joe, beta

law, tech, and stuff for geeks.
/Blog   /About   /Blogroll   /Google Me   /RSS   /Test
Filed under

Copyright

 

5th Cir. decision narrows restrictive power of DRM within that circuit's jurisdiction, but... -- by @reckless on @engadget [Copyright]

Comments [0]

I mentioned earlier today that updated rules from the Library of Congress mean it's okay to jailbreak phones, use brief clips from movies in your own mashups, and drag your unlocked phone to any carrier you want.

Engadget Managing Editor and recovering patent attorney Nilay Patel offers some great insight on the opinion (a PDF of which is included in this post), from the Fifth Circuit. The decision limits the restrictive power of digital rights management (DRM) constructs aimed at preventing unauthorized copying of copyrighted works, but it doesn't invalidate them.

While on the one hand, as my headline suggests, the restriction is narrower following the ruling, Patel's analysis focuses on reminding everyone of a very important distinction, and the whole post is worth a read, for background facts and more of Patel's cogent reading of the opinion.

His main point, as I read it, is that yes, people in Fifth Circuit jurisdictions (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) could theoretically rip a movie clip from a DVD for use in their own video mashup (something also okay under the aforementioned Library of Congress rule change) BUT:

it's still very much illegal to strip copy protection DRM off a video in order to transfer it to a portable media player, for example, since you're making an unauthorized copy. It's a subtle, but extremely important distinction.

Source: Engadget  

(download)

 

Quick Quote: @EFF convinces Copyright Office to OK jailbreaking, mashups, more -- via BoingBoing by @doctorow [Law]

Comments [0]

EFF had applied to the Copyright Office to grant exemptions permitting the cracking of DRM in three cases: first, to "jailbreak" a mobile device, such as an iPhone, where DRM is used to prevent phone owners from running software of their own choosing; second, to allow video remix artists to break the DRM on DVDs in order to take short excerpts for mashups posted to YouTube and other sharing sites; finally EFF got the Copyright Office to renew its ruling that made it illegal to unlock cellphones so that they can be used with any carrier.

I haven't read the EFF press release Doctorow is writing about here, but a cursory read of his article indicates that this development should water down that pirate flavoring attendant upon activities like jailbreaking phones and ripping video from DVDs for limited use in derivative works.

Unfortunately, Doctorow also mentions that the odd US logic seemingly retracted by these moves by the Copyright Office is still being supported in US influence on foreign copyright policy. Read his article at Boing Boing for more on that.

Via: Boing Boing
Source: EFF

Judge reduces "unconstitutional" $675k damages award to $67k in P2P case, RIAA is weally, weally mad! [P2P]

Comments [0]

(download)

Not much to say here: the law needs to be changed so such outrageous damages awards in P2P file sharing (read, typically: music stealing) aren't possible in the first place. I've written about crazy P2P cases before, and this just adds to the confusion. The message here and in other recent cases is that trial-level awards are out of control and don't represent the financial harm actually done. This is out of step with the legislative construct that makes such awards possible. Expect an appeal from the RIAA, but boy do I hope this ruling sticks.

Source: Techdirt

Lucas threatens suit over dangerous lightsaber ripoff -- via @DailyTech [Star Wars]

Comments [0]

The manufacturer's CEO says it isn't meant to copy the lightsaber design made famous in Lucas' Star Wars universe. I call bullshit.

Oh, and it can set your skin on fire.

On fire.

Lucas sent a cease and desist letter demanding the company stop selling it because it appears "intended to resemble the hilts of" lightsaber swords.

Which it obviously is, despite the denials.

Source: DailyTech

ISP refuses to frivolously ID its customers, dubiously-motivated law firm is really mad -- via @ArsTechnica [Quote]

Comments [2]

There's a minor update about my comments on the movie Far Cry, which appears directly below the paragraph where the movie is mentioned.

Let me preface this post, which admittedly got a little out of hand, by saying very clearly that I'm not a lawyer. I'm just an opinionated law student.
 

TWC highlights the fact that it is not a party to this case," he wrote, "but it appears that TWC is utilizing that fact to garner public support for its position and possibly in an attempt to gain more subscribers who would value TWC's efforts to protect the privacy of demonstrated copyright infringers. To the extent TWC’s tactics are just that—letting the public know that TWC is a good ISP for copyright infringers because TWC will fight any subpoenas related to infringers’ activities—TWC exposes itself to a claim for contributory copyright infringement.
Tom Dunlap of US Copyright Group, via arstechnica.com

Okay, let's back it up a bit. US Copyright Group was born out of a law firm called Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver. They are in the business of suing alleged copyright infringers. By the thousands. Also, they like to get their way.

Read the rest of this post »

"Troubling decision in matter involving anonymous bloggers" -- via @InternetCases [Quote]

Comments [0]

The court simply says, “[b]ecause it appears likely that Plaintiff will continue to be thwarted in its attempts to identify Defendants without the benefit of formal discovery mechanisms, the court finds that Plaintiff should be permitted to conduct expedited discovery.” Such a reasoning would suggest anyone sued as a John Doe for defamation should be unmasked pretty much as a matter of course. That’s dangerous.

Some more commentary, as well as a PDF of the opinion referenced, are available at the source. Also, you can hear the post's author, Evan Brown of http://internetcases.com on one of my favorite weekly podcasts, This Week in Law -- http://twit.tv/twil -- about technology and law.

"LimeWire sliced by RIAA, liable for massive infringement" -- via Ars Technica [Quote]

Comments [0]

Judge Kimba Wood has just granted summary judgment against LimeWire, agreeing with the labels that the peer-to-peer company was liable for inducing copyright infringement. Turns out that asking LimeWire downloaders to check a box marked "I will not use LimeWire for copyright infringement" before proceeding doesn't count as "meaningful efforts to mitigate infringement.

This isn't very surprising. LimeWire is one of those peer-to-peer clients from back in the day that came with baked-in media players. The intent was clear. And I have no authority to cite for this assertion, but I suspect they made a lot of money by bundling spyware with at least their earliest versions.

Report: Companies benefiting from copyright limitations generated over $4 trillion in revenue in 2007 [PDF]

Comments [0]

The Computer and Communications Industry Association released the below report recently, aiming to quantify the economic impact of copyright limitations like fair use. Fair use is an exception to copyright's standard prohibition against using the creative works of others in your own work.

The fair use doctrine is often used as a defense against allegations of intellectual property theft and piracy, sometimes legitimately and sometimes not. I haven't had a chance to read the report yet (exams this week and next...) but it's worth at least a skim.

More information:

Read "Fair Use in the U.S. Economy" below, via CCIA through Threat Level:

(download)

"When Copyright Goes Bad" documentary by Consumers International -- via @Boing Boing [Video]

UK considers allowing courts to enjoin sites hosting 'substantial' amount of infringing stuff -- Via guardian.co.uk [Quote]

Comments [0]

Instead of sweeping new powers that threatened sweeping alterations to British copyright law, the Lib Dems added a clause that gives extra oversight to the high court.

The new proposal – which was passed in the House of Lords by 165 votes to 140 – gives a high court judge the right to issue an injunction against a website accused of hosting a "substantial" amount of copyright infringing material, potentially forcing the entire site offline