Thoughts on This Film is Not Yet Rated

Just watched the spectacular film This Film is Not Yet Rated, which chronicles how the MPAA actually places ratings on films. A few things of note:

• The interviewees echo a concern that has been voiced many times before, namely that a film is penalized more for sex than for violence, especially where female pleasure is concerned
• There is an appeals process that a filmmaker can go through to change the rating on his film. On the board that oversees this process sits one Catholic priest, one Protestant pastor, (WTF???) and a handful of Big Media insiders
• The McCarthyist investigation into Hollywood in the 50's was largely a power move by Big Media executives to break the back of labor unions that were on strike at the time (makes me want to read The Shock Doctrine, which I saw on display the other day)
• The Requiem for a Dream director makes an interesting point: in PG-13 movies, gunplay is shown without the consequences (that is, no blood or guts, just people going 'oomph' and falling down) whereas in R rated movies it is not. He believes this should be the other way around because it is misleading: why is it more appropriate to show younger kids violence with less consequences?
• In a conversation with an MPAA spokesman, it is revealed that the MPAA's main disincentive for rating films lower is that they recieve a lot of mail from various special interest groups. This is in stark contrast to the MPAA's oft-given reason for keeping the process so secretive: to "protect people from possible influence" (not to mention people who have a financial incentive in influencing the ratings are integrated into this process).
• Any film using military-loaned equipment must submit 5 copies of its script in advance of the movie's release to the Pentagon, so the military can censor any negative detections of military life (drinking, drugs, language, excessive violence etc.).
  

This film exposes the hypocrisy and nepotism of the Hollywood rating system. Independent films are censored in the interest of diverting more viewers towards Big Media productions (because many theaters/chains will not carry a movie if it gets an NC-17 rating). I was surprised to discover the military and Christianity's role in censorship of films (perhaps I shouldn't have been), but certainly not surprised that the MPAA ratings are mostly arbitrary and inherently aligned with the interests of major studios. In conclusion, never trust ratings -- they're a bunch of bullshit, rife with bias and Big Media politics.

Gitmo soldiers editing Wikipedia... your tax dollars at work

It seems that at least one soldier at Guantanamo Bay was editing articles on Wikipedia and other sites that were dedicated to discussing Gitmo abuse. I feel great about paying for this guy to disseminate misinformation. The parallels to 1984's Ministry of Truth are quite apparent, as the New York Times article hammers home. The greatest part is the quote from an officer denying the whole thing... "THAT would be unethical." Unlike torture.

Mike Huckabee is an Idiot

From page 71 of today's New York Times Magazine, an article about Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee says he believes that the next president of the United States will have to lead Western civilization in a worldwide conflict with radical Islam.

This from a Baptist minister who is endorsed by the author of the apocalyptic "Left Behind" series of novels. Everyone don your crusader getups, we're in this for the long haul.

Copyright and Free Speech are not Compatible, and other Follies of Dan Glickman

For anyone that thinks that copyright and free speech can be enforced simultaneously on the Internet, the statements and actions of the MPAA can be a rude awakening. The MPAA and others are trying to get ISPs to build in packet-sniffing technology into the architecture of their networks solely to enforce the interests of copyright owners. Trouble is, there is no standard for identifying certain 1's and 0's over a wire as 'copyrighted' and others as 'not copyrighted.' Not to mention that you can't try and determine the copyrighted-ness of data without examining all of the data, thus violating the privacy of a (formerly) two-party, private exchange.

The MPAA's Dan Glickman has a lot of laughably misinformed opinions and spouts a number of misleading statements in the Ars article which merit addressing.

"Protection of content from theft."

Woah, buddy. "Theft" is when I steal something. You can't steal data. It's impossible. When I make a copy of someone else's data, they still retain that data. Contrast that to say, stealing a car, which is an act of theft after which the rightful owner can no longer use the car. Peer to peer file sharing also differs from theft in that the transaction is consensual, whereas with theft it is not.

"Piracy costs the studios $6 billion worldwide every year"

$6 billion, eh? Well, it's worthwhile noting that you have an interest in inflating this figure to make the "problem" seem like it is larger than it really is. Second, where are you getting these figures? Studies have come out that argue that file sharing actually increases sales. I can't find the link, but I think I remember reading that the RIAA attorney in Capitol v Thomas said that there was no basis for determining those figures. Even if that isn't true, the way the MPAA is coming up with these figures is arbitrary.

"'Traditional organized criminals would drool' over the margins made by pirates."

Oh, really? You think everyone that downloads anything is making money off of the transaction somehow? Get real. 99.9% of file sharing has to be non-commercial between fans who just want to trade songs that they are interested in. I would also think that robbing a bank would pay WAY higher margins than selling DVDs of Police Academy on Chinese streets. The cost of production is essentially the price of the physical DVD, and there's no significant barrier to entry. So if you charge a billion yuan for Rush Hour 2, someone will certainly undercut you, if not download the movie for free themselves.

"Piracy"

Let us also remember that this term in and of itself is overloaded. This used to be a term for distributors that would print an author's work without paying him. (See Stallman's Free Software, Free Society) Let's call it what it is: file sharing of copyrighted content that is illegal in the American jurisdiction. Not 'piracy.'

Crossing the border? You're a terrorist!

From the Washington Post via Slashdot: It seems as though the federal government has hatched yet another brilliant idea with which to invade Americans' privacy. The culprit is another data-mining and analysis mega-project aimed to screen everyone who enters and leaves the country for a potential terrorist threat.

In a round-the-clock operation, targeters match names against terrorist watch lists and a host of other data to determine whether a person's background or behavior indicates a terrorist threat, a risk to border security or the potential for illegal activity. They also assess cargo.

Each traveler assessed by the center is assigned a numeric score: The higher the score, the higher the risk. A certain number of points send the traveler back for a full interview.

Yet another opportunity for bigoted assumptions about the nature of terrorists and bad data to act as an excuse for the government to expand its power. A little imagination reveals what the scoring system might look like:
+5 points if an Arab
+5 points if you are under 30
+5 points if you are dark-skinned
+5 points if you are wearing a turban
+5 points if you have no intention of returning to your home country
... and so on ...
+5 points if you look at the border officer the wrong way
+5 points if you assert your rights as a U.S. citizen
+5 points if you have recently attended a peace rally
+5 points if you have ever spoken against any policy of the political party in power

But, of course, DHS et al feel no accountability to any individual citizen, just like their no-fly (and other) lists. Once you've been marked as a terrorist (however apocryphal that label might be), just try getting off of it:

According to yesterday's notice, the program is exempt from certain requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 that allow, for instance, people to access records to determine "if the system contains a record pertaining to a particular individual" and "for the purpose of contesting the content of the record."

Scary.

Taking pictures from a train? You're a terrorist!

A Japanese tourist was told to stop taking pictures on a train near New Haven, CT in the interest of "national security." He didn't understand the conductor's English, and was summarily apprehended and interrogated by local police. Nice. (Link)

Eating falafel? You're a terrorist!

Apparently the FBI thought that it could track down terrorists by watching falafel sales (collected from grocer data) in the Bay Area. If you ate too many, you would be put on a terrorist watch list.

Our tax dollars are going to _this_? Check out the Boing Boing comments for some well-deserved ridicule.

Response to Neil Portnow's SJ Mercury Editorial

Neil Portnow, the president and CEO of the Recording Academy, wrote an editorial in today's San Jose Mercury news on page 16A called "Record industry, tech firms must forge common future." I wrote the following response and posted it in the comments of that article.

-----------------------

While Mr. Portnow's attitude towards technology is an improvement over that of his predecessor Michael Greene (remember the 2002 Grammy Awards speech? [1]), he nevertheless seems to posses a tunnel vision regarding the current music industry's relation to
technology.

The problem with music today is not so-called 'piracy' (I prefer to call this activity 'sharing music with fellow music lovers') but a lack of creative thinking with regard to how modern computer and networking technology change the landscape of music creation and distribution. The record industry, in the old model, solved two problems of the artists -- paying for expensive studio time and distributing the music via CD or vinyl to the masses. Both of these activities can now be done by artists themselves for little cost: modern recording and mixing software is available for every computing platform and costs an iota of studio equipment, and artists can distribute their songs directly to fans over the Internet for virtually no cost. There is simply no need anymore for an artist to go through a record label to release music.

So how does the recording industry maintain its relevance (read: cash inflows) when it is essentially serves no useful purpose? One word: copyright. While looking at the Recording Academy's 'principles' web page, [2] you'll notice that principle #2 states the need for "[compensating] copyright owners." Well guess who owns all the copyrights to the vast majority of music recorded over the last century? The recording industry, of course. The members of the RIAA want to act as a tollbooth on the information superhighway,demanding a fee in order to allow anyone to listen to or share music. None, if any, of these fees go to the majority of artists --they only serve to line the pockets of industry executives who justify these payments with the battle cry of 'artists' rights.' It's a tried and true tactic of the industry: forward the 'starving artist' myth, collect cash via royalties.

In addition to paying the wrong person, the executive instead of the artist, American copyright law has a host of other problems which degrade the liberties of music-loving individuals. Music industry lobbyists often talk about these laws as if they were as absolute as the law of gravity, and they're not. They can be modified for the better, and certainly must be if we as a society hope to gain back some of the rights we've lost. This issue is far too complicated to go into detail about here, but I highly recommend reading Lessig's Free Culture (online for free -- as in freedom -- at [3]) as an introduction to the issue. Suffice it for now to say that the current system produces ugly results such as the ridiculously high damages the RIAA can demand in court from ordinary individuals like Jammie Thomas. [4]

Finally, Mr. Portnow's article contains some misleading statements that merit pointing out. He offers the example of legislation that would correct an 'anomaly' and make the broadcast industry pay similar fees to play content as Internet radio services. The absence of this legislation doesn't put Internet radio at a 'disadvantage' -- it still pays the same amount to the industry. The party most disadvantaged by this lack of legislation is the recording industry who stands to rake in another $20 billion if its lobbying efforts in Washington are successful (a lucrative tollbooth, indeed). Mr. Portnow also elevates George Lucas as a technology visionary, which makes his ranch the appropriate place to talk with Silicon Valley executives. All technology, however, is not created equal. While Mr. Lucas may have pioneered special effects and sophisticated audio, he certainly lags behind in file-sharing technology, which is,
of course, what the summit was all about. When Mr. Lucas releases all of his movies online for free, then I believe it will be appropriate to laud him for his technology savvy in more than one sense.

Mr. Portnow believes that the future of music hinges on the harmonious relations of the music industry and the technology industry. However, for artists and fans alike, the ideal future of music would be one that includes less of the music industry.

References:
[1] Michael Greene's 2002 Grammy Awards speech http://www.boycott-riaa.com/education/grammy_speech
[2] The Recording Academy's 'Principles' http://www.grammy.com/principles
[3] Lessig's 'Free Culture' http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf
[4] Ars Technica article on Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-verdict-is-in.html

Additional reading:
The Promise of a Post-Copyright World http://questioncopyright.org/promise
The EFF's The RIAA vs. The People http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa-v-thepeople.php

Stalk and Threaten your Ex with Government Databases

Guess what? Massive federal databases are being abused by insiders! Suprise! This particular incident involved a man who was stalking and threatening his former girlfriend by utilizing information he found in the Treasury Enforcement Communications System. Apparently he (mis)used this database 163 times before being caught. I wonder how many of these stories are not public...

Point and Click Surveillance

Wired has an excellent article on the FBI's surveillance system used to eavesdrop on anyone with a cellphone. Some of the pictures are particularly revealing; they show how simple it is to use this powerful system. Some commentary on the system from the article:

Columbia's Bellovin says the flaws are appalling and show that the FBI fails to appreciate the risk from insiders.

"The underlying problem isn't so much the weaknesses here, as the FBI attitude towards security," he says. The FBI assumes "the threat is from the outside, not the inside," he adds, and it believes that "to the extent that inside threats exist, they can be controlled by process rather than technology."

Bellovin says any wiretap system faces a slew of risks, such as surveillance targets discovering a tap, or an outsider or corrupt insider setting up unauthorized taps. Moreover, the architectural changes to accommodate easy surveillance on phone switches and the internet can introduce new security and privacy holes.

"Any time something is tappable there is a risk," Bellovin says. "I'm not saying, 'Don't do wiretaps,' but when you start designing a system to be wiretappable, you start to create a new vulnerability. A wiretap is, by definition, a vulnerability from the point of the third party. The question is, can you control it?"

Well it's a good thing that we can completely trust the FBI to understand the scope of its responsibilities and the limits of its power because it has never abused the privileges entrusted to it in the past. Oh, wait.

Thoughtcrime, fine, but Windows? The horror!

Another day, another ridiculous copyright-related story that is a testament to how our government and its Big Media puppeteers are ruining peoples lives. This one comes courtesy of the lovely Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005. It makes the innocuous act of turning on anything capable of recording multimedia (your phone or camcorder today, perhaps your cuff links tomorrow at the rate technology is getting more portable and powerful) punishable by three to six years in prison. Nice.

Today's unlucky soul is an ex-administrator of a BitTorrent tracker who pled guilty to counts of ‘conspiracy to commit copyright infringement’ (Thoughtcrime, anyone?) and ‘criminal copyright infringement.’ This meant some jail time for him, followed by some ankle-bracelet accompaniment following. Now the government wants to monitor him even more, tracking his internet and computer usage. But, wait! It gets worse:

"'I had a meeting with my probation officer today, and he told me that he has to install monitoring software onto my PC. No big deal to me, that is part of my sentence. However, their software doesnt (sic) support GNU/Linux (Which is what I use). So, he told me that if I want to use a computer, I would have to use an OS that the software can be installed on.' ...
Sk0t is left with a tough choice. Give in to the evils of the monitoring software, format his hard drive and install Windows - or be barred from using a PC completely."

Bush legalizes NSA progam

The New York Times today reported that Bush has signed into law a new bill that "broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants." Basically, it puts the Attorney General (As Cory Doctorow would say, Chief Torturer and Selective Amnesiac Alberto Gonzales) the power to approve international surveillance. It turns out those secret courts that were set up to approve this kind of stuff just were getting in the way too much! Funny, even they felt some obligation to defend American liberties, something that this president clearly does not value.

How did he ever get away with this? What was that whole wiretapping scandal about? Wasn't there enough of an outcry that the President knew that he could never get away with something like this again? Well, apparently not because he just did.

This development is troubling, but another disturbing revelation comes towards the end of the article:

In January, the administration placed the N.S.A.’s warrantless wiretapping program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and subjected it for the first time to the scrutiny of the FISA court.

Democratic Congressional aides said Sunday that they believed that pressure from major telecommunications companies on the White House was a major factor in persuading the Bush administration to do that. Those companies were facing major lawsuits for having secretly cooperated with the warrantless wiretapping program, and now wanted greater legal protections before cooperating further.

But the change suddenly swamped the court with an enormous volume of search warrant applications, leading, in turn, to the administration’s decision to seek the new legislation.

So you're saying that 1) the only reason that the wiretapping thing ever became such an issue was because the telcos were playing a big game of lobbyist-CYA and 2) that following due process just became too troublesome to deal with? WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON WITH THIS COUNTRY???

Malaysia: hopefully not the future U.S.A.

Malaysia will potentially use anti-terror laws to crack down on free speech, specifically that which insults those in power or the predominant religion of the country. Insults to those in power or the perceived national heritage have been used in other countries as well, such as Turkey, to stifle critics of the powers that be.

Unfortunately, the United States seems to be creeping towards this state of affairs itself. The president already gave himself dictatorial powers, we're detaining people indefinitely that are suspected "terrorists" and respected politicians have already claimed that we should re-examine our free speech beliefs to stay ahead of terror.

What's the next logical step? Something like what Malaysia is doing now?

"Piracy," not burglary should be law enforcement's priority, says Big Media

From Ars Technica:

"Our law enforcement resources are seriously misaligned," Cotton said. "If you add up all the various kinds of property crimes in this country, everything from theft, to fraud, to burglary, bank-robbing, all of it, it costs the country $16 billion a year. But intellectual property crime runs to hundreds of billions [of dollars] a year." Cotton's comments come in Paul Stweeting's report on Hollywood's latest shenanigans on Capitol Hill.

Just what we need... more bank robberies and burglaries, less sharing of online music. Give me a break. Exactly the kind of delusions, greed and illogical argumentation that I would expect from the industry that, as Ars Technica puts it, "defines solipsism."

Apple: turning into law enforcement, one step at a time

When Apple announced that it was going to sell DRM-free music, most people thought that that would be a good thing for the iPod-addicted masses. DRM restricts consumers options and freedoms, and is entirely unwanted on their end. Even though Apple was raising the cost 30 cents (for an increase in quality as well, not just for taking away a "feature" that customers didn't want in the first place), the announcement was greeted with general acclaim by those who hoped that Apple was moving away from the privacy-invasive techniques of Big Media.

The devil, of course, is in the details. Apple has traded in DRM on its EMI tracks for something even more insidious: a water mark that embeds the name and email address of the user that purchased it in the file, allowing Apple (or anyone else) to identify who the file was originally sold to. Of course, this can be easily circumvented by converting the file to mp3, overwritting the name and email (steve@mac.com, for a good laugh), etc. However, the fact remains that the vast majority of users either do not know, do not care, or do not care to figure out how to eliminate this data from their files. See for yourself:

dannyc@sf:~/Desktop/Music From Laptop/DRM (iTunes)$ strings 01\ Proper\ Education\ \(Radio\ Edit\).m4p | grep "name"
nameDaniel Colligan
name
dannyc@sf:~/Desktop/Music From Laptop/DRM (iTunes)$ strings 01\ Proper\ Education\ \(Radio\ Edit\).m4p | grep ".com"
dannycolligan@gmail.com
"com.
dannyc@sf:~/Desktop/Music From Laptop/DRM (iTunes)$

Apple's actions beg the question, why are they doing this? What possible benefit could Apple reap from putting identifying information in its files? Since they have the iTunes player on virtually every consumer desktop these days, is it so improbable that the next iTunes upgrade will include a spy that informs Apple whenever you have files that do not belong to you and/or deletes them and/or informs someone else (say, those labels that Mr. Jobs has been cozying up to lately)? Ars Technica points out that iTunes already feeds data back to Apple so that the iTunes client can recommend tracks that you might like. Put the dail-home feature with the identifying info feature, however, and you have a recipe for a copyright infringement detector. Just what we all need: now in addition to Big Media watching our every transmission over the network, Apple will be the overlord of our hard drive.

If it's not obvious to you already, avoid using iTunes for your own sake.

Setting up an epic lawyer-fest for the ages?

From slashdot today:

"First it was Napster; then it was Internet radio; then it was little girls, grandmothers, and dead people. But now our friends at the RIAA are going decidedly low-tech. The LA Times reports that the RIAA wants royalties from radio stations. 70 years ago Congress exempted radio stations from paying royalties to performers and labels because radio helps sell music. But since the labels that make up the RIAA are not getting the cash they desire through sales of CDs, and since Internet and satellite broadcasters are forced to cough up cash to their racket, now the RIAA wants terrestrial radio to pay up as well."

Finally, the RIAA is duking it out with another entity that can afford to pay lawyers: ClearChannel. No one is quite sure how this battle will turn out, but hopefully it will erode both entitys' power and credibility (after all, ClearChannel sucks, too). An odd coincidence is this onion article, just put out today.

Imprisoned for life for "Piracy"?

Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pushing a new bill, the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007. This bill has a number of ridiculous clauses, such as life imprisonment in certain circumstances for "piracy."

Additionally, it has provisions that would bring a tear of joy to any RIAA prosecutor's eye. These include expanding the rules by which wiretapping is allowed to detect copyright infringement, criminalizing attempting to infringe copyright, generally making punishments harsher for copyright infringement, and even having the department of homeland security notify the RIAA about "pirated" importing of CDs (it's notable that no other copyright holder qualifies for this kind of treatment).

There was a bill before congress like this last year and it didn't go anywhere. Hopefully this bill will suffer the same fate.

Team America, World Police

Looks like America's "Intellectual Property" laws extend beyond its borders. The US has convinced Australia to extradite a member of the warez group DrinkOrDie. He had never been to America, but now he faces up to 10 years in prison as he awaits his fate in a Virginia cell.

This represents an extraordinary extension of the US' legal authority over other countries, especially when it comes to protection of "Intellectual Property." This man should be tried in Australian courts (if not lauded as a hero). Unfortunately Team America, World Police, does not see it that way.

Who isn't in the RIAA's pocket? Harvard!

Finally, someone influential in the academic community has taken a strong stand against the RIAA's tactics. Professor Charles Nesson and Professor Wendy Seltzer of Harvard Law School have written an editorial in the Harvard Crimson stating that doing the RIAA's dirty work in outing its students is contrary to the school's educational mission. Rock on.

Who is in the RIAA's pocket now? Congress!

It is a sad day when our elected officials turn on us on the command of the RIAA, et al. Congress has sent letters to universities asking what they are doing to prevent illegal downloading of copyrighted works. Congress warned that it would be "forced to act" if it was not provided with "acceptable answers."

The RIAA has co-opted the FBI, police, and judicial system against us in the past, and now it seems like they're directing their efforts towards the legislative branch. Aren't we fighting a war? Aren't we destroying the earth? Aren't there any other social problems that deserve Congress' attention? Why are they wasting their time getting paid off by the RIAA to do their dirty work? Oh, right... they're politicians. I can almost hear the auctioneer:

"Now bidding on Lamar Smith's (R-TX) vote! Can I get seven thousand dollars? Cary Sherman places a bid in the back for seven thousand; can I get eight?"

Not really terrorists, but not really citizens, either.

Are you a "specially designated national?" That's doublespeak for "kinda a terrorist." If you are, you've been placed on a government watchlist. This list is doubly asinine because business owners have access to it and are required by law to not do any business with anyone on it.

Three comments about this ridiculous, freedom-compromising list:

• Now we can all strike back against terrorists by making sure they don't purchase that washing machine and toaster at Costco!
  
• Of course, no innocents would be on this list and be getting confused with the bad guys... would they?
• Kind of creates an odd situation between owner and customer, doesn't it: "Sir, I can't sell this to you because your name is similar to a terrorist in Iran's. Sorry about that unfortunate coincidence. If it's any help, the police will be here shortly to interrogate you."
  

Harry Fox Agency makes a compromise... for a price!

The Harry Fox Agency, who gained my attention by suing the OLGA and other guitar tablature sites into obscurity, recently announced that they will allow sheet music of its artists to go online... for massive sums of ad revenue that the website hosting the tabs gathers.

Yet another struggle of music lovers against a gaggle of faceless industry associations "representing artists' rights" -- the HFA, MPA (Music Publishers' Association), and NMPA (National Music Publishers' Association). When will the insane extortion end?

Fight back against Big Media

Ars Technica is reporting (as they usually do) on Big Media's attempts to marginalize the student population of America. This time, it's the MPAA releasing a hit list of "most-wanted" schools for downloading movies. Where music goes, movies follow.

Thankfully, the good folks over at EFF have decided that there is a need to fight back against this oppression. If you have any love for digital freedoms at all, please go to the Digital Freedom Campaign's web site. It's a gathering point for those who feel that they should be able to do what they want with their own property, not what some Warner executive wants. They also link to another site I haven't heard of, the Home Recording Rights Coalition, which fights for (duh) fair use freedoms as they relate to home recording. See the DFC's page of links for more sites of this nature.

Here's why you should participate, from "The Issue" page of the DFC, which puts things in a nice historical context:

The Problem

Digital technologies allow everyone the freedom to be artists, innovators, producers and creators; to listen, watch and participate wherever, whenever and however they choose. But that freedom is in jeopardy today. The big labels and studios have launched an assault on your technology freedom, because they fear their antiquated business models are being threatened. They’re lobbying for government controls over new technology and filing lawsuits to do the same.

Their goal is to outlaw new digital technology and devices that allow individuals to enjoy digital music and videos at a convenient time and place. They want to severely limit— if not eliminate altogether— the technology-provided freedom to innovate, create, listen and see.

The Digital Freedom Campaign recognizes that new technologies are essential to the creativity and innovation that have allowed this nation to thrive. Allowing these new technologies the freedom to flourish is at the heart of The Digital Freedom Campaign. Digital technology enables would-be artists and hopeful innovators to produce music, create cutting edge films and videos that reach new audiences. It allows consumers to enjoy these legally acquired works whenever, wherever and however they choose. These basic freedom must be protected. The Digital Freedom Campaign is dedicated to defending the rights of artists, innovators, creators and consumers to use technology without fear of unreasonable government restrictions or costly lawsuits.

The Threat

The fear of new technologies is hardly new:

" I foresee a marked deterioration in American music…and a host of other injuries to music in its artistic manifestations, by virtue—or rather by vice—of the multiplication of the various music-reproducing machines…"
- John Philips Sousa on the Player Piano (1906)

"The public will not buy songs that it can hear almost at will by a brief manipulation of the radio dials."
- Record Label Executive on FM Radio (1925)

"But now we are faced with a new and very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the videocassette recorder…"
- MPAA on the VCR (1982)

"These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it. So it's time to get paid for it."
- Universal Music Group Chairman/CEO Doug Morris, November 10, 2006

The Nature of the Fight
The United States Constitution grants a limited monopoly to the works of authors and artists as an incentive to create and innovate. That monopoly typically has granted creators a limited period of time in which their works cannot be copied, or otherwise appropriated, without permission and compensation. Fair Use of those works, however, gives an exemption to that monopoly by allowing certain unauthorized uses—for example, the right to discuss the work in a review or the ability to make a personal backup copy of a CD—as long as they don’t infringe on the creator’s rights. Because copyright, in some cases, limits free speech rights granted by the Bill of Rights (not allowing someone to read another author’s poem without permission on national television is arguably a limit on free speech), one Supreme Court Justice has stated that Fair Use is what keeps copyright Constitutional.

But today, Fair Use is under fierce attack by the entertainment industry, particularly the large recording labels and Hollywood studios, who contend that any unauthorized use of a CD or DVD somehow infringes on their copyrights. They are wrong. Fair Use protects most of the activities they seek to ban. Why shouldn't a student be able to use lawfully acquired music in a school project? Why can't someone use the song she bought on ITunes on a DVD she is making of her photos? Why can't a consumer make a favorite hits CD with music lawfully acquired? Why shouldn't a music teacher be able to assemble clips of sound recordings purchased by the school in order to better teach a class?

The entertainment industry would have you believe that this is about piracy. Again, they are wrong. The Digital Freedom Campaign has nothing to do with the unauthorized mass distribution of copyrighted materials. We all oppose that. In its 2005 Grokster decision, the Supreme Court gave the entertainment industry the legal ability to go after peer-to-peer networks that promote mass, indiscriminate redistribution of copyrighted works if those networks “induce” that behavior. In their arguments, the big recording labels repeatedly stated that their target was not the private and personal recording practices of law-abiding consumers.

Yet, the industry made a concentrated push in 2006 to restrict in-home personal use of new technology. New technology is under the most serious assault since Hollywood almost succeeded in keeping consumer VCRs off the market 25 years ago. The entertainment industry is filing punitive lawsuits against legitimate and law-abiding businesses, and having bills introduced in Congress that would place absurd restrictions on lawful consumer practices.

For more information on Fair Use and efforts to restrict it, please visit www.hrrc.org.

The following are recent lawsuits threatening to restrict or ban new technology and limit Fair Use rights

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY: DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDERS

Atlantic Records v. XM Satellite Radio
The recording industry sued XM Satellite Radio for billions in potential damages, for marketing lawful products that allow subscribers to time-shift programs by recording them only for private, personal use such as listening to them at a more convenient time. The devices do not allow transferring music to computers or other players, nor do they permit burning permanent copies or distribution over the internet. This lawsuit has been pursued even though the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 prohibits lawsuits based on the use of such products (on which the music industry already receives royalties under the AHRA).

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY: HOME VIDEO EDITING

Macrovision v. Sima Products
Sima's digital consumer video editing products allows consumers to improve the quality of certain non-commercial recordings, such as wedding videos, by stripping analog video recordings of the artificial noise and distortion that are a result of Macrovision's copy protection. A Federal District Court has enjoined the sale of these products under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) because the device doesn’t include a chip that generates copy protection – despite the fact that the copy protection would create some of the very viewing distortions that the editing products are meant to remedy.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY: HOME NETWORKING OF DVDS

DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) v. Kaleidescape
DVD CCA is suing Kaleidescape claiming that it is illegal for them to sell a home server which copies legally-purchased DVDs to a hard drive and sends them around the home network.

TARGET TECHNOLOGY: PLACE-SHIFTING OF DVDS

MPAA v. LOAD 'N GO Video Inc.
Load N' Go is a service that allows consumers to load DVDS, which they have purchased, onto their iPods. The movie studios' suit claims that this is illegal, because ripping a DVD (i.e., decrypting it and making a copy) is illegal under the DMCA. The suit also claims that this constitutes copyright infringement.

Other Threats to Fair Use

Association of American Publishers v. Google
The publishers are suing Google for digitizing libraries, even though the information publicly displayed is minimal (like a library card) and publishers can opt out. This service will make libraries and their books far more easily searchable and, because only short snippets are excerpted, does not provide a substitute for the book itself.

Google v. Perfect 10
The issue here is whether a search engine indexing a copyrighted image on an unauthorized site, and then creating and then delivering a thumbnail photo of that image constitutes an infringement. That Perfect 10 is an adult entertainment site does not diminish the threat here to the ability of consumers or libraries to rely on search engines to find content on the internet. Another Federal District Court held that Google’s linking to certain images, as a result of consumer searches, is not Fair Use – threatening personal use of a popular consumer tool for finding information and content.

Huntsman (Cleanflicks) v. Soderbergh
The issue here is whether parents can utilize services that edit out adult scenes and language in movies. A U.S. District Court found that supplying consumers a version of a DVD in which objectionable content has been edited out is not Fair Use – even though the original version has been purchased and supplied to the consumer as well.

What a great day!

No, really. For once, I'm being sincere. How has my day been great? Let me count the ways:

1. Music sales, especially CD sales plunge Take that, RIAA! Your demise is imminent!
   
2. News Corp and NBC announce plans for YouTube clone File this under "We're a bit late to the party" and "We don't get this community-driven thing... this service will work, right?"
3. University of Nebraska asks RIAA to pay its processing fees Take that, RIAA! Although they did ask rather politely, don't you think?
4. Child Online Protection Act struck down No censorship in the guise of anti-porn filters! Yay!
5. EFF sues Viacom over DMCA YouTube request The EFF, always fighting the good fight.
6. It's California weather in DC... time to go outside!
   

P2P endangers children and undermines national security? Yeah, right.

The lobbying wizards over at the MPAA and RIAA are at it again, presumably. This time, they have managed to get the US Patent Office to release a statement saying that peer to peer file sharing endangers children and undermines national security. Seriously. I'm not making this up. The only things they fail to include in this are claims that the sky is falling and Armageddon is coming.

You know a business model is in danger when its backers start invoking the "Think of the children! (tm)" and "Terrorists could strike again! (tm)" arguments. Oh, and remember kids...

First audio, then movies... and now TV?

The EFF has just revealed that it has been present while a group of broadcasters plots to lock down TV with DRM. Similar to the vast majority if not all DRM schemes, this "security" translates to a bad deal for the consumer. The Digital Video Broadcasting Project will be able to do a variety of unsavory things to your television (or computer, as the case may be) in order to squeeze every last cent out of you. For instance, the so-called "Content Protection and Copy Management" system could (from the EFF site):

• Enforcing severe home recording and copying limitations. CPCM will allow content providers to apply copy restriction labels to broadcast streams. For example, a program could be marked as "Copy Never." In turn, your DVRs and others devices receiving the signal will have to obey and forbid copying even for home use. A content provider could opt to allow recording but still enforce a multitude of restrictions on copying to other devices.
• Imposing controls on where you watch a program. Even if you are given permission to move a program to your laptop or other portable devices, "geography controls" may kick in and stop playback once you leave home or a particular locale. These restrictions may be enforced using tamper-proof GPS receivers built in to your devices. CPCM can also be used to block sending video to yourself over your own home network or the Internet, among other things.
• Dictating how you get to share shows with your own family. CPCM can be used to examine, for instance, the frequency with which devices are connected to a personal network and determine whether your sharing is within an "Authorized Domain" Absurdly, DVB spent significant time arguing over what happens to a digital video in case of a divorce!
• Breaking compatibility with your devices. You may have already invested in new high definition displays and receivers that rely on component analog connections or unrestricted digital outputs, but CPCM will allow the studios to arbitrarily block these connections. In other words, individual copyright holders can turn your gadgets into oversized paperweights. CPCM- restricted media will also be able to carry blacklists and revoke compatibility with particular devices that don't enforce Hollywood's restrictions sufficiently.

Looks like MPAA/RIAA redux to me... prepare for more suing of grandmothers and the like (oh, in addition to not having your TV work the way you want it to).

Another suprise... Patriot Act Abused!

Well who saw this coming? The Patriot Act, which has given law enforcement sweeping powers to invade citizens' privacy, has been abused by officers overstepping the mandate given to them by that same act. Here's the story from Wired and from Slashdot. Slashdot, as always, has some good comments. Some samples:
"Funny. I seem to recall a lot of screaming about the possibility for abuse and I distinctly recall being told to shut the fuck up, we can *trust* them to do the right thing."
"

"There is no excuse for the mistakes that have been made, and we are going to make things right as quickly as possible," the attorney general said.

And this time, we mean it!"

TIA is back with a new name (suprise!)

Be afraid. Be very afraid. TIA never went away, of course, when congress banned it in 2003. It simply got its name changed. Now it is known as ADVISE -- Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight and Semantic Enhancement. Nice doublespeak name. Infowars says it best:

"Shortly after the announcement of TIA, the Pentagon backtracked and told us that TIA was shutting down, but the tools are there waiting to be used, They'll just rename it and start it up again at any given time. The Tools of TIA include "LifeLog" which is described as "a multimedia, digital record of everywhere you go and everything you see, hear, read, say and touch". Another tool is the MATRIX database, A federally funded crime database run by multiple states at once.

<snip>

The National Journal reported that the program is now accessed by, among others: the NSA, the CIA, DIA, CENTCOM, the National Counterterorrism Center, the Guantanamo prison, and Special Operations Command (SOCOM)... Big Brother is most definitely still watching. Enjoy watching your tax dollars at work watching you."

Yet another RIAA extortion tactic

My, this is getting old. Seems like the RIAA has come up with yet another way to squeeze every last penny they can out of the college crowd with bullying pseudo-legal tactics. Instead of dragging the "infringing" student through the inconveniences of the courtroom, he can just agree to settle beforehand to pay out $3000!

Part of me wonders why the RIAA keeps up these morally reprehensible shenanigans. Aren't there people, and not monsters, at the RIAA? The other part is looking squarely at the dollar sign on my keyboard. It seems that in the light of the recent counter-suit for attorney's fees that the RIAA came out on the loosing side of, they have decided that proving a student (or other poor soul's) guilt is just too much... justice. What a convenient way to supplement that declining revenue stream of CD dollars!

Got moves? Get sued!

From Slashdot today:

"The "creator" of the Dance move known as the electric slide has filed a DMCA based takedown notice for videos he deems to infringe and because they show "bad dancing". He is also seeking compensation from the use of the dance move at a wedding celebration shown on the Ellen Degeneres Show. Next up, the Funky Chicken, the moonwalk, and the Hustle? More seriously, does the DMCA have any limit on its scope?"

Hey, terrorists, want bomb designs? Look no further than the Republican Leadership!

This happened a few months ago, but is so shocking that I can't help but post it... in a confused effort to promote how good they were on national security, the Republican Leadership ignored the advice of every competent security advisor (including America's "security czar") and put documents detailing nuclear bomb designs on the Internet. The documents were only taken down after the New York Times exposed the incompetence of the act. This led, of course, to politicians trying to cover their ass by blaming the NYT for pointing terrorists to the document. Here's a good interview with a non-proliferation expert talking about the subject on Kieth Olbermann.

RIAA-speak: artist promotion = crime

Mixtapes are a vital part of musical artist promotion, especially for certain genres such as rap. Unfortunately, the RIAA thinks that distributors of mixtapes that don't play by their rules should be locked up. That's what has happened to DJ Drama, whose "Gangsta Grillz" mixtapes are famous for breaking new artists. There is a bit of hope that there is an end in sight to this intimidation and stifling of artistic creation: the author of the above-linked NY Times article closes with:

It also seems clear that mixtapes can actually bolster an artist’s sales. The most recent Lil Wayne solo album, “Tha Carter II” (Cash Money/Universal), sold more than a million copies, though none of its singles climbed any higher than No. 32 on Billboard’s Hot 100 chart. That’s an impressive feat, and it’s hard to imagine how he would have done it without help from a friendly pirate.

Let's hope that the rest of society will soon wake up and see that the negatives of the RIAA's actions clearly outweigh the positives.

The military is now your personal accountant

It seems that the New York Times has revealed that the Pentagon has been doing a little peeking into the financial records of Americans. What makes this so troubling is that the military usually keeps out of cracking down on domestic activities, and focuses on important things abroad like instigating civil wars in Iraq. As Ars Technica points out, the CIA and the Pentagon have been requesting financial records of Americans from financial institutions and then feeding them into TALON, the data-mining anti-terrorist program. This makes all of us red-blooded Americans feel a bit safer, knowing that a computer program, which has the vast potential to register false positives, is now charged with labeling you a terrorist threat. Awesome. Not only that, but we get the peace of mind that comes along with the military and the CIA investigating us. I feel safe, because they never screw up.

Who benefits from DRM?

It sure ain't the labels anymore... say hello to the new purveyor of DRM, Apple!!!! That's right, by enforcing restrictions in the code of their m4p format such as preventing you from playing your iTunes store-bought music on any music player besides the iPod, Apple has effectively locked you in to the Apple brand through DRM. DVDJon has a nice entry on the topic.

Torrent entrapment by the MPAA

Good ol' Big Media is at it again! In their never ending quest to put art lovers in a perpetual state of fear, the MPAA decided it would be a good idea to upload fake torrents in order to harvest torrent users' IP addresses. Who knows what nefarious ends the MPAA will use this information for... do I smell another round of illegitimate, bullying lawsuits? It's unfortunate that the DMCA has given Big Media license to crawl the Internet acting like police. The only difference between the real cops and these pseudo cops is the real cops can't make as much money from extortion.