Supermarket Tesco and on-line movie site Blinkbox have introduced a new innovation to the UK where the purchase of a physical DVD or Bluray at Tesco also buys an online copy at Blinkbox. At today’s launch there are only about 25 movies included in the offer but more will be added to the service over time. The big blockbusters available now are Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II and Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon.

Tesco customers tie their Clubcard account to their Blinkbox account and then qualifying purchases of DVDs in retail stores (or online) will automatically be added to Blinkbox. Once in Blinkbox, customers can watch the films through PCs, Mac, PS3 and certain smart TVs. For non-UK readers, Clubcard is Tesco’s customer loyalty programme and there are 16 million active Clubcard members.

Richard Brasher, CEO, Tesco UK said “Customers know that Tesco is a great retailer for new technology.  This innovation with blinkbox will help start a digital revolution, combining the physical with the digital for the first time.  Starting with the magic of Harry Potter, there will be many more great titles to follow for customers to enjoy online wherever and whenever they like.”

Michael Comish, CEO, blinkbox said “To be able to bring this truly ground-breaking service to consumers is very exciting for blinkbox. Our customers already know that we are the number one choice for the latest new movie titles the day they released on DVD, so working with Tesco to give them access to both a physical and a digital version allows them choice and the best of both worlds.”

For those outside of the UK, this is probably all a bit “so what?”given the offerings from Amazon and others. However, here in the UK, the law still currently prohibits format-shifting, even if no-one pays attention, even if the law isn’t enforced. By effectively purchasing both copies at the same time (or buy one, get one free), this gets round any issues with the law. If this way of thinking takes off, other companies will follow with similar products in the UK, so it’s good news all round.

Ken Plotkin, the CEO of Hauppage (www.hauppauge.com), describes the Colossus HD H.264 Video Recorder PCI Express card for the PC. The Colossus card is designed to record high definition video from sources such as an X-Box 360, Playstation 3, as well as high definition video coming from a cable TV or satellite box via component video outputs on those devices, thus avoiding the DRM problem. The Colossus HD Video Recorder retails for $169 dollars, available in the first week in February 2011. According to Plotkin, the Colossus is the only recorder solution available that can record high definition video from component video outputs.

Interview by Todd Cochrane of Geek News Central.

Please Support our CES 2011 Sponsors

Get your 14 day Free Trial of Audible Gold to start Listening to great Books!
Save 25% on 4GH Hosting 1yr Subscriptions Save 25% Promo Code CES2.
Sponsor: The New Luxor, Las Vegas Deals Start @ $40.00 best rates guaranteed

New technology always disrupts. This has always been true, whether it was the invention of the wheel, the automobile, or modern electronics. With each new disruption, interactive business and social commerce is disturbed. Established business and social models are suddenly rendered partially or fully dysfunctional. For every new disruptive technology that comes along, an old business model is broken and new opportunities are created.

It has often been noted that people and organizations both don’t like change. There are some basic reasons at play that make this true.

In the workplace our brains go through an initial learning curve and automates much of the work we do so that we don’t have to continually think about it in detail. Introduction of a new disruptive program or process forces people to relearn what they already knew how to do in a different way, and thus they often become frustrated with it until they absorb and automate the changes.

Organizational change can be far more difficult, and often proves to be impossible. There’s this thing called “corporate culture” that is both a blessing and a curse for organizations. When a new employee comes to work into an existing organization, they quickly “learn the ropes” of what is expected of them. Existing employees often establish their own little kingdoms complete with pecking orders. These pecking orders are often enforced via subtle intimidation through systems of rewards and punishments. The person at the top, whoever is running the business, typically establishes corporate culture, whether they are aware of it or not. They tend to surround themselves with like-minded people they can dominate. In this sort of “look to the top” power environment it often becomes impossible for businesses to fully respond to changing market conditions, and the business dies. That’s why corporations have life cycles.

In today’s world, new disruptive technologies are coming along almost on a moment-by-moment basis.

Fast-forward to modern computers, wireless broadband and smart phone devices. Consumers of media demand the ability to consume the media of their choice wherever and whenever they want on the device of their choice. A tremendous amount of this demand has yet to be met. Old school content creators are reluctant to release their grip on breaking and broken appointment-based content delivery models. The reality is some of them will probably perish as they cling to those dead and dying delivery models. New ones will inevitably come in to fill the real-world demand.

The London-based think tank Demos has concluded that illegal downloaders spend more money on music. The headline figure, based on the survey of over 1000 people between 16 and 65, is that the average spend per annum on CDs or vinyl was £75 (GBP) for file-sharers compared with only £51 for all surveyed.

The notion that illegal downloaders actually spend more money on music has always had its supporters but it’s good to see that this can now be backed up with some hard data, at least for the UK. However, there’s some much more juicy information, but remember that this is representative sample of the online population, not the whole population and not just music aficionados or games players.

69% of those questioned had used official or legal sources for music such as iTunes or YouTube. Physical media still dominates purchasing with 65% having bought CDs or vinyl against 33% who purchased downloadable music.

A third had used peer-to-peer technology or search engines to find free music but only 9% actually confessed to illegal downloading. Almost everyone knew that sharing purchased music was not “fair use” but 81% of people who had purchased their music thought that “fair use” should include the ability to move the music between different players easily.

47% would be interested in a monthly subscription service with the optimum price point being £5 per month but it would have to be simple and convenient to use.

There is only a slight male bias of 57%:43% in illegal music downloading (which is far less than I would have expected) and 46% gave “because I can” as a reason for doing it. (I think in the old days, this would’ve been known as “troughing”).  Unsurprisingly, two thirds of this group also engaged in the illegal downloading of movies, games and other software.

The full “Digital Music Survey” is available to download from the Demos website and it’s a fascinating read into the state of music consumption.  Recommended.

Note for readers – as far as I’m aware and I’m not a lawyer, the UK does not currently have a “fair use” provision in its copyright legislation.

I’ve been seeing this more and more. You have to upgrade a product – a home (free) edition or something. You press the link and it sends you to a page that talks about upgrading. In fact, everything this page screams is “We don’t have the free version, you must buy an upgrade to continue”.

But if you scan the page, you see on the bottom in small print “No thanks. Register the Free version”.

Another case in point: I was searching for Drivers for a friends computer. I got to the companies webpage and selected what I thought was the driver. Instead, it shuttled me to download a program that would then collect information on my PC and find the right drivers.

It was not malware, but more of Bloatware. And that program wasn’t afraid to do the same thing – ask to install more Bloatware.

This practice is on the verge of misleading. You have to really scan pages to make sure you are selecting the right option.

Case in point #2: There is a great website out there that helps webmasters. We won’t get into the name, because this is not a witch hunt. I will say that when you purchase something on their site, you are taken to a page that looks like you have to press an “OK” button. However, this button is not to OK the purchase, but to add additional services. By scanning down the page, you find the “No thanks – Continue” option stuffed in the bottom part of the page.

In advertising creation, you learn a little trick. When an eye hits an ad, they instinctively start in the middle and work clockwise around the ad. Therefore, you put your “Hook” in the middle and the other items on the sides, including the name of the product.

What these sites have done is made the ad, but then put the “No thanks” in a spot where upon first glance, the eye will miss.

I just bought my ticket for Blogworld / New Media Expo. I used a discount site to purchase the plane ticket and hotel. After making the initial purchase, I was inundated with options I should look at. I suppose it’s so the discount site can offer lower fares. Once again, I had to carefully scan for the “No Thanks” option, although those other buttons looked like they were part of the processing.

Recently, people have been finding extra charges on their credit cards. They went to an online shopping site and chose the great deal of the day. They then pressed a button that looked legitimate to sign up for monthly deals (or something like that). Of course, those deals came with a price.

I really think that the FTC needs to start recognizing these little nuances in websites. It would be like if you went to the grocery store and the clerk started asking “Should I also add in a gallon of milk?” even if you didn’t grab milk.

As for this upgrade – I understand you need to make money off the product, but being sneaky about doing it is only going to make me go somewhere else. Put the “No thanks” in a more visible area. The consumer will buy your product if they don’t feel they are getting swindled.

Check out this screenshot. Tell me why it’s an Oxymoron:

If you said “This is an Associated Press article – I CANNOT share it on Mixx, Buzz, Digg, Reddit, Facebook or Newswire”, then you are correct!

If you go to the A.P.s site, you do not see any sharing widgets. However, if you go to the sites that pay for the content, they could have these little add-ons to try and promote their brand. But with these widgets, they could be in breech of their contract.

The Associated Press has said it doesn’t want to squelch new media, but it will go after sites that post it’s content and make money on it. Isn’t that like EVERY site on the Internet?

Back in June, the AP told their reporters to police social media like Facebook and Twitter. The idea would be to identify and irradicate any posts that violate their usage policies. So you could get a take down notice if you post  or “Re Tweet” those A.P. articles.

If you have a website and you have A.P. content on it, you might want to think about those little blurbs to suggest sharing the articles. You may be inadvertently breaching your contract.

I wonder if someone should start a list of Websites that use A.P. so we all know not to share the data from it. Of course, I am not going to rock that boat. However, if you know of a website that is an Associated Press site, you might want to comment on it below…

Amazon has announced the release of the second version of the Kindle. Not available for sale yet, it promises to have some pretty nifty upgrades. It is thinner, lighter, has longer battery life, holds more types of files, etc. And, for those of us serving people with disabilities, one very promising update has been offered to the Kindle. It now comes with a developing text-to-speech function. This means that you can plug in headphones and listen to the book.

Don’t get any grand illusions that using this function will give you the true experience of an audio book. An audio book is professionally recorded, using a human voice, and plenty of post-production work to make it perfect. Hearing audio produced by text-to-speech software has no pre- or post-production; it reads the words straight off the page, in a monotoned electronic voice. It’s not something most people would choose to listen to. Its true value exists for those in the disabled community who for whatever reason cannot read traditional printed text. For these people, text-to-speech is a God send. Text-to-speech allows them equal access to materials we certainly take for granted, like web pages, books, newspapers, blogs, etc.

But of course, any time something like this is introduced, author groups and publishers, ala the RIAA, have to scream copyright infringement. This time, it’s the Authors Guild, who has informed its member literary agents that the Kindle 2′s text-to-speech is a violation of copyright because using such a thing makes it a derivative work and therefore illegal to use.

“They don’t have the right to read a book out loud,” said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. “That’s an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law.”

Mr. Aiken is misguided. The purchase of a book gives me the right to do what I want with it, including reading it aloud, or having someone read it aloud for me. I can use it to prop up the leg of a coffee table if I want, too. That could, on the fringe, be called a “derivative work” as well. But no, the book is mine, I can read it out loud, I can even record it onto tape and play it in my car if I want. I can read it out loud to my kids, or read a passage or two of interest to a friend or colleague. I can even type a paragraph or two of a book right into my own blog, which is considered fair use by all copyright standards. The text-to-audio feature of the Kindle 2 is no different than using the buttons on the Kindle to enlarge the text, in my opinion.

And I’m not alone. Neil Gaiman’s blog entry for yesterday gives his short version of the argument he had with his own literary agent over this issue, along with his assertion that text-to-audio software is no different a use than reading a book out loud with your own voice. Neil Gaiman is one of those artists who “get it,” and has for a long time. Kindle’s new and wonderful feature is not in any way a threat to publishers and artists. Believe me, no person wants to listen to software text-to-speech conversion unless they need to. It’s not something anyone would pay money to buy. And besides that, the person with the Kindle presumable already purchased the book, or it wouldn’t be on the Kindle in the first place.

Todd had the story in the podcast last week about California charging citizens to download or get paper copies of laws. One patriotic guy was distributing them online for free. This guy is a hero and will have to go court to be vindicated in some people’s eyes but not mine. Just because some government says something is illegal like this guy giving away information on laws & state codes does not make it wrong. You would think the courts will rule in his favor but I would not bet on it. You see the court’s judges are part of the same government that is responsible for this stuff. This is the most egregious abuse of authority (ask yourself where authority comes from & you will be close to freeing your mind) I have seen in a while. The state is using copyright to keep their little monopoly going. They say they are “doing it to raise money for the people of California”. The “people” are the ones paying! They pay if they break a law or a commit a code violation. But they have to pay first to see if they are about to do something wrong. Ignorance of the law is supposedly no excuse for breaking it. But to charge people just to see the laws is criminal. California has a huge economy so their “public servants” cannot keep their hands off all that money. His website is here.

Have you shot any video of your kids lately and had some music on? Did you know that if you posted that video to YouTube that companies like Universal would often have that video removed for copyright violation.

A Judge ruled today in the nations first such ruling that copyright owners must consider “Fair Use” of their works before sending takedown notices to online video-sharing sites.

This is a huge win everyone. The doctrine of the DMCA already permits limited use of copyright materials without the owners permission especially when it is associated with positive and negative reviews.

This ruling is a big win, and one that we should all applaud because to many times artist and companies are able to invoke so called copyright violation to squelch any type of public discourse. This hopefully will allow more babies to be recorded acting out or dancing to the music. [Wired]

Let me share my feelings on Apple products. I don’t like them period. It is not because they suck or are not easy to use. Clearly they are user friendly and from what I hear do not suck. That is why they are so popular. But the company is so controlling about what you can do with their products. And make no mistake it is their product even after you put down your hard earned money for it. Sure you can use it when you want, take it where you want, even sell it when you get ready to do so. But try to alter it or use it in a way Apple does not care for, then you have trouble. And they can even disable your device in cases like the iphone. Try to move your itunes library to another computer or media device not made by Apple and you will see who really owns “your” stuff. I tried to get my wife’s songs from her itunes library into mp3 format so I could place them on a new Creative Mp3 player. Well if I wanted to burn cds of all the songs and go on a digital adventure that would last hours I would have went ahead. But I just gave up. I understand why they create a walled garden. It is to keep people using their devices the way Apple deems appropriate. But it also keeps people like me who like a little flexibility in their tech devices from buying Apple products. I know Steve Jobs will make it without my few dollars though:) .

The story Todd did on the last podcast about some people’s iphones getting disabled because they had an unauthorized application loaded on it really got to me. Either the phone is yours or it is not. The fact that a small percentage of people may get over in some way by not giving Apple more money does not justify keeping every single user from using their property how they want. When you by a new Dodge truck you have the ability to get accessories after the fact that were made by companies other than Dodge. When you buy a house from a builder he does not lock you out of your home when you don’t let him build on a new deck that your brother will do for free. I understand this is comparing apples to oranges but the principle holds true. Just because Apple can lock you out because it is a digital product does not make it right to do so. Wikipedia defines ownership as “the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property”. If Apple controls your iphone or ipod after you bought it do you really own it?

“We’re trying to develop tools, software tools…that allow people to detect what’s happening with their broadband connections, so they can let [ISPs] know that they’re not happy with what they’re getting — that they think certain services are being tampered with,”

This came from Google senior policy director Richard Whitt the other day. Google seems to have taken a firm stance on what ISP’s are proposing to monitor. And why wouldn’t they? In the end, Google would be the one that takes the hit.

People “Google” over any other search site. If you use Firefox, Opera or Safari, you have the Google search right at the top. For IE users, it’s just a “Change Default” away. If you run a website with Google Adsense, chances are you are using the Google search engine to bring in a little revenue.

If ISP’s start looking at what you do online, then people will stop searching for stuff. Other search sites might pop up to counter the ISP trafficking – masking information so it looks like your searching for flowers when it’s really the Hulk movie. Google will loose it’s 60-70 percent stature in all internet searches.

Now we all know that you should not download software, music or movies. It gets drilled in our heads on a daily basis. While Google is not trying to promote this, they know that if people need something and don’t know where to get it, they will search first. Even if you do know where it is, you still will search for it.

“Feeling Lucky” is Googles’ way of getting you to go through their webpage. According to statbrain.com, there are an average 91,201,253 visits per day. If people stop searching on a popular topic, imagine how that number would drop. If they feel they cannot safely go to the site, they will stop going to the site.

I am not saying this is what drives Google to help with Net Neutrality. However, if I was in the search engine market, I would definitely have a project team watching over these items. Any type of policing like this can really hurt on those who’s life is online.

I don’t torrent nor go to content that could raise a red flag for ISPs. Therefore I would continue to use Google on a constant basis. Even in writing this article I searched on Google about 10 to 12 times. It’s really just a way of life on the internet for me. Before Google (and this dates myself), I was Metacrawling and Dog Piling.

So this brings up the question: Would your internet usage drop if you knew people were watching where you were going?

The Company Man & Machine has filed a lawsuit over the “Mighty Mouse” name with Apple and CBS. The Maryland based company put out a water-resistant optical mouse in called Mighty Mouse. Their claim is that Apple put out their Mighty Mouse over a year later.
Now we all know Mighty Mouse as a Superhero mouse that comes to save the day. The Mighty Mouse Trademark is owned by CBS – aka Viacom. However, CBS owns Mighty Mouse under the cartoon character – not as a wireless mouse (or as the Patent and Trademark Office states, “G & S: Computer cursor control devices, namely, computer mice.”).
M&M first registered the Trademark on 3/16/2004. CBS registered it as a wireless mouse for Apple on 8/02/2005. The case is Man & Machine Inc. v. Apple Inc., 8:08-cv-01311, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Greenbelt).

J.K. Rowling, author of the arguably iconic Harry Potter series of books, has recently been in the news for suing Steve Vander Ark, the author of the online Harry Potter Lexicon guidebook, for infringement. The Lexicon was a labor of love for Vander Ark, who is a zealous fan of the Harry Potter books. He produced and maintains the Lexicon as a free resource for Harry Potter readers everywhere. He also made zero, zip, zilch dollars on this labor of love.

Rowling believed his work was infringement, so sued Vander Ark. Who can blame Vander Ark for feeling like he’s been slapped in the face by someone he’d held in high regard.

As the lawsuit progresses (it is still undecided as of this writing), several authors have come forward to add their opposing literary two cents to what is going on. What makes this remarkable is that two of these authors are extremely popular, well-known icons themselves. The first was Neil Gaiman, author of a truckload of graphic novels and the two standout literary works, American Gods and The Anansi Boys. The other is Orson Scott Card, whose work Ender’s Game won Hugo and Nebula awards in 2006.

Both of these authors would know something about infringement. Both take the attitude that to be emulated is flattery; to build on an idea, image, or reference is something to be proud of, not something to be squashed like vermin. In addition, Card makes a point of connecting the dots between some of the action and characters in his most famous work to that of Harry Potter. It is possible, and likely, that Rowling herself “borrowed” ideas, actions, and characters from other work that she’d read.

What both writers are pointing out, however, is that derivative works, websites by fans, and items like the Harry Potter Lexicon, do nothing but increase your visibility and brand. There is no downside to that kind of viral marketing. The fact is, the publication of Vander Ark’s reference guide could only increase Rowling’s popularity and the connected interest in her work. I would do a lot of things for that kind of publicity surrounding a book I’d written. The more the merrier. It all translates into increased book sales and increased interest in the author. How can that be a bad thing?

How do I love irony, let me count the ways.

The MPAA has a stated hard line stance against infringement of copyright. “pirates are thieves, plain and simple” and has vigorously prosecuted both direct infringers and producers of DRM breaking software.

In their website targetted at teaching kids about copyright (understandable by any kid with a law degree) they rigourously define the terms that apply to copyright, including this one about permission granted by a copyright holder.

The GPL gives permission for derivative works to be created as long as the GPL applies to the whole work. To enable the freedom of further derivatives, the GPL specifies that any software covered by that license must have source code available.

Ubuntu Linux is highly committed to open source and in their license explains clearly what is required of anyone creating applications or distributions based on Ubuntu, including the following line

Must allow these rights to be passed on along with the software. You should be able to have exactly the same rights to the software as we do.

The MPAA released a University Toolkit designed to help univerities detect copyright infringement on their networks, which included Ubuntu and Apache amongst other applications covered under the GPL. This toolkit included custom traffic monitoring software. The source code for this component was not included or otherwise available, no doubt to prevent easy subversion.

Given this violates the permissions for reuse specified in the license for Ubuntu, the technical director asked them to either include the source code or stop distributing the package. The MPAA essentially ignored the request until their ISP was served with a DMCA takedown notice.

Irony is indeed delicious.

Legal notice: My opening line is protected free speech as parody, which is probably irrelevant given that Elizabeth Browning died in 1861.

There is a great video on YouTube explaining the downside of modern copyright law using the story of a very famous drum loop called the Amen Break.  The video is called Amen Brother.  It is 18 minutes long so be warned, but if you want to skip to the explanation of why current copyright law hurts the economy rather than encourages it, this part starts at 14:46.  If even that is too long I’ll provide a summary.

Prior to the ‘Sonny Bono’ act and subsequent extensions in 1998, it was generally possible to sample small sections of other artists work and re-interpret them, as long as there was substantial difference from the original, or the original artist did not complain that the work infringed on their copyright.  Music scenes like Hip Hop and Drum and Base, blossomed with the invention of the sampler, using snippets of existing music to build a new work.  These genre’s started with people mixing new tracks at home and playing them in clubs and the like, making little or no money.  With few exceptions, the new works, while borrowing from the original, where so radically different from it to be considered an original work of themselves.  If you listen to the video you will see how unless you were told there would be no way to associate some of the derivative tracks from the original 6–second drum break.  Both genre’s eventually grew into significant markets generating huge revenues.

Under todays laws any length of sample, regardless of how it is modified, must be credited and licensed.  While this does not matter to big Hip-Hop artists of today, it prevents any new backyard artists from experimenting with new forms without breaching copyright.

The justification for copyright as it applies to music is that it encourages innovation.  The argument goes that if people have protection for their creation then they can gain the financial benefit of that creation and are therefore encouraged to produce.  This is only accurate to a point.  While the recording industry tries to gloss over it, copyright is not binary (present or absent) there is a scale of control.  While moderate controls can promote innovation, extreme controls can actually stifle it.  If the laws of today were in place in the 80’s then the Hip-Hop genre would not exist.  Regardless of whether that appeals to you or not, it would definitely make the music industry smaller than it is today.

While this is an interesting story in itself, the true connection with IT is its correlation with other intellectual property (IP) law.  All other IP regimes (e.g. patents) mirror copyright in their application.  Moderate enforcement encourages development.  But if the application is too weak or too strong, then the opposite is true and innovation is stifled.  I think we are seeing this in patent law today, and we in IT should take a lesson from the mistakes we can see in the music industry and get behind efforts to rationalize IP law.

When Todd offered me the chance to post on the GNC blog my intention was to start without fanfare.  I hope to maintain the feel that we all love about GNC while helping to increase the content on the site.  If you are interested in finding out more about me my personal blog is at http://businessgeek.org.  My posts there generally involve the business and economic facets of technology, but I will occasionally cross link to posts there I think might be of interest to the GNC audience.

I have been reading some commentary on the recent law suit raised by CCIA alleging that some copyright holders are overstating their actual rights in their copyright notices.  While I am undecided on the merits of this case, it reminded me of how much copyright notices on DVDs really annoy me.  I hate getting a lecture for doing the right thing, I wouldn’t see the notice if I didn’t buy the DVD!  In reality these notices make little sense unless pirates actually buy DVDs.  This just reinforces the fact that copyright holders are making a mistake in fighting their own customers.

This rhetoric out of the mouths of the folks at the RIAA are already at a fevered pitch over the introduction of the Digital Fair use Bill a great battle is about to begin.

U.S. Representatives Rick Boucher (D-VA) stated “The FAIR USE Act will assure that consumers who purchase digital media can enjoy a broad range of uses of the media for their own convenience in a way which does not infringe the copyright in the work,”

While I have been a big proponent of Fair Use Rights and think this bill is a great first step in protecting consumer rights, the RIAA and content creators are going to come in swinging on this one.

Fair Use advocate and Gary Shapiro and the members of the CEA would benefit greatly by this bill and I am hoping that CEA members and Gary Shapiro and his staff put some muscle behind this. They need to understand that they are going to have to fight and get twist some ears in the halls of congress. This is the time to call in some markers.

Meanwhile the RIAA is saying in essence that the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) has done nothing but benefit consumers. This is one of the most outrageous assessment yet, any consumer that has even modicum knowledge of the DMCA realizes that fair use rights have continued to be restricted.

The end goals of the RIAA and MPAA is through content restriction legislation, along with consumer device obsolescence that through time will remove any aspect of fair use that remains.

I will be trumpeting this bill even though it is somewhat limited in scope and leaves some critical issues on the table. I want you to get the word out to your congressional representatives today to support and put their vote behind this legislation. This is the first chance we have had in a while to make a difference in the Fair Use Rights, that treats consumers as consumers and not criminals.

Steve Jobs posted a letter to the community today talking about music and DRM. If it has not become obvious to you before, he painstakingly spells out the only reason why both Apple and Microsoft and a multitude of other companies have to wrap the media they sell in DRM.

You will garner from his letter that the sole reason DRM exist in the format it does today is to protect the multi-billion dollar movie and music industry. I understand the issues they are faced with and as a consumer I have voted with my wallet and only support indie artist.   Steve Jobs

BackupHDDVD, a tool to decrypt AACS protected movies has been released. This is for serious geeks only at this point. But needless to say this is going to cause some conversation. [doom9.org]

Many of you may know that the Librarian of Congress recently made some exceptions to existing copyright laws dealing with various published works. These ranged from obsolete computer software to video in the classroom which immediately sparked my interest. I’m by no means a lawyer but after finally getting a chance to trudge through the legalese I have come to realize that this exception will allow professors to duplicate, edit and display copyrighted media for their classrooms. Two questions came to mind as I read this. 1.) The exception seems to focus on media studies or film professors and “works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department” Does this mean history profs cannot show clips from “Glory” and other flicks that may be relevant to their class? I deal with such circumstances regularly and there is some protection for professors and media in the classroom but it is usually limited to a certain (very low) percentage of the work that can be shown. 2.) In today’s world the classroom is not just a physical place. Virtual classrooms are becoming more and more prevalent. Will professors be protected if they offer these videos on the web for their online students? We have made it a practice to gain permission to re purpose copyrighted material on the web for online courses or to make sure the media is in a password protected environment only accessible to the students. These new exceptions are a great step but are certainly left open for interpretation. You can find the full list of new exceptions here. [link to copyright exceptions]

If the MPAA has there way in a recent court filing it will be illegal for you to rip a DVD to put on a portable media player. Instead they will want you to pay full retail for the rights to do that.

The MPAA and there associated members need to come to grips with the new way media is being consumed and get their act together and allow people to pay for media one time and then give them access to all formats. Thus if I buy a DVD within that DVD should be access to a website that would allow me to download the same media for all of my various media players.

But seeing it will be a cold day in hell before they do that, then they must understand that consumers will continue to invoke their fair use rights and copy the media that they own. [EFF]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has taken notice of Apple’s recent actions along with giving notice of a bill that is before congress that could make trademark lawyers smile with envy. This is a very bad bill that will open the flood gates of litigation and give companies the right to sue on trademark infringement for the most minor similarity in product offerings. [EFF]

This just in and your help is needed in stopping another piece of legislation that will affect yoru fair use rights. This is a direct quote from the folks at IPaction.org

“Tomorrow the Senate Judiciary committee continues its markup of Senator Ted Stevens omnibus communications bill. Is a lengthy and complicated piece of legislation, but hidden deep within are the broadcast and audio flags. Both represent the latest and perhaps most desperate attempts by the Hollywood cartels to control innovation, roll back fair use, and disrupt the free market.

The bill mandates a government technology committee that would approve or reject devices based on their functionality, just like Hollywood wants. For example, new personal video recorders could be blocked from the market for having too much functionality, allowing users to tweak its settings, or interfacing with non-approved devices in your entertainment system. This kind of silly bottleneck would be laughable if it wasn’t so close to becoming law.

Now is the time to let our representatives know how the flags would decimate the consumer electronics industry while erasing our fair use rights.

Please call the Senators on the Judiciary committee and let your voice be heard.”

Do you have a Senator on the Judiciary Committee? If so get busy!

I just read a interview with some of the folks at the RIAA and like normal they seem to be pretty happy with themselves for suing thousands of people each year. They are also very happy with the way their lobby effort in congress has paid off.

I have been advocating for a long time that people start picking up the phone and writing to there congressional delegates and express how they fell about all of the ongoing issues that the RIAA are pushing that will limit your fair use rights even further.

Until enough people vote with their wallet their is not much we can do but watch them systematically chip away at the digital world. [CNET]

Well it’s funny that the RIAA is saying that it is now legal to RIP your CD’s onto your MP3 players. Don’t they realize that the entire world has been ripping CD’s onto MP3 players for a long time. These fools are just showing how stupid they really are. They actually asked the government to change the copyright rules. This is so beyond ridiculous that I am sure all of you are just shaking your head. [TechDirt]

Seems a Banned YouTube user is not happy with some decisions that have come down against him, in posting content that YouTube said violated copyright, while the banned user said the Videos were covered on Fair Use. He says he is going to start looking everyday at content and will go after top posters of content that have questionable content. With the goal of destroying the user base by getting people banned for copyright infringement.

I have a feeling we have not heard the last from this guy. But there are some valid points by both YouTube and the user. YouTube is trying to keep from getting sued by the MPAA and various other organizations, while at the same times users are trying to express themselves through capturing important video events and posting them. [Inside Google]

Seems Congress has some more legislation in the pipeline that is going to effect your fair use rights. The recording home coalition says:

PERFORM Act, S. 2644 would prevent satellite radio subscribers from recording and listening to programming that they have paid for – you could not choose the artists and playback order for anything you have recorded for your own, personal use! This bill, sponsored by Senators Feinstein (D-CA), Graham (R-SC) and Majority Leader Frist (R-TN), might be introduced in the House as well. It is yet another attempt by the music industry to deny consumers access to new technologies and content, and to eliminate the right to private, noncommercial home recording that citizens have enjoyed for decades.

This nonsense has to end now and the only way it will end is if you stand up on your chair beat the drum of outrage, and call your Senator tell her or him what you think. Fax your strong opinion and make sure your voice is heard. If you do not exercise your rights as Citizens of this great country then don’t be surprised with what you end up with! [TAKE ACTION TODAY]

I have not owned any Philips products in years but after reading the news today that they are trying to patent a method which would prevent you from changing channels during commercials, and will limit fast forwards during commercials has me thinking that this must be a joke but sadly it is not. It is likely if implemented would cause grown men to go into fits and smash any box with Philips on the outside that tries to dictate this functionality.

Philips you would be smart to never ever introduce this technology in the United States. Imagine stopping us from channel surfing during commercials. I can see dvr’s and similar devices being thrown from 50 story buildings.

But on the other hand what if they are doing this to get a patent to prevent another company from doing this, I highly doubt it. Did Philips get purchased by a major studio or the MPAA recently? [Engadget]

TorrentSpy a torrent search engine who is in takedown war with the MPAA is not laying down, they are fighting back and I think they have a pretty good chance of getting the case dismissed. TorrentSpy is nothing more than a Torrent Search engine. They don’t create torrents they only track them. If you read the motion you will understand that they have some legal precedence on this one and are likening themselves to Google.

The recent Supreme Court decision handed down on Grokster may end up being their deciding factor depending on how the judge interperts the higher court ruling. The MPAA has been getting sites taken down with their broad interpertation of that same ruling. We shall see where this leads but it is a good battle. [Neowin]

Cablevision Systems is set to unveil a test that will allow consumers to time shift TV programming with their regular set top boxes. Instead of having a DVR in the home, you will now be able to use the Cable Companies infrastructure as your DVR. According to the linked article all of the functions you normally have now with your DVR can be duplicated at the head end. This is a interesting development and could be the basis of the ultimate paradigm in that we could go to content on demand for everything we watch.

“The technology for what Cablevision calls its “remote storage digital video recorder” (RS-DVR) “is here today, and in Cablevision’s case, we can use it to put DVR functionality in more than 2 million digital cable homes instantaneously, without ever rolling a truck or swapping out a set-top box,” COO Tom Rutledge says in a statement.”

If they don’t get sued by the networks this could potentially be a win for those of us concerned about Fair Use. [USA Today]