Subscribe to our blog
Policy Blog
EFF's DMCA's Unintended Consequences Study
[EFF](http://www.eff.org) has posted their study of the [unintended consequences of the DMCA](http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/?f=unintended_consequences.html). Here's a quick run-down of the consequences: **Chilling Free Expression and Scientific Research**
DMCA Delays Disclosure of Sony-BMG "Rootkit" Vulnerability
Cyber-Security Czar Notes Chill on Research
Professor Felten's Research Team Threatened
SunnComm Threatens Grad Student
Hewlett Packard Threatens SNOsoft
Blackboard Threatens Security Researchers
Xbox Hack Book Dropped by Publisher
Censorware Research Obstructed
Dmitry Sklyarov Arrested
Scientists and Programmers Withhold Research
Foreign Scientists Avoid U.S.
IEEE Wrestles with DMCA
2600 Magazine Censored
CNET Reporter Feels Chill
Microsoft Threatens Slashdot
GameSpy Menaces Security Researcher with DMCA
AVSforum.com Censors TiVo Discussion
Mac Forum Censors iTunes Music Store Discussion
**Fair Use Under Siege**
Copy-protected CDs
Fair Use Tools Banned: DVD Back-up Software
Advanced e-Book Processor and e-Books
Time-shifting and Streaming Media
embed and Fonts
**A threat to innovation and competition**
DMCA Used to Lock Cell Phones to Carriers
Apple Threatens Real over Harmony
Tecmo Sues to Block Game Enhancements
Nikon's Encrypted RAW Format Blocks Adobe
HP's Region-Coded, Expiring Printer Cartridges
StorageTek Attempts to Block Independent Service Vendors
Lexmark Sues Over Toner Cartridges
Sony Sues Connectix and Bleem
Sony Threatens Aibo Hobbyist
Sony Attacks PlayStation "Mod Chips"
Blizzard Sues bnetd.org
Apple Harasses Inventive Retailer
**DMCA Shoulders Aside Computer Intrusion Statutes**
Disgruntled Company Sues Former Contractor For Unauthorized Network Access
Microsoft Academic Search and Open Access
[Microsoft](http://www.microsoft.com) today launched a beta of [Windows Live Academic Search](http://academic.live.com/). You can read their [press release here](http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/apr06/04-11WLAcademicSearchPR.mspx). Our expert on [Open Access](http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/openaccess), [Peter Suber](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm) has a [number](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_04_09_fosblogarchive.html#114484783171263659) of [posts](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_04_09_fosblogarchive.html#114485156816331078) on [his blog](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_04_09_fosblogarchive.html#114485215132884676) [today](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_04_09_fosblogarchive.html#114485700667669734) [on it](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_04_09_fosblogarchive.html#114486225023002526). Sounds like we're finally getting [some competition](http://scholar.google.com/) in the searching of scholarly/academic/scientific works. The more open access the public and researchers have, the better we'll all be!
Disney Streams TV Shows for Free
Starting in May, [Disney will conduct a two month trial](http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/04/10/abc/index.php) of free streaming video of their popular TV shows. They differ from the iTunes shows in that you can't save them onto your computer, or take them with you on your iPod--again, they're more webcast than download. They're also be in a file format (Flash 8) that isn't likely to be played back on a Windows Media Center PC or Apple's Front Row--READ: you're probably not going to be watching these on your TV screen, even if you have a computer hooked into your flat-screen. That's unfortunate, because unlike the iTunes downloads, these streams are slightly higher resolution: 500x282px or 700x394px. Unfortunately, neither are high definition. The shows will be free, albeit with advertisements that cannot be skipped. I wonder what crafty web-engineers out there can skip the commercials without running afoul of the DMCA by using [FECA](http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/s167)'s addition to USC Title 17, Sect. 110--new paragraph 11: >(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology. It sounds like this new service/product is targeted at the cubical TV viewer and that it's only streamed and formatted so as not to compete with the mobile and living room markets. Will these TV streams be worthwhile for the average consumer? Will it satisfy downloaders of unauthorized downloads? Will viewers care that they can't skip commercials? We may know more after the two month trial.
Your taxpayer dollars hard at work -- for Showtime's benefit
Follow @gigibsohnWe've been so busy keeping up with Congress the past couple of weeks, I just got a chance to focus on the outrageous agreement between the Smithsonian and Showtime, which would create a joint venture called Smithsonian on Demand. Under the agreement, the joint venture would have the right of first refusal over commercial documentaries that rely heavily on Smithsonian collections or staff. [Alex blogged about it on Friday.](http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/180) So what does this mean in practice? It means that any video and filmmaker who uses the Smithsonian's resources in anything more than a superficial way will be forced to offer it to Showtime on Demand first. This limits competition is so many ways - first, such a requirement reduces the market value for that film, since the filmmaker cannot search for the highest bidder. Second, other competing channels, like PBS and The History Channel, will be completely shut out of the market for a large number of films that rely on Smithsonian material. This kind of arrangement might be ok if the Smithsonian was a purely commercial entity, but of course, it is not - according to its [FY2005 Annual Report](http://www.si.edu/opa/annualrpts/05report/index.htm), the Institution receives 75% of its revenue from your taxpayer dollars. It is governed by a Board of Regents appointed from all three branches of government. In sum, it is a public trust, and its collections belong to all of us - not to a cable channel. What is also outrageous about this deal is the secretive nature of its details. Kudos to [Carl Malamud of the Center for American Progress]( http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1533597), who sent a [Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request](http://public.resource.org/sunshine_foia.pdf) to the Smithsonian last week asking for a copy of the "specific details, including a copy of any incorporating or contractual documents," relating to the formation of the joint venture. EFF is representing him on the FOIA matter. Not only should these details be made public, but Congress should also hold hearing on this matter promptly. This privatization of a precious taxpayer asset should not be countenanced.
Responses to the Smithsonian / Showtime Deal
Kudos to the folks at [BoingBoing](http://www.boingboing.net) for [keeping an eye](http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/04/smithsonian_becomes_.html) on the [Smithsonian / Showtime Deal](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/arts/television/01smit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). This time [Fred von Lohmann](http://www.eff.org) spells it out in a worth-your-time [point / counterpoint](http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/07/smithsonians_deal_wi.html).
A Very Dispiriting Day
Follow @artbrodskyIt was a tad hectic yesterday, what with the House Telecom Subcommittee voting to turn the Internet over to the telephone and cable companies and all. The vote on the Subcommittee to defeat an [amendment setting out a new, strong Net Neutrality policy][1] was 23-8, with the Net losing badly. Some of the reporting about the vote characterized it as a partisan battle. Not so. The fact is, the Democrats deserted the Net Neutrality cause. The eight "yes" votes were seven Democrats -- Ed Markey, Rick Boucher, Anna Eshoo, Jay Inslee, John Dingell, Mike Doyle and Frank Pallone. The eighth vote was Republican Heather Wilson. Markey, Boucher, Eshoo and Inslee were the sponsors of the amendment, which means only three Democrats who weren't sponsors voted for it. On the other hand, six Democrats voted against it: Eliot Engel, Bart Stupak, Ed Towns, Al Wynn, Charlie Gonzales and Bobby Rush. Inexplicably, two D's weren't around for the pivotal vote, Sherrod Brown and Bart Gordon (not that their vote would have mattered in the end, but it would have been nice to have.) There are 33 members on the Subcommittee -- 18 Republicans and 15 Democrats. Republicans voted along party lines because it's their bill, and they generally feel obligated to support the Committee Chairman, Joe Barton of Texas. And because they believe that all this fussing about telephone companies taking over the Internet just isn't worth it. As for the Democrats, the New York delegation, the Black Caucus and the representative from AT&T's home town (Gonzales) believe more in Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner than in the open Internet, apparently. [1]:http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/markey-amend-20060404.pdf
preservesthe openness of the Internet and the public's access to knowledge, promotes creativity through balanced copyright, and upholds and protects the rights of consumers to use innovative technology lawfully.
| STAY CONNECTED, JOIN OUR MAILING LIST |
