All Things News

Movie Nazis

Straight from Ars Technica: “High Definition Content Protection (HDCP)—you can’t live with it, but you practically can’t buy an HD-capable device anymore without it. While HDCP is typically used in devices like Blu-ray players, HDTVs, HDMI-enabled notebooks, and even the Apple TV in order to keep DRMed content encrypted between points A and B, it appears that Apple’s new aluminum MacBook (and presumably the MacBook Pro) are using it to protect iTunes Store media as well.

When my friend John, a high school teacher, attempted to play Hellboy 2 on his classroom’s projector with a new aluminum MacBook over lunch, he was denied by the error you see above. John’s using a Mini DisplayPort-to-VGA adapter, plugged into a Sanyo projector that is part of his room’s Promethean system. Strangely, only some iTunes Store movies appear to be HDCP-aware, as other purchased media like Stargate: Continuum and Heroes season 2 play through the projector just fine. Attempts to play Hellboy 2 or other HDCPed films through the projector via QuickTime also get denied. Other movies that don’t work include newer films like Iron Man, Star Wars: Clone Wars, and Love Guru, but older films like Shawshank Redemption are restricted as well.

The technology in Apple’s MacBooks that prevents a seemingly arbitrary collection of iTunes Store files from being played on HDCP non-compliant devices is perhaps more accurately called DPCP, or DisplayPort Content Protection. As we’ve covered in the past, DisplayPort was designed as an open, extensible standard for computers that offers lower power consumption over DVI (especially in the Mini DisplayPort format that Apple uses on the new MacBooks). But more importantly, DisplayPort also beats DVI in the studios’ books by offering the option of 128-bit AES encrypted copy protection.

All of the tested files are wrapped in the same iTunes Store FairPlay Version 3 DRM, save for Stargate: Continuum, which John says has version 2. While Apple’s own Apple TV has used HDCP to protect video files playing from its HDMI port, this is the first time we’ve heard of Apple bringing HDCP DPCP to its hardware. (It has, however, been brought to our attention that other users have been complaining about this in Apple’s discussion forums for a couple of weeks.)”

Sega Genesis

Straight from Ars Technica: “…That “seriousness gap” provided yet another opening for Sega to exploit. Tom Kalinske, President and CEO of Sega of America, charged headfirst into Nintendo’s blind spot, doing everything possible to position Sega as the cultural polar opposite of Nintendo. When Nintendo would be kid friendly, Sega would provide bloody, violent games. When Nintendo would specialize in whimsical fantasy RPGs, Sega would focus on realistic American sports simulations endorsed by professional athletes. Even the company color schemes stood at opposites: contrast Sega’s black and red versus Nintendo’s light gray and purple—you get the idea.

Then came the “Sega scream,” a key part of Sega’s smart, witty advertising campaign that cast the Super NES as the dorky kid on the playground. It worked, and the Genesis attracted a large 18-and-older user base. Before long, even Nintendo couldn’t ignore this growing segment of the market; it shot back with its own “Play it Loud” advertising campaign. The top end of the market had grown up, and it has continued growing ever since.”

Straight from Ars Technica: “How much does sharing “Waiting For A Girl Like You,” “Money For Nothing,” and “Sweet Child O’ Mine” on P2P networks cost defendants if they end up in court? Arizona resident Jeffrey Howell has just found out the hard way. While Jammie Thomas came in for more than $200,000 of statutory damages in her Minnesota trial last year, Howell escaped with a (mere) $40,850 fine. Perhaps he should be grateful, though we doubt that’s the emotion he’s feeling today.

Few of the RIAA’s thousands of cases against individual file-swappers ever make it to trial; fewer still reach a judgment, making these awards quite unusual. Howell, who served as his own counsel throughout the trial, did himself no favors by intentionally destroying evidence of his computer activity after being ordered by a judge to preserve it. According to the RIAA, Howell uninstalled KaZaA and deleted everything in the shared folder, reformatted his hard drive, downloaded and used a file-wiping program, and then nuked all the KaZaA logs on his PC. Anyone who has seen even a single episode of Perry Mason knows that this is a huge no-no.

Ruling last week that Howell had acted in bad faith, the judge was forced to call the case to a premature close and issue judgment against Howell. Howell’s punishment was to come at a later date, and the judge has now issued his ruling.

Howell is ordered to pay $350 in court costs—an incredible bargain when set against a whopping $40,500 in statutory damages. In addition, he will pay 2.12 percent interest on the unpaid balance until the entire amount is paid off; in essence, Howell has just taken out a pricey new car loan, except that instead of a car, he gets a big pile of nothing to park in his driveway.

The judge also ordered him to stop infringing copyrights, “including without limitation by using the Internet or any online media distribution system to reproduce (i.e., download) any of Plaintiffs’ Recordings, or to distribute (i.e., upload) any of Plaintiffs’ Recordings.”

And, just for good measure, Howell is instructed to “destroy all copies of those downloaded recordings transferred onto any physical medium or device in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control.”

Given that Howell didn’t have the cash even to pay a lawyer, the RIAA may never see all of this money. Not that it matters; the PR value of winning these sorts of cases is no doubt reward enough.

The RIAA takeaway from the case will surely be a lesson about how the group will hunt down and then win cases against file-swappers. The lesson that EFF staff attorney Fred von Lohmann takes from the case, though, is a different one: get yourself a lawyer.

“He never had an adequate opportunity to explain what happened on his PC, while the RIAA had forensics experts and lawyers to tell the story,” von Lohmann told us last week. “I think if Howell had an expert and lawyer to speak for him, he would have told a different story.”"

Straight from Ars Technica: “Stephanie Lenz’s YouTube video of her tot dancing to an old Prince song was pulled down at the request of Universal last year after the music label said that the clip infringed on its copyright. Not content with simply having Universal retract its claim, Lenz and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are out to put the squeeze on Universal for issuing a bad-faith DMCA takedown. But Universal told a judge this week that, even though the clip may in fact be “fair use,” it was still “infringement” and therefore the initial takedown notice was made in good faith.”

Straight from Ars Technica: “Handfuls of Windows Vista Media Center users found themselves blocked from making recordings of their favorite TV shows this week when a broadcast flag triggered the software’s built-in copy protection measures. The flag affected users trying to record prime-time NBC shows on Monday evening, using both over-the-air broadcasts and cable. Although the problem is being “looked into” by both NBC and Microsoft, the incident serves as another reminder that DRM gives content providers full control, even if by accident.”

Straight from Ars Technica: “Exonerated P2P defendant Tanya Andersen should be awarded $107,834 in court costs and attorney fees, a federal magistrate judge ruled yesterday. It’s the largest attorneys’ fees award to date against the RIAA, but a far cry from both the $298,995 sought by her attorney and the RIAA’s reckoning of just under $30,000. Of course, all the RIAA needs is for 27 college kids to settle at $4,000 a pop and it’s got the award covered.

The RIAA dropped its case against Andersen in June 2007 after over two years of litigation. Not long after, the judge ruled that, as the prevailing party, Andersen was entitled to attorneys’ fees. Just how high that award should be quickly became a point of contention. Andersen’s attorney Lory Lybeck argued that he was entitled to a multiplier of double the fee amount because of his “high-risk, successful” defense.

The RIAA argued that the nearly $300,000 sought by Andersen was “excessive” in numerous respects. The case was merely a “straightforward copyright infringement claim,” argued the labels in a brief filed in March.”

Straight from Ars Technica: “The House of Representatives has approved the Pro-IP Act, a controversial legislative proposal that aims to impose stricter penalties for copyright infringement. The bill, which has strong support from the content industry, passed by a vote of 410 to 10.

Straight from Ars Technica: “The most powerful gaming platform: The Amiga started out its life as a dedicated games machine, and even though it grew into a full computer very quickly, it never lost its gaming side. The machine’s 4096-color palette, stereo sampled sound, and graphics acceleration chips made it a perfect gaming platform, and it didn’t take long for game companies to start taking advantage of this power.

While the slow sales of the Amiga 1000 limited the number of games that developers were willing to make for the platform, when Commodore released the low-cost Amiga 500 in 1987, everything changed. Now the most powerful gaming computer was also one of the cheapest, and game companies jumped at the chance to showcase their talents on the Amiga.”

You can find the other parts to this story here:

A history of the Amiga, part 1: Genesis

A history of the Amiga, part 2: The birth of Amiga

A history of the Amiga, part 3: The first prototype

A history of the Amiga, part 4: Enter Commodore

A history of the Amiga, part 5: Postlaunch Blues

A history of the Amiga, part 6: stopping the bleeding

Straight from Ars Technica: “Customers who have purchased music from Microsoft’s now-defunct MSN Music store are now facing a decision they never anticipated making: commit to which computers (and OS) they want to authorize forever, or give up access to the music they paid for. Why? Because Microsoft has decided that it’s done supporting the service and will be turning off the MSN Music license servers by the end of this summer.

MSN Entertainment and Video Services general manager Rob Bennett sent out an e-mail this afternoon to customers, advising them to make any and all authorizations or deauthorizations before August 31. “As of August 31, 2008, we will no longer be able to support the retrieval of license keys for the songs you purchased from MSN Music or the authorization of additional computers,” reads the e-mail seen by Ars. “You will need to obtain a license key for each of your songs downloaded from MSN Music on any new computer, and you must do so before August 31, 2008. If you attempt to transfer your songs to additional computers after August 31, 2008, those songs will not successfully play.”

This doesn’t just apply to the five different computers that PlaysForSure allows users to authorize, it also applies to operating systems on the same machine (users need to reauthorize a machine after they upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista, for example). Once September rolls around, users are committed to whatever five machines they may have authorized—along with whatever OS they are running.”

Straight from Ars Technica: “A court case followed in which Arnold argued that the results of this search should not be allowed, as they were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. A district court bought Arnold’s argument that a laptop was different from normal closed containers like luggage, which are routinely examined by border agents without particular cause. Arnold claimed that a laptop was more like “home” and “the human mind” than a typical closed container and that searching it required a reason. The district court agreed.

But the Ninth Circuit took the district court’s logic out behind the woodshed and thrashed it with a willow switch. The judges noted that precedent already allows searches of 1) briefcases and luggage, 2) a purse, wallet, or pocket, 3) papers found in pockets, and 4) pictures, films, and other graphic material. In fact, the Supreme Court allows border agents wide latitude, only drawing the line at searching the “alimentary canal” of a suspect without reasonable suspicion (seriously).”

Are you glad they have exclusive rights to the NFL properties now?

Straight from Ars Technica: “The announcement of Madden 2009 noted every major platform—both console and handheld—except for the PC, which EA has since confirmed was a conscious omission. This is the first Madden title not to hit the PC alongside current consoles since Madden NFL ‘96 in 1995.

EA’s Peter Moore commented about the lack of a PC version on his official EA blog. “We knew that our decision to not develop this year’s Madden for the PC would be an unpopular decision in some circles,” Moore admitted. “But I’ll reiterate what I said a couple of weeks ago in this space… the PC presents some very serious business challenges to us in the sports category, particularly because so many of you all are playing your favorite sports games on the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii. We are committed to shipping a limited number of our games on the PC this year, but we’ve also had to cut a few of our games from the platform.”"

Straight from Ars Technica: “Sony BMG is no stranger to piracy. As one of the most vocal supporters of the RIAA and IFPI antipiracy efforts, the company has some experience hunting down and punishing consumers who don’t pay for its products. The company is getting some experience on the other side of the table, however, now that it’s being sued for software piracy. PointDev, a French software company that makes Windows administration tools, received a call from a Sony BMG IT employee for support. After Sony BMG supplied a pirated license code for Ideal Migration, one of PointDev’s products, the software maker was able to mandate a seizure of Sony BMG’s assets. The subsequent raid revealed that software was illegally installed on four of Sony BMG’s servers. The Business Software Alliance, however, believes that up to 47 percent of the software installed on Sony BMG’s computers could be pirated.

These are some pretty serious—not to mention ironic—allegations against a company that’s gone so far as to install malware on consumers’ computers in the name of preventing piracy.

While PointDev is claiming €300,000 (over $475,000) in damages in its suit against Sony BMG, Agustoni Paul-Henry, PointDev’s CEO, says (from a Google translation of a French report) that this is more about principle than money: “We are forced to watch every week if key software pirates are not [sic] on the Internet. We are a small company of six employees. Instead of trying to protect us, we could spend this time to develop ourselves.”

Paul-Henry thinks Sony BMG’s piracy of PointDev’s products is the fault of more than just a single employee (again, translated): “I think piracy is linked to the policy of a company. If the employee has the necessary funding to buy the software he needs, he will. If this is not the case, he will find alternative ways, as the work must be done in one way or another.”

Certainly, one wonders what led to Sony BMG to steal PointDev’s product in the first place. It’s a safe bet that the company can afford to pay for the necessary licenses, which leaves sheer laziness as the most likely culprit. In any event, it’s absolutely inexcusable for a company that has been at the forefront of the antipiracy fight, going so far as to surreptitiously install rootkits on its customers’ PCs.

Straight from Ars Technica: “…back in 1986, the combination of an Amiga and Deluxe Paint was unbeatable. While Adobe’s Photoshop on the Macintosh platform would eventually become the standard tool for creating two-dimensional graphic images, the Mac was still a monochrome-only computer at this point, and the PC could barely manage four colors even with a CGA graphics card. Again, the Amiga was ahead of its time. The cover art for the Deluxe Paint II box featured an image of Tutankhamen that had been created inside the program itself. This image quickly became an iconic picture in the computer graphics industry. Even Commodore recognized the power of Deluxe Paint, using the Tutankhamen image on a new full-page ad that—finally!—stated the Amiga’s advantages outright.”

You can find the other parts to this story here:

A history of the Amiga, part 1: Genesis

A history of the Amiga, part 2: The birth of Amiga

A history of the Amiga, part 3: The first prototype

A history of the Amiga, part 4: Enter Commodore

A history of the Amiga, part 5: Postlaunch Blues

Straight from Ars Technica: “By July 1985, Commodore had everything going for it. The Amiga computer had been demonstrated in public to rave reviews, and everyone was excited at the potential of this great technology. That’s when the problems started.

Commodore’s primary woes were always about money, and 1985 was no exception. Sales of the Commodore 64 were still going strong, but the price wars had slashed the profits on the little computer. The company had invested millions of dollars creating new and bizarre 8-bit computers that competed directly against the venerable C-64, such as the wholly incompatible Plus/4, that had no chance in the marketplace. To make things worse, the company had to deal with lawsuits from its ousted founder, Jack Tramiel. Finally, Commodore had invested $24 million to purchase Amiga outright, but as the computer had not gone on sale yet, there was no return on this investment.

All these financial problems put a strain on the company’s ability to get the Amiga ready to sell to the public. Without a lot of spare cash, it was difficult to rush the production of the computer. Further software delays pushed back the launch as well. The end result was that the Amiga did not go on sale until August of 1985…”

You can find the other parts to this story here:

A history of the Amiga, part 1: Genesis

A history of the Amiga, part 2: The birth of Amiga

A history of the Amiga, part 3: The first prototype

A history of the Amiga, part 4: Enter Commodore

Straight from Ars Technica: “As the RIAA’s legal battle against suspected file-sharers has unfolded, one of the arguments put forth by some defendants is that the statutory damages sought by the RIAA are unconstitutionally excessive. That’s one of the defenses articulated by Ray Beckerman, attorney for the defendant in UMG v. Lindor. In a ruling issued yesterday, Judge Robert M. Levy ordered the record labels to provide Marie Lindor with the expenses incurred for each of the 38 songs at issue in the case, writing that Lindor’s request may “lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The request by Lindor seems innocuous enough. “(A) Set forth all expenses incurred by plaintiffs, per authorized song file download, in connection with the thirty eight (38) songs…, and (B) annex copies of all documents kept in the ordinary course of business of plaintiffs sufficient to support said statement of expenses.”

In a court filing last month, the RIAA argued that Lindor’s request was unclear and that she already had information sufficient to make a defense that the statutory damages sought by the labels ($750-150,000) are unconstitutional. Most tellingly, the RIAA also says that “they do not have the analysis requested” and could not perform it without “enormous expense” requiring “lengthy and complex analysis.”

In Capitol v. Thomas, the only file-sharing case to go to trial so far, Sony BMG head of litigation Jennifer Pariser testified that she had no idea about the extent of the actual damages suffered by the recording industry. “We haven’t stopped to calculate the amount of damages we’ve suffered due to downloading, but that’s not what’s at issue here,” she told Jammie Thomas’ attorney during cross-examination.”

Straight from Ars Technica: “AT&T announced earlier this year that was planning to introduce content filtering of some sort for all video passing across its network. Exactly what AT&T was thinking remained unclear: would the company truly attempt to reassemble the fragments of peer-to-peer transmissions, then extract video from all sorts of different codecs, then attempt to match it-in real time-to some database of copyrighted works? Would such a thing even be possible? It’s still not clear how AT&T plans to deploy its system, but the company is serious about it. Further evidence of that came today, when a brief Wall Street Journal writeup (subscription) pointed out that the company has just invested in Vobile.

Vobile’s core product is a screening technology that it calls “VideoDNA.” Like other systems of its kind, VideoDNA develops a unique signature from every frame of video. The signature is meant to be robust enough to survive various transformations and edits, and it can then be used to run matches against incoming content.

Vobile pitches its products as being especially suitable for content tracking and management purposes. Video-sharing sites could deploy the technology to flag user-uploaded content for possible copyright violations. But, as Vobile’s site notes, VideoDNA is also quick enough to be deployed on video “when it’s transported over a network.”

AT&T has yet to publicly pick a winning technology (plenty of other companies are working on similar video identification technology), and it hasn’t even revealed the scope of its plans. But the interest in video filtering doesn’t appear to have faded after months of time in which executives could ponder the important questions of just how such a system would work and (perhaps more importantly) what customers would think of it.

Based on the complexity of the problem, we suspect that anything initially deployed by AT&T will fall far short of a robust P2P video filter. But should AT&T truly have its eyes on just such a prize, the company would be in a powerful position to impose its own policies on the entire US, since it owns major parts of the Internet backbone. It will also be in a plum position when it comes to dealing with the MPAA and with networks like NBC; both groups have been calling on ISPs to implement exactly this sort of filtering for months.”

Straight from Ars Technica: “The RIAA has responded to Jammie Thomas’ motion for a new trial or to have the amount of the jury award slashed. In their reply, the record labels argue that since Thomas agreed to the jury instructions and was aware of the possibility of a massive award, she has no basis to challenge the constitutionality of the statutory damages.

After a three-day trial last month, a Duluth, MN, jury found that Thomas willfully infringed on the record labels’ copyrights by downloading and distributing 24 copyrighted recordings. Under the provisions of the Copyright Act, they could have awarded the labels anywhere from $750 to $150,000 for each of the songs. They ultimately settled on $9,250 per song for a grand total of $222,000.

In her motion, Thomas argued that the award was unconstitutionally excessive, citing testimony in UMG v. Lindor (a case that the labels call “unrelated” in their response) that the labels only make about 70¢ per song sold online. Thomas instead would like to see damages limited to those that the labels can actually prove, arguing that any award above the labels’ actual damages is “purely punitive.” At most, statutory damages should be capped at 10 times actual damages.”

Straight from Ars Technica: “Customers aren’t the only ones frustrated with the high-definition format wars—Sony CEO Howard Stringer is reaching the end of his rope as well. Blu-ray, which is backed by Sony, was doing well up until recently and winning the war based on merits, Stringer said at an event in New York. That is, up until movie studio Paramount decided to “change sides” and go exclusively HD DVD in August. Things have apparently become more difficult since then, and the high-profile CEO is showing signs of wear.

“It’s a difficult fight,” Stringer was quoted saying by the Associated Press, going so far as to describe the situation as a “stalemate.” He candidly indicated that the war mostly came down to bragging rights over who was winning, and said that the two camps could have collaborated better in the past to develop one format. Stringer even said that he wished he could go back in time to make that possible—is that the smell of regret floating in the air?”

Straight from Ars Technica: “Macrovision, the DRM firm perhaps best known recently for creating security holes in Windows with its SafeDisc DRM, has purchased the intellectual property surrounding the BD+ DRM scheme used by Blu-ray to thwart attempts at copying. For $45 million, Macrovision will get ownership of the Self-Protecting Digital Content (SPDC) technology that forms the basis for BD+ as well as associated patents owned by Cryptography Research.

Both Blu-ray and HD DVD use AACS to thwart copying, but that was cracked last spring. Blu-ray is alone in using an additional layer of security, BD+, to keep users from copying Blu-ray discs. BD+ works via a small virtual machine that is launched each time a disc is inserted. The VM does some code transformation to correct deliberately-corrupted video streams, and checks to see if the disc is playing on a Blu-ray player known to have been hacked. If the player has been compromised in the past, playback can be disabled. When the disc is ejected, the VM disappears from memory, which, in theory, makes it more difficult to hack or reverse engineer.

One small problem: BD+ was hacked earlier this month by SlySoft, makers of AnyDVD. The crack made good the company’s boast that a crack would be available by year end and called into serious question the claims made by Blu-ray’s backers that BD+ was uncrackable.

With the crack, users of AnyDVD make copies of the movies for fair use purposes. Mandatory Managed Copy is part of the Blu-ray spec, but has yet to be implemented, meaning that there’s no way for Blu-ray disc owners to legally copy the discs.”

Straight from Ars Technica: “How many copyright violations does an average user commit in a single day? John Tehranian, a law professor at the University of Utah, calculates in a new paper that he rings up $12.45 million in liability (PDF) over the course of an average day. The gap between what the law allows and what social norms permit is so great now that “we are, technically speaking, a nation of infringers.”

Tehranian’s paper points out just how pervasive copyright has become in our lives. Simply checking one’s e-mail and including the full text in response could be a violation of copyright. So could a tattoo on Tehranian’s shoulder of Captain Caveman—and potential damages escalate when Tehranian takes off his shirt at the university pool and engages in public performance of an unauthorized copyrighted work.

Singing “Happy Birthday” at a restaurant (unauthorized public performance) and capturing the event on a video camera (unauthorized reproduction) could increase his liability, and that’s to say nothing of the copyrighted artwork hanging on the wall behind the dinner table (also captured without authorization by the camera). Tehranian calculates his yearly liability at $4.5 billion.

And all of this infringement could easily be done without even engaging in “wrong” behaviors like P2P file-sharing. Tehranian wants to make clear how such copyright issues don’t simply affect those operating in the grey or black zones of the law; they affect plenty of ordinary people who aren’t doing anything that they consider to be illegal, immoral, or even a little bit naughty.

The “vast disparity between copyright law and copyright norms” simply highlights the need for effective copyright reform. Since the 1976 Copyright Act, when all creative works automatically gained copyright protection without the need for registration, our lives have been awash in the copyrighted materials of other people. The advent of digital technology means not only that such works are simpler to use and to share, but that content owners for the first time have a realistic shot at enforcing their maximum rights.”