http://www.PrivacyDigest.com/index.php Yes the full URL will have to be entered until I have completed the switch over.

There may be some hiccups during the process as the XML/RSS location will change along with access to the sub-topics. I plan to create mod-rewrite rules to take of this but they may not all be ready on day one.

Please let me know what you think.

RIAA Has to Disclose Attorneys Fees In Foster Case.

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:02:44 GMT

RIAA Has to Disclose Attorneys Fees In Foster Case. NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has been ordered to turn over its attorneys' billing records by March 26, 2007, in Capitol v. Foster in Oklahoma. The 4- page decision and order, issued in connection with the determination of the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's attorneys fees, requires the RIAA to produce the attorneys' time sheets, billing statements, billing records, and costs and expense records. The Court reviewed authorities holding that an opponent's attorneys fees are a relevant factor in determining the reasonableness of attorneys fees, quoting a United States Supreme Court case which held that 'a party cannot litigate tenaciously and then be heard to complain about the time necessarily spent by his opponent in response' (footnote 11 to City of Riverside v. Rivera)." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

NPR Takes First Step To Fight Internet Royalties.

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:57:50 GMT

NPR Takes First Step To Fight Internet Royalties. jmcharry sent in an article that opens, "After the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) decided to drastically increase the royalties paid to musicians and record labels for streaming songs online, National Public Radio (NPR) will begin fighting the decision on Friday, March 16 by filing a petition for reconsideration with the CRB panel." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

RIAA to Universities: Help Us Threaten Your Students.

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:43:13 GMT

RIAA to Universities: Help Us Threaten Your Students.

Not content with wasting universities' resources via their usual tactics--i.e., flooding them with machine-generated complaints about file sharing--the major record labels are now demanding that universities help them shake down students.

The RIAA has asked universities and colleges to forward "pre-lawsuit" letters to alleged filesharers that promise a "discounted" settlement price if the student agrees to pay up immediately. Forwarding the letters saves the RIAA the trouble and expense of filing a lawsuit to obtain students' contact information--a savings that may be redirected to more lawsuits.

To add insult to injury, the letters advise students to contact the RIAA if they have any questions. It's safe to say that the RIAA is unlikely to give students the full picture. For example, will the RIAA tell students that parents are generally not liable for infringements committed by their kids, or that the record labels sometimes sue the wrong people? Probably not.

We think students should seek out less biased sources of information--and their institutions should assist in that process. Toward that end, we've put together a short FAQ to help students learn more about their options; we hope colleges and universities that forward the RIAA's threat letter will take the additional step of directing students to this FAQ as well as other neutral information sources.

Of course, the RIAA should not be putting universities in this perverse position in the first place. If you'd like to help academic institutions get back to their real mission--educating students, not helping to threaten them--Take action now to help stop the lawsuit campaign.

[EFF: Deep Links]

EFF: Paper: Who Controls Your Television?

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:46:30 GMT

Today, consumers can digitally record their favorite television shows, move recordings to portable video players, excerpt a small clip to include in a home video, and much more. The digital television transition promises innovation and competition in even more great gadgets that will give consumers unparalleled control over their media.

But an inter-industry organization that creates television and video specifications used in Europe, Australia, and much of Africa and Asia is laying the foundation for a far different future -- one in which major content providers get a veto over innovation and consumers face draconian digital rights management (DRM) restrictions on the use of TV content. At the behest of American movie and television studios, the Digital Video Broadcasting Project (DVB) is devising standards to ensure that digital television devices obey content providers' commands rather than consumers' desires. These restrictions will take away consumers' rights and abilities to use lawfully-acquired content so that each use can be sold back to them piecemeal.

Consumers would never choose this future, so Hollywood will try to force it on them by regulatory fiat. DVB's imprimatur may put restrictive standards on the fast-track to becoming legally-enforced mandates, and existing laws already limit evasion of DRM even for lawful purposes. In effect, private DRM standards will trump national laws that have traditionally protected the public's interests and carefully circumscribed copyright holders' rights.

Hollywood has long pursued this goal in the U.S., but its schemes in DVB have taken place behind the public's back and outside of scrutiny by elected officials. In this paper, we will summarize and expose Hollywood's plan.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the only public interest group to have attended DVB's closed technical meetings. As a condition of participation, DVB imposed restrictions on our ability to report on these meetings. Now, after key parts of DVB's new DRM specification have been sent to the European standards body and may soon be provided to other EU regulators, we are releasing this paper to help consumer organizations and EU regulators understand the significant public policy implications of various DVB work items.

CPCM: A System to Control Innovation, Competition, and Television Viewers

Despite record profits in recent years, American movie and television studios have not relented in their cries that new technologies are a mortal threat to their industry. They sued to block the VCR and the first mass-market Digital Video Recorder (DVR) in the U.S., and, having failed to stamp out recording in those efforts, they have increasingly turned to creating restrictive technical standards backed by law.

Who Controls Your Television?

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:37:40 GMT

Who Controls Your Television? Nurgled writes "The EFF, reportedly the only consumer rights organization to be granted membership of the Digital Video Broadcasting consortium, reports that TV and movie industry representatives have been pushing for DRM in the DVB technologies. This in itself is not entirely unexpected, but these talks have been going on in closed meetings. The EFF itself has been blocked from reporting on this until now as a condition of being allowed to attend. The proposed technologies allow rights-holders and broadcasters to severely hamper your ability to make use of broadcast television content, including the ability to retroactively blacklist any devices that consumers may already own that act in ways undesirable to the rights-holder or broadcaster. The EFF concludes that public interest and consumer rights advocates must fight back." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

ORG to enlighten music industry on DRM's limitations.

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:59:26 GMT

ORG to enlighten music industry on DRM's limitations.

Readying a white paper

The Open Rights Group (ORG) is developing a new paper to inform the music industry about the technical suitability of Digital Rights Management (DRM) as an aid to enforcing copyright.

[The Register - Music and Media]

American Studios' Secret Plan to Lock Down European TV Devices.

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:53:46 GMT

American Studios' Secret Plan to Lock Down European TV Devices.

EFF Exposes Standards Jeopardizing Innovation and Consumer Rights

San Francisco - An international consortium of television and technology companies is devising draconian anti-consumer restrictions for the next generation of TVs in Europe and beyond, at the behest of American entertainment giants.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the only public interest group to have gained entrance into the secretive meetings of the Digital Video Broadcasting Project (DVB), a group that creates the television and video specifications used in Europe, Australia, and much of Asia and Africa. In a report released today, EFF shows how U.S. movie and television companies have convinced DVB to create new technical specifications that would build digital rights management technologies into televisions. These specifications are likely to take away consumers' rights, which will subsequently be sold back to them piecemeal -- so entertainment fans will have to pay again and again for legitimate uses of lawfully acquired digital television content.

"DVB is abetting a massive power grab by the content industry, and many of the world's largest technology companies are simply watching," said Ren Bucholz, EFF Policy Coordinator, Americas. "This regime was concocted without input from consumer rights organizations or public interest groups, and it shows."

Despite recent record profits, American movie and television studios insist that new technologies could ruin their industry. In past battles against innovation, these same studios sued to block the sale of the VCR and the first mass-marketed digital video recorder in the U.S. Having failed in those efforts, they have now turned to creating technical standards that, when backed by law, are likely to restrict consumers' existing rights and threaten the future of technological innovation.

With DVB, the plan begun by entertainment companies in the U.S. has now gone global. EFF's report is aimed at alerting European consumer groups and consumers about the dangers posed by the proposed standards and providing informational resources for European regulators.

"DVB members' active indifference, even hostility, to user rights is shameful," said EFF Staff Technologist Seth Schoen. "When American studios ask for regulatory support for restrictions pushed through the DVB Project, public officials must stand up for consumer rights, sustain competition and innovation, and tell Hollywood to back off."

For the full report:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DVB/dvb_briefing_paper.php

EFF's 2005 Submission to the U.K. Department of Media, Sports and Culture:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DVB/dvb_critique.php

Contacts:

Ren Bucholz
Policy Coordinator, Americas
Electronic Frontier Foundation
ren@eff.org

Seth Schoen
Staff Technologist
Electronic Frontier Foundation
seth@eff.org

[EFF: Breaking News]

ScienceDaily: Subliminal Advertising Leaves Its Mark On The Brain

Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:21:41 GMT

University College London researchers have found the first physiological evidence that invisible subliminal images do attract the brain's attention on a subconscious level. The wider implication for the study, published in Current Biology, is that techniques such as subliminal advertising, now banned in the UK but still legal in the USA, certainly do leave their mark on the brain.

Using fMRI, the study looked at whether an image you aren't aware of -- but one that reaches the retina -- has an impact on brain activity in the primary visual cortex, part of the occipital lobe. Subjects' brains did respond to the object even when they were not conscious of having seen it.

Dr Bahador Bahrami, of the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and the UCL Department of Psychology, said: "What's interesting here is that your brain does log things that you aren't even aware of and can't ever become aware of. We show that there is a brain response in the primary visual cortex to subliminal images that attract our attention -- without us having the impression of having seen anything. These findings point to the sort of impact that subliminal advertising may have on the brain. What our study doesn't address is whether this would then influence you to go out and buy a product. I believe that it's likely that subliminal advertising may affect our decisions -- but that is just speculation at this point."

Subliminal Messages Might Actually Work.

Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:18:58 GMT

Subliminal Messages Might Actually Work. GrumpySimon writes "New research indicates that subliminal messages may actually work. In a paper titled Attentional Load Modulates Responses of Human Primary Visual Cortex to Invisible Stimuli, Bahrani et al. demonstrate that even though stimuli may not be available to consciousness, they are processed by the visual cortex. While I'm sure that marketing agencies all over the world are rubbing their hands in glee at this news, the authors report that there's no evidence that this can make people buy things against their will. So with any luck the use of subliminal messages in advertising will remain an urban legend." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

Policy Makers call for University Internet Filters.

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:16:28 GMT

Policy Makers call for University Internet Filters.

At today[base ']s House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property hearing, titled [base "]An Update - Piracy on University Networks,[per thou] we heard from legislators that they[base ']re very concerned about [base "]piracy[per thou] on campus networks.

You should be able to watch the video of the hearing here.

The common theme of the solutions was not only educating students (which all of the witnesses said that they were working on collaboratively), but for campuses to employ technology to filter the packets flowing over the network.

[Public Knowledge - Blogging, Events, and Action Alerts]

Crank Calling for Jesus.

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 03:59:01 GMT

Crank Calling for Jesus. A "family values" group trying to clean up Hollywood employs a determined computer dialer named Cammie, which manages to annoy people from coast to coast. In 27B Stroke 6. [Wired News: Top Stories]

C-SPAN Adopts Creative Commons-Style License.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:59:33 GMT

C-SPAN Adopts Creative Commons-Style License. Trillian_1138 writes "C-SPAN, a network in the US dedicated to airing governmental proceedings, has adopted a Creative Commons-style license for all its content. This follows the network claiming Speaker of the House Pelosi's use of C-Span videos on her site violated their copyright. Specifically, 'C-SPAN is introducing a liberalized copyright policy for current, future, and past coverage of any official events sponsored by Congress and any federal agency -- about half of all programming offered on the C-SPAN television networks -- which will allow non-commercial copying, sharing, and posting of C-SPAN video on the Internet, with attribution.' Here is the press release. The question remains whether videos of governmental proceedings should be public domain by default or whether the attribution requirement is reasonable in the face of easy video copying and distribution." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

Webcasters face doubling of royalties.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:49:21 GMT

Webcasters face doubling of royalties.

Bad Moon Rising on the rise

The Library of Congress' copyright board, which sets the royalty rates for statutory licenses, proposes doubling the amount webcasters pay for their statutory license in the next the few years.

[The Register - Music and Media]

Cuban gets stuck into YouTube, demands it squeals.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:47:54 GMT

Cuban gets stuck into YouTube, demands it squeals.

'Talk, morons'

Attention-seeking tech billionaire Mark Cuban has set the legal dogs on YouTube, demanding it snitch on users who uploaded video which one of his investments owns the rights to.

[The Register - Music and Media]

The Fix is In: Massive Web Radio Fee Hike and the XM/Sirius Merger.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:37:56 GMT

The Fix is In: Massive Web Radio Fee Hike and the XM/Sirius Merger. Greetings. While no conspiracy beyond "business as usual" is required to explain this confluence of events, it is fascinating to note the continuing collapse of true competition in the music and radio industries (as in the Internet ISP industry). [Lauren Weinstein's Blog]

'30s Hollywood Cartoon Censorship.

Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:45:23 GMT

'30s Hollywood Cartoon Censorship. Cartoon Brew highlights how the Hayes Code impacted cartoons in 1939 -- male characters couldn't be effeminate, kids had to behave and Flossie the cow's sexy udders had to be clothed. At Table of Malcontents. [Wired News: Top Stories]

Stations agree on anti-payola settlement | Houston Chronicle

Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:17:54 GMT

Radio listeners weary of hearing the same songs over and over may have something to cheer about: Broadcasters have tentatively agreed to anti-payola settlements that could shake up music playlists at some of the nation's largest radio chains.

Four major broadcast companies would pay the government $12.5 million and provide 8,400 half-hour segments of free airtime for independent record labels and local artists, The Associated Press has learned.

The agreement is aimed at curbing payola -- generally defined as radio stations accepting cash or other consideration from record companies in exchange for airplay. The practice has been around as long as the radio industry and was made illegal after scandals in the late 1950s.

Two Federal Communications Commission officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because final language has not been approved by the full commission, said the monetary settlement is part of a consent decree between the FCC and Clear Channel Communications Inc., CBS Radio, Entercom Communications Corp. and Citadel Broadcasting Corp.

The settlement was reached at the same time as a separate deal designed to lead to more airtime for smaller record companies and their lesser-known artists as well as local musicians.

Major Broadcasters Hit With $12M Payola Fine.

Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:15:47 GMT

Major Broadcasters Hit With $12M Payola Fine. Gr8Apes writes with a just-breaking AP story reporting that the FCC is wrapping up a settlement in which four major broadcast companies would pay the government $12.5 million and provide 8,400 half-hour segments of free airtime for independent record labels and local artists. The finish line is near after a 3-year investigation. An indie promoter is quoted: "It's absolutely the most historic agreement that the independent community has had with radio. Without a doubt, nothing else comes close." [Slashdot]

Turkey Censors YouTube.

Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:39:03 GMT

Turkey Censors YouTube. FM Reader writes "After a controversial mock-up video reportedly submitted by a Greek member about Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, Turkish courts ordered the national ISPs to ban the online video service, YouTube. YouTube hostnames are currently redirected at the DNS level to a page that announces the court order." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

WIRED Blogs: Danger Room - The Pentagon Wants TiVo (to Watch You)

Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:34:51 GMT

Reuters yesterday reported on a recently issued study on future technologies written by the Pentagon's Defense Science Board. More than anything, it seems these outside advisers want a surveillance system that would put Big Brother to shame, and they're looking at the commercial sector to provide it:

The Pentagon Wants a 'TiVo' to Watch You.

Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:31:33 GMT

The Pentagon Wants a 'TiVo' to Watch You. An anonymous reader writes "Danger Room, a Wired blog, today cites a study of future electronic snooping technologies from Reuters, written by the Pentagon's Defense Science Board. More than anything, it seems these outside advisers want a surveillance system that would put Big Brother to shame, and they're looking at the commercial sector to provide it. 'The ability to record terabyte and larger databases will provide an omnipresent knowledge of the present and the past that can be used to rewind battle space observations in TiVo-like fashion and to run recorded time backwards to help identify and locate even low-level enemy forces. For example, after a car bomb detonates, one would have the ability to play high-resolution data backward in time to follows the vehicle back to the source, and then use that knowledge to focus collection and gain additional information by organizing and searching through archived data.'" [Slashdot]

Techdirt: An Economic Explanation For Why DRM Cannot Open Up New Business Model Opportunities

Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:11:01 GMT

Continuing my increasingly lengthy series of posts on the economics of non-scarce goods, I wanted to take a look at an issue that I mentioned in passing earlier this week concerning the ongoing insistence among the entertainment industry (and the DRM industry) that DRM somehow will open up new business models. I'd like to explain why, economically, that doesn't make sense.

First, to clarify, I should point out that, technically, I mean that it doesn't make sense that DRM could ever open up feasible or successful business models. Anyone can create a new unsuccessful business model. For example, I'm now selling $1 bills for $1,000. It's a new business model (well, perhaps not to the dot coms of the original dot com boom), but it's unlikely to be a successful one (if you disagree, and would like to pay me $1,000 for $1, please use the feedback form above to make arrangements). However, for a new business model to make sense, it needs to provide more value. Providing more value than people can get elsewhere is the reason why a business model succeeds. So, any new business model must be based on adding additional value.

Why DRM Cannot Open Up New Business Models.

Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:08:11 GMT

Why DRM Cannot Open Up New Business Models. An anonymous reader writes "Techdirt has a cool post up that doesn't just explain why DRM is bad, but gives a really interesting economic explanation for why DRM cannot create successful new business models. Since the RIAA and MPAA keep insisting that DRM will create new business models, it's useful to see an argument for why that's basically impossible." As the article says, anyone can create a "new" business model. Creating a successful "new" business model is what is so elusive here. [Slashdot]

U.S. Royalty Rates Hit Webcasting.

Mon, 05 Mar 2007 01:47:12 GMT

U.S. Royalty Rates Hit Webcasting. It looks grim for webcasters -- the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board announces retroactive rates, endorsing a per-play proposal by RIAA-associated SoundExchange. In Listening Post. [Wired News: Top Stories]

RIAA's 'Expert' Witness Testimony Now Online.

Sun, 04 Mar 2007 02:43:58 GMT

RIAA's 'Expert' Witness Testimony Now Online. NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The online community now has an opportunity to see the fruits of its labor. Back in December, the Slashdot ('What Questions Would You Ask an RIAA Expert?') and Groklaw ('Another Lawyer Would Like to Pick Your Brain, Please') communities were asked for their input on possible questions to pose to the RIAA's 'expert'. Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University, was scheduled to be deposed in February in UMG v. Lindor, for the first time in any RIAA case. Ms. Lindor's lawyers were flooded with about 1400 responses. The deposition of Dr. Jacobson went forward on February 23, 2007, and the transcript is now available online (pdf) (ascii). Ray Beckerman, one of Ms. Lindor's attorneys, had this comment: 'We are deeply grateful to the community for reviewing our request, for giving us thoughts and ideas, and for reviewing other readers' responses. Now I ask the tech community to review this all-important transcript, and bear witness to the shoddy investigation and junk science upon which the RIAA has based its litigation war against the people. The computer scientists among you will be astounded that the RIAA has been permitted to burden our court system with cases based upon such arrant and careless nonsense.'" [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

BitTorrent Video Download Store Falls Flat.

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:47:44 GMT

BitTorrent Video Download Store Falls Flat. seriously writes "We've all heard about BitTorrent going legit this week with legal movie and TV show downloads. Ars Technica took a look at the service to see how usable it was and ran into a few snags, including not being able to download or even open the video files on some computers. However, the ones that they did manage to open varied a lot in quality. Overall, they blame DRM: 'Without knowing whether browser compatibility and dysfunctional video files are a rare occurrence or not, it's hard to say whether BitTorrent's service is a good one overall. Our initial experiences have been disappointing and frustrating, and guess what the culprit is once again? DRM. Why the DRM failed to work on 50% of our purchases is not clear, but whatever the cause, it's simply unacceptable.'" [Slashdot]

Audio Watermark Web Spider Starts Crawling.

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:43:48 GMT

Audio Watermark Web Spider Starts Crawling. DippityDo writes "A new web tool is scanning the net for signs of copyright infringement. Digimarc's patented system searches video and audio files for special watermarks that would indicate they are not to be shared, then reports back to HQ with the results. It sounds kind of creepy, but has a long way to go before it makes a practical difference. 'For the system to work, players at multiple levels would need to get involved. Broadcasters would need to add identifying watermarks to their broadcast, in cooperation with copyright holders, and both parties would need to register their watermarks with the system. Then, in the event that a user capped a broadcast and uploaded it online, the scanner system would eventually find it and report its location online. Yet the system is not designed to hop on P2P networks or private file sharing hubs, but instead crawls public web sites in search of watermarked material.'" [Slashdot]

You Can Plead Guilty Here.

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:36:31 GMT

You Can Plead Guilty Here. The RIAA unveils P2PLawsuits.com, a site that allows people turned in by their universities or ISPs for copyright infringement to settle their cases in advance of due process. In Listening Post. [Wired News: Top Stories]

MPAA Fires Back at AACS Decryption Utility.

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:43:21 GMT

MPAA Fires Back at AACS Decryption Utility. RulerOf writes "The AACS Decryption utility released this past December known as BackupHDDVD originally authored by Muslix64 of the Doom9 forums has received its first official DMCA Takedown Notice. It has been widely speculated that the utility itself was not an infringing piece of software due to the fact that it is merely "a textbook implementation of AACS," written with the help of documents publicly available at the AACS LA's website, and that the AACS Volume Unique Keys that the end user isn't supposed to have access to are in fact the infringing content, but it appears that such is not the case." --- From the thread "...you must input keys and then it will decrypt the encrypted content. If this is the case, than according to the language of the DMCA it does sound like it is infringing. Section 1201(a) says that it is an infringement to "circumvent a technological measure." The phrase, "circumvent a technological measure" is defined as "descramb(ling) a scrambled work or decrypt(ing) an encrypted work, ... without the authority of the copyright owner." If BackupHDDVD does in fact decrypt encrypted content than per the DMCA it needs a license to do that." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

Berners-Lee Speaks Out Against DRM, Advocates Net Neutrality.

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:31:36 GMT

Berners-Lee Speaks Out Against DRM, Advocates Net Neutrality. narramissic writes "Speaking before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Tim Berners-Lee advocated for net neutrality, saying that the Web deserves 'special treatment' as a communications medium to protect its nondiscriminatory approach to content. Berners-Lee's more controversial statements came on the topic of DRM, in which he suggested that instead of DRM, copyright holders should provide information on how to legally use online material, allowing users the opportunity 'to do the right thing.' This led to an odd exchange with Representative Mary Bono who compared Berner-Lee's suggestion to 'having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit.'" [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

'Electric Slide' Creator Steps on Fair Use.

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:23:19 GMT

'Electric Slide' Creator Steps on Fair Use.

EFF Lawsuit Battles Bogus Copyright Claims

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit today against the man who claims to have created the popular line dance "The Electric Slide," asking the court to protect the free speech rights of a videographer who captured a few steps of the dance in a documentary video he posted to the Internet.

EFF's client, Kyle Machulis, shot the video at a concert last month. In one ten-second segment, a group of fans in the audience attempts to dance part of the Electric Slide. Machulis later uploaded the video to YouTube. Within just a few days, Richard Silver, owner of www.the-electricslidedance.com, filed a takedown demand under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Silver claimed he owned the copyright to the Electric Slide and that Machulis' video infringed his rights. The removal appears to be part of a broad campaign by Silver to misuse copyright allegations to prevent dancers from performing the dance "incorrectly."

"Silver's claim of copyright infringement is absurd and is a classic example of the kind of DMCA abuse that can chill Internet speech," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "Even if Silver had a valid copyright in the dance--which is not at all clear--this is a fair use and not infringing."

EFF's complaint asks that the judge immediately rule that the video does not infringe any copyright owned by Silver, and that Silver cease his meritless claims towards Machulis.

"We spend a lot of time fighting the misuse of copyright law on the Internet, but this situation is particularly outrageous," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz. "With thousands of videos being uploaded to sites like YouTube every day, free speech is on the line and needs to be protected."

For the full complaint:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/electricslide/complaint.pdf

Contacts:

Corynne McSherry
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
corynne@eff.org

Jason Schultz
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
jason@eff.org

[EFF: Breaking News]

RIAA Opposes 'Fair Use' Bill.

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:10:42 GMT

RIAA Opposes 'Fair Use' Bill. Congressional move to easing digital copying would "legalize hacking," say music labels. [PC World: Latest Technology News]

Action Alert - Support the FAIR USE Act!

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:02:50 GMT

Action Alert - Support the FAIR USE Act!

Reps. Rick Boucher and John Doolittle's FAIR USE Act [PDF] would remove some of the entertainment industry's most draconian anti-innovation weapons and chip away at the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) broad restrictions on fair use. Take action now and tell Congress to help restore balance in copyright now.

Technology companies play a game of Russian roulette whenever they create products with both infringing and non-infringing uses. Current "secondary liability" standards don't provide enough certainty, and if innovators guess wrong, they can be hit with statutory damages as high as $30,000 per work infringed. When it comes to mass-market products like the iPod or TiVo, damages could run into the trillions of dollars -- more than enough to bankrupt anyone from the smallest start-ups to the biggest companies. Unlike in other areas, the private assets of corporate officers, directors and investors are not shielded from liability in copyright cases.

The FAIR USE Act would eliminate statutory damages for secondary liability and allow innovators to make more reasonable business decisions about manageable levels of legal risk. Meanwhile, copyright owners could still get injunctions and actual damages for harm suffered, putting them in no worse a position than civil litigants in most other areas.

The bill would also codify the Supreme Court's "Betamax doctrine" as it pertains to hardware devices, making clear that manufacturers cannot be held liable based on the design of technologies with substantial non-infringing uses.

Finally, the bill would loosen the grip of the DMCA, which restricts circumvention of digital rights management (DRM) restrictions even for lawful uses. The FAIR Use Act adds 12 exemptions, including the ability to circumvent for classic fair use purposes like news reporting, research, commentary, and criticism.

Broader DMCA and copyright reform remains absolutely necessary, but if passed this bill would be a big first step in the right direction. Tell your representatives to support it now.

For more information, read the bill here, and check out this EFF article from last year discussing statutory damages and proposing their elimination in secondary liability cases.

[EFF: Deep Links]

Administrivia: Now we have a overheated CPU ( 60 degrees centigrade )

Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:39:01 GMT

OK, if the DDOS attack wasn't enough. Now our server went down with a temperature overload. We were up to 60 degrees centigrade when we shut down. The CPU and a broken fan have been replaced.

Administrivia: Our data-center was hit by a DDOS attack today.

Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:19:59 GMT

Sorry for being either very slow or off the net for a while recently. The data-center we are part of was hit by a DDOS (Distributed Denial Of Service) attack recently. At the moment it looks to be under control, but we are keeping an eye on things.

EMI to Apple, Microsoft: Ditching DRM is going to cost you

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:48:25 GMT

Earlier this month it was widely reported that EMI was indeed ready to cast DRM into the dark abyss and earn the company the honorable status of being the first major music label to realize that DRM alienates honest customers. As it turns out, the company is indeed open to the possibility of ditching DRM, but they expect to be paid well for it, and the online music retailers aren't ready to meet their demands.

EMI is the only major record label to seriously consider abandoning the disaster that is DRM, but earlier reports that focused on the company's reformist attitude apparently missed the mark: EMI is willing to lose the DRM, but they demand a considerable advance payment to make it happen. According to Bloomberg, EMI has backed out of talks for now because no one will pay what they're asking. No dollar amounts are known at this time.

EMI ó Ditching DRM is Going To Cost You.

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:46:05 GMT

EMI [~] Ditching DRM is Going To Cost You. 33rpm writes "EMI has told online music stores that selling its catalog without DRM is going to cost them a lot of money. 'EMI is the only major record label to seriously consider abandoning the disaster that is DRM, but earlier reports that focused on the company's reformist attitude apparently missed the mark: EMI is willing to lose the DRM, but they demand a considerable advance payment to make it happen. EMI has backed out of talks for now because no one will pay what they're asking.'" [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

EMI: DRM stays.

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:39:04 GMT

EMI: DRM stays.

Talks break up

EMI has broken off talks with digital music download services about providing a DRM-free repertoire.

[The Register - Music and Media]

DRM Causes Piracy.

Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:26:18 GMT

DRM Causes Piracy. igorsk recommends an essay by Eric Flint, editor at Baen Publishing and an author himself, over at Baen's online SF magazine, Baen Universe. In it Flint argues that, far from curbing piracy of copyrighted materials, DRM actually causes it. Quoting: "Electronic copyright infringement is something that can only become an 'economic epidemic' under certain conditions. Any one of the following: 1) The products they want... are hard to find, and thus valuable. 2) The products they want are high-priced, so there's a fair amount of money to be saved by stealing them. 3) The legal products come with so many added-on nuisances that the illegal version is better to begin with. Those are the three conditions that will create widespread electronic copyright infringement, especially in combination. Why? Because they're the same three general conditions that create all large-scale smuggling enterprises. And... Guess what? It's precisely those three conditions that DRM creates in the first place. So far from being an impediment to so-called 'online piracy,' it's DRM itself that keeps fueling it and driving it forward." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

RIAA to Parents: Pop-Ups + Viruses = Piracy!

Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:01:25 GMT

RIAA to Parents: Pop-Ups + Viruses = Piracy!

If a parent sees pop-up ads and viruses on her computer, she can be sued for copyright infringement by the RIAA.

At least that's what the RIAA is arguing in a recent court filing in the Capitol v. Foster case, in which a federal judge made the RIAA cough up attorney's fees to a mother, Debra Foster, who had been sued because her daughter was file sharing. The RIAA lawyers had dawdled in dismissing their complaint against Foster, even after her child admitted to being the file-sharer in the house (the RIAA went ahead and got a default judgment against the child).

This new filing marks the first time the RIAA has explained its claim that parents are liable for the infringements committed by their children (a theory that has never been accepted by any court, to the best of my knowledge). The argument is pretty remarkable, built on a house of cards including the notion that "everyone knows" pop-up ads and viruses signify piracy! Here's the relevant portion of the RIAA brief:

Given that it has been established that the Kazaa file-sharing program was on the Foster family's computer, the evidence would have established that the Kazaa icon was clearly visible on the computer when defendant was using it and that there were likely a substantial number of pop-up advertisements, the types of which have been associated with the Kazaa program.

In other words, the RIAA believes that pop-up ads and a system tray icon should put every parent on the hook for every download on the computer.

In addition, it is undisputed that defendant had an account with Cox Communications. Defendant's subscriber agreement with Cox made clear that defendant, as the account holder, was responsible for what is done on her account. ...

Here, the RIAA is trying to make a private contract between Cox and the parent into a promise to the RIAA. Of course, since this is standard boilerplate in ISP customer agreements, this argument would apply equally to every broadband subscriber, whether parent, employer, library, or school.

Finally, plaintiffs believe that discovery would have revealed substantial other evidence of defendant's knowledge and material assistance in the underlying infringements. For example, the computer may well have been in a common area such that defendant heard music coming from the computer when admitted infringer Amanda Foster was using it. In addition, the evidence may have established, as it has in other similar cases, that there were viruses on the computer due to Kazaa and that defendant may have had work done on the computer that would have revealed the existence of the file-sharing program. ...

Yes, parents, that means every time you hear music emanating from a computer, the RIAA believes you have a legal duty to check the copyright pedigree of its source. Oh, and if your computer has a virus, same answer.

Similarly, plaintiffs believe that, had they been given the opportunity, they would have been able to prove vicarious infringement. Specifically, plaintiffs would have proved that, as a parent, defendant had the full right and ability to control her daughter's use of the computer at issue. Most parents impose restrictions on computer usage by their children (e.g., rules about pornography sites and chat rooms), and plaintiffs believe that defendant would have done so as well. Plaintiffs further would have proven that defendant had a direct financial interest in her daughter's infringing activities, which, of course, involve substantial sums of money in terms of the value of the recordings at issue and the potential liabilities resulting from such activities.

By this logic, the more responsible you are as a parent, the more the RIAA will be entitled to collect from you. Moreover, the RIAA is confusing the benefit to the child with the benefit to the parent. As every parent knows, just because your kids wants a new CD doesn't mean you would have bought it for them.

Let's be clear what this pretzel logic is really all about -- the RIAA wants to reach a hand into every parent's pocket in order to fuel their mass litigation campaign, irrespective of whether the law supports this. But there is a bigger risk, as well. If court's accept this argument in file-sharing cases, the RIAA will have a precedent to use against every employer, every library, and every school for every copyright infringement committed on its computers. So I'm on the side of the judge in Capitol v. Foster, who dubbed these RIAA arguments "untested and marginal."

For more on parental liability in RIAA file sharing lawsuits, take a look at the memo we prepared on the subject in 2005 (soon to be updated in light of more recent authorities, including Capitol v. Foster).

[EFF: Deep Links]

EFF - miniLinks for 2007-02-21.

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:14:58 GMT

miniLinks for 2007-02-21.

Free Congress!
Coders gather to open up more of the legislature's deliberations.

Republicans, Democrats Spat Over IP Rights in Congress TV
After Speaker of the House Nancy Polosi is accused of "pirating" C-SPAN, the TV service reiterates that it has no copyright interest in the video.

Chinese Lawyers Protest Sina's Blog Censorship
Fight the arbitrary nature of China's limits on free speech.

New York Times on the DJ Mixtape Arrests
"DJs continued to release tapes -- some with hastily added tracks on which rappers cursed the RIAA"

Disney Must Consider Sharing Pooh's Honey
The endless fight over the merchandising rights to A.A. Milne's work continues to plague the copyright maximalist company.

Students Balk at University's "Free" Music Deals
One insider's view of dealing with the college-only licensed music services.

Bipartisan Effort to Junk Real ID Law
Democrat Rep. Tom Allen and Republican Rep. Scott Lansley push for reform of costly, invasive national ID mandate.

A 55-inch TV Is too big for the Super Bowl
Consumer electronics mavens scratch their heads at NFL's Super Bowl rules.

UK Government Rejects Calls for DRM Ban
While faulty, DRM is good for price discrimination, Prime Minister's office says.

Framing the DRM Debate
LinuxJournal's Don Marti says it's about more than property.

Europe's Plan to Track Phone and Net Use
Data retention implementation to be far worse than original plans.

UK Now Running 439,000 E-mail and Phone Taps
Report's author declares wiretap error rate "unacceptably high."

[EFF: Deep Links]

Studios, FBI Teach Swedish Cops to Hunt File Sharers.

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:10:37 GMT

Studios, FBI Teach Swedish Cops to Hunt File Sharers. The FBI and the MPAA, with the Swedish antipiracy organization Antipiratbyren, are training Swedish law enforcement officers in copyright and piracy matters. [PC World: Latest Technology News]

Colleges Struggle to Cope With Flood of Copyright Complaints.

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:49:38 GMT

Colleges Struggle to Cope With Flood of Copyright Complaints.

The major record labels are sending thousands more copyright nastygrams to colleges regarding student file sharing this year. Of course, file sharing continues unabated, and these P2P-related notices will simply push fans to use other readily-accessible technologies that the RIAA can't easily monitor -- copying music through iTunes over the campus LAN, swapping hard drives and USB flash drives, burning recordable DVDs, and forming ad hoc wireless networks.

So the RIAA's strategy still won't stop file sharing, but it certainly will cause collateral damage to academic freedom, free speech, and privacy. In a recently released report, the Brennan Center lays out what that cost looks like today based on interviews with representatives from 25 service providers including 10 from universities. Universities are already being forced to waste substantial resources on doing the RIAA's dirty work. Flooded with machine-generated complaints, schools are unable to evaluate the merits of particular complaints. While lacking procedural safeguards to make sure students wrongly accused of infringement are not penalized, many schools have adopted stricter penalties than the law requires. Schools have also adopted network monitoring and filtering tools that interfere with legitimate expression.

The increase in P2P-related notices stands only to make matters worse. The RIAA's Cary Sherman states that the increase in the notices is "something we feel we have to do," but blanket licensing provides a clear alternative to blanket lawsuits. Take action now to help stop the lawsuit campaign.

[EFF: Deep Links]

Music moguls seek security blanket - Los Angeles Times

Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:24:50 GMT

One way to judge the music industry's troubles is to watch annual sales figures for CDs, which have slumped 25% since 2000. But it's more revealing to chart how the major record companies' attitudes about new business models online have been shifting.

At first the shifts were almost too small to notice, as when the labels started making a handful of downloadable songs available for $2.50 or more. But as the file-sharing phenomenon grew and CD sales slipped, the changes became more pronounced. The labels started offering the rights to songs on terms that didn't cripple their online partners. They embraced Apple's iTunes Music Store, whose anti-piracy technology doesn't actually limit copying. They cut deals with file-sharing companies for subscription services that let users share the songs they rented.

Along the way, though, the major labels adamantly refused to do the kind of deal necessary to replicate what the original Napster, Kazaa and eDonkey had provided: they would not accept a flat fee a "blanket" license that lets Internet service providers sell an all-you-can-eat sonic buffet, enabling customers to download, burn and swap as much as they pleased. The rights would be included in the cost of a high-speed Internet access line, so the downloads would seem free while still generating royalties for artists, songwriters, labels and publishers.

That reticence may be giving way, too, thanks to the relentless decline in revenue. Just look at what the head of the major record companies' global trade group, let slip last month at a music-industry gathering in France. If Internet service providers "want to come to us and look for a blanket license for an amount per month," IFPI chief John Kennedy said, "let's engage in that discussion."

His U.S. counterpart, Mitch Bainwol of the Recording Industry Assn. of America (RIAA), quickly added that the licenses should be negotiated voluntarily, not compelled by the government. So that part of the labels' thinking hasn't changed. Nevertheless, Kennedy's remark reflects a potential sea change in the way the record companies do business. If the labels follow through, it could trigger the greatest explosion in innovation since engineers at the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany developed the MP3 format.

That's a big "if," but two of the four majors have already taken the first step. In England, a venture called PlayLouder MSP is negotiating deals with record companies and music publishers for a competitively priced high-speed Internet access service that will include the right to download millions of songs, transfer them to portable devices and share them with friends. The main restriction is that subscribers can't send songs to people who aren't customers of PlayLouder MSP. In other words, it's a private electronic playground for music lovers.

The company, which expects to launch its service this year, plans to put a chunk of the monthly service charges into a royalty pool that would be divided according to popularity--the more often a song is downloaded, the larger the share of the pool that its copyright holders will receive. To monitor the network and enforce its borders, PlayLouder MSP relies on technology that can identify songs as they pass through the network--and, if necessary, block them. So far, several large independent labels from the U.S. and the U.K. have agreed to let the company offer MP3s of all their songs, while two of the majors, Sony BMG and EMI, have agreed to supply songs wrapped in electronic locks. Those locks won't make much difference, though; as part of the deal, subscribers will be free to share MP3s from all of PlayLouder MSP's partners, including Sony BMG and EMI.

LA Times: Start Blanket Licensing, Stop Blanket Lawsuits.

Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:19:11 GMT

LA Times: Start Blanket Licensing, Stop Blanket Lawsuits.

The major record labels have stayed the course for the last five years with predictable results -- they've stuck by DRM, ratcheted up their file sharing lawsuit campaign, and let revenues continue to slide. Today, the LA Times suggests some reasons to think the labels may finally be coming around to a sensible solution that EFF has long advocated -- blanket licenses for music fans to share as much music as they like for a flat monthly fee.

"If Internet service providers 'want to come to us and look for a blanket license for an amount per month,' IFPI chief John Kennedy said, 'let's engage in that discussion....'
In the past, label executives made three main arguments against the blanket-licensing concept: it turned their companies into glorified marketing firms; it forced labels to fight over a fixed pool of dollars, so that one artist's gain was another one's loss; and there wouldn't be enough money in the pool to replace all the CD sales that would be lost. The first two complaints get little mention today; instead, the make-or-break issue for blanket-licensing deals is the amount of royalties the service can generate."

"That's the right focus. Blanket licensing wouldn't transform labels into advertising companies; the only element of their business they would lose is the part that distributes plastic discs, and that's going away anyway. When consumers can choose from a virtually unlimited supply of songs, the ability of a label to find, sign and promote the most compelling artists will be even more important than it is today. And the fees that consumers pay for downloading rights represent only a portion of the money [that blanket licensing] could generate for copyright holders. There's also money to be made from advertisers, mobile phone companies, device makers and premium music services that want to insert themselves into the network."

As we point out in our white paper about blanket licensing, even a small monthly fee from the millions of American filesharers could provide more profit than the industry has ever seen.

Unfortunately, the record labels haven't done a complete 180 from their backward-thinking ways. For instance, the labels seem eager to coopt ISPs into helping push their file sharing lawsuit campaign even further, and the AP reports that the labels have radically increased their copyright notices aimed at college students. Neither of these actions will put a dime in artists' pockets or get the labels any closer to a real solution.

The LA Times story closes by saying, "You have to wonder how low [major label revenues] have to go before blanket licenses look like a better approach than blanket lawsuits." To put it another way: how much longer do ordinary music fans and innovators have to be treated like criminals before a better way forward is finally pursued?

[EFF: Deep Links]

From the Unmitigated Gall Department.

Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:15:31 GMT

From the Unmitigated Gall Department.

How is it that the National Association of Broadcasters, which is seeking regulatory relief from current media ownership caps, has the gumption to criticize the proposed merger of XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio? Their statement following the announced merger can be found here, but this is the part I like best:

When the FCC authorized satellite radio, it specifically found that the public would be served best by two competitive nationwide systems. Now, with their stock price at rock bottom and their business model in disarray[sigma]they seek a government bail-out to avoid competing in the marketplace.

[Public Knowledge - Blogging, Events, and Action Alerts]

'Hoax' stuns classical music world.

Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:01:34 GMT

'Hoax' stuns classical music world.

Joyce Hatto: the greatest pianist no-one has heard of

Gramophone magazine has unearthed what one sound recording expert describes as "the biggest attempt at recording theft ever."

[The Register - Music and Media]

Editor: Sounds like a perfect example of GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out). Remember, just because it's on a computer, doesn't mean that' it is accurate.

Hip-Hop Outlaw (Industry Version) - Samantha M. Shapiro - New York Times

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:09 GMT

Late in the afternoon of Jan. 16, a SWAT team from the Fulton County Sheriff's Office, backed up by officers from the Clayton County Sheriff's Office and the local police department, along with a few drug-sniffing dogs, burst into a unmarked recording studio on a short, quiet street in an industrial neighborhood near the Georgia Dome in Atlanta. The officers entered with their guns drawn; the local police chief said later that they were "prepared for the worst." They had come to serve a warrant for the arrest of the studio's owners on the grounds that they had violated the state's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law, or RICO, a charge often used to lock up people who make a business of selling drugs or breaking people's arms to extort money. The officers confiscated recording equipment, cars, computers and bank statements along with more than 25,000 music CDs. Two of the three owners of the studio, Tyree Simmons, who is 28, and Donald Cannon, who is 27, were arrested and held overnight in the Fulton County jail. Eight employees, mostly interns from local colleges, were briefly detained as well.

Later that night, a reporter for the local Fox TV station, Stacey Elgin, delivered a report on the raid from the darkened street in front of the studio. She announced that the owners of the studio, known professionally as DJ Drama and DJ Don Cannon, were arrested for making "illegal CDs." The report cut to an interview with Matthew Kilgo, an official with the Recording Industry Association of America, who was involved in the raid. The R.I.A.A., a trade and lobbying group that represents the major American record labels, works closely with the Department of Justice and local police departments to crack down on illegal downloading and music piracy, which most record-company executives see as a dire threat to their business.

Kilgo works in the R.I.A.A.'s Atlanta office, and in the weeks before the raid, the local police chief said, R.I.A.A. investigators helped the police collect evidence and conduct surveillance at the studio. Kilgo consulted with the R.I.A.A.'s national headquarters in advance of the raid, and after the raid, a team of men wearing R.I.A.A. jackets was responsible for boxing the CDs and carting them to a warehouse for examination.

RIAA Hires Artists, Then Sends In the SWAT team.

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:58:44 GMT

RIAA Hires Artists, Then Sends In the SWAT team. cancan writes "The NY times is carrying an article about how the RIAA is hiring hip hop artists to make mix tapes, and then helping the police raid their studios. In the case of DJ Drama and DJ Don Cannon, they were raided by SWAT teams with their guns drawn. The local police chief said later that they were 'prepared for the worst.' Men in RIAA jackets helped cart away 'evidence'. Just the same, 'Record labels regularly hire mixtape D.J.'s to produce CDs featuring a specific artist. In many cases, these arrangements are conducted with a wink and a nod rather than with a contract; the label doesn't officially grant the D.J. the right to distribute the artist's songs or formally allow the artist to record work outside of his contract.' " --- This is more of the shenanigans that we've previously discussed on the site. [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

AACS: Slow Start on Traitor Tracing.

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:45:38 GMT

AACS: Slow Start on Traitor Tracing.

[Previous posts in this series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.]

Alex wrote on Thursday about the next step in the breakdown of AACS, the encryption scheme used on next-gen DVD discs (HD-DVD and Blu-ray): last week a person named Arnezami discovered and published a processing key that apparently can be used to decrypt all existing discs.

We[base ']ve been discussing AACS encryption, on and off, for several weeks now. To review the state of play: the encryption scheme serves two purposes: key distribution and traitor tracing. Key distribution ensures that every player device, except devices that have been blacklisted, can decrypt a disc. Traitor tracing helps the authorities track down which player has been compromised, if key information is leaked. The AACS authorities encode the header information for each disc in such a way that keys are distributed properly and traitor tracing can occur.

Or that[base ']s the theory, at least. In practice, the authorities are making very little use of the traitor tracing facilities. We[base ']re not sure why this is. They surely have an interest in tracing traitors, and failing to encode discs to facilitate traitor tracing is just a lost opportunity.

The main traitor tracing feature is the so-called sequence key mechanism. This mechanism is not used at all on any of the discs we have seen, nor have we seen any reports of its use.

A secondary traitor tracing feature involves the use of processing keys. Each player device has a unique set of a few hundred device keys, from which it can calculate a few billion different processing keys. Each processing key is computable by only a fraction of the players in the world. Each disc[base ']s headers include a list of the processing keys that can decrypt the disc; any one of the listed processing keys is sufficient to decrypt the disc.

For some reason, all existing discs seem to list the same set of 512 processing keys. Each player will be able to compute exactly one of these processing keys. So when Arnezami leaked a processing key, the authorities could deduce that he must have extracted it from a player that knew that particular processing key. In other words, it narrowed down the identity of his player to about 0.2% of all possible players.

Because all existing discs use the same set of processing keys, the processing key leaked by Arnezami can decrypt any existing disc. Had the authorities used different sets of processing keys on different discs [~] which was perfectly feasible [~] then a single processing key would not have unlocked so many discs. Arnezami would have had to extract and publish many processing keys, which would have made his job more difficult, and would have further narrowed down which player he had.

The ability to use different processing key sets on different discs is part of the AACS traitor tracing facility. In failing to do this, the authorities once again failed to use the traitor tracing mechanisms at their disposal.

Why aren[base ']t the authorities working as hard as they can to traitor-trace compromised players? Sure, the sequence key and processing key mechanisms are a bit complex, but if the authorities weren[base ']t going to use these mechanisms, then why would they have gone to the difficulty and expense of designing them and requiring all players to implement them? It[base ']s a mystery to us.

EFF: DeepLinks - RIAA to ISPs: Help Us Sue Your Customers Better

Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:53:10 GMT

As if suing thousands of music fans isn't bad enough, now the RIAA wants to conscript ISPs into helping them streamline the shakedowns. The major record labels sent a letter to ISPs across the country asking them to trade away customers' rights and make the overzealous file sharing lawsuits more profitable -- and the RIAA even has the audacity to suggest that this is all for your own good.

ISPs currently have no obligation to maintain IP log files, and that's a good thing when it comes to protecting your privacy. Those log files can serve as Internet breadcrumbs -- your ISP and any third party that has access to them can retrace your online activities.

But the RIAA wants ISPs to maintain (and disclose) a customer's IP logs for six months whenever the RIAA says the user may have infringed copyright. In exchange, the record companies will reduce its initial lawsuit settlement demands. Of course, the actual customer would have no say in the matter. The RIAA letter says it wants the information kept because it could "exculpate" the customer, but of course those same records can also implicate the user. Funny, the labels don't mention that.

EFF and others have long warned that copyright claims could become an altar on which personal privacy is sacrificed. Now the RIAA wants your ISP to voluntarily wield the knife, and there's no telling what else the RIAA might ask for once this cut has been made.

The RIAA also wants ISPs to keep customers in the dark about their legal options. Before the RIAA has even verified that the user is correctly identified, it wants ISPs to send along a note saying the user might be sued and can already settle potential claims. At the same time, the RIAA scolds ISPs for giving information to their customers that could help provide sound legal counsel. Instead, the RIAA wants ISPs to direct subscribers solely to the RIAA.

MPAA Violates Another Software License.

Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:45:13 GMT

MPAA Violates Another Software License. Patrick Robib, a blogger who wrote his own blogging engine called Forest Blog recently noticed that none other than the MPAA was using his work, and had completely violated his linkware license by removing all links back to the Forest Blog site, not crediting him in any way. The MPAA blog was using the Forest Blog software, but had completely stripped off his name, and links back to his site. He only found about it accidentally when he happened to visit the MPAA site. [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

Upgrade to Vista, Get More DRM.

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:02:51 GMT

Upgrade to Vista, Get More DRM. Watching "premium content" in Windows Vista requires users to play nice with Microsoft's built-in digital rights controls. In Monkey Bites. [Wired News: Top Stories]

Film Insurers Recognize Fair Use.

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:28:30 GMT

Film Insurers Recognize Fair Use.

Copyright law has long caused headaches for documentary filmmakers. Fair use allows for the use of brief excerpts of copyrighted material, but that doesn't stop some copyright holders from threatening lawsuits and demanding exorbitant licensing fees. Unless they clear every snippet, filmmakers are generally unable to get "errors and omissions" insurance, and, without that, it's basically impossible to get a film distributed and released in the theaters or TV.

To help clarify the principle of fair use, a group of five national filmmakers organizations put together a Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use in 2006. The Statement provides guidance for lawyers, broadcasters and insurers as to what constitutes fair use.

And happily, the Statement has had a dramatic effect. Cable programmer IFC has been guided by the Statement in deciding what documentaries to air, and now insurers are using it to extend coverage for filmmakers. National Union, a major insurer, has recently adjusted its policy to extend coverage for fair use. Filmmakers can now purchase insurance provided an attorney with experience in copyright law is willing to attest that the film falls within the fair use as defined in the Statement.

This is tremendous news for independent filmmakers, who should find it easier to make their art and inform the public without fear of being shut down by legal threats. As Professor Bill McGeveran suggests at the Info/Law blog this could also be "a powerful approach" for other creative communities "to preserv[e] fair use without direct legal action." Let's hope so.

[EFF: Deep Links]

Media Giant Bullies Internet Critic.

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:14:41 GMT

Media Giant Bullies Internet Critic.

Discovery Communications Tries to Chill Speech with Baseless Legal Claims

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warned Discovery Communications, Inc., today to cease its demands for the removal of an online template that uses humor to help people criticize the media company.

The "SpankMaker," located at http://www.spankmymarketer.com/, helps users create parodies of a controversial marketing campaign in connection with a Discovery television production. The online tool provides images from the marketing campaign and Discovery's corporate websites, and allows users to modify them with commentary.

A lawyer for Discovery has demanded that the website operator remove the template, claiming it infringes Discovery's copyright and is used to defame the company. But in a letter sent in response today, EFF outlines how the use of the images in the template is clearly a non-infringing parody. EFF also explains that the comments that offended Discovery are not libelous and that, in any event, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects the creator of the SpankMaker from liability for comments written by others.

"Once again, a business is trying to use false legal claims to chill criticism," said Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "Fortunately, more and more, the targets of these kinds of threats are fighting back."

EFF's letter is part of its ongoing campaign to protect online free speech. Earlier this month, EFF provided legal support for environmental activists who were threatened by the Chicago Auto Show after posting an Internet parody. In November, EFF reached an agreement with the corporate owners of the popular children's television character Barney the Purple Dinosaur to withdraw meritless legal threats against a website publisher who parodied the character.

For EFF's response letter:
http://eff.org/legal/cases/discoverycom_v_rubinstein/response_letter.pdf

Contact:

Corynne McSherry
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
corynne@eff.org

[EFF: Breaking News]

Hacker cracks HD copy protection.

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:51:01 GMT

Hacker cracks HD copy protection.

Years to develop; days to break

A lone hacker has unlocked the master key preventing the copying of high-definition DVDs in a development that is sure to get the entertainment industry's knickers wrapped tighter than a magnet's coil. What's more, the individual was able to defeat the technology with no cracking tools or reverse engineering, despite the millions of dollars and many years engineers put into developing the AACS (Advanced Access Content System) for locking down high-definition video.

[The Register - Music and Media]

Google & YouTube Turn Over User ID to Fox.

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:39:25 GMT

Google & YouTube Turn Over User ID to Fox.

ASPnews.com reports that Google has complied with subpoenas issued by the U.S. District Court in Northern California and provided 20th Century Fox the identities of two individuals who illegally uploaded entire episodes of [base "]24″ to YouTube prior to its broadcast and DVD release.

This seems within Google[base ']s rights, as YouTube[base ']s ToS clearly prohibits uploading copyright-protected content, and its privacy policy affirms they will comply with subpoenas.

Loren Baker at Search Engine Journal wonders, however, if Google[base ']s marketing relationship with Fox Interactive (providing ads for MySpace) influenced their willingness to provide the information without much of a fight[sigma]

[michaelzimmer.org]

New Hack Simplifies HD Video Copying.

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:26:52 GMT

New Hack Simplifies HD Video Copying. Hacker claims to have discovered cryptographic key that can circumvent copy restrictions on HD DVD and Blu-ray movies. [PC World: Latest Technology News]

Music Exec Rebuts Apple's Critique of DRM.

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:25:13 GMT

Music Exec Rebuts Apple's Critique of DRM. Warner Music CEO defends use of protection technology after criticism by Jobs. [PC World: Latest Technology News]

RIAA to ISPs: Help Us Sue Your Customers Better.

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:59:43 GMT

RIAA to ISPs: Help Us Sue Your Customers Better.

In other words, the RIAA wants it to be harder for customers to find out that settling early might be a bad idea. Does the RIAA readily tell customers that parents are generally not liable for infringements committed by their kids, or that bankruptcy might be a last-ditch option for some, or that the record labels have occasionally sued the wrong people? Doubtful. The RIAA's letter notes that some people have been told that "the RIAA could have been incorrect in identifying your IP address" -- which of course is true -- and "directed the subscriber to certain websites, instead of having him contact the RIAA." We suspect those websites include EFF's resources as well as the Subpoena Defense website.

It's possible that, after the fact, a given user might have preferred a cheaper, earlier settlement, but neither ISPs nor fans should have to make the remarkably perverse choice laid out in the RIAA's "offer." As we've pointed out repeatedly, the record labels could help forge a better way forward to get artists paid without suing fans or further endangering their privacy.

The last time we checked, ISPs don't work for the RIAA, so until the major record labels come to their collective senses, ISPs shouldn't be handmaidens in their misguided lawsuit campaign.

[EFF: Deep Links]

Web Censorship Proposed For Norway.

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:08:57 GMT

Web Censorship Proposed For Norway. Aqwis writes "A Norwegian Web filtering system (link in Norwegian), comparable to the Great Firewall of China, has been proposed to the Norwegian legislature. It would, if enacted, block all Web sites and servers that contain hate material (racial hate, pro-Nazi sites, hate towards the government, etc.), most kinds of pornography (not only child pornography), foreign gambling sites, and sites that share copyrighted or other material that it is not legal to share (such as most BitTorrent sites and services such as LimeWire). Reactions have been mixed; however they are mostly negative." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]

RIAA Admits ISPs Have Misidentified "John Does".

Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:33:16 GMT

RIAA Admits ISPs Have Misidentified "John Does". NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has sent out a letter to the ISPs telling them to stop making mistakes in identifying subscribers, and offering a 'Pre-Doe settlement option' -- with a discount of '$1000 or more' -- to their subscribers, if and only if the ISP agrees to preserve its logs for 180 days. Other interesting points in the letter (PDF): the RIAA will be launching a web site for 'early settlements,' www.p2plawsuits.com; the letter asks the ISPs to notify the RIAA if they have previously 'misidentified a subscriber account in response to a subpoena' or become aware of 'technical information... that causes you to question the information that you provided in response to our clients' subpoena'; it notes that ISPs have identified 'John Does' who were not even subscribers of the ISP at the time of the infringement; and it requests that ISPs furnish their underlying log files, not just names and addresses, when responding to RIAA subpoenas." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]