Archive for January 30th, 2006
Why Can’t You Play DVDs on Your iPod?
“Apple Computer’s video iPod may not be the first portable movie player, but it is by far the best. The one serious flaw in this svelte little device is how difficult it is to load with video. Apple’s otherwise handy iTunes application flatly refuses to transfer a legally purchased DVD to the iPod.
“Don’t blame Apple for this glaring oversight. You can thank our esteemed public servants in Congress.
“In 1998, politicians bowed to pressure from the entertainment industry and voted overwhelmingly for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Part of that law made it a federal offense to sell or distribute software that can rip DVDs.”
Declan McCullagh. Can Video iPod Lead to DMCA Reform? News.com. Jan. 23, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Google Privacy Case Is Inside Baseball
“The Justice Department went to court last week to try to force Google, by far the world’s largest Internet search engine, to turn over an entire week’s worth of searches. The move, which Google is fighting, has alarmed its users, enraged privacy advocates, changed some people’s Internet search habits and set off a debate about how much privacy one can expect on the Web.
“But the case itself, according to people involved in it and scholars who are following it, has almost nothing to do with privacy. It will turn, instead, on serious but relatively routine questions about trade secrets and civil procedure.”
Adam Liptak. In Case About Google’s Secrets, Yours Are Safe. The New York Times. Jan. 26, 2006.
(Editor’s Note: The Times allows free access to their stories on the Web for seven days before sending the stories to the paper’s fee-based Archive.)
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Software Cache Case May Affect Google Digitization Ligitation
This is an action for copyright infringement brought by plaintiff Blake Field against Google Inc. Field contends that by allowing Internet users to access copies of 51 of his copyrighted works stored by Google in an online repository, Google violated Field’s exclusive rights to reproduce copies and distribute copies of those works. On December 19, 2005, the Court heard argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
Based upon the papers submitted by the parties and the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that Google is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the undisputed facts. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Google’s motion for summary judgment: (1) that it has not directly infringed the copyrighted works at issue; (2) that Google held an implied license to reproduce and distribute copies of the copyrighted works at issue; (3) that Field is estopped from asserting a copyright infringement claim against Google with respect to the works at issue in this action; and (4) that Google’s use of the works is a fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107.
The Court will further grant a partial summary judgment that Field’s claim for damages is precluded by operation of the “system cache” safe harbor of Section 512(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). Finally, the Court will deny Field’s cross-motion for summary judgment seeking a finding of infringement and seeking to dismiss the Google defenses set forth above.
U.S. District Court, District of Nevada. Blake A. Field v. Google, Inc. (.pdf, 201 KB) Jan. 12, 2006.
Update:
The Patry Copyright Blog. Google Caches One. Jan. 26, 2006.
Attribution: CopyCense first learned of this decision through a posting on the EFF Deep Links Web site.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Kojo Nnamdi Show Debates Software Patents
“There’s a reason why some people are obsessed with their Blackberrys They speed up the pace of business and ensure constant access to your e-mail. But one day, your Blackberry may no longer work. The firm behind the product is in a legal battle with an Arlington (Va.) company that holds the patent on its technology. And [last week] the Supreme Court refused to get involved.
“It’s a dramatic example of a trend that some say is hurting software innovation. Patent challenges are increasingly common, and they don’t just affect large software companies. They may also make life more difficult for the tech department in your company. But supporters of patents say they’re still the best protection for inventors and their work.”
The Kojo Nnamdi Show. Tech Tuesday: Software Patents and the Law. (podcast) WAMU 88.5 FM (Washington, DC). Jan. 24, 2006.
See also:
Groklaw. Math You Can’t Use, Ch. 6 by Ben Klemens. Jan. 14, 2006.
Ben Klemens. Math You Can’t Use: Patents, Copyrights, and Software. 2005, Brookings Institution Press.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Broadcast Flag Vendor Keeps Its Technology Secret
“If you’ve been reading here lately, you know that I’m no fan of the Sensenbrenner/Conyers analog hole bill. The bill would require almost all analog video devices to implement two technologies called CGMS-A and VEIL. CGMS-A is reasonably well known, but the VEIL content protection technology is relatively new. I wanted to learn more about it.
“So I emailed the company that sells VEIL and asked for a copy of the specification. I figured I would be able to get it. After all, the bill would make compliance with the VEIL spec mandatory — the spec would in effect be part of the law. Surely, I thought, they’re not proposing passing a secret law. Surely they’re not going to say that the citizenry isn’t allowed to know what’s in the law that Congress is considering. We’re talking about television here, not national security.
“After some discussion, the company helpfully explained that I could get the spec, if I first signed their license agreement.”
Freedom to Tinker. Analog Hole Bill Would Impose a Secret Law. Jan. 23, 2005.
See also:
VEIL Interactive Technologies. VRAM Adopter Agreement. (.pdf, 112 KB) No date.
VEIL Interactive Technologies. About VEIL – Technology. No date.
Freedom to Tinker. CGMS-A + VEIL = SDMI? Jan. 17, 2006.
BNA. Sensenbrenner, Conyers Introduce Bill To Secure Analog Content From Piracy. Dec. 23, 2005.
Public Knowledge. Draft Bill: Digital Transition Security Act of 2005. (.pdf, 112 KB) Dec. 16, 2005.
Public Knowledge. PK’s Testimony on the Content Protection in the Digital Age: The Broadcast Flag, High-Definition Radio, and the Analog Hole. Nov. 3, 2005.
HBO. HBO Copyright Protection Background. No date. (“Commencing in June, HBO will include a technology in its program services that provides copyright protection information to consumer electronic equipment connected to analog outputs of cable and satellite set-top boxes. The technology (CGMS-A — Content Generation Management System for Analog) enables compliant digital recording devices to abide by federal digital encoding rules.”)
Updates:
Nick Parker. Analog Hole: Today the USA, Tomorrow the World. Slyck. Jan. 27, 2006.
Declan McCullagh. Senate May Hoist Broadcast Flag Again. News.com. Jan. 24, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
COPYCENSE 