AssortedStuff

If you own a product, do you then have the right to give or sell it to someone else? Millions of yard sales every year would seem to say “yes”.

And when it comes to intellectual property-based items (books, for example), the Supreme Court has even given the concept a name: the first sale doctrine.

However, at least one software publisher believes that piece of legality does not apply to their products. That they have the power to restrict an owner’s right to resell them.

Autodesk has appealed, arguing that so long as its license agreements recite the right magic words, it can strip purchasers of any ownership in the CD-ROMs on which software is delivered. If that’s right, then not only don’t you own the software you buy, but any copyright owner can simply recite the magic words and effectively outlaw libraries, used bookstores, and DVD rentals, among other things.

Ah, the magic of the end-user license agreement (EULA) which we’ve all had the pleasure of reading* during a long pause in the software install process. Right? :-)

Anyway, the EFF, which just celebrated their 20th anniversary, is involved in this and many other battles over consumer rights when it comes to digital property.

Unfortunately, most media companies these days, including software publishers, want to move away from the concept of “ownership” when you pay money for their products, whether it’s a physical package or digital download.

An idea that is only reinforced by files locked up with DRM, such as the books you buy for reading on a Kindle (something I hope is missing from Apple’s iPad book reader).

BTW, if you can afford it, contribute a few dollars to the EFF to help them continue defending our rights to own and control the media we pay for, no matter the format.

* I’ve read a few EULAs over the years, mostly so I can help people understand their fair use rights (the one that used to come with the Microsoft Office clip art collection was rather interesting). While I can’t tell you exactly what the EULAs say for any of the commercial software on my current MacBook, I’m pretty sure most read similar to Autodesk’s.

copyright, eff, eula, media, rights

When it comes to having absolute control over the content they sell, big media companies don’t give up easily.

Or more accurately control over the content they want you pay for every time you watch it.

You may remember that at the end of last year, the FCC declined to give a small group of Hollywood studios the ability to turn off the video inputs that over 20 million high definition televisions rely on. Almost a year later, the MPAA is back, threatening not make content available, responding to year-old arguments while trying to pretend 2009 never happened, and making a lot of noise without saying anything new.

Fortunately, groups like Public Knowledge and the EFF are working hard to block the efforts of the MPAA and others who want laws mandating switches in your TV, DVD player, computer, DVR or future devices that would allow them to determine what you can and cannot do with the media you’ve already paid for.

Which reminds me, I still haven’t put Handbrake on my new machine. Get it while it still works. :-)

The graphic comes from Wikipedia and is here because reading about this issue always seems to trigger the opening narration from the 60′s TV series The Outer Limits (“There is nothing wrong with your television set…”) in my warped little mind.

eff, media, mpaa, public knowledge

Although most educators don’t understand the details, they are generally aware of copyright law and the fair use provisions, generally accepted by the courts, allowing them leeway in using copyrighted materials in their teaching.

However, far fewer of them know about the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law that makes it difficult to exercise those fair use rights, especially when it comes to DVDs.

Never fear… the MPAA has a solution: just play the program and record the video from the television set using a camcorder.

They’ve even made a helpful video to show you how to do it.  (Warning: It’s painfully funny to watch.)

This demonstration was part of the hearing now going on at the Library of Congress to determine if further exemptions to the DMCA should be permitted for all educators beyond the one granted in 2006 for college professors who teach film and media.

Keep in mind, this incredibly cumbersome, not to mention stupid, idea is brought to you by representatives of the big media companies who want to control where, when and how you view the product you thought you had already bought from them.

The DMCA shouldn’t exist at all but hopefully the panel will at least grant this provision.

For more on how the DMCA is screwing up more than fair use, read the EFF’s Unintended Consequences: Ten Years under the DMCA

copyright, dmca, eff, fair use, mpaa, stupidity

Congress is back in session so it’s time to keep an eye on your fair use rights.

This time around they’re working on a new law which would direct the Justice Department to do the job now being done by lawyers for the RIAA and MPAA.

The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 would allow the federal government to bring civil suits against people accused of “stealing” intellectual property.

The government also gets expanded powers to seize computers and other equipment and any damages they obtain will be turned over to big media, instead of going into the US treasury as usually happens when the feds win a case.

Another bonus is the creation of a “federal copyright czar” (with the accompanying bureaucracy) to run the whole show and be a liaison with countries where abuse of American copyright law is “rampant”.

I wonder which lobbyist for the media trade associations will get that plum position. You can bet it would never go to anyone with “consumer advocate” in their resume.

Fortunately, there are some groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge, fighting back.

In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, a coalition of library associations and consumer advocacy groups criticized the bill, warning that an “unbalanced approach to enforcement would lead to unintended harms” that could stifle innovation. The letter blasted the law’s civil enforcement provisions as an “enormous gift of federal resources to large copyright owners with no demonstration that the copyright owners are having difficulties enforcing their own rights.” It also raised privacy concerns about the legislation’s civil forfeiture language, noting that the seizure of servers or other large digital storage devices, often holding data belonging to multiple users, could compromise sensitive personal information.

Some changes to the law are being considered which, hopefully, will make it harder for the FBI to begin raiding the houses of grandmothers (or invading the countries) suspected of piracy.

But there’s still the question of whether our federal law enforcement agencies should be spending their time and money to take over for RIAA lawyers, who have done a pretty lousy job of proving their case.

Meanwhile, there are other intellectual property bills, written by big media and being pushed by their Congress critters, being considered.

Pay attention.

congess, copyright, eff, intellectual property, legal

Ever heard of “selectable output controls”?

The fact that they are currently banned by the FCC and that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) wants the government to eliminate that ban is a good reason learn what they are.

And more than enough cause to be very suspicious.

The basic premise of those who back SOC is that content owners should be able to decide not just who can watch their content, but how they can watch it. You want to watch my new movie on that digital TV you bought a few years ago? No, sorry, I don’t like your TV (perhaps because I’m afraid of the analog component inputs it uses).

You were hoping to TiVo that show that’s on this afternoon so that you can watch it when you get home from work? Hm, not unless you upgrade to a new TiVo, because I won’t allow the signal to make it to TiVos that don’t have digital outputs. You want to record that program so that you can make a fair use of an excerpt? Dear dear, we can’t have that.

You paid the cable bill, bought a DVD, or paid for that download from iTunes. So, you should be able to decide when and where you watch the content, right?

Not according to the MPAA. They want to retain total control over “their” media.

Fortunately, the EFF, Public Knowledge, and other consumer rights groups are challenging them on your behalf at the FCC.

eff, government, media, mpaa