The PK in the Know podcast has been off for the past few weeks so that we could make technical changes to the back end.  This will result in a better feed, but  unfortunately it also means that the feeds have changed.  Please update your feeds by clicking here to subscribe via iTunes, and clicking here to subscribe via other readers.

But now, on to this week's podcast!

Quick – what’s the legal difference between ripping a CD and ripping a DVD?  Ripping a DVD is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and could get you sued.  Unlike CDs, DVDs are protected by a digital lock.  The mere act of breaking that lock – even for a legitimate purpose – is a violation of the DMCA. 

Fortunately, the DMCA also has a built-in mechanism to deal with situations where it prevents people from doing legitimate things.  And that's why we need your help to make sure that DVD ripping is granted an exemption from the DMCA.

Monday afternoon, the House Judiciary Committee released its planned manager’s amendment to SOPA, claiming that it eliminated significant concerns with the bill. While it does fix some of the current version’s outrageous proposals, it leaves some of the most dangerous provisions largely intact. Here’s a brief rundown of our concerns with the manager’s amendment.

DNS Filtering

Public Knowledge today recommended to the U.S. Copyright Office that consumers be given the ability to "space shift" DVDs among various devices they may own, by cracking the encryption on the DVDs.

 PK made the recommendation as part of the Copyright Office's proceeding that takes place every three years to evaluate suggested exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The PK filing is here.

Unlike music CDs, video DVDs are usually encrypted.  It is currently a violation of the DMCA to break the encryption in order to copy the video onto another device.

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) and its negotiating partners today released the near-final draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This text, while similar to the last draft leaked in August, has a few notable changes, most of which make the text far less problematic.
First, the provision requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disclose the identity of alleged infringers now contains a balancing provision. It states that procedures to disclose such information “shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce, and, consistent with each Party’s law, preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy.”

If you read the tech press closely, it looks like we are on the verge of an Internet video golden age.  HD Roku boxes now cost just $60!  The Boxee Box is available for pre-order!  Apple TV is finally more than a hobby!  Google TV announced features!  The fall Xbox360 update will bring ESPN3!

Each of these developments is fantastic.  They bring Netflix and YouTube and Amazon Unbox and Revision3 and Pandora and all sorts of Internet goodies to a big TV.  They offer attractive, easy to use interfaces.  Some even let you move content between various devices.

However, news about these awesome toys may raise a few questions in your mind.

By now, you’ve probably heard that the Library of Congress says you can jailbreak your iPhone. But there are other exceptions to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) that the Library of Congress created—and other people who are happy about these exceptions.

Earlier today, the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress released the results of its triennial review of applications for exemptions from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).  The ruling found that adding programs to the iPhone (called jailbreaking) is not a violation of copyright law.  The decision is here.

The following statement is attributed to Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge:

What do printer cartridges, garage door openers, and universal power supply calibrations have in common? They all use copyrighted code, they all feature technological impediments to unauthorized execution of their code -- and now they've all been the focus of appellate litigation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

One of the most-litigated and most-argued provisions of the DMCA is section 1201, the "anti-circumvention" provision which forbids breaking or bypassing certain technological measures that protect copyrighted works. Broadly speaking, section 1201(a) deals with technological measures that restrict access to a copyrighted work, and 1201(b) deals with copy controls and other measures that restrict not your access to a work but what you can do with the work after accessing it. Section 1201(a) forbids both trafficking in circumvention tools and the act of circumvention itself; 1201(b) covers only trafficking. An ongoing source of controversy is whether and how closely 'access' under 1201(a) must be tied to an underlying act of copyright infringement before circumvention liability will attach. To put it another way, is what you were going to do with a work once you accessed it relevant to the question of whether you're allowed to grant yourself access? Different appellate courts have come down on opposite sides of this issue, and another circuit court just waded into the mix.