Serial Console - Credit: jmcar on Flickr (CC BY)

Matthew Crippen, a 27 year old student from California, was arrested for hacking video game consoles in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

“Matthew Crippen was arrested yesterday for hacking game consoles (for profit) in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He was released on a $5,000 bond, but faces up to 10 years in prison. This is terribly disturbing to me; a man could lose 10 years of his freedom for providing the service of altering hardware. He could well lose much of his freedom for providing a modicum of it to others. There is no piracy going on, necessarily — the games a modified console could run may simply not be signed by the vendor. It’s much like jailbreaking an iPhone. But it seems because he is disabling a ‘circumvention device’ it is a criminal issue. Guess it’s time to kick a few dollars over to the EFF.”

We are now one step closer of turning our world into the dystopian future found in Richard Stallman’s The Right to Read.

• Slashdot

"Shuttle Launch" by oneaustin on Flickr (CC-By-SA-2.0)

Released under the AGPLv3, Launchpad is now Free Open Source Software.

Karl Fogel writes on the Launchpad Blog:

This is a post I’ve been looking forward to for a long time:

Launchpad is now open source!

We released it today under the GNU Affero General Public license, version 3. Note that although we had previously announced that we’d be holding back two components (codehosting and soyuz), we changed our minds: they are included — all the code is open.

Big congratulations (and thanks) to the Canonical Launchpad team, who worked overtime to make this happen sooner rather than later, and to Mark Shuttleworth, whose decision it was to open source Launchpad in the first place.

I’ve been waiting for this a good deal of time now, and I’m sure many others have been too. I favor the Bazaar VCS over git, so I’ll have no second thoughts using launchpad for any future application development.

• Entry on Launchpad Blog

"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

Google Images - Credit: google.com

Google Images now recognizes Creative Commons and let’s you filter your searches based on the suite of licenses as well as other licenses.

Let’s say you’re a blogger. You’ve just returned from a trip to New York City, and you’re writing a post on New York landmarks. You want to illustrate your travel guide with an image — as the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. It’s easy to find images of New York online. But you want to make sure that you don’t use images without the permission of their owners, and you can’t afford licensing fees for professional photographers.

Today, we’re launching a feature on Image Search to help you find images that you can use for free, while respecting the wishes of artists and creators. This feature allows you to restrict your Image Search results to images that have been tagged with licenses like Creative Commons, making it easier to discover images from across the web that you can share, use and even modify. Your search will also include works that have been tagged with other licenses, like GNU Free Documentation license, or are in the public domain.

A little late.  I was expecting this about a year ago.

• Google Blog
• Creative Commons

The Supreme Court chooses to let remote-storage DVR ruling stand:

The Supreme Court has denied the copyright holder plaintiffs’ cert. petition in the Cablevision case, following the recommendation of the Solicitor General. See page 9 of the order list. “Chief Justice [Roberts] and Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition,” I presume because they own stock in one or more of the parties. The case is officially Cable News Network, et al. v. CSC Holdings, Inc., No. 08-448.

The Supreme Court’s decision leaves in place the Second Circuit’s opinion holding that Cablevision’s proposed “remote-storage DVR” would not violate the copyright owners’ exclusive rights to copy and publicly perform their works.

The main reason this makes me happy is that the parties involved did not to argue fair use in the lower court.  It would be odd for the Supreme Court to take the case and then ignore the stipulation by the parties that fair use was not at issue.  If the Supreme Court takes a case like this fair use is what could protect the public from a bad ruling.  Thus I am not convinced we have seen the end of this issue, just that this was the wrong case to review.

Quote from: Copyrights & Campaigns – Ben Sheffner’s notes on copyright, First Amendment, media, and entertainment law, and political campaigns. This is a blog I had not read before it showed up in my alerts last week. It covers a lot for the cases I follow, and is worth checking out if you are a copyright geek.

Disclosure: Ben Sheffner worked for against Cablevision at one point. Update: He was in-house attorney at 20th Century Fox at the time.

United States Court House - Credit: jamidwyer on Flickr (CC BY SA)

Many newspapers are having a really difficult time these days. Also they are now facing competition from many online news sources and their classifieds business has been crippled by websites like craigslist.com. A judge makes a controversial suggestion on how to save them:

“Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion.”

I think this idea is completely ridiculous. davester666, a commenter from Slashdot, couldn’t have put it better…

“This sounds like a “new methods are making an old business model obsolete, so we should outlaw the new methods type thing.”"

• Slashdot

Creative Commons - Credit: creativecommons.org

The Wikimedia Foundation has approved the licensing switch to Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike after a 75% vote.

Earlier today we blogged that results of the Wikipedia community vote on adding the CC BY-SA license. Over 75% of votes were cast in approval of the change, but as has been pointed out by Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Moeller and board member Kat Walsh, this number understates the level of support for the change. 14% voted “no opinion”, while only 10% opposed.

In any case we are deeply gratified that such an overwhelming majority (88% of those who voted with an opinion) approved this change worked on over several years by the Free Software Foundation, Wikimedia Foundation, and Creative Commons, are proud to stand with such trusted organizations, and will live up to that trust!

The addition of the CC BY-SA license to Wikimedia sites should occur over the next month. Now is a good time to start thinking about whether your works and projects ought to interoperate with Wikipedia. If you’re using (or switch to) CC BY-SA, content can flow in both directions (your work could be incorporated into Wikipedia, and you can incorporate Wikipedia content into your work). If you use CC BY or CC0, your work could be incorporated into Wikipedia, but not vice versa. If your work isn’t licensed, or is under a CC license with a non-commercial or no derivatives (NC or ND) term, nothing can flow in either direction, except by fair use or other copyright exception or limitation.

Does 75% strike you as a little low?  Why was it even that controversial?

• Creative Commons

Obama - Credit: The Official White House Photostream on Flickr (PD)

White House photos on Flickr are now labeled as “United States Government Work” on Flickr.

Someone must have been listening, because sometime over the weekend, the licenses changed, and now the photos are labeled “United States Government Work” and link to an explanation on copyright.gov. The White House, however, continues to use the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license for all third-party content published on the www.whitehouse.gov site.

The change marks a first for Flickr, which to date has not had a license for government works, other than a “No Known Copyright Restriction” license that is used on photos from its Commons project, which includes photos from some of the world’s greatest museums and libraries. Those photos include ones from the Library of Congress, for instance, that never were copyright since they were made or paid for by the federal government

I don’t understand why they didn’t just add a “public domain” or CC 0 option.  That would have made more sense to me.

• Wired

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