State of DRM: Crackers 2^32, Music Industry 0

The State of the DRM war.

Every major DRM technology has been broken, and subsequently broken again after being fixed. DRM as a technology solution to an economic and IP protection problem is not working. Here's an interesting idea - why not charge what people are prepared to pay, then there's no piracy to chase, legal music downloads increase, and profits go up. Novel, eh?

| 02 Aug 2007 | #

GPLv3 Released

Important cross-roads day in the world of free and open-source software - the predominant licence is up-issued to a new version - GPLv3 is released.

Will existing projects migrate? Importantly what will the Linux kernel guys do? What about other important projects like Samba? Will it become the licence of choice for new projects? Is this the deal-breaker for the future of the Microsoft-Novell deal (and all others like it)? What will be the response of distributions - Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, etc? Will this see TiVo-like devices move away from using Linux and start using a BSD instead? Will this alienate the FSF from "mainstream" open-source, or will this unify free and open-source developers together? Will it be a non-issue altogether?

It will be very interesting, won't it? :-)

Update: Luis Villa provides good commentary about the licence itself, info for developers and for companies and finishes with some good closing thoughts.

| 30 Jun 2007 | #

DRM-free iTunes

Wow. According to AppleInsider, Apple and EMI have announced that DRM is a failed business model. (Press Releases). DRM free songs for USD 0.30 more. The only sticking point is that it's in AAC format - which AFAIK only Apple devices support. Nonethless, Wow.

| 02 Apr 2007 | #

The Top 10 Arguments Against DRM

The Top 10 Arguments Against DRM

Thanks Digg...

| 20 Nov 2006 | #

Motorola to release JME stack under Apache Licencing

Motorola plans to release a Java Micro Edition under Apache License V2.0.

Wow. It's nice to see this happen. I worked on a J(2)ME stack and a Javacard stack eons ago - I wonder if any of my code survived :-)

| 03 Nov 2006 | #

JPEG now safe

Good news on the software patent front (at least regarding one patent that has been troublesome). It's now safe to write software to read/write JPEG images!

The Public Patent Foundation requested the USPTO reject the patent (4,698,672) due to new prior art discovery, the USPTO ruled and rejected the broadest claims of the patent, and Forgent has now responded by doing the right thing by abandoning the patent.

Thanks to Groklaw for pointing this out.

| 03 Nov 2006 | #

Weatherall on The TPM (OzDMCA) Exposure Draft

Kim Weatherall has written some initial comments on the TPM for OzFTA.

Summary: Things may not be as rosy as was initially reported elsewhere.

| 07 Sep 2006 | #

Draft Copyright Law changes now available

So the big news this week in Intellectual Property Land is that the Australian Government has released their draft Copyright Ammendment Bill for public comment.

If you remember, this bill is to meet Australia's obligations under the AUSFTA. There's been quite a fight going on to ensure that consumers get some rights to fairly use the copyrighted material they purchase.

While some things look good (like linking TPMs to compyright infringment), I'm waiting with baited breath until some others take a closer look. In the mean time, there is some analysis out there which makes good reading.

If you care about this stuff, read up on the issues and make comment now (as per the government's request) before this becomes law - you only have until September 22, 2006. The fight isn't lost yet, so act now.

| 06 Sep 2006 | #

Liberty vs Control (or Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?)

I've just read Bruce Schneier's latest Cryptogram. In there he presents his essay The Eternal Value of Privacy.

It's a very good read.

I am very concerned about the reckless abandonment of freedom to protect ourselves from terrorists. It's like we're stomping on our own sandcastles to prevent someone else from doing so. I remember after 9/11 the cry that went out was, "we won't let them win", but in the process of protecting ourselves we're throwing away that which we value greatly - our freedom.

So why is this filed under IP? Surely my own personal privacy is my intellectual property!

| 16 Jun 2006 | #

DMCA Fight!

[I'm blogging this because it's important, even though all these facts are presented far more eloquently elsewhere]

So it looks like Australia is steam-rolling towards following the USA's mistake in implementing DMCA-like legislation - putting further control in the hands of big multinationals and taking it away from Australian consumers.

Fortunately Linux Australia and the OSIA, through the efforts of people like Rusty, are trying to make a difference now before we get bad legislation.

So what are we talking about?

DMCA is about using extensions to copyright to increase the control of big multinationals - from companies telling you what you can do with your legally purchased digital content, to stifling innovation and competition, and locking off the future of Australian high-tech industry. If you think I'm exaggerating, you should consider some facts on the topic, read this press release, and even listen to a podcast, if you are so inclined.

Then once you understand what's at stake, and if you feel that you should do something about it - download the petition, sign it yourself, get everyone you know (including your dog) to sign it, and then send it in to be collated and presented to our elected representatives, so that they know this is an imporant issue for all Australian consumers.

Act now before freedoms are lost.

| 13 Jun 2006 | #

IP ignorance proof

So Scoble publicly admits that his employer advises him not to look at patents, presumably to avoid triple damages claims (in the USA) for informed violation. Here's the quote:

(the patent lawyers ask employees to refrain from looking at patents)

Shows us again that IP law in the area of computer software is sick, and in desperate need of overhaul.

| 27 Feb 2006 | #

GPL v3 Draft Summary

Everyone is reporting that the draft version of the most important free software licence, the GPL v3, is now available.

Very good writeup over on Groklaw, I must say.

I'm impressed with what the FSF have done in this draft. Improvements in the area of patent license-ability, digital rights management (which the Free Software Foundation prefers to call "handcuffware"), improvements trying to recognise differences in copyright law internationally, and provisions that are designed to reduce license incompatibility (i.e. allow non-GPL'd code to be combined with GPL'd code).

Of course, this is only a draft, but so far it looks like a very good start to tackling a very hard problem - how do you update a licence that needs updating to cope with advances in legal and technological barriers, but has been deemed as too restrictive by big business, and as having too many loopholes by free software developers?

| 18 Jan 2006 | #

Software Patent Reform in the USA

It appears the US Patent Office has announced that they will be reforming the patent system, with specific reference to Open-Source Software. It appears that OSDL, IBM, Novell, Red Hat and SourceForge.net are all going to be involved in providing a searchable database of open source code so patent examiners and the general public can search for prior art from the open source community when considering a patent application. What about Koders? Doesn't that do the job already? Anyhow...

This has already been reported everywhere.

I'm looking forward to what Weatherall might say on the topic. Specifically whether this implies that the Australian patent office might eventually follow suit for harmonisation reasons.

As for me, this is a good start, but the comment in one of the articles about speeding up patent awards doesn't sound good. With so many patents getting awarded, who is going to spend the effort to shoot down all the bad ones by prior art checks? The USPTO is looking for OSS community support for this. Is this just a devious attempt to divert the community to spend time defending against bad patents rather than innovating in code instead?

There's also reference to being able to receive emails on new patent applications - with the mindset of triple damages for wilfull un-licenced use of someone else's patent - who in their right mind would receive these emails? I don't read 10% of the emails I receive today - if I received all the US patent applications by email, and didn't read them, would I be liable for triple damages if I infringed? ick.

So, I guess I have some issues with this initiative. Any improvement is good, but the cards are still stacked in favour of big companies and not OSS developers working independantly. Is the future only one where we still have to rely upon the efforts of big OSS-friendly companies to do the patent defending for us?

| 11 Jan 2006 | #

AUSFTA - One Year On

Kim Weatherall reports that Australia is the worse off after the first year of the Australia-US "Free" Trade Agreement.

No surprises there. And just wait for the PBS ammendment to be thrown away and we lose generic drug branding. Yay!

How is any of this in the national interest? If the boot was on the other foot, US citizens would be calling for impeachment.

Now is the time for the government to use the 6 month escape clause and end this lopsided agreement.

| 05 Jan 2006 | #

Aussie fair use

Good news on the fair use front reported here.

| 29 Dec 2005 | #

Nullifying the Patent Threat

Another honourable attempt at protecting Linux and Open-Source Software is the establishment of the Open Invention Network.

Looks like it goes something like, Promise to not exercise your patents against Linux or certain Linux-related applications, and you can use our patents royalty free.

It's early days (been going for less than 2 months) , and there's not much detail yet (what classifies as a certain Linux-related application?), so it's hard to judge the potential effectiveness. Nonetheless, any protection is good protection, even if it's using the tactics of the thought hoarders back at them.

| 21 Dec 2005 | #

Support Creative Commons

Support the Creative Commons fundraising campaign. Your right to release your content however you wish.

| 01 Nov 2005 | #

Support NoSoftwarePatents by Voting in the Europeans of the Year ballot.

There's a new way of saying no to software patents - voting in the Europeans of the Year ballot, highlighting the efforts of Florian Müller from NoSoftwarePatents.com.

In case I obscured those links too much, here is the how to vote card and here's the ballot.

Do your bit to raise awareness that software patents are bad for consumers, software developers, in fact everyone except big multinational companies.

| 21 Oct 2005 | #

Yahama DVD Region 4

mikal and sjh comment on my Yamaha DVD purchase, and suggest that all DVD players are sold region-free nowadays in Australia.

If that's so, why is there a region 4 logo on the outside of the box?

| 24 Jun 2005 | #

Region Free

So I decided to buy a nice new Yamaha Amp and was convinced by the salesman to buy a matching Yamaha DVD player. Of course I didn't think about region-free at the time - everything was soooooo shiny :-)

I spent not a few hours googling for region-free codes, now that I have the unit back home. No luck. Grrr.

Then I found this (see the comment labeled "...but what about the picture?"). Hmmm, could my unit be region-free out of the box? (Despite saying it was region 4 only on the box itself)

Tried it last night and it was so. A name brand DVD player that is shipped being region free by default. Cool - my collection of Baby Einstein DVDs purchased in Chicago are still playable! :-)

| 24 Jun 2005 | #

Fair Use recommendations?

Linux Australia is looking for opinions from members and interested parties on what sorts of things "Fair Use" legislation in Australia should allow. See Rusty's message for more information - email Rusty at his email address in the message to make your opinions heard!

Speak now or lose the chance of ripping your CDs to your iPod! (and other similar things considered fair and reasonable)

| 02 Jun 2005 | #

Fair Use in Australia

In case you haven't seen it, Fair Use is finally on the agenda here in Australia.

This is something interested parties need to be vocal on - here's our chance to speak up and talk about things that are broken.

What things need fixing?

• Having the legal right to format-shift music from a music CD to an Apple iPod (especially important since you can't legally buy music for an iPod right now in Australia. Aside: Why then are Apple selling them if they don't expect people to illegally format-shirt their music collection onto these devices?)
• Having the legal right to time-shift broadcast content. I should be able to legally record a TV programme or radio broadcast for later viewing.
• Having the legal right to play a DVD on my Linux computer. This is sort-of format-shifting, but also delves into the area of DMCA-style obligations from the AUSFTA. I should be able to legally create and use a player to view my purchased content if one isn't readily available (i.e. create and use a media player to view my DVD under Linux)
• Having the legal right to backup content (i.e. backup my DVDs to protect them from accidental damage), not just have that right for only software.

Big important issues for all content consumers. Speak up now - copyright was last reviewed in a serious way in 1971.

| 06 May 2005 | #

Europe and Software Patents

Big things are happening in Europe right now over software patentability. Looks like Denmark is joining Poland is saying that software patentability shouldn't be rushed through the EU parliament - it should be re-drafted to be fairer to software producers and open-source software, and not just benefit big American software companies . Very good news.

Monday is the big day. If you haven't already, you should have a look at http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ and read for yourself what is at stake here.

| 06 Mar 2005 | #

The Right Thing

IBM today shows that it's not just a company that talks up open-source, but that really contributes back. They have opened up 500 patents from their vast portfolio for free use in open-source software. And they just haven't limited it to some OSS licence that gives IBM some monopolistic benefit - any OSI approved open source licence as of 11 Jan 2005 benefits from this gift.

Thank you IBM - much appreciated.

| 12 Jan 2005 | #

Nail in the coffin

The ABC reports that Australia and the USA will commence the "Free" Trade Agreement as of Jan 1, 2005.

A sad day for the Australian IT industry. It mentions that one of the benefits of the AUSFTA is "enhancing protection for intellectual property". Unfortunately it does so by going down the path of adopting DMCA-like provisions, without giving Australia "Fair Use".

The AUSFTA is net-negative for the Australian IT industry - obviously Australia's future isn't in high-tech industries, but as a producers of wheat and sheep. I should get into farming now, ahead of the rush.

In better news, Rusty posts a lengthy tome on Software Patentability. He concludes "the patentability of software has brought no improvement to the industry. "

| 19 Nov 2004 | #

Lexmark and the DMCA

Good news on the Lexmark printer replacement ink cartridge court case - according to this ZDnet article, common sense has prevailed - printer ink shouldn't cost more than purfume, i.e. Lexmark can't use the DMCA to stop the 3rd party ink cartidge market for their printers.

This is great news, unless you are in Australia.

The ZDnet article goes on to say...

     The court said that "lock-out" codes in software that's designed to
     control or limit interoperability is not covered by the original-expression
     intentions of copyright law. Furthermore, said the court, SCC's reverse
     engineering was not a circumvention of Lexmark's Toner Loader Program but
     a replacement of it, so even if the code had been covered by copyright,
     SCC's implementation would have been allowed under the fair-use doctrine.

Bingo - there's "fair use" again. Having the DMCA without fair use in Australia could give these sorts of companies a chance to create monopolies. Australia adopts the bad parts (e.g. DMCA) of US law, but not the good (e.g. "Fair Use"). While this result is good, until we get similar fair use provisions in Australia, consumers aren't protected - and Australians will continue to have less rights over what they have purchased than our compatriats in the USA.

| 10 Nov 2004 | #

Euro-Patents

The issue of software patents continues to be a strongly-debated issue world-wide in the IT industry.

In Australia, Linux Australia and the OSIA are continuing to highlight the dangers of software patents in a Open Source forum with the legal world.

In Europe, Red Hat, MySQL and others are contributing to the No Software Patents campaign to stop Europe following the same mistakes as the US.

Reading No Software Patents led me to this:

This is sobering.

| 22 Oct 2004 | #

Why is the iPod for sale in Australia?

Kim Weatherall talks about how putting music on your iPod is illegal in Australia. She also references the Builder AU article on the MPAA acting like a big ignorant bully in Australia.

I'm really glad that people like Kim are taking the time to point out what our laws say - and point out where they conflict with what people think the law says.

| 24 Sep 2004 | #

ALP make noises on the AUSFTA

Senator Kate Lundy of the ALP released this statement to placate the angry Australian open-source industry.

A good start, but who knows what this means in practice. Will the ALP provide surety for OSS over software patents? Will circumvention for the purposes of fair use be legislated? Is there wiggle room in the AUSFTA to allow this? Will they have the intestinal fortitude to enact legislation that better balances the rights of end users and big multinational companies? Does actively monitor mean something will happen? Or is it political speak for do nothing?

| 06 Sep 2004 | #

More from SCO at 10.

In this article, Jonathan Corbet summarises IBM's latest request for a summary judgement. It's pretty damning for SCO - as a relatively objective observer, it appears SCO are stuffed. No matter which way the case goes, they can't win.

Given that SCO are also saying that Linux doesn't exist, it's a matter of trying to fit both feet in your mouth at the same time. As mbp says, "I want to see Boies explain to a judge that SCO has spent man-years and millions of dollars suing over something that doesn't exist."

Thanks to Groklaw, mbp, and LWN. You guys do well.

| 03 Sep 2004 | #

Peer to Peer

Kim Weatherall has a good summary of the legality in the USA of peer-to-peer file sharing networks, and the legal history which got us to where we are.

But why isn't peer-to-peer mainstream yet?

I mean, there's those people who trade in music and video and other copyrighted material today - but pimply teenage boys are hardly representative of society. Why aren't Linux distributors and big (proprietry) software companies using p2p to distribute their software? Why isn't Hollywood delivering DVD movie images to your home? Why isn't the music industry selling CDs the same way?

It just shows that even if something is legal, it doesn't necessary mean it will be adopted by corporations. There is a huge market here, and ad hoc polling says that consumers want this technology implmented by companies they can trust. But copyright holders don't want to go down that path because they fear the lack of central control.

Take a risk guys! - I remember reading about the guy who came up the DVD concept and his quest to get Hollywood to adopt his idea for high-quality movie distribution to people in their homes. Originally it didn't sell, Hollywood was scared to release high-quality format media to end-users, but it sure has paid off since! DVDs are now a huge money earner and the staple income source for movie makers.

Take a risk on peer-to-peer - sure, address the presevation of copyright problem - but let the distribution mechanism go free and watch the profits roll in!.

I'd certainly buy and download a music from the music industry if I was allowed to burn it to CD, put it on an MP3 portable music player as well as upload it to my car stereo. Bring on fair use (time and format shifting) legislation in Australia.

| 26 Aug 2004 | #

AUSFTA Wrap-up

So the Australian parliament has ratified the treaty between the USA and Australia on Free Trade. The only improvements forced through by Labor were to help the PBS - the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Unfortanately we've signed up to chapter 17 - Intellectual Property as is, despite lots of evidence that there's no benefit to Australia. We gain obligations to follow the US-style DMCA, but have no agenda to implement "Fair Use" in Australian Law. It's also debatable when software patentability has been widened by AUSFTA obligations, that's unclear right now without seeing any proposed new legislation. I need to link to Rusty's Tragedy of RProxy article here - a good reason to say that software patents aren't in Australia's best interests.

All this makes me a little sad - the looming Australian Federal election has muzzled debate on the AUSFTA, and what benefit or loss there will be to Australia. We're just running head-strong in to this without examining the outcomes - and we're signing up for life - hamstringing Australian parliaments in the future to correct any mistakes.

The only good thing that came out is that our community has started to speak up - people like Rusty, AJ, Brendan Scott, Kim Weatherall, OSIA, CyberSource, Linux Australia, and many others, have all provided input into the political process. We're going to have to start doing more of this, to prevent more rights being taken away from consumers and software developers.

| 23 Aug 2004 | #

Yet another bad patent

Microsoft has a patent pending in NZ for a Word-processing document stored in a single XML file that may be manipulated by applications that understand XML.

They've said "If we don't patent something that we've invented or developed someone else would". They invented? Huh? Storing a document in XML isn't a new invention - given that XML derives from HTML you could easily argue that storing a structured document was the first intended use of XML! The use of XML for data interchange between software components (I think) was a secondary use. This patent (pending) is a good example of the flaws of Intellectual Property assignment - there is no invention here, there is prior use, it is a trivial application of technology, and the only "benefit" of this sort of assignment is to increase the defensive patent portfolio of large companies (to be used to squash small companies).

I readilly accept IP if there is real invention, but that's not happening here. But I strongly dislike IP assignments for trivial things because it stiffles innovation industry-wide - imagine if IP was assigned for mathematical discoveries? We'd be living in single story buildings, using candles and riding horses.

| 01 Feb 2004 | #