Ripping This Is Illegal: The DMCA, Copy-Protection, and You

Professor Ed Felton’s Freedom to Tinker weblog is an excellent resource for those of us concerned about copyright, Digital Rights Management (DRM), and the survival of Fair Use. As I noted before, rightsholders were pretty successful in getting the DMCA passed 5 years ago; this law tilts the playing field drastically in favor of folks like the RIAA. Here’s a real-world example.

Big Music hates the idea that you can copy your CDs to your computer and share those files. Actually, they hate the idea that you can even copy the files to anything, since every copy you make, to them, represents a lost sale (a wholly false assertion, but never mind that for now). Consequently, they’ve been working for years to figure out a way to copy-protect their CDs so that digital reproduction is, if not impossible, then very restricted. These efforts have not met with much success; quite famously, one copy-protection method tauted as “the best ever” a year or so ago turned out to be circumventable with a green sharpie.

Well, they’re not giving up (notwithstanding the “success” the software industry has had with copy protection; many of you may remember what a PITA that was with the likes of Lotus and dBase 15 years ago). SunComm has released what they insist is the most secure anti-copying technology yet.

As it happens, Prof. Felton cites a paper today pointing out that you can probably circumvent it by holding down the shift key in Windows when you load the CD. (He’s citing this, which is an interesting read.)

The not-so-interesting part? Publishing this paper may well be a criminal violation of the DMCA, since it contains information on how to circumvent a copy protection scheme. Does this sound right to you? No? Well, that’s the DMCA for you. It doesn’t matter what you plan to DO with the copy — e.g., putting tracks from a CD you own on your iPod is just as bad as uploading them to a thousand college kids via Kazaa. All they’d care about is that you circumvented their copy protection, and that’s illegal — and criminal, not civil.

You just gotta love this

A while back, Dave Barry ran a column about the Do Not Call law controversy, and in that column he included the telephone number for the American Teleservices Association, a direct-marketing trade group lobbying and fighting to get the law overturned. The ATA was deluged with phone calls, which turned out to be very inconvenient for them (a shame, that); they’ve since changed their phone number.

Today, his column includes a recap of what-has-gone-before, and (ahem) the ATA’s new phone number (which, by the way, appears to be 317-816-9336). As Dave says, even though you have a right to call these people, they don’t want to hear from you, so calling them would be rude. I provide the phone number he listed as a point of data only.

Yeah, right.

If this is authentic, it’s scary as hell.

NPR may have edited a transcript to remove commentary about Justice giving the White House a day’s reprieve on the “preserve all evidence” order in re: the Plame affair. This is tantamount to a license to destroy evidence, and (if granted) came directly from Ashcroft.

The questions, then, are “Why did NPR do this, if they did?” and “When will we here more of this story, if ever?”

Google: Evil?

Google introduced an advertising program a while back that’s actually useful for small sites; lots of folks jumped on the badwagon quickly, and a few started making real money.

Then the ugliness started. Contrary to Google founder Segey Brin’s “Don’t Be Evil” edict, it looks an awful lot like Google’s gone to the dark side on this one. The Terms and Conditions are absurdly draconian, and allow them to boot you from the program based on pretty much anything, without providing any sort of evidence of violation beyond their say-so. They explicitly refuse to provide evidence of, say, “inappropriate clicks,” hiding instead behind a proprietary algorithm. It’s also against their T&C to discuss the terms and conditions, or anything else Google decides is “proprietary” — which includes your clickthrough rates and what you’ve been paid.

And the best part? If they shut you down, they don’t have to pay you anything they owe you.

Commentary:

Yet another reason not to use Internet Explorer

I mean, c’mon, people. You guys act like I don’t even look at my server logs.

There’s now a trojan horse that can infect Windows machines through banner ads, which will allow nefarious dorks to run malicious code on your computer. There are plenty of alternatives to Internet Explorer, even if you’re running Windows. Most of them are much, much better by any reasonable metric.

Mozilla is probably the top dog, though it comes in several flavors (a big honkin’ suite of programs, or a much more streamlined browser-only version called Firebird). If you’re on a Mac, do yourself a favor and use Safari. The good news is that virtually all non-IE browsers have built-in pop-up advertisement blockers, which can make your browsing experience much, much nicer.

Well, darn it.

It’s a shame that this lucid and fairly damning explication of SCO’s actions of late is, well, written by Joe Firmage.

Firmage was a Silicon Valley wunderkind of the first order; he founded two companies before he was thirty, and made a big pile of cash doing it. Then he started talking about UFOs and the capital-T Truth, and got essentially ushered out of USWeb. Don’t get me wrong; his points above are strong and clear, and everyone even vaguely curious about the SCO dustup should read it. I just see what McBride & co. might say, and I think the words “ravings of a crackpot” will probably be involved.