tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76902982024-03-13T13:38:23.634+01:00CoCoConstitutional Code in the Realm of CultureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger572125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1134855359182494602005-12-17T21:46:00.000+01:002005-12-17T22:35:59.266+01:00Scientology v. XS4ALL: Supreme Court Poops Party<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/1600/xs4alljpg.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 242px; height: 236px;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/320/xs4alljpg.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family: verdana;">Friday the Dutch Supreme Court gave its long-awaited decision in the lawsuit between Scientology and ISP XS4ALL. The legal battle that had the (tense) relationship between copyright an freedom of expression at its centre, ended somewhat disappointing. </span><br /> <br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">On the left is the "Final Victory"-shirt XS4ALL gave away to 5000 of its subscribers. The 0-4 refers to XS4ALL's legal victories over Scientology. The latest (0-3) was in the Court of Appeals (2003), which recognized the copyright of Scientology on the texts of its founder </span><span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:100%;" >L. Ron Hubbard that were included in a witness account used in an American court. Writer Karin Spaink published the account on her website, hosted by XS4ALL, leading to a copyright infringement claim by Scientology in 1995. While recognizing Scientology's copyright, the Court of Appeals</span><span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:100%;" > found that Spaink's publication should be allowed on the basis of article 10 ECHR (freedom of speech). Especially since it has an informative, non-commercial character, and the Church of Scientology shows anti-democratic objectives. Scientology appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. </span><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:100%;" > </span><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:100%;" >The <a href="http://constitutionalcode.blogspot.com/2005/03/scientology-set-for-defeat-at-dutch.html">Supreme Court's legal counsel advised</a> that the appeal should be rejected, not so much because copyright had to yield for the freedom of speech, but because </span><span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:100%;" >with the initial submission of the contested texts to the American Court's library, where it was available to the public, the Church can no longer prohibit the "further communication to the public or reproduction" under provision 15b of the Dutch Copyright Act [<a href="http://www.ivir.nl/legislation/nl/copyrightact.html">English Version</a>]. </span><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:100%;" > </span><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:100%;" >After this advice Scientology asked the Supreme Court to grant a withdraw of the appeal, if not to avoid another condemnation . In a reaction XS4ALL wrote that "</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">It's in line with Scientology's strategy to withdraw itself from lawsuits it has started. XS4ALL hopes that the Supreme Court will not accept this tactic." </span><br /> <br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Supreme Court has accepted the tactic, and dismissed the appeal as requested by Scientology [</span><a style="font-family: verdana;" href="http://www.rechtspraak.nl/ljn.asp?ljn=AT2056&u_ljn=AT2056">decision</a><span style="font-family: verdana;">, Dutch]. While this means that the decision of the Court of Appeals stands, it also means that the case has not really been judged by the highest instance. For XS4ALL this may not have brought the broadest "Final Victory" they hoped for, but final it is and its sweetness must take away some of the bitterness of the last ten years.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></span><br /></div><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1132306552779680092005-11-18T10:24:00.000+01:002005-11-18T10:35:52.793+01:00Fujitsu's DRMed Car Network<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/1600/fujitsu.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 8px 8px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/320/fujitsu.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">This new Fujitsu </span><span style="font-family: verdana;" class="newsheading"><a href="http://www.ferret.com.au/articles/fb/0c038cfb.asp">"in-vehicle information system network"</a> is nicely locked-down, so you won't be able to upload <span style="font-style: italic;">The Dukes of Hazard</span> when doing 100 miles per hour through a WiFi-infected dessert:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: verdana;" class="defaulttext"></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana;" class="defaulttext"><blockquote>This product, for the first time in the industry, carries the physical and link layers conforming to the IEEE1394b-2002 (*3) standard and the copyright protection function conforming to the DTCP (*4) standard.</blockquote></span></div> <span style="font-family: verdana;" class="defaulttext"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1132304960431112262005-11-18T09:59:00.000+01:002005-11-18T10:09:20.446+01:00Enemies of the Internet Best Of<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">The World Summit in Tunesia is a great moment to market your opinion (and some facts): <span style="font-style: italic;">Reporters without Borders</span> has published <span class="grostitre"><a href="http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15613">The 15 enemies of the Internet and other countries to watch</a>. A webpage of background on the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly <span style="font-style: italic;">sans </span>the Good:</span><br /><blockquote>The 15 “enemies” are the countries that crack down hardest on the Internet, censoring independent news sites and opposition publications, monitoring the Web to stifle dissident voices, and harassing, intimidating and sometimes imprisoning Internet users and bloggers who deviate from the regime’s official line.<span class="texte-11"> <p class="spip" align="justify">The “countries to watch” do not have much in common with the "enemies of the Internet." The plight of a Chinese Internet user, who risks prison by mentioning human rights in an online forum, does not compare with the situation of a user in France or the United States. Yet many countries that have so far respected online freedom seem these days to want to control the Internet more. Their often laudable aims include fighting terrorism, paedophilia and Internet-based crime, but the measures sometimes threaten freedom of expression.</p></span></blockquote><span class="texte-11"><p class="spip" align="justify"></p></span>I guess fighting copyright infringement is an Internet-based crime, or not considered laudable...<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 153, 0);font-size:85%;" >- - -</span><br /></div> <span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Thru</span> <a href="http://www.qlinks.net/">Quicklinks</a></span><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1132277287642743872005-11-18T02:03:00.000+01:002005-11-18T03:38:24.036+01:00Bollywood's Fashionable Copyright<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/1600/21273l.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/320/21273l.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://homeindia.com/catalogue/fashion/bollywood/amitabh.shtml">Homeindia.com</a> is a great site that has raised some fashionable discussion about copyright infringement on Bollywood costumes. The site allows you, the Bollywood-addict, to pick your favourite movie/actress/actor and order its/her/his costume from the movie for some $200. Imagine, getting that wacky Ewok-costume online, with no Indian-style Skywalker Empire juicing out its intellectual property rights to let you bleed for a, well...$200? Anyway, Bollywood's finest may not be your average Darth Vader, but <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1549360,0035.htm">the Hindutimes pops the question</a> to Homeindia.com and the Bollywood costume designers:<br /></div> <p face="verdana" style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">Is this not entering the grey area of copyright violation? Mehta says that the site has "not faced any problem so far." He adds, "The problem arises only when the dress is marketed as a separate entity and the producers themselves market the clothing that the characters are seen in. If it's not patented, it's open to the market."</p> <p face="verdana" style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">Film designer Vikram Phadnis begs to differ. "I don't think it's right to make money off our work," he says. Fellow designer Rocky S agrees, "It is totally wrong to cash in on our creative work." But he adds, "There's only so much we can do. It's not possible for a fashion designer to patent each and every piece that he makes."<br /></p> <div style="text-align: center;font-family:verdana;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">- - - </span><br /></div> <p style="text-align: justify;font-family:verdana;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >In the picture above: Satish Shah Churidar Kurta and his costume as seen in the movie "Kal Ho Na Ho" </span><span style="color: rgb(193, 191, 191);font-size:85%;" ></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1132275560071684022005-11-18T01:38:00.000+01:002005-11-18T01:59:20.106+01:00Time-Shift that Private Copy<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">An interesting take on fair use <a href="http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20051116.html">comes from</a> the company behind iFill, which allows you to receive internet radio, send it directly to your iPod, where it is stored in separate song files: "iFill's main use is as a timeshift device, and as such it encourages private use of music within the legal limits of personal copies".<br /><br />I'm not so sure at all that this reasoning will hold. But expect the debate about internet radio as an alternative source for music to increase as the P2P saga winds down: how to (legally) define the selective recording of transmitted songs and the subsequent time-shifting for, probably, more than a little time.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1132278514854988322005-11-18T01:37:00.000+01:002005-11-18T02:49:14.786+01:00Jot: Skype v. Verso Row Linklist<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:100%;" >If you haven't followed the little Skype - Verso row (Verso being <a href="http://constitutionalcode.blogspot.com/2005/09/filtering-free-skype-blocker-to-aid.html">the filtering company that provides</a> software, which it claims "blocks bandwidth drains such as Skype<strong><em></em></strong>, P2P messaging, streaming media and instant messaging), here's a short linklist:</span><br /><br /><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:100%;" ><a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27771" id="r-0_0">Firm hits out at "critical" Skype problems</a></span><br /><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:100%;" ><a href="http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=564D0DBC-9917-4C39-B6FE-CF24879C70D5">Skype in talks with Chinese authorities</a></span><br /><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:100%;" ><a href="http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20051117005207&newsLang=en" id="r-1_0">Verso Responds to Statements by Skype</a></span><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1132280378903019362005-11-18T01:10:00.000+01:002005-11-18T03:22:40.446+01:00Filtering In Tunesia 2005<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;font-family:verdana;">While it's starting to become somewhat of a cliche to point out that Tunesia's anti-democratic and anti-speech tendencies make it far from the right place to hold the <span style="font-style: italic;">World Summit on the Information Society</span> (Q's: Which country would be right, anyway? Isn't Tunesia representative for the Information Society to be?), the Open Net Initiative has released its report <a href="http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/tunisia/index.htm">Internet Filtering in Tunesia 200</a>5. Nice timing, here's a small abstract:<br /><blockquote>A country study documents Tunisia's attempts to control Internet information, including the filtering of Web sites, blogs, and anonymizer services. Drawing on open sources and a detailed year-long technical investigation, ONI research describes Tunisia's aggressive targeting and blocking of on-line content, including political opposition Web sites, human rights groups, and sites that provide access to privacy-enhancing technologies.</blockquote></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1132273812399281082005-11-18T00:55:00.000+01:002005-11-18T10:16:42.906+01:00PC Is Finally Spelled TV<div face="verdana" style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">Those were the days, when you had to tinker with your PC for hours until you could finally watch that favourite TV show in ASCII fashion on your matrix-style monitor. Those were the days soon gone by. Thanks to the great drive for convergence to the ultimate home hub your PC <a href="http://www.worldscreen.com/newscurrent.php?filename=micro1117.htm">will soon be spelled TV</a>: <blockquote style="font-family:verdana;"> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;font-family:verdana;">Microsoft and <span class="SpellE">CableLabs</span>, the <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> cable industryÂs nonprofit R&D unit, are working to document final approval of Windows Media Digital Rights Management as a content protection technology in order to protect cable operators from copyright violation and content theft.</p> <p face="verdana" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /><o:p></o:p></p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p> <div style="text-align: justify;"> "This agreement carefully balances the need to preserve the flexibility of the personal computer for consumers with the need for cable operators to be confident that the hardware and software shipped with compliant Media Center PCs will function like a <span class="SpellE">CableCARD</span>-enabled digital television," said Glenn Britt, chairman of <span class="SpellE">CableLabs</span> and chairman and CEO of Time Warner Cable</div> </blockquote> </div> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">I think this is one of the most beautiful sentences I've read in a long time. The obscenity of its wording is strangely attractive: <span style="font-style: italic;">agreement - balance - need - preserve- flexibility - personal - computer - consumers - need - cable - operators - hardware - software - compliant - media - center - PCs - function - television. </span>That's TV poetry! Be ready for the great televison era. Be ready for flexibility within your own home hub. We're entering the state of preservation: the freedom that is, has to be preserved and protected by a fence of DRM-wire.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1132217218678895772005-11-17T09:14:00.000+01:002005-11-17T10:10:28.820+01:00Swiss IFPI: Game Over for P2P Infringers<a style="font-family: verdana;" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/1600/grafik02hq.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/320/grafik02hq.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;font-family:verdana;">The Swiss division of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) says it's all over for P2P- users that download copyright protected works. At least, that's the final aim of their anti-piracy campaign Game Over. IFPI Swiss says (semi-)professional P2P-infringers are now under control, and that it does not exist anymore in Switzerland.<br /><br />The focus of IFPI Swiss' legal actions will now move to private infringers (so-called <span style="font-style: italic;">Raubkopierer</span>), concentrating on those who download the most for starters. The tactic is well-know: registrating IP-addresses, warning the user with instant messaging, offering a settlement, starting a civil lawsuit with fines between 3,000 and 10,000 Swiss Franks if no settlement is reached and in grave cases a criminal lawsuit.<br /><br />IFPI Swiss says that until now it had "trusted on the principle of individual responsibility embodied in Switzerland" but that this did not lead to he expected respect for intellectual property. So, now the Swiss are putting some tradition back into the internet, the lack of which was deemed one of its values. The projection of incumbent legal and socio-economic structures continues. Until the game is over.<br /></div> <div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 102, 0); font-family: verdana;"><span style=";font-size:85%;" >- - -</span></div> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:85%;">IFPI Swiss <a href="http://www.ifpi.ch/docs/news.html#20051115a">press release</a> [German] (the picture above shows how "Raubkopierer" will be tracked)</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Thru</span> <a href="http://www.urheberrecht.org/news/2453/">Institut fur Medien- und Urheberrecht</a> [German]</span><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1132218434736659302005-11-17T09:03:00.000+01:002005-11-17T10:07:14.750+01:00Zittrain on the Generative Internet<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">This is the first paper I'm going to read as soon as I get trainload of work done: Johnatan Zittrain's <span style="font-style: italic;">The Generative Internet</span>, now up for download at <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=847124">SSRN</a>. I found his previous papers very insightful and readable, with a great analysis that's not blurred by ideological fog as (much as) you'll find with some other (Harvard) </span><span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:100%;" >über-cyberprofs.</span><br /> <br /> <span style="font-family: verdana;">Here's the abstract:</span><br /> <span style="font-family: verdana;font-family:ARIAL, HELVETICA;" ></span><blockquote><span style="font-family: verdana;font-family:ARIAL, HELVETICA;" > The power and flexibility of the Internet has ignited growth and innovation in information technology and in associated creative endeavors, its "generativity" soliciting contribution from varied audiences. This very power and flexibility projected across millions of mainstream users has also become a vehicle for security threats that endanger its many desired uses. This Article describes how the intertwining of the highly generative personal computer and Internet is creating an information technology "grid" that will find itself in grave crisis with no easy fix. </span><span style="font-family: verdana;font-family:ARIAL, HELVETICA;" ><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /> </span><span style="font-family: verdana;font-family:ARIAL, HELVETICA;" > </span><br /> <span style="font-family: verdana;font-family:ARIAL, HELVETICA;" >The most direct responses to the crisis, both by regulators and through market forces reflecting a shift in consumer attitudes about the importance of technology reliability, will enable the sort of locked-down Internet that publishers and some regulators have so far favored but been unable to bring about. </span><br /> <span style="font-family: verdana;font-family:ARIAL, HELVETICA;" > </span><br /> <span style="font-family: verdana;font-family:ARIAL, HELVETICA;" >Those who treasure the Internet's generative features must assess the prospects for sufficiently either satisfying or frustrating the forces in question so that a radically different technology configuration need not come about. I believe that a different-in-kind Internet is likely quite difficult to avoid. It is precisely while the future is uncertain that those who care about openness and the positive disruption it generates should not sacrifice the good to the perfect by seeking simply to maintain a tenuous technological status quo in the face of inexorable change. Rather, we should establish the principles that will blunt the most unappealing features of a more locked-down technological future while acknowledging that an unprecedented and, to many who work in technology, genuinely unthinkable level of enclosure is likely to be the rule from which we must negotiate and justify exceptions.</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: verdana;font-family:ARIAL, HELVETICA;" ></span> <div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);font-family:ARIAL, HELVETICA;" ><span style="font-size:85%;">- - -</span></span><br /></div> <span style="font-family: verdana;font-family:ARIAL, HELVETICA;" ><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Thru</span> </span><a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ugasser/2005/11/14#a319">Urs Gasser</a>, who's calling it groundbreaking and a must-read.<br /> </span></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1130535303102416082005-10-28T22:12:00.000+02:002005-10-28T23:55:30.700+02:00Makayama: DVD-to-iPod Ripper...DRM in Review<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/1600/ipod.1.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 245px; height: 155px;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/320/ipod.1.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span class="style2"><br /><br /></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="style2"><span style="font-family:verdana;">"The feature that everyone wants, but Apple didn't give you."<br />That's what Makayama is giving to the world. It's a company that sounds like a Japanese motorcycle manufacturer, and even has a little Japanese flag on one of its web pages. But, to my surprise, it's actually located right here in Amsterdam, in the old post office building, which also holds a (night) club and (temporarily) the museum of modern art. That's right here: </span></span><br /></div> <span class="style2"> </span><span class="style2" style="font-family:verdana;"><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/1600/officebuilding.0.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 245px; height: 155px;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/320/officebuilding.0.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /></span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="style2" style="font-family:verdana;">But what exactly is the Dutch company Makayama offering to us from their scruffy Amsterdam office's that Apple didn't from sunny California:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-family:verdana;">The iPod Media Studio. This innovative software lets you watch home movies, feature films and TV-series on your video iPod in great quality, in full screen, zoomed mode. </span><span style="font-family:verdana;">[...] The software installs an encoding package on a Windows XP computer, users pick any video file from their harddrive, CD or DVD and with only three clicks, the software turns it into a compressed movie file, which will play on the MPEG4-mediaplayer on the iPod.</span></blockquote> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:verdana;">The </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" href="http://i-newswire.com/pr48934.html">press release</a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> presses the point that "A 60 Gb iPod may store up to 200 hours of home movies and tv recordings or one hundred full length feature films." That sounds like a soon-to-be classic little DVD ripper. Might their be a reason that Apple didn't dive into this? The answer is probably in the company profile: </span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"><blockquote>Makayama supports fair use and is reviewing several DRM standards to incorporate in its products. </blockquote></span><span style="font-family:verdana;">Fair use is certainly a feature that everybody wants, but Apple doesn't give us. Or can't give us, since it can't put a product on the market that rips content protected DVDs, while still reviewing "several DRM standards to incorporate". Maybe I'm reading to much in this little sentence. Or, maybe it's the small (circumvention) disclaimer with one of their other products, DVD to Pocket PC, that gives some doubt about the legality of the software, at least under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act circumvention provisions: </span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-size:78%;" ><blockquote>This software was not designed or produced to circumvent technology that effectively protects access to, or restricts the duplication of, copyrighted material. It has a commercially significant purpose other than to circumvent and has major non-infringing uses; being primarily designed to transcode home movies, tv-programming, personal video and audio files, and feature films from a users harddrive and/or on removable media. It does not produce digitally identical copies, but transcodes into a lossy, strongly compressed file. Its sole purpose is to enable a platform- and timeshift allowing playback of lawfully aquired content, under the fair use principle.</blockquote></span></span><span style="font-family:verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:verdana;">That's fair use, alright. Some might doubt that an old post office building near the harbour of Amsterdam will also provide a safe harbour for fair use circumvention under the ever stronger enforcement of the European Copyright Directive. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Oh, I wasn't able to see if iPod Media Studio actually ripped away any DRM: it runs on Windows only, <span style="font-style: italic;">no</span> Mac supported. </span><br /></div> <div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">- - - </span></span><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">iPod Media Studio </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" href="http://www.makayama.com/dvdtoipod.html">product page</a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> (with trial version) </span></span><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1130536217745120892005-10-28T21:46:00.000+02:002005-10-28T23:50:17.746+02:00IPTV & Digital Piracy: Keeping Honest People Honest<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">A <a href="http://www.iptv-news.com/content/view/287/1/">small interview</a> on "digital piracy" and IPTV with Steve Oetegenn, Executive VP Global Sales & Marketing at Verimatrix, which read like a sales pitch. It's about keeping honest people honest, again:<br /><blockquote>One other problem which is often overlooked is theft of service. It is estimated that around 30% of cable and 50% of satellite programming is actually viewed without being paid for. Our system provides excellent clone detection functionality, which ensures that only paying customers have access to services. The problem with IPTV is to keep honest people honest. We’re going to be challenged by these type of hackers, if they can circumvent the system they will, but you need to provide a deterrent.</blockquote></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1130547577959917702005-10-28T20:56:00.000+02:002005-10-29T02:59:37.970+02:00Jot: Copyright Does Bolster Evolution<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">From <span style="font-style: italic;">The New York Times</span>:<br /><blockquote>Two leading science organizations have denied the Kansas board of education permission to use their copyrighted materials as part of the state’s proposed new science standards because of the standards’ critical approach to evolution.</blockquote></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1129854558915378032005-10-21T02:09:00.000+02:002005-10-21T02:37:15.223+02:00Trademark's Zeitgeist<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/1600/cocooud3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/200/cocooud2.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/1600/coconieuw1.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6392/485/200/coconieuw1.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Tired of ego-surfing on Google? Try the database of the </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" href="http://www.bmb-bbm.org/">Benelux Trademarks Office</a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> to see who has trademarked your name. I could have guessed...<span style="font-style: italic;">CoCo</span> has been accepted as a (figurative) trademark for a monkey. That's accepted again: left Kellogg's new and right Kellogg's old CoCo. The evolution of a trademark: dead by expiration, and lack of coolness. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1129853310533888082005-10-21T01:56:00.000+02:002005-10-21T02:08:30.540+02:00VeryCD: Death to All P2P Pay Sites<span style="font-family: verdana;">Danwei </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" href="http://www.danwei.org/archives/002236.html">has a short piece</a><span style="font-family: verdana;"> on the Chinese P2P-site </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: verdana;">VeryCD</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">, approved by the Ministry of Information Industry and Creative Commons-licensed. What VeryCD lacks in thirst for money, it has all the more for some fresh, capitalisitc blood:</span><br /><ol style="font-family: verdana;"> <li>Every person shares three albums in order to establish the world's largest P2P Mp3 music library.</li><li>Through the VeryCD website's search, allow all users convenient and quick downloads of Mp3s.</li><li><span style="color:red;">Death to pay download sites.</span></li> </ol>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1129852581950440672005-10-21T01:20:00.000+02:002005-10-21T01:56:21.970+02:00Germany: P2P Prosecutions Bring Unacceptable Workload<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">The public prosecutor of the German district Karlsruhe fears getting crushed under the workload of (future) P2P-prosecutions presented to him by the German gaming industry:<br /><blockquote>"20,000 announcements are said to have been received against game downloaders, which take the work time of five lawyers and three particularly policemen turned off for the sifting. The processing of the document mountains will [take] at least six months to take up. "the treatment of heavier offenses could suffer in the future under this substantial additional expenditure" </blockquote>The German gaming industry is using the Swiss firm <span style="font-style: italic;">Logistep</span>, which says to registrate "which contents during which period and with which IP address" users downloaded. At least in the Netherlands this kind of outsourcing of P2P-police work to a non-EU third-party <a href="http://constitutionalcode.blogspot.com/2005/07/dutch-isps-dont-have-to-provide.html">has been deemed unacceptable</a>.<br /><br />The public office in Germany thinks the P2P-prosecution of minor uploaders would put an unacceptable pressure on its resources and is said to only proceed with criminal prosecutions against users that have been previously convicted and have sold songs on a large scale. That would be in line with <a href="http://constitutionalcode.blogspot.com/2005/02/german-film-board-fears-loss-of-mpaa.html">the so-called Bagatellklausel</a> from the reviewed German copyright law, which exempts the exchange of a small number of songs that are exclusively for private use from prosecution.<span style="font-size:+1;"><span class="newstitleview"></span></span> If one still wonders wether the Bagatellklausel was born out of practical considerations or legal charity, the prosecutor's practice seems to have given the answer.<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);font-size:85%;" >- - -</span><br /></div> <span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Thru </span><a href="http://www.urheberrecht.org/news/2411/">Institut for Urheber- und Medienrecht</a> [German]</span><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1129847647212033252005-10-21T00:17:00.000+02:002005-10-21T01:17:01.490+02:00Microsoft's Anonymous Lawyers<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Don't trust anonymous sources when it comes to anti-trust: Microsoft </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" href="http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/business/12954551.htm">tried it again</a><span style="font-family: verdana;"> and</span><span style="font-family: verdana;" class="body-content"> by contract "told manufacturers of iPod-like portable audio devices that they were not allowed to distribute rivals' music player software, but then pulled back after one company protested." There's a lot of outside amazement and little <span style="font-style: italic;">mea culpa</span> about this good old Microsoft muscle flexing, except from some anonymous lawyer: </span><br /> <span style="font-family: verdana;" class="body-content"><blockquote>The disputed contracts were drafts sent to manufacturers before Microsoft's lawyers reviewed them, said one lawyer familiar with details of the incident. This lawyer spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to make public statements about the antitrust case. </blockquote></span><span style="font-family: verdana;" class="body-content">Since when does Microsoft sent out drafts without legal review? This sounds like either a major glitch or authorized PR. I bet it's a twosome: anonymity and authorization.<br /><br /> </span><span style="font-family: verdana;" class="body-content">The more interesting question is in how Microsoft seems to try to get at its rival by playing the trust card on software, where its the hardware (iPod) that's the killer. Any anonymous sources on this one?</span><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1129219850849321572005-10-13T18:02:00.000+02:002005-10-21T00:59:42.263+02:00Belgium Court Confirms: Private Copying Not a Right<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">I'm pretty late on this one - as the blogging is generally slower due to a (great) change of work - but it still is interesting for the private copying debate. Not that the following ruling of a Belgium Court of a Appeals brings much news. It follows the general legal trend away from the 'private-copying-is-a-right'-mantra together in its confirmation of the ruling of a lower court that private copying is not a right, but a "legally granted immunity against prosecution." Those are words from the confirmed ruling. If you want to read the latest one of the Court of Appeals, get out your dictionary and start reading the <a href="http://www.droit-technologie.org/jurisprudences/appel_bruxelles_090905.pdf">French judgment</a> [PDF]. The tables are getting turned in a DRMed world: now it is the user who has to secure his interests through an often costly procedure.<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);font-size:85%;" >- - - </span><br /></div> <span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Related</span> <a href="http://constitutionalcode.blogspot.com/2005/09/german-constitutional-court-private.html">CoCo: German Constitutional Court: Private Copying Unlikely a Right</a><br /><a href="http://constitutionalcode.blogspot.com/2005/04/french-court-dvd-protection.html">CoCo: French Court: Private DVD Protection Incompatible with Private Copying Exception</a> </span><br /><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1128548842198219422005-10-05T23:40:00.000+02:002005-10-05T23:47:22.206+02:00Botswana: Manadatory Payment for Mandatory DRM?<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">Botswana is working on a bill to amend the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. I'd like to get my hands on it, because its content seems like a plain violation of more than one fundamental right and just <a href="http://allafrica.com/stories/200510050240.html">sounds plain weird</a>:<br /><blockquote>Under the proposed law, every sound and audio-visual recording made available to the public by sale, rental, lending or distribution for commercial purpose in Botswana will have a security device affixed to it. The copyright office will issue the device once the person who wants to make it available to the public has paid. The device will only be approved if the owner of the copyright has made authorisation. The device will be the only indication that it is not a pirated work. Any person who contravenes the set requirements shall be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding P20, 000 or to an imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Any person who reproduces the device without the authorisation of the copyright office shall be liable to a fine not exceeding P50, 000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.</blockquote><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1128547247237666852005-10-05T22:54:00.000+02:002005-10-06T00:10:24.023+02:00Coco.eu Smells Like Chanel No. 5<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">Finally! A date has been set for the registration of the .eu domain name. I'm so excited! At last the wait is over: here comes coco.eu, for all your insights from European soil. Well, that is if a French fasion house and cosmetic concern, or some coconut manufacturer, doesn't get the idea to registrate before I get a chance. Because, "to prevent that organisations and companies will be the victim of cybersquatters", the rules of commerce have been laid out to dominate the .eu domain.<br /><br />These so-colled Sunrise rules devide the resistration in three phases:<br /><blockquote>First phase: public organisations and trademark holders can apply for registration<br />Second phase: others that have legal claims can apply (company name, artistic name)<br />Third phase: four months after the start of the first phase anyone can register (April 7th 2006)</blockquote>I'll let you know if I can <s>beat</s> <s>commerce the French coconut farmers</s> make it. Till then, same or <a href="http://www.lambers.org/">alternate</a> place for a long time.<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);">- - -</span></span><br /></div> <span style="font-size:85%;">Background <a href="http://www.eurid.eu/en/documents/sunrise_rules_v1_0.pdf">paper</a> sunrise rules [PDF]</span><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1128545330044920142005-10-05T22:10:00.000+02:002005-10-05T22:50:59.790+02:00Operator French Lyric Site Gets Fine and Risks Jail Time<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">Remember the days you had to spin your record ten times to write out the indistinguishable lyrics of your favorite artist, because all his psychedelic artwork did not leave any room for song texts on the sleeve? That old game may be back...in France. The criminal court of Nanterre has sentenced the operator of a song lyrics website to a 20,000 euro fine and six months imprisonment on probation. Additionally the operator has to pay damages to the plaintiffs: the music association of publishers <i>CSDEM </i>and three publishing houses. Apparently the site, miditext.net, had mirrored the site miditext.com, which was shut down in may 2002 over copyright infringement charges.<br /><br />Back in April <a href="http://constitutionalcode.blogspot.com/2005/04/german-song-lyric-sites-cease-desisted.html">I reported</a> on cease and desist notices sent to German song lyrics sites. A <a href="http://www.searchwolf.de/">website </a>that resisted such notice did take its song texts offline after a German court ruled that the copyrightholders had case. That rightholders have a case is no surprise. That they actually make a case out of their copyright keeps surprising me somewhat. But then, maybe they just want to give the digital generation they joy of penning down their favourite chansons in the candle light of a cheese & wine diner. I'm not sure what they are: nostalgic or romantic. Maybe just not from this time...<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);font-size:85%;" >- - - </span><br /></div> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Thru</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> <a href="http://www.urheberrecht.org/news/2401/">Institut fur Urheber- und Medienrecht</a> [German]<br />CSDEM <a href="http://www.csdem.org/IMG/pdf/Communique_de_presse_CSDEM_Miditext_04.10.05.pdf">press release</a> [PDF, French] </span><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1127340237239110312005-09-21T23:32:00.000+02:002005-09-22T00:07:56.973+02:00Disney & Verizon: When Content Meets Code<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">In the U.S. Disney and Verizon </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" href="http://www.worldscreen.com/newscurrent.php?filename=disney921.htm">have announced</a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> a long-term programming agreement, whereby Verizon will transmit twelve of Disney's TV channels over its broadband network. Of course the cooperation on this merging of content (Disney) and code (Verizon's network) would be nothing without the sunny side of American copyright: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Disney and Verizon have agreed, of course, that copyright protection is of upmost importance in this case. Just as important as the privacy of Verizon users </span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><blockquote>Under the agreement, Verizon would forward and track notices to its subscribers allegedly engaged in the unauthorized distribution of Disney's copyrighted works, without identifying the subscribers to Disney. Verizon would either provide subscriber-identifying information pursuant to lawfully served subpoenas or terminate Verizon Internet service provided to subscribers who have infringed Disney copyrights and received multiple notices. </blockquote></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">That seems fair, doesn't it? No more Verizon for you, if you ignore those "copyright infringement" notices. Provided that your identifying information hasn't been handed over to Disney on the basis of a subpoena. Fair it seems, but as a Verizon customer you may wonder how important your privacy would be if Verizon had not made this great deal with Disney giving you even more of the same TV content to choose from. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Where the provision of a (hardcore) network service gets softened by (Verizon's) interests in content and related copyright protection,</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the privacy of users is likely to become less of a commitment. How much is the privacy of a customer really worth when you consider a multi-million dollar deal with Disney</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><!--[endif]--></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> "a significant step forward in the effort toward inter-industry cooperation in addressing the serious problem of copyright infringement over the Internet," as Verizon Chairman and CEO Ivan Seidenberg said.</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> Not worth the litigation, I would guess.</span><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1127340950897959552005-09-21T23:09:00.000+02:002005-09-22T00:15:50.900+02:00University Supports Google over Print Lawsuit<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">Yesterday the American Authors Guild <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/20/authors_guild_sues_g.html">filed a copyright infringement lawsuit</a> against Google over its Google Print Library project. The first university library that comes with <a href="http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2005/Sep05/r092105">a supporting statement</a> for Google is...the University of Michigan:<br /><blockquote>"We continue to be enthusiastic about our partnership with Google, and we are confident that this project complies with copyright law. The overarching purpose of copyright law is to promote progress in society. In doing so, it is always a balancing act between the limited rights of the author and the rights of the public."</blockquote></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1127248461600816282005-09-20T22:14:00.000+02:002005-09-20T22:37:58.000+02:00Scientology to Face Judgment Day<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: verdana;">The Dutch Supreme Court will provide a ruling on the Church of Scientolgy. That is, if the Court will follow the <a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/pdf/scientology_20050916.pdf">advice</a> [Dutch - PDF] of its independent counsel, Advocaat-Generaal Verkade., which is more than likely. Verkade wrote that the Supreme Court could and should judge the Scientology-case at least in the interest of the unity and development of law and the general interest.<br /><br />Scientology <a href="http://constitutionalcode.blogspot.com/2005/07/decision-scientology-case-delayed.html">tried to withdraw</a> its appeal to the Supreme Court at the last moment after the same Advocaat-Generaal Verkade dismissed Scientology's crafting of copyright to suppress the freedom of speech <a href="http://constitutionalcode.blogspot.com/2005/03/scientology-set-for-defeat-at-dutch.html">in an earlier advice</a>. His latest advice is great news for ISP XS4ALL and writer Karin Spaink, which have been involved in legal proceedings against Scientology for over ten years [Background is provided in the last link provided above]. Finally Scientology's legal scare tactics will be judged at the highest instance, and likely condemned.<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);font-size:85%;" >- - - </span><br /></div> <span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/bericht.php?id=679">Press release</a> XS4ALL [Dutch] </span><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7690298.post-1127116771193025392005-09-19T09:23:00.000+02:002005-09-19T09:59:31.296+02:00Filtering Free: Skype Blocker to Aid Business Models<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Inquirer </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26255">reports</a><span style="font-family: verdana;"> on Skype Filtering Technology, what's the name used by company Vesco for a carrier grade application that "blocks bandwidth drains such as Skype</span><strong style="font-family: verdana;"><em>™</em></strong><span style="font-family: verdana;">, P2P messaging, streaming media and instant messaging," says Vesco's </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" href="http://www.verso.com/news/article.asp?ID=296">press release</a><span style="font-family: verdana;">. That's pretty nice in itself, but the interesting part is in the </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: verdana;">why?</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">. In an interview with the Inquirer Vesco CEO Monty Bannerman is blatantly honest about the motivation behind the Skype Filter: </span><br /> <span style="font-family: verdana;"><blockquote>As a "free" service, Skype is raiding the business model of service providers that want to roll out VoIP services for their customers. "They're all telling me they hate Skype and they're telling me that they want to do something about Skype," said Bannerman in a telephone interview. "If you have something in your network that is costing you money and raiding your business model, I assure you you're going to do something about it." </blockquote></span><span style="font-family: verdana;">Also interesting is that Bannerman argues that a lack of state regulation leaves Skype out in the open to filter. A distinction with the (minimally) regulated Vonage service is made: </span><br /> <span style="font-family: verdana;"><blockquote>Bannerman drew a distinction between the more heavily US-regulated Vonage and Skype, saying that they were "different," with Vonage required to provide E-911 service and abide by other FCC regulations, while Skype had no such state-side regulation. </blockquote></span><span style="font-family: verdana;">One can admirer one thing about the guy: he really, really wants to sell. Not in the US due to possible future regulation prohibiting applkication bloackage, then anywere else in the world: </span><br /> <blockquote><span style="font-family: verdana;">"The World Wide Web isn't just about America, plunk yourself anywhere else," he said. "This is a product for the world market." </span></blockquote> <span style="font-family: verdana;">It may be getting hard to Skype China if Bannerman's sales pitch works: there they may just want to filter another kind of free. That's not the <span style="font-style: italic;">gratis </span>kind.</span><br /> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5