Tuesday, May 21, 2002

Trial Date Set for Elcomsoft/Adobe E-Book Case Under DMCA The first criminal trial under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act will begin Aug. 26, a federal judge decided. ElcomSoft Co. Ltd. of Moscow could be fined $500,000 if convicted of selling a program that let users circumvent copyright protections on electronic-book software made by Adobe Systems Inc. via [GigaLaw] I wonder what Rich thinks about this lawsuit?  He's a criminal defense lawyer so hopefully he'll provide some running commentary.... 5:57:19 PM

More Proof That Copy Protection is Always Doomed The Register had this story first, but I didn't quite believe it. Now Reuters has picked it up and confirmed it in great detail.  Sony has taken to screwing with its music CDs so that they won't play on computers. God only knows how much they spent developing or licensing the technology. Here's how to beat it: take a common marker (a Sharpie is probably best), and draw a line around the edge on the non-labelled side. Presto! a disc that will play.  Millions of dollars to protect, 39 cents to defeat. No wonder retail CDs cost $19.  via [Over the Edge] And even if that doesn't work you can always feed the pristine audio sound into the microphone input and make an MP3 that way.  That's the problem with copy protection schemes: anything that is analog can become digital, and once it does it keeps on going, and keeps on going....(just like the Energizer Bunny). 5:53:22 PM

"Eldred v. Ashcroft" A whole site dedicated to this case.  Now that's weblogging, baby!  via [Daypop Top 40] 3:24:53 PM

Copyright laws used to distort patent laws and extend monopoly period Biotech companies are doing an end-run around the patentability of DNA sequences by transcoding them as MP3s. Since MP3s, as music, enjoy a 95 year monopoly under the Sonny Bono Anti-Public-Domain Act of 1998, this will give the companies a 95 year "copyright" on the sequences they identify.  "It's taking artistic copyright laws and using them to get around scientific issues," he said. "I think it stinks."  But a copyrighted genetic-based song could serve as a safe way to transfer DNA sequences between scientists, according to Don Pelto, an intellectual property lawyer with Washington firm McKenna Cuneo. Link via [bOing bOing] 11:23:32 AM

Fish Out Of Water - The CARP Dies "The United States Copyright Office on Tuesday rejected an arbitration panel ruling on Webcasting royalty rates, a decision that is sure to rankle the recording industry and bring smiles to the face of Internet radio executives nationwide."  More from the Librarian of Congress: "The Register of Copyrights recommends, and the Librarian agrees, that the CARP's determination must be rejected. A final decision will be issued no later than June 20, 2002." 'Scuse me, I'm going to tune in some Internet Radio." via Denise NPR was all over this story yesterday, and I was surprised to hear that the guys from Arbitron were critical of the proposal.  And so were artists (who of course always want exposure).  It's interesting to me the shift that is occurring between artists and publishers/distributors.   That is to say, when Copyright laws were first created it was to benefit publishers (with the assumption that there would be a derivative benefit to authors).  Now we see that authors have a direct market and it is the publishers (or music companies) that are trying to lock down the distribution channels.  Now, let's do the math.  If the point of copyright is to promote the arts (and that's what the Constitution says) and artists want to create and distribute their work then shouldn't the law favor the widest possible distribution?  Oh, I forgot.  The artists usually sign away their copyrights to the publishers and music companies in exchange for their promotion efforts.  Say, does anyone remember why John Fogarty got sued?  Hint:  he had signed away his copyrights early on (the Creedence Clearwater stuff) and so when he made his big comeback and started writing music again, Fantasy Records, which controlled the Creedence stuff, sued him for writing songs that sounded too much like his old stuff. So, where is the promotion of creativity in our current music distribution scheme? 11:06:57 AM

© Copyright 2002 Ernest Svenson.