Artist
Of The Month
Digital Freedom |
||
Thursday, August 14, 2008 Hollywood and Silicon Valley Join Hands in San Jose By Michael Petricone, VP of Government Affairs, CEA For those of us in DC, discussions of "digital content" usually revolve around legislation, lawsuits, and attempts to limit the rights of lawful consumers. 1. Monetizing behavior is easier than changing it. 2. DRM does not prevent piracy, and annoys legitimate customers. 3. Legitimate players can thrive if they offer a good deal at a good price (see the overwhelming theatrical success of the Dark Night, despite the film's wide availability on file sharing sites). posted by Digital Freedom Campaign # 8:15 AM 0 Comments 
Monday, August 11, 2008 Vote for Our Panel Idea for SXSW! From the department of shameless self-promotion - The Digital Freedom Campaign has submitted what we think is a great idea for a panel at the South by Southwest festival next year, titled: "Policy Trainwreck: How Copyright Law Failed the Digital Age." Panels are chosen based partly on how many people vote for each idea in the SXSW Panel Picker on the SXSW website. Here is the link to our idea, we would greatly appreciate it if you would help us stuff the ballot box by voting for our submission today!posted by Digital Freedom Campaign # 10:42 AM 0 Comments
Wednesday, August 6, 2008 Victory for Home Recording in Cablevision Remote DVR Case By Sherwin Siy, Public KnowledgeOn August 4, a federal appeals court ruled that Cablevision’s remote DVRs—which worked like off-site TiVos—didn’t infringe copyright. The decision, which overturns an earlier district court opinion, stated that there was no significant legal difference between the remote DVRs and a VCR. An all-too-brief summary of the history and findings follows. The original case arose out of Cablevision’s creation and marketing of the “RS-DVR,” a service that, like a TiVo, let cable subscribers select different TV shows to be recorded digitally onto a hard drive. Unlike a TiVo, however, the hard drives of the RS-DVR are stored on Cablevision property. The difference between these configurations led to arguments by content companies that Cablevision was infringing the copyrights in their TV shows. Three particular acts were singled out: First, as Cablevision received a signal from the content companies, it created a buffer copy of about .1 seconds of the show as the system checked to see if a customer had decided to record the show. Plaintiffs argued this was an infringing reproduction. Second, if a customer had picked a show to be recorded, the stream of data representing that show would be copied from the buffer onto a server for that customer to view later. Plaintiffs argued that this recording was another infringing reproduction. Third, when a customer decided to watch the show they had recorded, the show would be transmitted from the remote server for viewing in the customer’s home. Plaintiffs argued that this violated their “public performance” right in a show. Last year, Public Knowledge joined a coalition of public interest, consumer, and industry groups in filing an amicus brief in support of Cablevision’s position, arguing that since the recorded copies are made and transmitted at the direction of the customer, that Cablevision was not the one “doing” the copying and public performing of the shows, and therefore could not be infringing. The brief also noted that playing back a recorded show over the RS-DVR wasn’t a public performance, which meant that it wasn’t an infringement. Another amicus brief, filed on behalf of a group of copyright law professors, had argued that temporary buffer copies shouldn’t be considered infringing. To our great relief, the appeals court mostly agreed with these arguments. On the issue of the first buffer copy, the court held that buffer copies weren’t infringements because they were too fleeting to be considered “fixed,” a requirement before something is considered a “copy” that can infringe (or otherwise implicate) a copyright. Although the entirety of a show would pass through the buffer bit by bit (and thus be “embodied” within it), a fixation needs to be more than just an embodiment—it also needs to be more than “transitory.” The court decided that this tenth-of-a-second buffer was too transitory to meet the statutory definition of a fixation, and therefore couldn’t be an infringement. On the second question of the stored, recorded copies of the shows, the court made a couple of important distinctions. First, it noted that the plaintiffs were alleging direct infringement—i.e., that Cablevision was itself making infringing copies, not secondary liability—which was what Sony was accused of when it was making VCRs, or what Grokster was accused of doing for file-sharers. The court then noted that in a case alleging direct infringement, it’s important to see who is performing the action alleged to be infringing. Since here, the individual user makes the decision whether or not the copy is created, they are the ones making the copy, not Cablevision. Just as a VCR owner (as opposed to a VCR manufacturer) pressing REC on a box makes a copy, so too is the individual customer (and not Cablevision) the one making the recording here. On the third question of the public performance, the court, interestingly, didn’t rule on who was “doing” the performance, instead relying entirely on the question of whether or not the transmission was a “public performance” in the first place. In order to be considered a performance “to the public,” a transmission has to be able to be received by different members of the public, whether at the same time or at different times. Plaintiffs argued that since the same show that was transmitted in realtime (with a license) by Cablevision, and could also be viewed later by any customer who recorded it, that Cablevision was making a public performance with those later transmissions. However, the appeals court stated that these later transmissions existed separately from the earlier, licensed transmission. In other words, in determining whether or not you have a public performance, the court held that you need to look at whether or not you are passing the same transmission to multiple people; not the same work. Although it might be the same episode of “House” broadcast at its scheduled time and later shown to me on my RS-DVR, the transmissions are separate; originating from different signals, and aimed at different audiences: the first is a public transmission, sent by Cablevision to all their subscribers; the second is, well, a private transmission, sent only to me. After all, as the court points out, if transmitting a work that had been previously transmitted to the public was always going to be a “public performance” of the work, than I could be infringing the public performance right by recording a TV show in my living room and then later playing it in my bedroom. The appeals court’s decision, and its discussion of the merits of the various arguments, goes into far more detail than I can provide in this brief report. However, the upshot of the decision is not only a victory for user rights, home recording, and new digital technologies—it’s a victory for common sense. posted by Digital Freedom Campaign # 4:29 AM 0 Comments
Friday, August 1, 2008 Yahoo Does the Right Thing The Digital Freedom Campaign wants to applaud Yahoo for their decision to compensate consumers of their music store whose purchases will be rendered useless when they take their DRM Authentication servers offline September 30. Yahoo is offering coupons to these consumers to re-purchase their music through their new music partner, Rhapsody. Their original announcement was another ugly reminder of the shackles DRM puts on legally purchased content, but we are happy to see Yahoo do the right thing and make the best of an otherwise bad situation.posted by Digital Freedom Campaign # 8:30 AM 0 Comments
Thursday, July 31, 2008 Universal Launches Lost Tunes - A DRM-Free Online "Small Local Record Store" Universal Music Group today announced the launch of their new online music service Lost Tunes, which focuses on distributing rare content from their catalogue. Best of all, this service is yet another nail in the coffin of DRM, as Lost Tunes will sell their high-quality MP3's DRM-Free! The Digital Freedom Campaign would like to congratulate Universal Music for finally seeing the blinding light and selling more and more of their catalogue without copy protection. Now they just need to point that light at their movie division.Labels: DRM, Lost Tunes, MP3, Universal posted by Digital Freedom Campaign # 6:30 AM 1 Comments
Friday, July 25, 2008 Ars to DRM: We're Not Pro-Piracy, We're Just Not Dumb as Rocks That line from this Ars Technica article, discussing the fact that the Yahoo! Music Store customers will have the music tracks purchased from their site rendered obsolete when they take their DRM license key servers offline on September 30, 2008. Most of you probably remember when Microsoft did the same thing a couple months ago, then backed off after the consumer outrage that followed, agreeing to keep their DRM servers active through 2011. Google Video went through the exact same issue a year ago with its online store, but at least they agreed to provide full refunds to their customers. What do all these situations add up to? The Ars Technica headline says it all: DRM Still Sucks. And similar to Ars, the Digital Freedom Campaign is not pro-piracy, as some would like you to believe, we're just not dumb as rocks.posted by Digital Freedom Campaign # 8:56 AM 0 Comments
Wednesday, July 23, 2008 Dear MPAA, Congratulations on your record setting weekend!!! Now, please stop trying to impose restrictions on consumers.Not only don’t MPAA’s own studies not back up their inflated piracy claims, but real world experience doesn’t either. Last weekend The Dark Knight opened to rapturous reviews and record-setting revenues – despite the fact that unauthorized copies of the movie were easily available online. Clearly the relationship between piracy, file sharing and box office receipts is not as linear as the movie industry claims. Put a different way, even in the internet age, if you make an excellent movie then people will come see it. Given last weekend’s unambiguous lesson, we hope the MPAA will drop its demands for the broadcast flag, analog hole legislation, selectable output control, and other unnecessary consumer limitations. But we’re not holding our breath. posted by Digital Freedom Campaign # 10:43 AM 0 Comments
|
||
 |
Take Action |
|
Send your name to the Campaign’s petition. The more names we gather, the more... Learn More |
Connect
These social networks are great way to become friends with Digital Freedom!
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
Digital technologies allow everyone the freedom to be artists, innovators, producers and creators, and to listen, watch, and participate wherever, whenever and however they choose. That freedom must be protected and nurtured. |
| © 2007 | Privacy Policy |  About the Digital Freedom Campaign | Blog |