"205/365" by _rockinfree on Flickr (CC-BY)

On July 30th, a rather curious posting was made on United TI, a forum devoted to discussing Texas Instruments graphing calculators. The post, made by Benjamin Moody — known as “FloppusMaximus” on the site — gave the factors of a very large number. It was quickly deduced to be the RSA modulus of a key — particularly, one needed to sign the OS on a TI calculator — which Moody confirmed:

This one is for the TI-83+.

The TI-83+, like all modern TI calculators, has its OS cryptographically signed by TI for validation purposes; if someone tries to upload an unsigned OS — like, say, an open-source OS — into the calculator, it is rejected. Thus, the discovery of the signing key is a major breakthrough, which ticalc.org, a popular TI calculator site, makes clear:

With this achievement, any operating system can be cryptographically signed in a manner identical to that of the original TI-OS. Third party operating systems can thus be loaded on any 83+ calculators without the use of any extra software…Complete programming freedom has finally been achieved on the TI-83 Plus!

A few days ago, however, the original post was removed and replaced with this:

Dear community,

I have been politely asked to remove the former contents of this post.

No further explanation was given by Moody as to who asked him to remove the key or why it had to be removed. However, Brandon Wilson, a developer who reposted the key on his website, explained:

Ben was hit by TI with a DMCA notice as was I. We of course must comply with whatever is specifically requested, but you can’t stop a group of people from factoring large integers. I will not be silenced.

Wilson has posted the DMCA notice and his reply on his website. Meanwhile, a distributed computing project has been set up to use Moody’s brute-force methods to obtain the keys for all other TI calculators.

It seems pretty clear to me that TI is abusing the DMCA to maintain a stranglehold on their hardware. The key in question does not encrypt the OS, so it’s unclear how the key counts as a device to circumvent access controls on copyrighted works. You don’t need it to obtain a copy of the OS, as copies of the latest OS are freely downloadable on TI’s website. The only thing the keys are useful for is to be able to upload another OS onto the calculator such that it can be installed. One poster on the United TI forum drew parallels between this situation and the situation with iTunesDB, and I think that’s a valid point to make.

TI is not trying to protect their copyright, but merely trying to protect their lockdown on their hardware. If TI is really interested in promoting the education of young people, they should stop trying to harrass others whose only crime was to explore what they could do with the hardware they legally purchased.

• “Fun Number Theory Facts” thread on United TI Forums
• “TI-83 Plus OS Signing Key Cracked” — ticalc.org
• Brandon Wilson’s website containing the DMCA notices

Wired.com reports that RealDVD, the DVD ripping software that launched a few months ago, lost its case against the Hollywood studios. The judge ruled that RealNetworks violated the DMCA by distributing the software, regardless of its intended use.

[Judge] Patel said the RealDVD software violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 that prohibits the circumvention of encryption technology. DVDs are encrypted with what is known as the Content Scramble System, and DVD players must secure a license to play discs. RealDVD, she ruled, circumvents technology designed to prevent copying.

But the decision, although mixed, left open the door that copying DVD’s for personal use “may well be” lawful under the fair use doctrine of the Copyright Act, although trafficking in such goods was illegal.

“Because RealDVD makes a permanent copy of copyrighted DVD content, there is no exemption from DMCA liability, statutory or otherwise, that applies here. Whatever application the fair use doctrine may have for individual consumers making backup copies of their own DVDs, it does not portend to save Real from liability under the DMCA in this action,” Patel wrote (.pdf) in a lawsuit brought by Hollywood.

Glickman praises this decision in the article, as if RealDVD would be of any use to those who wish to violate copyright on DVDs by making copies for others to use, or its prohibition will stop others from ripping movies with other software instead, without seeming to consider that such actions may be causing the very infringement the MPAA claims to be fighting against. No doubt many people get their DVD-purchased films from sources unsanctioned by Hollywood because they are unaware of or don’t know how to use DVD ripping software with their own discs (or because they might consider a $150,000 civil fine a lighter sentence than 5 years in prison). The long-established process of CD ripping gives them the belief that their acts are not in violation of copyright (or that their violation is justified) due to their purchase of the DVD. Removing the DRM on DVDs could very well reduce this behavior, as the awareness of rippers would increase and the lack of legal concern could lead to easier and more efficient ripping technologies. It could also make Hollywood stop looking like they believe we are still in a world where CSS is a barrier to DVD access.

• Wired.com
• Slashdot

Money - Credit: AMagill on Flickr (CC BY)

Joel Tenenbaum has lost

A Boston federal jury has ordered Joel Tenenbaum to pay a total of $675,000—$22,500 per song—to the major record labels for willfully infringing 30 songs by downloading and distributing them over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network. The figure is closer to the $222,000 award in the first Jammie Thomas-Rasset trial than the $1.92 million figure from the second trial.

….

The RIAA was pleased with the verdict. “We are grateful for the jury’s service and their recognition of the impact of illegal downloading on the music community,” the RIAA said in a statement. “We appreciate that Mr. Tenenbaum finally acknowledged that artists and music companies deserve to be paid for their work. From the beginning that’s what this case has been about. We only wish he had done so sooner rather than lie about his illegal behavior.”

…

The Tenenbaum litigation was dominated by the larger-than-life personality of Tenenbaum’s counsel, Harvard Law School professor, who infuriated the plaintiffs, and at times Judge Nancy Gertner, with his unusual litigation tactics. These included making audio recordings of the attorneys and the court, and then posting the results to his blog, and publicizing internal discussions with potential expert witnesses about legal strategy. A sanctions motion against Nesson for his recording practices remains pending.

Hmm…If I were in Joel’s shoes I’d wonder how I let my crazy prof convince me I stood a chance.

• Ars Technica
• Joel Fights Back

"Big Brother....is Watching YOU!" by Chaotic Good01 on Flickr (CC-BY)

David Pogue reports on his blog that Amazon has secretly pulled electronic copies of 1984 and Animal Farm purchased on its Kindle service:

This morning, hundreds of Amazon Kindle owners awoke to discover that books by a certain famous author had mysteriously disappeared from their e-book readers. These were books that they had bought and paid for—thought they owned.

But no, apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness, caved. It electronically deleted all books by this author from people’s Kindles and credited their accounts for the price.

According to Amazon, the person who let Amazon sell the copies of the books in question didn’t have the rights to them:

“These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books,” Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener said in an e-mail. “When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers’ devices, and refunded customers.”

Herdener said Amazon won’t handle things the same way in the future. “We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers’ devices in these circumstances.”

It’s understandable for Amazon to be confused as to who holds what rights on these books; most of Orwell’s books are in the public domain in some countries — Australia is one example — but not, for instance, in the US or the UK. Even so, this incident only makes plain, for those who didn’t already know, the pitfalls of investing in closed systems like the Kindle Store and iTunes; there, not only do you have no rights to what you have purchased, but you may have no choice to unpurchase something, should they deem it necessary or desirable.

• New York Times blog entry
• CNet reporting on statement from Amazon

stephen_conroy by Dr Ron on Flickr (CC-BY-SA)

Yesterday, Australian Minister for Communications Stephen Conroy unveiled a report that vowed to crack down on illegal filesharing:

“The Government recognises a public policy interest in the resolution of this issue,” the report said. “A number of submissions received during the consultation phase for the development of this paper argued that a role for Government exists in addressing the apparent popularity of peer-to-peer file sharing of music and movies, without the necessary permissions of the relevant copyright owners”.

The report goes on to outline submissions made to the department by various stakeholders.

“One solution proposed by copyright owners is a “three strikes” or “graduated response” proposal under which copyright owners would work together with ISPs to identify the ISP’s customers who are suspected of unauthorised file sharing and the ISP would then send a notice on behalf of the copyright owner to that customer advising of this allegation”.

Why does Conroy hate the Internet so much? First he tries to filter it, now this. One has to wonder if it beat him up and took his lunch money when he was a kid…

• iTnews.com.au article

Ars Technica reports that Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim, an employee of the French broadcast station TF1, was fired after his employer found that he had written to his MP (Member of Parliament) voicing opposition to the French “3-strikes” law. The termination was said to be because of “strategic differences” with TF1.

The bill is sometimes referred to as “HADOPI,” after the French acronym for the new administrative authority that the bill would create; HADOPI would be responsible for overseeing warnings and Internet disconnections for those who repeatedly infringe online copyrights. The idea is so unpopular that 88 percent of the European Parliament this week voted to ban the practice unless overseen by a judge.

After Bourreau-Guggenheim expressed his opposition to the law, he thought no more about it until he was called into his boss’ office and shown… an exact copy of his e-mail to Panafieu. According to his boss, the e-mail had been provided by the Ministry of Culture, where Minister Christine Albanel is the French government’s key backer of the Création et Internet law (and also a UMP member).

But why did the Ministry of Culture have Bourreau-Guggenheim’s e-mail? Because Panafieu’s office had passed the message from its constituent on to the Ministry, which then passed it to TF1, which also supports the new bill.

I don’t know how things work in France, but it sounds like that could be considered political discrimination. I would hardly call a private e-mail message to an MP a “strategic difference,” and the fact that he did not quit suggests that he probably still supports the company in some way. It isn’t like he was publicly campaigning against his employer and everything they stand for, or even criticizing the company at all.

• Ars Technica
• Digg

Ars Technica reports that, contrary to their claim of ending all new lawsuits, record labels affiliated with the RIAA are now filing new lawsuits against named individuals. They argue that these lawsuits were in process before the decision to halt the tactic.

The group’s own definition of “new cases” does not include those that were already in process as “John Doe” cases or where settlement letters had already gone out.

This was the case in March, when the RIAA filed a case against an Omaha resident for file-swapping. Those hypocrites! But the case had been detected in 2007, a John Doe lawsuit was filed months later, and once the necessary account information was subpoenaed from the ISP, the John Doe suit was replaced with a named lawsuit in March 2009.

An RIAA spokesperson told us at the time that the issue was about fairness (though we raised some obvious questions about just how fair it was). “We’re obviously pleased to transition to a new program going forward but that doesn’t mean we can give a free pass to those who downloaded music illegally in the past,” we were told. “How fair would it be to the thousands of individuals who took responsibility for their actions and settled their case while others are let off the hook? We’re still in the business of deterrence and it must be credible.”

Surprise, surprise.

• Ars Technica
• Digg

Olympics (Credit : cmaccubbin@flickr, CC-BY)

“My primary driver here is to deliver the Olympics and that means using proven applications software and by and large that application software does not run on open standards – there are some exceptions to that we are running a little bit of Linux but by and large it is Windows orientated,” he said.

Pennell added that although he had no plans to use significant amounts of open source software, he didn’t believe that servers running Linux would be more efficient than proprietary platforms. “I doubt it drives any huge difference in terms of the number of servers involved,” he said.

Ouch!! Someone needs to have a proper IT team.

• eweekeurope
• opendotdotdot

Larry Lessig. Source: Robert Scoble on Flickr. License: CC-BY 2.0.

Techdirt reports that Larry Lessig has been sent a DMCA takedown notice for one of his presentations on YouTube by Warner Music.

Lessig has announced that Warner Music issued a DMCA takedown on one of Lessig’s own presentations, in which his use is almost certainly fair use. Lessig, of course, is a lawyer, and a big supporter of fair use, so it’s no surprise that he’s also said he’s going to be fighting this.

The thing that I can’t understand is who at Warner Music would decide this was a good idea? We’ve seen Warner make a number of highly questionable moves over the past six months, but this may be the most incomprehensible. Warner Music may claim it was an accident or that it didn’t mean to send the takedown, but that’s hard to fathom as well. The DMCA rules are pretty clear, that the filer needs to clearly own the content, and previously lawsuits have said they need to take fair use into account. I’m guessing we haven’t heard the end of this yet…

Can we say “epic fail”?

• Techdirt
• Official announcement on Twitter
• Slashdot

The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Deeplinks Blog reports that the Wikimedia Foundation has demanded that Wikipedia Art, a site commenting on art and Wikipedia, cease using the domain name “wikipediaart.org” on the grounds that the domain name violates the Wikimedia Foundation’s trademarks.

Last February, a pair of artists, working with several collaborators, created a Wikipedia article and invited the general public to add to it, following Wikipedia’s standards of credibility and verifiability. The work was intended to comment on the nature of art and Wikipedia. But Wikipedia editors did not take kindly to the project, and it was shut down within fifteen hours for being insufficiently “encyclopaedic.”

Fast forward a couple of months. The artists, Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern, have created a noncommercial website that documents the project, called Wikipedia Art. The domain name for the project: wikipediaart.org.

Yep, they used the term “wikipedia” in their domain name. “Wikipedia” is a trademark owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. And now the Foundation has demanded that the artists give up the domain name peaceably or it will attempt to take it by (legal) force.

I fail to see any trademark problems here. Trademark law exists to avoid confusion among customers with regard to brands, logos, and names. Based on the EFF’s article, it appears that all this site was doing was using the name to refer to the site itself, not host a faux Wikipedia or deceive Wikipedians into going to Wikipedia Art instead. The site itself even has a disclaimer at the top of the page denying any involvement with Wikipedia. I for one am grateful that the EFF has not overlooked their principles on free speech just because the site in question just happens to be Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation should retract their accusations and apologize immediately (or at the very least provide an explanation for this action).

• Electronic Frontier Foundation