The Amazon Kindle & Big Brother

On Friday, some strange news broke: all copies of George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm were being remotely deleted by Amazon from customer's Kindles. This seemed like a huge invasion of privacy - revoking already-completed sales just because they could due to the digital existence of eBooks. And it was made even more troubling by the choice of books being revoked - classic books about abuse of power and control of thought.

In the meantime, CNET has put up an explanation of the situation that is more balanced. Essentially, the books were being sold thru Amazon illegally. The publisher was claiming the books were in the public domain, when they were not. Thus, when the legitimate publisher found out, they objected and demanded all existing copies be repossessed.

While I agree with CNET that this puts Amazon in a slightly better light, it still leaves open the question, "Who is protecting the customer?" A more customer-sensitive decision would have been for Amazon to compensate the true publisher, punish the fraudsters, and allow customers to keep what they paid for.

Amazon has pledged to do better in the future. Here's hoping they do. Otherwise the Kindle may very well go from trailblazer to footnote.

NFL Reverses Decision and Allows Churches to Show SuperBowl

The NFL has decided to reverse its decision to enforce its copyright laws against Churches that show the superbowl. It will now be alright for religious organizations to show the superbowl, regardless of screen size, as long as they don't charge a fee and do it in a space that is regularly used by the organization. This seems like a good decision to me. The more people who can build good memories of watching the Super Bowl with friends, the more people will be more likely to watch the game in the future.

NFL to Churches: No Superbowl for your HD Sets

Last year, the NFL backed down after trying to enforce a ban on churches having NFL gatherings because of a ban on public showings of over 55 inches. This year they have lost any squeamishness and is forcing churchgoers into bars to watch the big game on big screns.

The NFL said, however, that the copyright law on its games is long-standing and the language read at the end of each game is well known: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."

The league bans public exhibitions of its games on TV sets or screens larger than 55 inches because smaller sets limit the audience size. The section of federal copyright law giving the NFL protection over the content of its programming exempts sports bars, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said.

Copyright is supposed to exist to ensure that owners of creative content can benefit from their work, and thus have incentive to produce more content. This kind of action simply penalizes the public at the whim of big business. This is sure to produce a backlash at some point.

Is This Copyrightable?

I'll start off this post by saying that I am not a lawyer and none of what I say should be construed as legal advice. In addition, most of us here at Mod-Blog are not lawyers and none of what is posted in the comments should be construed as legal advice unless the commenter explicitly states that it is legal advice. There, hopefully we should all be covered now. :)

We recently paid for a home inspector and received a report of his inspection from him. In it, the inspector claimed copyright and stated that the report could not be sold or transferred. Now, given that the cost to file a copyright is $35 if you file electronically and $45 if you file using paper, my guess is that he probably doesn't file actual copyright for each and every report. Still, is it even copyrightable? Wouldn't this fall under a work-for-hire and the copyright would be mine?

Again, none of this is legal advice, just curious everyones' thoughts whether it is "this is how it is" or "this is how it should be".

Be Careful Creators of Content, Copyright is NOT a Right

As a writer, I am very conscious of copyright and the protections it offers to me (even if I am still an unsold writer). Without it, there would be no way to charge for my creative efforts (stories, poems, etc.) and thus no way to compensate me for my work. And without compensation, few people can afford to keep writing, keep singing, keep drawing in a way that reaches the public. Copyright is something societies offer to keep their creative types fed, and thus to foster creativity in general.

Recently, the Computer and Communications Industry Association posted a paper that claimed "fair use" is not a right. "Fair use" is a legal doctrine in the USA that states there are reasonable times to NOT strictly enforce copyright in the interest of the public good. For example, if you purchase a book it is "fair use" to lend it to a friend or to quote a section of that book in an online review. The CCIA is against "fair use" because it offers a potential safe harbor to copyright scofflaws who steal music or fileshare movies on the internet before they have premiered. The CCIA argues "fair use" is not a right and thus can be revoked in the interest of societal good.

The problem wth this reasoning is that "copyright" itself is simply a social construct. A right is something I have inherently, which can not be taken away without force and which my government exists to protect. Copyright on the other hand exists to foster creativity, and can be easily taken away without any changes to our Constitution or even our philosophies if it becomes detrimental to the public. Unlike "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of the Press", Copyright could be revoked tomorrow without changing the American idea in any significant way.

Be careful, CCIA. By trying to change copyright and make it all-powerful, you could easily push legislators to a point where they questions its basic utility and consider abolishing it or critically weakening it.

Apple sued for NOT using DRM

My father was a lawyer. And an honest one at that. No, "honest lawyer" is NOT an oxymoron. However, many in the legal profession appear dedicated to making it so. Consider this case where a company is suing Apple, Intel, and others for NOT using their technology. The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) made it a crime to knowingly bypass a DRM (digital rights management - controlling whether you gave access to a given file) technology without the permission of the copyright holder of whatever is protected. This has been used to run companies out of business that allow ripping of copy-protected DVDs, for example. In this new case, a company has engineered a technology to control and limit users ability to "rip" streamed videos (like YouTube, for example). Most companies have chosen NOT to use the software - presumably because either it does not match their business model or they simply feel it is ineffective. So now, the company is claiming by NOT licensing their technology (i.e. paying them to use it) they are "bypassing" this DRM scheme.

This is like using a law against breaking into someone's house to force all homeowners to buy locks for their front doors from every lockmaker in town. Here is hoping the case is quickly dismissed with prejudice.