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

Blackboard. Source: shonk on Flickr. License: CC BY 2.0.

The Washington Business Journal reports that all 38 contested claims in Blackboard’s e-learning patent have been invalidated on appeal of the Desire2Learn infringement case.

“Blackboard is obviously disappointed with the Federal Circuit’s decision and will seek further judicial review,” said Matthew Small, chief business officer for Blackboard (NASDAQ:BBBB). “Meanwhile, claims 39-44 of the 138 patent remain valid and enforceable. These claims were not at issue in the appeal.”

Even though Blackboard won just more than $3 million in damages from a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Texas in February 2008, that court also found 35 of 38 claims of the patent to be invalid.

A good victory against bad patents, even if a number of claims remain valid. Blackboard is still proprietary and still has a horrible UI, so if you are still in the process of ditching it, I would continue to do so.

• Washington Business Journal [Print Version]
• Slashdot

Little Case - Credit: Banalities on Flickr (CC BY)

Jammie Thomas’ lawyers are planning to appeal, according to p2pnet.

Will they be answered in my favor?  I truly hope so because then every other person who has been targeted in the RIAA’s litigation campaign might have a better fighting chance.

I will admit this battle is wearing me rather thin, but I have to continue as I don’t know of anyone else to have ever reached this point, and we might help to establish a more fair set of laws in a new digital age.

I didn’t ask for this, it was thrust upon me by the RIAA and now they get to deal with the consequences of their extortion litigation tactics of using the law as a hammer to squish innocent bystanders in their war against everything new and not under their control.

Wish me luck.

Good luck indeed.

• p2pnet

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

Freedom of Speech (CC-BY Credit : danstrange on flickr)

In a dangerous judgment for British bloggers and whistleblowers, a British court has ruled (absurdly) that because blogging itself is a public activity, bloggers have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their identities, and newspapers are allowed to publish their identities if they can find them by fair or foul means

Something similar happened in India few months back. The question remains should internet really be anonymous?

• Slashdot
• Times Online

"To the grieving minister of Culture...." Source: http://www.laquadrature.net/. License: CC-BY-SA.

Ars Technica reports that HADOPI, the infamous French “3-strikes law” passed in May after an initial defeat, has been overturned by the Constitutional Council.

“Moreover, whereas under section nine of the Declaration of 1789, every man is presumed innocent until has has been proven guilty, it follows that in principle the legislature does not establish a presumption of guilt in criminal matters,” wrote the Council. This basic principle applies “to any sanction in the nature of punishment, even if the legislature has left the decision to an authority that is nonjudicial in nature.”

The court also made a strong statement about freedom of speech: “Freedom of expression and communication is so valuable that its exercise is a prerequisite for democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms and attacks on the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the aim pursued.”

Good to see that this guilty-until-proven-innocent law did not muster the tests of the Council.

• Ars Technica
• Digg

Little Case - Credit: Banalities on Flickr (CC BY)

The motion to withdraw has become a motion for substitution in the Jammie Thomas case.

In Capitol Records v. Thomas, Jammie Thomas will not have to go it alone, after all.

Her attorney’s previous motion to withdraw has been amended to become a motion for substitution.

Houston, Texas, law firm Camara & Sibley, and St. Paul, Minnesota, firm Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield, will be taking over as Ms. Thomas’s attorneys.

The motion for substitution is not opposed by the RIAA.

The trial is scheduled for June 15th.

Wait, could she have really just been lawyerless?  That’s crazy.

• Recording Industry vs. The People

Money...What Money - Credit: stuartpilbrow on Flickr (CC BY-SA)

Due to $130,000 in bills, Jammie Thomas’ lawyer has withdrawn.

Toder had tried withdrawing before the first trial, but Judge Michael Davis refused to allow it. With Thomas-Rasset telling the court in a separate filing that she has no objection to Toder’s withdrawal and waiving a hearing on the matter, it’s more likely that Judge Raymond Erickson will allow Toder to shake the dust off his sandals and walk away from the case.

The withdrawal comes just a couple of days after a court-mandated settlement conference between the RIAA and Thomas failed to bear fruit. The parties haggled for a couple hours in a Minneapolis courtroom before Judge Erickson ended the hearing, clearing the way for a June 15 retrial.

Hmmm…EFF?

• Ars Technica

Blind Justice - Credit: Dan Strange on Flickr (CC BY)

It has been discovered that the judge in The Pirate Bay trial has links to the entertainment industry.  A retrial is being sought.

Less than a week after the conclusion of The Pirate Bay trial, a new controversy has surfaced over the judge’s possible conflict of interests. It turns out that Judge Tomas Norström—the judge who found The Pirate Bay defendants guilty and slapped them with jail time—is currently a member of the Swedish Copyright Association, an organization that works against piracy along with a number of entertainment industry members. As a result, lawyers for the defendants have made it clear that they will push for a retrial.

The Swedish media dug up information this week revealing that Norström is a member of the Swedish Copyright Association along with Henrik Pontén, Peter Danowsky and Monique Wadsted—individuals who represented the recording industry in The Pirate Bay trial. Additionally, Norström also sits on the board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property, an advocacy group that pushes stricter copyright laws.

And these aren’t just accusations. Norström acknowledged to Sveriges Radio, as reported by The Local, that the findings are true; he just thought that it wouldn’t be a problem. “My view has been that these activities do not constitute a conflict of interest,” Norström said.

I’m not really sure this is a problem either.  If there’s no money involved here, I guess it’s not.  You can’t accuse a judge of bias because he agrees with the law, and wants it to be stricter.

• Ars Technica