September 26, 2002

2002 September 26 Links [7:33 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-26 17:59:02)

The New York Times reviews and discusses Windows Media Player.

Mike Godwin discusses the Right to Tinker. Salon discusses the mixed message of software piracy enforcement. EETimes has an article on plugging the analog hole that’ll chill you.

And, like, ohmigod! Britney Spears wants me to stop sharing files!

(8 items listed below)

  • A surprisingly balanced look at the Windows Media Player from a paper that has generally been a Microsoft apologist. The closing paragraph, however, portends trouble:

    Does the world really want Microsoft dictating multimedia formats to the Internet and entertainment industries? In the end, I suspect Media Player 9’s success may depend less on its many innovations than on the public’s willingness to surrender so much gatekeeping authority to the Windows juggernaut.

  • Ernest Miller agrees with me that the Clean Flicks case represents an important new area in this debate. Here’s his latest contribution to the discussion.

  • The RIAA “education” program is starting up soon, according to ZDNet. Should be truly heart-wrenching to hear the plight of Madonna, P. Diddy and Britney.

  • And the CEA’s Gary Shapiro would like to suggest that Britney et al. are missing the point. The ZDNet version includes comments from readers.

  • A Findlaw editorial tries to disentangle copyright and reverse-engineering restrictions in shrinkwrap licenses.

  • Mike Godwin of the Center for Democracy and Technology discusses the right to tinker at

  • Salon has an article on the fact that, while piracy may not be good, keeping people from using your software keeps you from being about to exploit the power of the network effect. Slashdot discusses this alongside the above announcement of the RIAA PR campaign.

  • An article from EETimes on trying to stuff a genie back into a bottle: plugging the analog hole. Now that’s what I call alienation!

permalink to just this entry

September 25, 2002

2002 September 25 Links [9:27 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-25 15:51:18)

Sorry - it’s going to be another hit-and-run kind of day for me. There are a couple things brewing, though, that merit mention.

The New York Times has a couple of things, including an article saying that service-for-fee music delivery may be turning the corner. Also Congressional hearings into broadcasting start up today.

Collusion is claimed in the video on demand business. And more effort via music giveaways to get people into the Microsoft DRM camp. And, in this article from Yahoo!, recording artists ask for help from the CA legislature.

And, tragically, the copyright on silence is that much closer to (legal) reality.

Yow! Ernest Miller gets cited in a Salon article on DVD commentary tracks.

(8 items listed below)

permalink to just this entry

September 24, 2002

2002 September 24 Links [9:26 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-24 17:17:31)

(Sorry: this is the first day I’ve been in the office that I haven’t even had time to "make the rounds" of my usual sites, so I’m mooching off others’ good work today. I’ll try to do better tomorrow.)

I gotta run, but The Register has a chilling article on a recent Microsoft DRM ploy.

Ernest Miller adds to the distressing news of the day with this alert on the apparent capitulation of the Internet archive to Scientology’s lawyers.

And, horror of horrors <G> - I have to go to Copyfight to find out about something scheduled in my own backyard.

I missed the article in yesterday’s Times naming the winner in the digital distribution war…..

(3 items listed below)

permalink to just this entry

September 23, 2002

2002 September 23 Links [10:35 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-23 18:13:14)

Hoo-bay! Whatever it is that’s going around the MIT campus, it laid me out good. And I’m still not feeling too great.

KaZaA is back at it; and Fortune profiles the Rolling Stones’ business model, while the New York Times looks an a more unconventional model. Also, the Janis Ian interview is at Slashdot.

And I second Donna: read Ernest Miller’s take on the Digital Hollywood conference, taking place now.

(7 items listed below)

permalink to just this entry

September 20, 2002

2002 September 20 Links [8:03 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-20 19:00:39)

Wired News has a sharp look at the Tauzin digital TV bill. And Robert Cringeley is trying to scare the hell out of you!

And, after reading something on the Doc Searls weblog, I decided to look up the entire bit.

(2 items listed below)

  • Brad King describes the controversies around Billy Tauzin’s new, albeit long-expected, bill.

  • Robert Cringeley’s latest column described BayTSP and their role in DMCA enforcement by sniffing and snooping the Internet.

    Now we get to the part I find especially interesting, and where I think there is a lot of confusion among users. This has to do with how BayTSP finds out who is distributing kiddy porn or pirated music files. If you think your activities on the Internet are anonymous, you are wrong. When BayTSP finds an IP address that appears to be the source of child pornography or pirated music or video files, under the DMCA, it can subpoena ISP logs. These logs can directly connect even dynamic IP addresses to user accounts, making it clear very quickly who owns the offending account. Every ISP keeps these http logs, and even products for so-called anonymous surfing aren’t effective in circumventing the technique.

    “We have 100 percent coverage of peer-to-peer file sharing,” Ishikawa claims. “If you are illegally sharing copyrighted materials, we know who you are.”

    The Slashdot discussion points out how to use whois, but there’s a lot of commentary on just how to beat this.

permalink to just this entry

September 19, 2002

2002 September 19 Links [7:55 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-19 18:09:08)

Everything you wanted to know about the Bush initiative for securing the Internet is here. As a “draft,” we get to comment (Slashdot starts here), but there’s a lot to read here first.

The Lessig profile in Wired gets the Slashdot treatment. So does the New York Times editorial I mentioned yesterday.

And Bon Jovi gets the message that, if you want to sell a CD, you need to offer something unique to the medium?!? The New York Times has a good article on the Clean Flicks controversies in the movie industry, framing it as a larger question of control and creativity in the digital realm. And I missed an earlier article that points out another limitation of Berman-Coble.

Billy Tauzin is back at it. And I missed checking the latest EB until today.

(5 items listed below)

  • Wired News reports that Bon Jovi, probably among the least likely musicians to expect widespread piracy of his music, is in the vanguard of a new way to maintain CD sales - giving each CD a unique code number that, when registered online, gives the buyer privileges unavailable otherwise. This strategy is a reflection of a host of online articles over the last year suggesting something of this sort to sustain CD sales; interesting that this is the first.

  • The New York Times picks up on the CleanFlicks controversy. It’s actually a pretty thorough write-up; and raises some important questions about the issue of control and alienation for creative people (I really need to get that essay written!) in all sorts of domains. This may be the next big area of controversy in digital IP, and may help to shape the balance between the current legal theories of copyright & derivative work, trademarks and creativity in the digital domain.

  • The webcasting record keeping specifications for CARP have been posted.

  • Hal Plotkin points out another problem with Berman-Coble - would you invest in a P2P business plan that is susceptible to this kind of penalty? He gives a great comparison:

    It’s as if someone had proposed a law in 1965 to make it legal for anyone to burst into offices and burn IBM punch cards because their use was putting stenographers out of business. You can imagine the wonders that would have done for the economy. Unfortunately, regardless of how silly it may sound, the Berman-Coble proposal is being taken seriously, particularly by skittish venture capitalists who’ve seen Congress pass bad laws before (free stock options, anyone?) when enough money got behind them.

  • Beth Stackpole cites the difficulties confronting, for example, DVD designers when the copyright community gets involved. A comprehensive look at the Hollings bill, etc. for the electronic design community. There’s also a look at MPEG-4 in the same issue of Electronic Business

permalink to just this entry

September 18, 2002

2002 September 18 Links [9:34 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-18 16:30:42)

Wired promises to make the link to the Lessig/Eldred profile in their October issue available today, but it hasn’t happened yet. Update: Ah, now it has!

A couple of thrusts in the consumer arena. I find that I find the phrase “copyright community” a better indicator than “content community.” In my mind, it tends to weaken their position when it’s phrased that way.

And I’m sure that Linus Torvalds never could have predicted the content of one of today’s New York Times editorials!

(6 items listed below)

  • John Borland reports that the CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association is tired of the rhetorical position of the copyright community and is ready to start speaking out. The TalkBacks in the ZDNet version of the article give a sense of the user response.

  • In what I personally hope will be the beginning of the end of copy protected CDs, the IFPI is proposing a label to distinguish fully Red Book compliant CDs from the copy protected ones.

  • To add to the discussion of recording industry practices and contracts, here’s an article from Salon dissecting the American Idol contracts. I really like this alleged quote from the contract:

    I hereby grant to Producer the unconditional right throughout the universe in perpetuity to use, simulate or portray (and to authorize others to do so) or to refrain from using, simulating or portraying, my name, likeness (whether photographic or otherwise), voice, singing voice, personality, personal identification or personal experiences, my life story, biographical data, incidents, situations and events…. [emphasis added]

  • And, at this point one can only speculate who ends up controlling what when Microsoft offers to sell access to a DRM server

    “But, of course, any technology can be twisted and misdirected. Anyone proclaiming to protect assets for others is scary. We typically feel safer guarding our own chicken coop,” DeBona said. “We will evaluate Microsoft’s DRM offering, with extra attention paid to security. A healthy dose of skepticism never hurts.”

  • Brad King continues to discuss the efforts to control digitial media by the copyright community.

  • I’ve been having an e-mail discussion on the subject of compulsory licensing as a solution to the copyright community’s objection to the copyring opportunities implicit in digital distribution. While we agree that the historical objection to this scheme by the RIAA is no surprise, this reader wonders why the consumer side hasn’t seized upon this approach in its strategies.

    While hearings on the subject were held last year, the political view was almost universally dismissive. This year, KaZaA and Verizon floated a plan to negotiate these licenses (analyzed here), but I haven’t heard anything since. Note that the RIAA has asked for these licenses themselved, without much luck either.

    Personally, I believe that the reason that compulsory licensing is not terribly popular with the user advicates is that it is dangerously similar to “theft,” at least in the face of the current market-is-all paradigm (see the Findlaw assessment cited above). Even though it’s at the heart of every radio station, commercial or otherwise, they don’t advertise the idea either.

permalink to just this entry

September 17, 2002

2002 September 17 Links [11:36 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-17 17:22:09)

A propos of an e-mail from someone in the business of digital distribution, there’s a new article on record industry reform from yesterday’s USA Today. And, record companies are taking extreme measures to keep review copies of CDs off the street… and the Internet

The The Register is shocked, shocked to find that the White House likes Palladium!

(3 items listed below)

  • USA Today has an article on the changes brewing in recording industry contracts. Some more numbers to add to my economics of record (oop! - I mean CD) production lecture!

  • New Scientist reports that review copies of pending CDs are now being shipped to critics and other reviewers in sealed CD players to limit pre-release!

  • The White House Cybersecurity Initiative (a, b, c, all from PoliTech) has gotten a review from Thomas C. Greene. Surprise, surprise - TCPA gets a thumbs-up.

permalink to just this entry

September 16, 2002

2002 September 16 Links [9:04 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-16 18:40:24)

Ernest Miller’s commentary on Larry Lessig’s Red Herring article on Palladium is out. It’s comprehensive and thorough in its challenges to Larry’s take on Palladium, and it ultimately points to one of the implicit dangers in suggesting that Palladium can be domesticated - lulling users into a false sense of security.

TCS does it again - publishes an article guaranteed to p*ss me off!

Larry’s most recent weblog posting has to do with a discussion with Ted Shelton of Borland, who posits a computer program that writes novels and asks about the copyright implications. While I have a certain take on it (posted yesterday), this article from today’s New York Times cannot go unremarked!

(2 items listed below)

  • LawMeme’s Ernest Miller comments on the Lessig Red Herring article on Palladium. With lots of links and thoroughly covering the discussion, Ernest ultimately concludes that the greatest risk inherent in articles like Larry’s is that they may lull the user into accepting technologies like Palladium without realizing just how thoroughly they revise the architecture of freedom in computing.
  • If you want to read a truly effective screed against the GPL, see this article at Tech Central Station from David Henderson. The rhetorical instruments used are so noxious, I expect to see this picked up by Microsoft (assuming it wasn’t already subsidized by them!) See the criminally incorrect Sun Solaris example that is used in the text to see what I mean. Update: Ernest Miller got beyond mad and decided to dissect the article here, while GrepLaw suggests stronger remedies.

permalink to just this entry

September 15, 2002

2002 September 15 Links [10:00 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-15 14:41:17)

So far, the best "link" I can suggest is only available in hardcopy - Steven Levy profiles Larry Lessig and the Eldred case in the October edition of Wired. I remember Steven as spending a lot of time around Larry during ILaw, it’s clear from this article that it was no accident. Moreover, the article really does capture a lot of what Larry’s like in person, and as a lecturer. Well worth a read now, or wait until it’s available online next month.

There is an interesting article at ZDNet on the Morpheus case that starts to show the outlines of the pending arguments. And it looks like Larry is continuing (with Ted Shelton - his permalinks are a mess, so look for his Sept 14 posting) the earlier discussion of his copyright proposal (here and subsequent.) Interestingly, Dave Winer is monitoring, but not discussing - yet anyway. More interestingly, Ted raises a different concept in his argument with Larry that touches on a problem I’m thinking about (see below).

(4 items listed below)

  • John Borland writes about the KaZaA/Morpheus case, with particular attention paid to the current struggle to define the issues at contention. A notable quote:

    “Owning copyrights doesn’t give you the right to dictate to people how to build their products,” said Fred von Lohmann, an Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney who is representing Streamcast. “If that were the rule, it would make Microsoft, with Internet Explorer and Outlook, an infringer. It would make virtually every software company liable for copyright infringement.”

    We’ll see.

  • BusinessWeek Europe has a great article on the Verizon/RIAA dustup over consumer privacy and the DMCA

    The good news is that, unlike past legal battles, the RIAA is picking on someone its own size. The defendant isn’t some underfunded, inexperienced dot-com but a telecommunications giant. And the outcome will affect all ISPs, from AOL (AOL) and EarthLink (ELNK) to SBC (SBC) and AT&T (T). That means sharp lawyers will be fighting hard to ensure that copyright holders — or anyone else — aren’t given access to identifying information without a judge’s approval.

  • And it’s probably worth bookmarking this link to the BusinessWeek ongoing collection of their articles on Digital Music’s Future
  • Ted Shelton of Borland is arguing with Larry Lessig about copyright and software, following up on the rather nasty brouhaha that Dave Winer got going a couple of weeks ago. While I think I agree with Larry’s current rejoinder, Ted’s blog has the following argument to support copyright protection in the absence of the release of source code (a “transparent copy”).

    If oblique creativity does not receive the same protection as transparent creativity it seems to me that we will be creating an enormous problem in determining just what is an oblique creation, and what is a transparent one. The other example in my earlier note is an interesting one — should the romance novels generated by an automatic novel writing software receive copyright protection if I do not submit my software to the escrow plan? What about special effects in movies — should Pixar be required to escrow their animation software for Toy Story to recieve copyright protection? How about the musician that programs a sound into a synthesizer — should the musician be compelled to escrow the specifics of this wave form in order to receive protection for the song? [emphasis added]

    Ted is touching upon the issue that I raised parenthetically a couple of days ago. Ted is conflating the expression, which is copyrightable, and the tools employed to create the expression (or, alternatively, the tools used to convert the expression into an experience). Ordinarily, one would assume that protection of a tool would be the domain of patent. But, because software patents are only a recent construct, software has been protected by copyright instead.

    Ted’s romance novel example seems to argue that Larry’s approach says that a robotically-created novel would only be copyrighted if the plans for the robot were part of the escrow. I fail to see this point. The expression, in this case the novel, is immediately accessible without the intermediation of the robot. Rather, the robot is only needed to reproduce the novel in a rather difficult way; Xerox offers a much simpler mechanism.

    But, note that Ted’s example introduces the same issue that I mentioned earlier. While I talked about the alienation of the user from the process of converting an expression into an experience, Ted is describing a process where he is alienating the artist from the process of creating the expression - the romance novel.

    And this may be why Dave Winer and Ted Shelton get so upset about the idea of releasing source code: programmers are alienated from the process of creating the expression that they wish to copyright. The programmer doesn’t really create the thing that the user buys; a compiler, plus a packager (e.g. InstallShield), plus a bunch of other tools do the actual work of producing the expression - the programmer conducts and leads this process and knows what he wants to get, but the actual, formal expression is the product of other instruments, many outside of the programmer’s control. A new compiler with new algorithms, or a new compiler for a new architecture, will take the same set of source code and produce a completely different object code. That object code may generate the experience that the programmer wanted, but it may also produce something completely different - ranging from a hung computer on up.

    And therefore the programmer’s only way to retain power over his creation is to claim exclusive ownership of the meta-instrument of creation that he makes. As far as he is concerned, the source code is akin to a record-playback CNC tape of Auguste Rodin carving The Kiss from a block of marble. Once you have the tape, you have the process of creation, as well as the expressive object. On the other hand, if you start with a piece of granite, it might not cut properly or, worse, it will look wrong and the sculptor has no opportunity to rework it to get the effect he wants.

    And now we maybe begin to get to the heart of the fight over copyright and software. Frankly, I don’t think the argument about source code has to do with the next piece of gamer software - at least, I could care less. But I really care to have access to the source code that alienates me from my created objects - papers, presentations, drawings. Because, by using Microsoft Word on top of Windows XP, I no longer control the process of creation - Word and Windows alienate me from my work, just as the compiler alienates the authors of Word from their product. And what we see here is that we’re both struggling to retain control — to own — the things we have created.

permalink to just this entry

September 13, 2002

2002 September 13 Links [8:35 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-13 18:44:44)

I’ve been barely able to keep up with things, so today’s posting is going to be a little terse - and I’m still going to be behind.

Donna and Ernie continue the post Lessig-Red-Herring discussion. I think I still stand by what I posted to Ernie’s comments: “I have to say that I think the only credible explanation for Larry’s position is that he’s doing what any good lawyer does when confronted with a losing battle - trying to find a compromise that will at least preserve something of his client’s interests. Certainly after hearing that Intel has gone over to the dark side with LaGrande, it’s hard not to be pessimistic.”
Update: Donna has posted her latest (and quite comprehensive) summary of the discussion to date at Copyfight. Well worth a review (even if it does include some of my comments <G>)

Update 2: Bag and Baggage has a few thoughts, as does Doc Searls

Napster gets another, albeit tawdry, potential lease on life. And I catch up from yesterday… Plus, an interesting report from the UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights that’ll anger the SBA and others, as the TalkBacks to the ZDNet UK article posted below demonstrate.

(6 items listed below)

  • Will TiVo dodge a bullet by partnering with Neilsen?
  • The Register reports that a porn distributor wants to buy Napster from Bertelsmann.
  • Dan Briklin discusses the folly of the RIAA strategy with respect to P2P
  • Major league baseball’s foray into webcasting geta a looking over, with some interestings issues developing.
  • Brad King introduces “squishy” DRM in Wired News. Almost a variant on this Lessig discussion that we’re having right now.
  • ZDNet UK reports that The Commission on Intellectual Property Rights has a new report with some conclusions on the use of open source and the construction of IP legislation that will worry those who count on copy protection to maintain profitability. As the opening to the Executive Summary states:

    There are few concerned with IP who will find that this report makes entirely comfortable reading….

    Perhaps there is something about the era we live in that has encouraged blind adherence to dogma. This has affected many walks of life. It certainly has affected the whole area of intellectual property rights. On the one side, the developed world side, there exists a powerful lobby of those who believe that all IPRs are good for business, benefit the public at large and act as catalysts for technical progress. They believe and argue that, if IPRs are good, more IPRs must be better. On the other side, the developing world side, there exists a vociferous lobby of those who believe that IPRs are likely to cripple the development of local industry and technology, will harm the local population and benefit none but the developed world. They believe and argue that, if IPRs are bad, the fewer the better.

    This is going to require some serious reading!!

permalink to just this entry

September 12, 2002

2002 September 12 Links [7:59 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-12 17:23:29)

A little BBSpot humor (?) today, following up on the Intel LaGrande announcement. And there’s a multi-way conversation getting started up over Larry’s Red Herring piece with Donna, Ernie the Attorney (and commenters) with Larry.

More on this from me below

(2 items listed below - although there are more new items in the ESD.10 links)

  • BBSpot reports on the Microsoft/Intel plans for the copyright-protecting CDS Operating System

  • Following up on Larry’s provocative Red Herring article, I’ve been trying to think about the implications of Palladium for the architecture of computing, and I keep coming up with reasons to dislike and fear it, irrespective of the problems that automatically spring to mind when one considers the source of the concept. While I see Will’s and Larry’s point that, as a layered method to handle access control, Palladium does a better job of maintaining the end-to-end model of the network, it does that by interfering with another, far more important end-to-end model. I am referring to the ultimate terminal elements of the Internet — the users themselves.

    The basic notion of the end-to-end network is “smart devices, dumb networks” — networks just move bits around, and the devices at the ends assemble them into some kind of meaningful form. However, the concept of “meaningful” relies upon the true terminal elements of the network — the user. And, if we extend the end-to-end model to include the user, then it seems to me that Palladium implicitly violates the structure, because now there’s something in the communication channel that knows more, or is more privileged, than the terminal element.

    After all, the computer at the end of the traditional network channel is just the gateway between network-speak and human-speak and experience. And, in the end-to-end model, that gateway should not be designed so that it needs to know more than the user does. But, Palladium breaks this meta-end-to-end model by raising the computer above the user in the permissions heirarchy - moreover, it sets up other intermediaries (content owners, software writers, signing authorities) as equally necessary permission-granters in the process of networking.

    (This gets into something that I’ve been trying to grapple with formally for the last couple of weeks. Copyrights cover the production and distribution of expressions that, through a varieties of alchemies, become experiences - things that induce human responses. When we consider a book, my acquisition of the expression then gives me the opportunity to convert it into experience though the agency of my reading the book. As copyright enters the realm of digital expression, it is being used not only as a defense against illicit mechanical reproduction, but it is also being used to defend a right to control the process whereby the expression becomes an experience. Reading is entirely a process of my own undertaking; listening to a CD involves an intermediate mechanism which alienates me from the process of conversion of expression into experience. And now, with things like Palladium, the copyright holder wants to control an aspect of the conversion of expression into experience that was not available to him before. But, that’s another essay that is even less well baked than this one….)

    And, I think that’s why so many recoil when confronted with DRM in this guise too. If, as suggested, Palladium is an opt-in, then maybe the user can still assert his/her desire to stay outside the “protected zone.” But, given the degree to which the industry seems to be planning to make these choices for us, and our legislatures desire to enforce them, I find it hard to believe that there’s going to be any “opt-” at all.

permalink to just this entry

September 11, 2002

2002 September 11 Links [6:30 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-11 11:01:52)

Donna at Copyfight points me to Larry Lessig on Palladium. I can infer only one thing from this - Larry believes that DRM really is inevitable and believes there’s a choice between "being shot and being hung." Rather, DRM is the Jack Benny choice - "your money or your life" - and Valenti only understands $$.

The Register is finally heard from on the Intel LaGrande scheme - more fodder for the Stuckist Web.

(3 items listed below)

  • Larry Lessig has a commentary in Red Herring wherein he offers a kind of defense of Palladium - while DRM is not good, the form represented by Palladium-like technology may be less egregious/intrusive/limiting than other proposed solutions to the “P2P problem” as perceived by Hollywood. However, because Microsoft is immediately perceived as (1) evil, (2) controlling, and (3) rapacious in light of past behavior, a thoughtful consideration of the good elements of Palladium is never undertaken.

    A faintly peculiar argument, IMHO. This reads like Larry (who hates software patents) telling us that, since one could use software patents to achieve open access to techniques through their pre-emptive use, software patents may not be that bad a thing. After all, although IBM and Microsoft have all these software patents now, we can count on them to just use them to benignly protect everyone’s ability to produce software - they never would use them in some other fashion!! (Whistling past the graveyard, I fear)

    The fact that he thinks there is merit in splitting hairs on DRM is, unfortunately, an indication of just how bleak the position of those who oppose it must be within the Beltway.

    And, if he’s right and DRM is inevitable, then we can all expect to see the collapse of the US microelectronics/microcomputer industry as consumers flock to those offshore suppliers who elect not to incorporate such restrictive technologies in their products. Because, while the automobile industry was able to survive throwing money down the economic rat-hole of enforced deployment of the electric vehicle, I really don’t believe that Intel and AMD can afford to develop a line of microprocessor that finds NO buyers - Microsoft is not going to be able to create so compelling an argument to upgrade that people will buy LaGrande microprocessors in spite of the DRM elements in it - hyperthreading or not.

  • Donna also points to a succint description of the merits of end-to-end: The Paradox of the Best Network

  • The Register analyses Intel’s LaGrande scheme - and a host of others, promoting the Stuckist Net (an earlier Palladium article where the phrase is coined)

permalink to just this entry

September 10, 2002

2002 September 10 Links [10:52 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-10 17:00:13)

Unbelievable! Intel’s LaGrange - one more "innovation" to end all innovation. When I read about this in The Boston Globe I had hoped it was just poor interpretation. But the drumbeat is starting….

And I don’t even have to look around the Internet to see that Steve Gillmor’s latest from InfoWorld is going to stir up a lot of people (even with this small correction)!

(4 items listed below)

permalink to just this entry

September 9, 2002

2002 September 9 Links [12:17 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-09 15:00:18)

Another hay fever night. :-(

Bruce Perens is out of HP because he tickled the dragon’s tail. Salon dissects the current upheavals at SonicBlue. And David Coursey continues to whale on Microsoft’s Windows XP for Media - Wired picks up on some of it as well.

John Borland gives a look at the state of play in the ISP/content provider copyright fracas. And more on the Pavlovitch case.

(6 items listed below)

permalink to just this entry

September 8, 2002

2002 September 8 Links [1:48 pm]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-08 13:48:24)

Garry Trudeau strikes a blow for musicians.

(1 item listed below)

  • Garry Trudeau tells us about Johnny Thudpucker, an online success with a backup job at Red Lobster.

permalink to just this entry

September 6, 2002

2002 September 6 Links [8:49 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-06 13:42:21)

When an unabashed Microsoft shill like David Coursey doesn’t like something from Microsoft, you know they’ve got an uphill row to hoe. And he hasn’t yet gotten to the DRM problems with the Windows XP Media computer-thing!

A high-profile Republican senator bolts over the amendments to the anti-counterfeiting bill extending its scope into the digital realm. Drew Clark puts together a comprehensive look at the pending copyright battles between Hollywood and the computer industry. And something new on the DeCSS front!?

(4 items listed below)

permalink to just this entry

September 5, 2002

2002 September 5 Links [9:35 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-05 18:29:13)

Politech is carrying a message from Berman’s office defending the P2P hacking bill. The NYT has an article on governments and open source. And Duke University gets an anonymous donation to reset the balance in copyright law.

Donna emailed to let me know that the Eldred response brief has been filed - see below. And an excellent snipe at this nasty Microsoft Windows XP for Media travesty over at LawMeme

(7 items listed below)

permalink to just this entry

September 4, 2002

2002 September 4 Links [7:18 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-04 23:00:58)

The shutdown of Napster is starting to percolate through the internet. A strong commentary on the dangers of the recent DMCA-based lawsuit over Listen4Ever is on CNet. And the Madster/Aimster is in trouble today, too. (Check out the Madster’s weblog here)

And Melancholy Elephants is available online?!? A look at an alternative rationale for giving copyrights for only "Limited Times."

(5 items listed below)

permalink to just this entry

September 3, 2002

2002 September 3 Links [2:58 am]

(entry last updated: 2002-09-03 18:50:33)

Ah, the power of hay fever. It leads me to an early start on today’s links :-(

Julie Hilden at Findlaw’s Writ discusses the Clean Flicks lawsuit. Copy protection is not as popular with the labels as it used to be, at least in the US. And Microsoft and HP introduce the next product bomb - Windows XP Media Edition. A Slashdot discussion of file spoofing on P2P networks makes it to Business 2.0.

And a depressing story at the LA Times - will this one be enough to get people active?!

(7 items listed below)

permalink to just this entry

September 2002
« Aug   Oct »

0.235 || Powered by WordPress