A campaign against the control freakery of Microsoft Vista

Join us at badvista.org

BadVista.org is a campaign with a twofold mission of exposing the harms inflicted on computer users by the new Microsoft Windows Vista and promoting free software alternatives that respect users' security and privacy rights.

Vista is an upsell masquerading as an upgrade. It is an overall regression when you look at the most important aspect of owning and using a computer: your control over what it does. Obviously MS Windows is already proprietary and very restrictive, and well worth rejecting. But the new 'features' in Vista are a Trojan Horse to smuggle in even more restrictions. We'll be focusing attention on detailing how they work, how to resist them, and why people should care.

Among other harms, BadVista.org will focus on the danger posed by Treacherous Computing in Vista. Commonly called Trusted Computing in the industry, it is an attempt to turn computers from machines controlled by their user into machines that monitor their user and refuse to operate in ways that manufacturers don't authorize.

Supporters can sign up to receive more information and participate in the campaign at badvista.org

   
Detailing the control freakery

A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
(www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt)

By Peter Gutmann

Executive Executive Summary:

The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history.

   
Consumer pressure brought to bear in Sweden

From Slyck

The court decision that forced ISP Tele2 to block access to AllofMP3.com had a ripple effect on other service providers. On December 12, the ISP Perspektiv Bredband also blocked AllofMP3.com from its Swedish and Danish customers.

AllofMP3.com is a Russian music store who sells an unrivaled collection of digital music for dramatically reduced prices. Not only are music files purchased on AllofMP3.com of a superior quality to most "authorized" services, the music sold has no DRM and is available in a variety of formats. Because copyright holders claim they have yet to see a dime from AllofMP3.com, the service is often times labeled as illegal. However the Russian site has contested otherwise, and has yet to fall under any type of successful prosecution in Russia.

Since AllofMP3.com has yet to be ruled illegal in Sweden or Denmark, the actions by both ISPs drew enormous criticism from citizens, journalists and copyright reform organizations such as the Swedish Bureau of Piracy. Criticism was fueled when Perspektiv Bredband admitted the action was a morally based decision - not a legal one.

The Swedish Bureau of Piracy, in conjunction with its allies ThePirateBay, used their considerable political pressure to fight back. The organizations responded by blocking Perspektiv Bredband's customers from accessing the overwhelmingly popular PirateBay BitTorrent tracker.

ThePirateBay has become an Internet phenomenon, who's global popularity is only surpassed by its popularity in Sweden. The threat of an ISP losing a considerable percentage of its customer base, coupled with an increasingly "pro-censorship" reputation, has forced Perspektiv Bredband to reverse its decision.

In a press release, Perspektiv Bredband has rescinded its decision to block AllofMP3.com. Perspektiv Bredband cites that it acted hastily, and did not consider its initial decision properly.

   
Deep links to illegal files ruled illegal

From the BBC

An Australian court has upheld a ruling against a website operator that provided a search engine through which users could illegally access mp3 files. The Federal Court in Canberra backed a previous copyright ruling involving Australian web firm mp3s4free.net.

By providing links to websites which enabled illegal downloads, mp3s4free had effectively authorized copyright infringement, the court said.

The ruling could have implications for search engine websites such as Google.

Stephen Cooper, the operator of mp3s4free.net, had argued that his website provided a similar function to Google. However, Federal Court Judge Catherine Branson said Cooper's assumption that Google's activities in Australia do not result in infringements was "untested".

Internet users' group Electronic Frontiers Australia warned that the ruling could "create significant uncertainty" for many internet firms. If Google's search engine links to material which infringes on copyright and this material was accessed by Australians, then there is potential for legal action, said the group's chairman Dale Clapperton.

The action against Cooper in Australia was brought by a firm representing major music labels including Universal Music, EMI, BMG and Warner Music.

Cooper was ordered to remove his website and pay the court costs of the music companies.

   
Tool announced to search out copyright infringement

From X Biz

Attributor Corp has announced a new product that scans billions of web pages at a time to seek out and identify instances of copyright infringement.

The new technology, which was developed by the year-old Silicon Valley startup, could popular with media companies.

So far, media companies have managed the problem with a mix of tools, including digital rights management technology, in-house Internet searches for infringement and armies of lawyers churning out cease-and-desist letters.

Attributor, which developed its product in “stealth mode” over the past year, announced the news publicly today in anticipation of a release early next year. The company also has announced that it has received $10 million dollars in capital to bring its product to the market.

Attributor was founded by Jim Brock who said: We believe that we can provide an infrastructure that will support all kinds of outcomes and remedies, which will align the interests of content owners, content hosts and search engines around legitimate syndication and monetization.

   
Bill Gates suggests buying a CD and ripping it

From the BBC

Microsoft boss, Bill Gates, has told a group of influential bloggers that copy protection for digital music and video is too complex for consumers.

Digital Rights Management (DRM), which is used to stop copying, is a big issue for some people who feel it limits what they can do with legally bought files.

DRM is not where it should be, said Gates: In the end of the day incentive systems (for artists) make a difference. But we don't have the right thing here in terms of simplicity or interoperability.

Blogger Michael Arrington, of Techcrunch.com, said Bill Gates' short-term advice for people wanting to transfer songs from one system to another was to "buy a CD and rip it". Most CDs do not have any copy protection and can be copied to a PC and to an MP3 player easily and, in the United States at least, legally.

In the UK it is illegal to make personal copies of CDs, although the music industry has made clear it will take no action against people copying their legally bought CDs to their computers or music players.

Critics of DRM argue that the tools limit the value of downloaded music or video files because of the restrictions imposed to try to prevent copying.

Suw Charman, of the Open Rights Group, said it was a bit rich of Bill Gates to make his comments given how much DRM is stuffed into Windows Vista, the new operating system from Microsoft.

Charman called for more information for consumers when they buy digital files and CDs: Often consumers do not know what restrictions have been imposed on CDs or digital music until after they have bought them. Apple have been known to change the rules after people have bought tracks.

Intellectual Property

From the BBC

The Gowers Report was commissioned by the government to look at modernising UK copyright laws for the digital age.

While it proposes new powers against copyright infringement, it also says private users should be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player. It also recommends the 50-year copyright protection for recorded music should not be extended.

Former newspaper editor Andrew Gowers said piracy and counterfeiting was probably the biggest challenge the intellectual property (IP) system faced.

The report estimates 20% of the entertainment industry's turnover was lost to illegal copying and says tougher enforcement is a vital part of reform. It calls for penalties against people who sell pirate versions of music and films on the internet to be brought in line with those who make hard copies. Currently, the former face two years and the latter 10.

The chancellor has welcomed this and announced an extra £5m for Trading Standards officers to take action against more bootleggers.

Many artists and record companies had pressed for the current 50-year limit to be extended to 95 but Gowers has rejected this.

But the report recognised the ease of copying material can be useful to the economy and backed a strictly limited private copying exception. This would mean "format swapping" like putting music from a CD onto an MP3 player - theoretically illegal under present laws - would be allowed.

The Association of Independent Music (AIM) said it was particularly unhappy over the issue of allowing more private copying.

A spokesman said: By tidying up a small part of the copyright law, we believe Gowers may well be opening the floodgates to uncontrolled and unstoppable private copying and sharing from person to person, as well as format to format."

From X Biz

Critics of a copyright proposal in Australia have warned that its passage could result in serious penalties to users of video sharing sites like YouTube.

The proposed law, which is currently being debated in Australian Parliament, would make it an indictable offense for someone merely to possess a device with the intention of using it to infringe copyright. Under Australian law, all indictments must go before the justice system. The existing system allows copyright infringements to be settled by paying damages to the copyright holder without involvement of the courts.

It has the potential to make everyday Australians in homes and businesses across the country into criminals on a scale that we have not witnessed before, said Brian Fitzgerald, head of Queensland University’s law school. The proposal could potentially cover a 14-year-old girl videoing herself lip-synching to her favorite pop tune and uploading this to a video-sharing website.

Electronic Frontiers Australia, a free speech advocacy group, said the proposal also extends the list of items potentially used for copyright theft to include video players, music players, home computers and other personal devices.

One section [of the proposal] would arguably make distribution of copyright material via the Internet a criminal offense, even where the person responsible had not intended such distribution to occur, the group said in a statement.

Politicians and experts are debating the proposal in Parliament before a final version is put to vote, which is expected to be some time next year.
 

Australians back off from prohibiting iPods

From X Biz

Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock's copyright reforms are almost certain to become law by January, after significant changes were made to ensure innocent consumers are not criminalised.

The Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 passed through the Senate on Friday after a number of modifications were made. It will now go back to the House of Representatives for re-approval.

Before the amendments to the bill, experts warned that simply owning an iPod, camera phone or a DVD recorder might be enough to land one in jail or lumbered with a large fine.

But following an outcry by industry bodies and the public, Ruddock amended the bill.

The Government has listened to the Senate Committee and stakeholders and has improved the effectiveness of the reforms, Ruddock said in a statement: The amended reforms make it clear consumers can transfer the music they own onto devices such as iPods and enable the next wave of technology by allowing people to record a TV or radio program on mobile devices to watch it at a more convenient time.

The amendments also removed on-the-spot fines for some copyright offences, to ensure they didn't unintentionally capture harmless activities of ordinary Australians.

However, the copyright reforms still retain harsh penalties against those distributing copyright-infringing material for commercial gain.

From Mac World

A group of movie studios has filed a lawsuit against tiny iPod service firm Load 'N Go Video, demanding that the latter party stops loading DVDs onto iPods.

Load 'N Go Video sells DVDs and iPods and loads the movies onto the iPods for customers for an extra fee. Customers then receive the iPod and the DVD they then legally own in a package through the mail.

Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Studios, Warner Bros Entertainment, Disney Enterprises, Columbia TriStar Television and Columbia Pictures are claiming that ripping the DVD to the iPod is a case of copyright infringement.

Critics note that the studios are effectively attempting to force consumers to buy the same content twice, once on DVD, another time in a format suitable for the iPod, perhaps eventually through the iTunes Store.

From the BBC

It is not the music industry's job to decide consumer rights, says IPPR The Institute for Public Policy Research argues that consumers' rights should be improved with a new private right to copy.

The IPPR recommendations are ahead of a review of intellectual property laws. The review of the laws has been commissioned by Chancellor Gordon Brown.

The IPPR report says millions of consumers break the law every year by copying CDs and DVDs on to their computers. It is calling for changes to the centuries-old copyright laws.

Ian Kearns, IPPR deputy director, said: British copyright law is out of date with consumer practices and technological progress. He said giving people a private right to copy would allow them to legally copy their own CDs and DVDs on to home computers, laptops and phones.

Kearns said: When it comes to protecting the interests of copyright holders, the emphasis the music industry has put on tackling illegal distribution and not prosecuting for personal copying, is right. But it is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government.

The report also argues that there is no evidence the current 50-year copyright term is insufficient. The music industry is campaigning to extend the copyright term in sound recordings to 95 years.

Based on an article from The Times

Norway's DVD Jon claims to have cracked the security coding on Apple’s iTunes music store and iPod music player.

Jon Lech Johansen, who runs a software company in San Francisco called DoubleTwist Ventures, said yesterday that his code-breaking programme will fool computers into thinking that any MP3 player is an iPod. Likewise, it will make any piece of music or video downloaded from the internet appear to have been bought from iTunes.

Music bought from Apple’s iTunes online store can be played only on the company’s own iPod devices, and the songs, music videos and movies bought on iTunes contain a security code that prevents them from being played on rival media players. The iPod also blocks music bought from other online services such as Amazon.com or Napster.

Apple has yet to respond to Johansen’s claims, but it is understood that the company’s lawyers and software experts are examining them to see if legal action can be taken. DoubleTwist Ventures said that it had sought legal advice and believes that the hack is entirely above board and commercially viable.

It doesn’t mean that a big company will not harass us, Monique Farantzos, the managing director of Double-Twist, said: I don’t think we’ll be getting a Christmas card from Mr Jobs, referring to Steve Jobs, the chief executive of Apple.

DoubleTwist said that it would license the programme to Apple’s competitors. The company even claimed that Apple might benefit from the hack, as a growing number of governments have questioned the legality of Apple’s own software.

The French Government recently passed a law pressuring Apple to allow music sold by other online providers to be compatible with iPods.  After months of strenuous lobbying, the law ended up containing a loophole that allowed Apple to continue to block music from services other than iTunes. However, the French case generated a great deal of publicity and other European countries are considering legislation to thwart Apple’s exclusivity.

From the Slyck

In a quiet legal proceeding that caught little in the way of media attention, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) brought a civil lawsuit against Danish ISP Tele2, demanding the cessation of customer access to AllofMP3.com. Tele2 is one of Europe’s largest ISPs.

The IFPI has accomplished its mission. In a decision rendered today, a court ruled that Tele2 must block AllofMP3.com from its Danish customers. The Danish recording industry had been active in its attempts to prevent Danish citizens from accessing the site, however it wasn’t until the IFPI became involved did the tide turn in the music industry’s favor.

The telecommunications industry in Denmark has expressed outrage and concern over the verdict, as they feel it implies ISPs are now responsible for the activities of their users – not to mention a legal gray area where no verdict has been made against AllofMP3.

I’m shocked about the verdict, and view it as censorship. Tele2 and other Internet service providers provide free access to information on the internet, but now have to sort this information, said Ib Tholstrup of Tele2. This is unknown territory for us, and it is the same as if the Post Offices should read all the letters they are handling. I deeply condemn this verdict.

Sebastian Gjerding, spokesperson of The Piracy Group in Denmark, shared the telecommunication industry’s indignation. The Piracy Group (Piratgruppen) is an organization that petitions for copyright reform and advocates consumer rights: We can now only wait and hope that the Civil Court will come to their senses, and reverse the verdict on the appeal. However, if this does not happen, there are alternative ways to get around the issue. Technical matters that tries to censor the internet are often easy to outwit, and The Piracy Group are more than willing to teach people how to do it.

Tele2 is committed to appealing the verdict

So will the payment become major censors who arbitrarily enforce anything Governments,  police or trade organisations suggest?

From the BBC

Visa and Mastercard have stopped accepting credit card transactions for music downloading site AllofMP3, which is accused of illegally selling songs.

The Russian-based company, which offers chart music at a fraction of the price charged by services such as iTunes, insists it is within the law.

But US officials say AllofMP3 operates outside international agreements and no artists have been given royalties.

The site is now directing customers to pay through another site. But Visa said it had already stopped accepting payments from that site too. The action Visa has taken is in line with legislation passed in Russia and with basic international copyright and intellectual property norms, a Visa spokesman said.

A Mastercard spokesman added the firm "did not tolerate the use of its network for illegal activity.

From ZDNet

Speaking last week at the Digital Home Developers Conference, Brad Hunt, the executive vice president and chief technology officer for the MPAA, conceded that many people are frustrated at having to buy multiple copies of the same content to use on different devices and that this is driving them to piracy.

I understand that if we frustrate the consumer, they will simply pirate the content, The issue we face today is that consumers are buying content that uses specific DRM and that, in turn, is gradually creating a world of separate DRM systems.

Wow! Finally a glimmer of hope. Many people (myself included) have been saying this for years, yet the MPAA are only now starting to accept it. The fact is that DRM is ineffective and that piracy is too easy. It doesn't take too much energy to push an honest, law-abiding citizen from consumer to pirate.

The catalyst that's needed to get this reaction going is an annoyed or frustrated user who feels that a big, faceless corporation took their money and ripped them off. Often the consumer feels cheated because the restrictions weren't made clear enough early on. I've watched the process in action several times and it's quite interesting. Someone buys some digital content (say a DVD) and they want to copy it to their laptop so that they can watch it while on the road without having to take the disc with them. They discover that there's more to the process than just copying the disc to the hard drive. This is frustrating and so they start typing a few keywords into a search engine and within minutes they have a DVD copy tool downloaded and working.

I've seen the same thing happen with games. Someone buys a game and becomes mildly annoyed at having to have the disc in the drive each time the want to play it (even though all the game content is stored on their hard drive). They do a little research and discover a world of cracks and patches. All that it takes is someone being "mildly annoyed".

Also, DRM could be an Achilles' heel for media companies. For example, one simple way that the music industry could break Apple's grip of steel on digital music sales would be to sell DRM-free music. It's simple and would be a very effective way to counterattack iTunes - all it needs is for the industry to have the vision and see this as a road to profits

From X Biz

The new Vista operating system will employ harsh anti-piracy measures, including the ability to cripple computers found to be running unlicensed copies, Microsoft officials said.

Microsoft said users with unauthorized copies would be denied access to several of the operating system’s new features, including Windows Aero, an improved graphic technology.

If a user with a pirated copy does not purchase a legitimate copy within 30 days, the system will end functionality by restricting Internet browser access to one hour at a time, Microsoft product manager Thomas Lindeman said.

According to Lindeman, users on restricted access would be able to go online, access hard drive documents and web-based email. But the user would be barred from directly opening documents on the desktop and would not be able to run other programs such as Outlook.

Lindeman said the new Vista system would be able to perform some piracy checks without having to contact Microsoft.

Endpoint Technologies Associates analyst Roger Kay said Microsoft has a legal right to institute the harsh anti-piracy protections, but added the company would likely face some level of consumer backlash.

From Agora Vox

The first man in Sweden to be charged with file-sharing has been acquitted. He allegedly distributed the Swedish film Hip Hip Hora online, says The Local: The Court of Appeal decided that it does not have sufficient proof that the film was uploaded from the man’s computer. The lack of technical evidence has led the court to acquit the defendant of the charge of breach of copyright.

An earlier story from The Local stressed the case was based almost entirely on evidence from MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) enforcer Antipiratbyrå, (APB) which, accessed a local network with the DC programme and found Hip Hip Hora available, recorded the distributor’s IP address and reported him to the police. The police turned to the internet service provider Bredbandsbolaget, which was able to confirm that the IP address belonged to the defendant.

Västmanland District Court had initially fined the defendant 16,000 kronor, says The Local going on, This ruling will make it difficult for the film industry and other interest groups to pursue the issue in the courts.

The Pirate Party’s Christian Engström told The Local, It is obviously good that the court is careful with its evidence and it is important that the lower courts take note of that. But the judgment doesn’t really mean much for file sharing as such. And our basic point is of course that it is absurd that someone should even be tried for making culture available to others.

From Bit Tech

It appears that the MPAA haven't learned their lesson yet - in a bid to stop piracy, they're now turning up the copy protection. According to industry reports, new RFID chips could be showing up on DVDs soon which will encode unique identifiers into each DVD sold.

Details are unclear exactly what details will be encoded, but there is talk that these chips could make the MPAA able to follow a specific disc from factory to DVD player - so apparently it contains some fairly identifiably unique information. The goal is that eventually home DVD players will be able to read the chips, refusing to play discs that are copies or not in the right region.

From Silicon
See also DefectiveByDesign.org

Prepare for "worldwide day of action", say activists. An awareness day to highlight the fight against digital rights management (DRM) will be held on 3 October.

Organised by DefectiveByDesign.org, a sub-group of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), Anti-DRM day will involve a "worldwide day of action… to raise the stakes and attempt to increase awareness to the threats of DRM".

Dr Ian Brown, an expert for the Open Rights Group and academic working at UCL and the Cambridge-MIT Insitute, said on Friday: Media companies should be embracing the new possibilities that digital technology brings. Instead, most are trying to lock us all into their 20th century business models, using faulty technology that will stop consumers from making legitimate uses of copyright works.

The issue has also caused vigorous debate in the run-up to the third version of the General Public License (GPL), the document - currently being revised by the FSF - which underpins much of the open source movement. Many have argued for anti-DRM provisions to be included, saying DRM runs contrary to the spirit of open source. But Linux creator Linus Torvalds has said DRM can play an integral role in security, and claimed proposed revisions to the GPL go too far.

Earlier this year several organisations complained to MPs about DRM. The British Library said the technology was hampering its ability to use digitised material within the context of a library, and the Royal National Institute for the Blind claimed DRM stopped certain e-books working with software designed to make computers read text out loud.

DefectiveByDesign.org  is also concerned about DRM functionality which it says will be included in new high-definition DVD formats, to allow unprecedented monitoring and control over usage habits.

From X Biz

FairUse4WM, a new program has been released on the Internet that strips digital rights management encryption technology from purchased Windows Media files. This allows users to circumvent entering their membership password to play protected files even after their membership has expired.

The program only works one file at a time and requires the use of Windows Media 10 or 11. To use the program, the user would load the video or audio file into the program, which then strips it of its DRM keys allowing it to be played without restriction.

FairUse4WM’s debut comes at a time when many companies offering digital media are spending substantial sums for DRM licenses to protect their content. Advocates argue that DRM is necessary for copyright holders to prevent unauthorized duplication of their work. DRM opponents argue that the presence of DRM infringes private property rights and restricts a range of normal user activities.

Originally released on Usenet, the program has been mirrored worldwide.

Online message boards are rife with talk over the program’s implications for downloadable media. Many expect Microsoft to issue patches just as fast as the program’s creator issues updated versions.

From engadget

providers like Napster and Yahoo Music Unlimited provide subscription service for unlimited access to Windows Media DRMed files; stop paying the fee, stop getting access to the files.

We tried FairUse4WM and we can verify that it quickly and easily stripped the DRM from our Napster To Go tracks, and made them freely available to play on our Mac. In other words, it's a simple, apparently lossless, one-step method for making your files playable after you're no longer paying fees on your subscription service.

The app didn't work on our Vongo videos, but we can verify with all certainty that yes, Windows Media DRM can now be easily and quickly stripped from PlaysForSure media services.

Now watch as Microsoft shuts down the forums and runs damage control in order to prevent an digital media entire platform from collapsing.
 

Turn off those automatic updates!

From the BBC

Microsoft has said it is working to close a breach of its technology that protects music digital files from copyright infringement.

A program called Fairuse4wm has been posted on the net and is said to be capable of bypassing Microsoft's Digital Rights Management (DRM) system.

Microsoft said it hoped to deploy an update to fix the problem soon.

From CD Freaks

Finally! Someone, with the means ($$$) to do it, is going to fight the MPAA and its tactics, in court.

Last November, Shawn Hogan received an unsettling call: A lawyer representing Universal Pictures and the Motion Picture Association of America informed the 30-year-old software developer that they were suing him for downloading Meet the Fockers over BitTorrent. Hogan was baffled. Not only does he deny the accusation, he says he already owned the film on DVD. The attorney said they would settle for $2,500. Hogan declined. Now he’s embroiled in a surprisingly rare situation – a drawn-out legal fight with the MPAA.

Hogan is definitely a man of means, as former CEO of Digital Point Solutions, he just happens to be a multimillionaire. The $100,000 that he expects to pay in legal fees, to fight this charge from the MPAA, is worth every cent in his eyes. Hogan, like many others, realizes that the tactics used by these "artists associations" are an abuse of he legal system and he is going to do his best to fight it. Hogan says. I would spend well into the millions on this.

Sounds an unlikely reason to withdraw the facility. The use of private folders could easily be controlled via an admin option denied to non privileged users. Perhaps Governments were whinging that their armies of PC repairman spies would be shut out.

Based on an article from CNET News

Following whinges from corporate customers, Microsoft is removing an add-on feature to Windows that allowed users to create password-protected folders.

The feature was introduced as a free download last week. Almost immediately, people raised questions over how businesses would grapple with the ability of individual workers to encrypt their data.

Private Folder 1.0 was designed as a benefit for customers running genuine Windows, Microsoft said However, we received feedback about concerns around manageability, data recovery and encryption, and based on that feedback, we are removing the application today. This change will take effect shortly.

When it added the feature, Microsoft touted it as a useful tool...to protect your private data when friends, colleagues, kids or other people share your PC or account.

However, others spotted potential problems: Oh great, have they even thought about the impact this could have on enterprises. I'm already trying to frantically find information on this product so that A) I can block to all our desktops and B) figure out how we then support it when users inevitably lose files. I can see the benefit in this product for home users, but..." Stuart Graham said in a posting on Windows Server-related site MSBlog.

From The Register

What would you call a computer program that surreptitiously installed itself onto your computer, collected personal information about you without your knowledge or effective consent, was difficult or impossible to remove, installed pop-up banners that constantly harassed you, and presented significant security vulnerabilities?

If you were Los Angeles resident Brian Johnson, the answer would be simple. You'd call it Windows. Or more specifically, it's the anti-piracy software download known as Windows Genuine Advantage.

His class action lawsuit alleges that the Microsoft software violates California and Washington State privacy laws, consumer protection laws, and anti-spyware laws.

The outcome of the case may well dictate how companies package software, and more particularly how they promise privacy. This will apply not only to software companies, but also to any company that, either knowingly or not, collects certain "personal information" about visitors to its websites.

In April 2004, with much fanfare, Microsoft announced a new program to protect the consumer from...well, from themselves. Ostensibly an anti-fraud program, the Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) program was marketed as a means for individuals to determine whether the software on their system was properly licensed.

The WGA program was not really a consumer protection program. It was actually designed to protect Microsoft itself from people obtaining unlicensed copies of its Windows operating system, and forcing them to obtain actual licensed copies of the OS.

If you were the victim of fraud, and had unknowingly obtained a copy of the OS without a license, Microsoft's software did not help you obtain redress against the seller of the computer or OS. It merely offered you a mechanism to repurchase the software, at full price, from Microsoft itself.

From the BBC

A law that could force Apple to share its digital download technology with rivals has been passed in France.
Currently, songs bought from Apple's iTunes music store can only be played on Apple-manufactured iPods.

The bill would mean any digital song could be played on any player, regardless of its format or source. But the legislation leaves room for artists to sign deals with Apple and others, enabling them to restrict which systems their music will play on.

Under the bill, companies such as Apple, Sony and Microsoft could be made to share their proprietary copy-protection systems. It was intended to deter piracy and ensure no single company dominated the fast-growing music download market.

In March, Apple said the law would encourage "a state-sponsored culture of piracy", and hinted that it could withdraw from the French market.

The law has been watered down and the loophole to allow artists to sign exclusive deals with individual companies was added last month.

The bill will also create a new independent authority to decide when "interoperability" should apply.

Both the Senate and the National Assembly, France's upper and lower houses, voted in favour of the bill, the final stage before it becomes law.

The legislation also includes anti-piracy measures threatening fines of thousands of euros and prison sentences for professional copiers.
 

Based on an article from Silicon

France's progressive copyright law, which had threatened to mandate interoperability between Apple and rival online music players' DRM, has been dealt a major setback with sections of the legislation being ruled unconstitutional.

The Dadvsi law, which had initially been intended to free digital music lovers from proprietary DRM, now seems to be doing the opposite.

Changes to the law, proposed by France's Conseil Constitutionnel, now mean that those found reverse-engineering DRM to aid interoperability between two DRM-incompatible systems – Apple's and Microsoft's for example - can now be fined. The law had previously allowed individuals to circumvent DRM if doing so to enable interoperability. The Conseil removed the provision, saying the definition of interoperability was too vague.

The law will also now introduce a DRM licensing authority for companies using rights protection, which will have the power to order companies such as Apple to provide information to competitors to enable interoperability.

The Conseil has now amended the law to order that, in such cases, those being forced to open their DRM should receive compensation. Apple's dominance in the online music world has been fostered by its misleadingly named FairPlay DRM, which permits songs bought from its iTunes Music Store to be played only with its iPod MP3 players.

Instead of a €150 or €38 fine for up- or downloading music respectively, pirates now face being convicted of a criminal offence and potentially facing several years in prison or a fine of €500,000.

From the BBC

Consumers should be told exactly what they can and cannot do with songs and films they buy online, says an influential group of MPs in the UK. Labels on digital content should spell out how easy it is to move from gadget to gadget, said the report.

The All Party Parliamentary Internet Group looked at how copy protection systems restrict the way digital movies and music can be enjoyed. It also called for an inquiry into the pricing schemes of online music stores.

A public inquiry organised by the MPs sought views on copy protection technologies, known as Digital Rights Management (DRM), from industry groups, consumers and media makers earlier this year.

The MPs' report made several recommendations and called on the Office of Fair Trading hasten the introduction of labelling regulations that would let people know what they can do with music and movies they buy online or offline.

This would ensure that it was "crystal clear" to consumers what freedom they have to use the content they are purchasing and what would happen if they do something outlawed by the protection system.

The same labelling systems would also spell out what happened in the event of a maker of DRM technology going bust, if a protection system became obsolete or if gadgets to play the content are replaced.

A spokesman for All Party Parliamentary Internet Group said he expected a response from makers of digital content and hoped that the report would inform wider government thinking about copy protection.

Suw Charman, executive director of the Open Rights Group which campaigns on digital rights issues, said the organisation was pleased that the MPs had made a series of "sensible recommendations". But, she added, the group could have gone further to combat the ways that copy protection systems impinge on rights to use copyrighted material protected by law. For instance, she said, UK law allows people to make copies of parts of copyrighted works for the purposes of critiquing or reviewing them.

She said that DRM was less about protecting copyright and more about creating a system in which people rent rather than own the media they spend money on: We think people rightly feel that once they buy something, it stays bought,

The Pirate Bay is the Swedish Bit Torrent file sharing site harassed by the US MPAA.

From a blog by the Legal Advisor to The Piratebay

First of all I am the legal advisor to The Piratebay. You may or may not know me by my alias "Judas_I".

This is what happened. The unedited truth, delivered to you from an insiders perspective.

On Wednesday the 31st of May I had just returned to my home in Köping and just started to relax when I hear that there is someone at the door. This "someone" turned out to be four police officers from both Rikskriminalen (the equivalent of the FBI) and the local police. They told me that they had come to arrest me and bring me in for questioning. Being a trained law professional I immediately asked them about the circumstances of this questioning and they replied that I was a suspect in a copyright infringement case.

Apparently they had an order do search the premises for eventual contraband.

I'm then swiftly removed from the apartment and shipped with no further delay to the local police station for questioning. I ask for a lawyer to be present and my request is granted, which is more than can be said in the case of Gottfrids (known as Anakata) questioning. He was summarily denied the right to legal representation during questioning.

The "questioning", if it actually qualifies as that, begins. They only seem to want to know answers to questions they already have the answers to. Questions that I KNOW for a fact that they already know the answers to. The hearing lasts for only about 15 minutes and I get a chance to talk to the lawyer present in private.

While talking the officer conducting the hearing suddenly enters the room only to inform me that an order has been issued by the prosecutor to collect a DNA-sample from me. (Note that a court order is not needed to get a DNA-sample in Sweden. Only an executive decision by the prosecutor handling the case. The only criteria that he has to adhere to are that jail must be a possible punishment for the crime and that the person forced to leave the sample is under justified suspicion of the crime).

the spirits in Köpings small police station are high today. They have finally caught one of the "big fish", a real menace to society, one of the devils disciples on earth: A trained law professional that ACTUALLY tells IMMORAL filesharingpromotors what the law of the land says about file sharing! Finally all the good people of the Swedish antipiracy agency and their good Masters in the west can breath easily again.

Soon after this travesty I am released from custody and able to return home only to discover that they have ceased just about all of my electronic equipment. Even my keyboard, my microphone, two TFT flat screens and a multitude of cables. I immediately understand that especially the microphone will yield important information that will help bring me to justice. They had found the ACTUAL "smoking keyboard"!

On Thursday the 1st of June some of the smoke clears

Apparently the take down has been orchestrated by the MPAA lobbying the US department of foreign affairs to in their turn put pressure on the Swedish department of foreign affairs. This result in those representatives for the Swedish authorities of justice visits the US. Here they are told that there has to be a final solution to the pirate bay problem, they also informs the Swedish delegates how such a solution should be implemented.

Upon returning to Sweden the Swedish minister of justice, Thomas Bodström, is informed about the situation and in short he acts in a way that is way outside his sphere of legal influence, ignoring the separation of powers and affectively, through his secretary of the state, ORDERS the police and attorneys office to take action against The Piratebay even though both the police and the attorneys office had already told him that they lacked the legal grounds to launch such an investigation.
 

From The Register
The Pirate Bay is the Swedish Bit Torrent file sharing site harassed by the US MPAA.

Swedish BitTorrent site Piratebay has moved home after a brief sojourn in the Netherlands.

The Piratebay moved to the Netherlands after the raid. But according to their blog they missed Sweden too much and had to return. The site says it wants to spread the website over several different locations worldwide to make it harder to take down.

The people behind the site apologised for problems and delays in fixing them. They said: "The aim is always to make this beast the biggest, strongest, and coolest site for filesharing in the world!"

In May, Swedish police raided 10 locations and seized Piratebay computers. Piratebay is threatening to sue police if the site is ruled legal. The raid gave Piratebay so much publicity that visitor numbers nearly doubled for a while
 

From the Brussels Journal

Sweden appears to have a full-fledged pirate movement. In addition to The Pirate Bay it also has a Pirate Office and a Pirate Party. The latter are considering entering Swedish politics by taking part in this year’s elections for the Swedish Riksdag and may very well obtain a seat.

The pirate movement started in the summer of 2003 with the establishment of the Pirate Office (Piratbyrån). The Pirate Office believes that there should be no obstructions to the copying of information and culture, and wants to start a public debate on the issue. In November 2003 the group Bittorent-tracker established The Pirate Bay, which has continued independently since October 2004.

The Pirate Party’s programme can be summed up in three main points: personal integrity should be protected, culture should be free, patents and private monopolies are harmful to society. The party’s position is that in modern society individuals are monitored in all kinds of ways, especially in the digital world. It claims that current legislation is totally outdated and hampers creativity, hence all restrictions on copying information for private purposes should be lifted. This means that copying an MPG- or MP3-file for personal use or for a friend should be made legal, but does not comprise the total abolition of today’s copyright and patent laws. The party acknowledges that such legislation is reasonable and necessary for companies and commercial interests.

The party has no opinions on any other issue and has announced that its vote in the Riksdag will be available in exchange for the realisation of its programme.

Already, however, the Pirate Party’s influence is being felt in Swedish politics. The Greens, the Left and the Moderaten (m) have made adjustments to their programmes to prevent voters from switching to the Pirate Party. Thomas Bodström, the Swedish Justice Minister, clearly concerned by the advent of the Pirate Party, suggested altering the law to make filesharing legal in exchange for an extra tax on the use of broadband. The Pirate Party’s response to this was negative. They said this was not an acceptable solution but one which indicates that the traditional politicians have still not grasped the problem.

From The Register

HD DVD is to get region coding after all, if the DVD Forum, the industry organisation that maintains the DVD format, has its way. This week, the Forum decided to put in place a team to create a region-coding scheme for the next-generation optical disc technology.

At a meeting held in Seattle earlier this week, the DVD Forum's Steering Committee agreed to form a working group to develop a specification and enforcement plan for RPC [Region Protection Coding] on HD DVD Video, including region map and requirements in consultation with the studios.

HD DVD media and players currently lack the capacity to prevent discs bought in country A to be played in a drive purchased in country B. That's how DVDs work, much to the annoyance of many consumers who want to be able to buy better versions of movies produced for territories of their own.

That said, plenty of canny consumers have bypassed the block by having their players adapted or by seeking out no-name machines from Asia that either don't impose region restrictions or make it easy to disable them.

The Blu-ray Disc camp is already known to be working on an equivalent region coding system for BD discs that reduces the DVD format's seven world zones to just three: North and South America and Asia (but not China); Europe and Africa; and Russia, China and everywhere else.

From The Register

The Australian Government has announced it will introduce major changes to the Australian Copyright Act.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the reforms would make laws fairer for consumers and tougher on copyright pirates: Copyright is important and should be respected. That is why the Government is updating our laws to keep pace with technology. Everyday consumers shouldn’t be treated like copyright pirates. Copyright pirates should be not treated like everyday consumers.

Changes to the law include legalising time shifting and format shifting, allowing consumers to:

• Copy music, newspapers and books from 'personal collections' onto iPods and mp3 players.
• Record TV and radio programs to 'time shift' once at a later time.
• This exception will not allow a recording to be used over and over again or be distributed to others.
• Schools, universities, libraries and other cultural institutions will be free to use copyright material for non-commercial purposes.

New exceptions will be created for people with disabilities to allow access to copyright materials. Copyrighted material will be available for use for parody or satire.

However, the amendments will also increase surveillance, fines and damages for internet piracy (file sharing) including on the spot fines, proceeds of crime remedies, and a change in presumptions in litigation to make it easier to establish copyright piracy, for large scale piracy the content owners may no longer have to establish each breach of copyright law.

The format shifting provisions do not include a general right to make back up copies, any new copy must be in a new format. They do not apply to computer programs. Further more, on the sale of the original item, all other copies must be deleted.

For the time being it will still be illegal to format shift audio visual material. This will be reviewed in two years’ time and a decision made then as to whether the scope can be expanded to digital audio visual materials in a way which complies with international obligations.

A draft exposure bill will be released soon to enable further consultation with stakeholders.

From P2PNet

Twenty-five American universities will have regular teaching activities curtailed as school staffs put normal routines aside to work as tax-payer funded entertainment cartel enforcers.

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) have come up with a cool new buzz-phrase to captivate mainstream media headline writers.

It's 'LAN piracy' and the Big Four record labels and Big Six studios are jointly using it as an excuse to launch a coordinated attack against American students, aka LAN pirates, aka 'criminal file sharers,' aka 'thieves'.

The RIAA & MPAA confidently expect administrators and other staff to act as unpaid industry cops as part of what's fast becoming normal school practice: As part of this new program, the RIAA and MPAA today sent letters to 40 university presidents in 25 states alerting them of LAN piracy problems on their campuses and encouraging immediate action to stop and prevent theft by such means.

Universities on the receiving end are in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, DC.

From the BBC

A search engine used to locate links to movie and music files has moved to dismiss legal attempts by the US film industry to sue over copyright.

Lawyers for Torrentspy say the lawsuit is an attempt to make the BitTorrent system itself illegal. Torrentspy says it does not host copyright files and obeys requests to remove links to such material.

BitTorrent has become a widely used online system to get hold of very large video files as the technology is very efficient at splitting up and sharing data. Use of the technology has proved to be a thorn in the side of the MPAA as it can make it hard to work out who is behind illegal movie sharing.

As part of its efforts to tackle the issue, the MPAA has targeted websites which point to BitTorrent links such as Torrentspy.

Torrentspy stands accused of helping copyright infringement to occur by directing people to sites, some of which host copyrighted content which can be downloaded illegally.

In response, Torrentspy has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in the federal court in Los Angeles. It challenges that the allegation made by the Motion Picture Association of America that linking to torrent sites constituted secondary copyright infringement.

From The Times

Germans risk two years in prison if they illegally download films and music for private use under a new law agreed yesterday. Anybody who downloads films for commercial use could be jailed for up to five years.
The measures, some of the toughest in Europe, were announced after an aggressive campaign by the film industry in Germany.

According to film industry estimates, Germans download more than 20 million films a year. Many expect the next James Bond film, Casino Royale, to be widely available in Germany weeks before its official release in November.

The law, which comes into effect on January 1, 2007, has infuriated consumer groups. They claim that it will turn consumers into criminals and harm the Government’s efforts to create a knowledge-based economy.

Patrick von Braunmühl, of the Federation of German Consumer Organisations, said: This sends a completely wrong signal to society. It criminalises consumers and will deeply disturb internet users. It can’t be that everyone has to be worried now about the police knocking on the door and impounding the family computer because their 16-year-old son has downloaded a few songs.

Brigitte Zypries, the Justice Minister, defended the law. The aim is not now to slap handcuffs on downloaders in the school playground, she said. But if someone downloaded a film before it reached the cinemas it was obvious that they were responding to an illegal offer and breaking the law, she said. Frau Zypries has ruled that it will still be legal to copy a legitimately bought DVD for limited private use.

Enforcement will be left to the state prosecutor. Authorities hunting internet pirates will be able to pass on details to film and music producers who can then inform the police.

From The Register

Under heavy pressure from the French government, the country's parliament has voted against introducing the world's first blanket licence for sharing digital media. A section that would have permitted internet users to freely exchange copyrighted material, effectively legitimizing file sharing, and hastening the demise of digital rights management (DRM) software, had passed an earlier reading in a vote last December.

The measure proposed a levy of between €8 and €12 for a compensation pool, had won cross-party support - with strong backing from the left, the Greens, and the centre right UDF inside parliament- as well as the backing of consumer groups. MPs walked out in protest after the blanket license proposal was struck down,  leaving the government to carry the day.

Although a similar model of compensation has been historically adopted for the public performance of recordings (such as in pubs), for radio, and most recently for satellite TV and webcasting, the consequences of the French vote would have been dramatic and far-reaching.

Direct compensation through a broadband fee works out much cheaper to the citizen than a commercial for-profit service. In his book Promises To Keep published last year, Professor Terry Fisher of the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School estimates that a $6 per month fee for broadband users would compensate both the recording and movie companies for 20 per cent of their revenue - more than they've ever claimed they lost through digital piracy.

But the strongest opposition came from the record labels at the top of the physical distribution chain - with the most vociferous opposition coming from the biggest- Universal Music Group.

Speaking at the Digital Music Forum in New York a fortnight ago, flat fee advocate and former Geffen executive Jim Griffin said he could see why UMG opposed a blanket license. I agree with Larry Kenswil [UMG's digital supremo] - this would be bad for Universal. When you've reached 30 per cent market share, when you've pulled off the last big merger, when you've built up the barriers, there's not a lot of benefit from equalizing access. But what's good for UMG isn't good for everyone else."

For now the prosecutions, the DRM, and the illegal file sharing which leaves artists with no reward - all look set to continue. However, France's long debate is sure to embolden campaigners, as it makes the once unthinkable suddenly seem very practical. And next to the value proposition of a flat license - wider choice at a lower cost - even the best of today's digital subscription services look pretty shabby

From The Register

HD DVD may come to Europe earlier than expected, with an initial, low-level roll-out due in April. Such a rapid launch after this month's US debut of the next-generation optical disc format is apparently possible because of a lack of region-coding in early pre-recorded media and players.

The first HD DVD-equipped system to ship in Europe will be Toshiba's Qosmio G30 notebook, which the company launched today.

The debut of pre-recorded HD DVD media looks set to be a low-key affair, however. Toshiba confirmed the G30's built-in HD DVD drive will not check for region encoding, allowing it to play HD DVDs bought in the US and elsewhere, company officials said.

How come? Early HD DVD releases are almost entirely back-catalogue movies which the studios are less concerned about co-ordinating local release dates than they are will films that have yet to make it onto home-oriented media. Then, maybe, region coding will kick in.

Interestingly, Sony hinted last Autumn that Blu-ray Disc would abandon region coding, at least as far as games go, though there's been no indication that the policy put in place with the advent of DVD would not be extended to next-generation optical disc formats.

Both the HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc camps are expected to make major announcements at the CeBIT show in Hannover, Germany this week.

From AnimeOnDVD

Information from reliable sources indicate that the Blu-Ray camp has given in to the demands of at least one Hollywood studio that wants region coding. However, it's not as cut and dry as DVD region coding is. Confirmation is expected today or tomorrow (no formal press releases though since they want to downplay it) but here's what we know. The system will be very close to what was listed before:

# Region 1: N. America, S. America, Japan, Korea and most of Asia (but not China)
# Region 2: Europe and Africa
# Region 3: China, Russia and other "pirate" countries (their words, not mine!)

Australia and New Zealand are not in any region code due to region coding being illegal there. The BDA has not determined yet how to handle that area. From what's been said by a sample of Blu-Ray producing Hollywood studios, the first wave of titles won't be region coded, and further noted that they will selectively use region coding, just like they will selectively use ICT.

HD DVD and their plans for region coding is still up in the air pending word from the MPAA and their own subcommittes. However, it was confirmed that Toshiba's two launch players won't recognize region code flags, even if The DVD Forum decides to adopt region coding in some form.

From PC Advisor

US record-label body the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and movie-industry moguls at the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) are attempting to argue that copying a CD to a computer for carrying on an iPod does not constitute fair use – and never has.

A report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation says 14 organisations, including the two mentioned, have submitted a filing as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's regular review process of exemptions to provisions against tampering with technological protection measures.

This means that, in essence, all rights to copy anything are held by the copyright owner. Those rights can be sold or assigned, which is why a record label can reproduce and distribute a given musician's songs. Since copyright holders haven't granted specific permission to make a copy of a song, you aren't allowed to, by the letter of the law.

Within American law, "fair use" is an exception that, among other things, allows people to make copies within certain circumstances and constraints. So making a copy of a CD for your own personal use is within the scope of fair use. That's the way copyright law has worked for quite some time.

But these new claims show that the right to tote your CD's contents around on your MP3 player were never expressly given, and that, for some reason, fair use doesn't apply. The implication is that all this time, they've been graciously allowing us to make tapes and MP3s from CDs bought for personal use

From the BBC

The UK music industry has won a landmark court case in its fight against online music sharing.

High Court judges ordered two men to pay the British Phonographic Industry between £1,500 and £5,000 for making thousands of songs available online.

One of the men said he did not know he was acting illegally, the other said there was no evidence against him.

The BPI has launched 139 similar cases since October 2004, most being settled out of court for up to £6,500.

The two men, who have not been named, were accused along with three others of using peer-to-peer software to share 8,906 songs over the internet.

The cases, in which both men were ordered to stop sharing files illegally, were the first of their kind to be heard in the British courts. Cases are pending against the other three people, who also refused to settle with the BPI.

The first defendant, from King's Lynn, said the BPI had no direct evidence of infringement, but the judges dismissed this and ordered him to make an immediate payment of £5,000. His total costs are estimated at £13,500 and damages are expected to take the bill even higher.

The other man, a postman from Brighton, said he was unaware that what he was doing was illegal and did not seek to gain financially. His case was also thrown out, with Judge Justice Lawrence Collins declaring: "Ignorance is not a defence". The postman was ordered to make an immediate payment of £1,500, pending final determination of costs and damages.

A further 51 illegal file-sharers have been given a deadline of 31 January to settle cases and avoid court action.

From The Register

The Consumer Council of Norway (CCN) has accused Apple's iTunes Music Store operation of violating the country's Marketing Control Act, and it has asked Norway's consumer ombudsman to intervene on behalf of digital music buyers. It also asked the ombudsman to investigate three other download services.

The CCN reckons ITMS and other such services fall foul of the law in a number of key areas. For starters, it believes many of the terms and conditions the store imposes on buyers are unreasonable in that they strongly favour ITMS over the consumer. For example, ITMS can change the Ts&Cs governing music after it has been purchased. That, the CCN said, is "a violation of basic principles of consumer contract law".

So too, said the CCN, is the way consumers are prevented from claiming damages if iTunes should create a breach of security that that could be exploited by hackers or malware - a problem highlighted by the recent Sony BMG DRM incident.

Consumers are forced to play downloaded music on an iPod - attempts to use other portable players require the removal of a song's DRM protection, a process banned by the Ts&Cs. The CCN reckons this runs contrary to copyright law's fair use provision.

ITMS, in particular, stipulates its European operation is governed by English law. CCN said that since the Norwegian store is only open to Norwegian buyers, it should be governed by Norwegian law. That it doesn't is a violation of Norway's Marketing Control Act, the CCN claimed.

Some or all of these alleged violations are also made by other digital music services, the CCN claimed, including MSN.no, Prefueled.com and CDON.com.

The CCN said it had been motivated by fears that digital content distributors, driven by the desire to defeat piracy, are eroding consumer rights. It's a claim that has also been made by the UK's National Consumer Council. It has asked the British government to update consumer-protection law to prevent this erosion.

From The Register

A UK-based consumer rights group has called for MPs to introduce new laws to ensure consumers' rights to use digital content are protected. The current usage of DRM technology on CDs, DVDs and music downloads  shows that the regime of self-regulation is failing to protect consumers' rights, according to the National Consumer Council (NCC).

In a submission to an All Party Internet Group (APIG) inquiry into the subject, the NCC highlights the controversial use of rootkit-style DRM technology by Sony/BMG in arguing that industry can't be trusted to act alone. The NCC reckons DRM constrains the legitimate consumer use of digital content, for example, by preventing consumers from playing DVDs they’ve bought abroad or in making compilations of material they have purchased for their own use. These restrictions undermine consumers' existing rights under consumer protection and data protection laws.

Jill Johnstone, director of policy at NCC, said: Because of the current situation, consumers face security risks to their equipment, limitations on their use of products, poor information when purchasing products and unfair contract terms. While we recognise the value of intellectual property rights, we have little confidence in self-regulation by the industry. We welcome this opportunity to present our concerns to MPs and hope this will ultimately lead to an improvement in the rights of consumers."

The All Party Internet Group announced an inquiry into Digital Rights Management last November. The probe will look at issues including the degree of protection needed for both copyright holders and consumers. The APIG plans to hold a series of public meetings taking evidence on the subject at an as yet unannounced date

Thanks to Malcolm

Thank you for the latest mailing concerning your VAIO product.

However I must inform you that I will never be purchasing another VAIO nor another SONY product again. So, why do I refuse to buy anything from SONY ever again?

Years ago I bought a VAIO laptop when I was passing through the United States. It lasted me about nine months before the hard drive started to pack up. So, I contacted Sony Europe under your Worldwide warranty scheme. I was told that the Worldwide warranty scheme didn't apply to this product (and that was one of the reasons why I bought it) but, worse, the lady in your Customer Services department told me that if I continued to ask for a repair under warranty then SONY would take me to court for daring to use a laptop which I bought from the US.

According to her I had to remove all the software from the computer as soon as I left each country (absurd, I know, but it's true) and replace it with the local version. I asked for clarification and she said that this was the case. Hardly the best usage of a laptop, but that's what I was told. So, basically, I was told to sling my hook else SONY would take me to court for using software outside of a country which I had legally (or so I thought) purchased it.

I still have the dead VAIO in my loft. I am still waiting for SONY to fix it under the warranty. So, until then I won't be buying anything from your company.

From The Register

Anyone the least bit concerned about DRM (digital rights management) technology would likely have been put off by Google co-founder Larry Page's ho-hum approach to revealing the company's new proprietary media locks. And with good reason. We have our own DRM that we're using, Page said, during a keynote at CES. We'll be open to other things, but (creating our own) seemed like the easier thing to do.

Google's DRM will make its first appearance as part of a new video downloading service. Page revealed that customers will be able to buy TV shows from CBS, NBA basketball games and a host of other content with Google serving as the delivery broker for the video. Along with the service, Google has also released its own, slick video player.

None of this is bad or surprising when examined from Google's perspective. The ad broker has every right to push on with new businesses and use its might, prestige and hype to secure prominent partnerships with the likes of CBS. And, heck, if Apple and Microsoft can create DRM systems, then why can't Google?

You can, however, see a crisis evolving for internet users and consumers. Apple has a very locked down DRM system that revolves around iTunes and iPods only. Microsoft has a lot of partners for its DRM, making it look open and like a standard. Of course, the MP3 players and services that support Microsoft haven't garnered near as much interest as Apple's rival offerings. So, Microsoft isn't really a standard at all but rather a small, less closed garden. Meanwhile, Real Networks comes off as a type of neutral player that also has its problems by not being promoted on the iPod and by relying more on a music re