As regular visitors will notice, we’ve refreshed the design of the site a bit. Nothing radical, but we hope the changes will make the blog easier to read and navigate. New features include author pages that list the posts of individual contributors, Google results in the search bar, and new Digg and Reddit buttons for your convenience–please feel free to use them!
We want to thank all of our readers for making this blog a success. If you enjoy the site, consider telling a friend or linking to it from your blog. ¡Viva la liberation!
I’ve written on this blog before about Cyren Call, Nextel founder Morgan O’Brien’s venture to create a national wireless broadband network for first responders. Its plan calls for 30 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that are slated for auction. A couple of months ago the FCC turned down Cyren Call’s petition, saying Congress’s instructions were quite clear and the Commission didn’t have the authority to refuse to auction the spectrum. Morgan O’Brien spoke at the symposium we held late last year and hinted that he was already working on getting Congress to approve his plan. (Video here.)
Well, today comes word that John McCain has signed on to the Cyren Call plan. This is especially newsworthy since the Senate will soon take a look at the recently passed House bill to implement the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations. As I explained earlier today, that bill addresses first responder communications, but doesn’t mention new spectrum for public safety. McCain said he plans to introduce legislation in the near future to assign the 30 MHz to the Public Safety Broadband Trust the Cyren Call plan calls for. I’m not convinced you need 30 MHz of spectrum to create a viable network, and so I’m not sure it’s time to remove spectrum from efficient allocation by auctions. Verizon hinted a while back that they could do it in just 12 MHz of the 24 already slated for public safety, and the FCC is currently taking comments in a proceeding to create just such a network in 12 MHz. Comments are due on Feb. 26. Note to Verizon: Now would be a fine time to make details of your plan public.
The other problem I see is that the Cyren Call/McCain plan would create one monopoly provider. The FCC plan has the same problem. If it can be done in 12 MHz, why not create two competing networks in the 24 MHz of spectrum already allocated for public safety?
This is nothing new, but it’s something that grinds my gears to no end, and that’s how the DMCA makes it illegal for me to use works that are completely in the public domain. Researching my previous post, I had occasion to download and read a PDF of the 9/11 Commission Report. This is a report created by the federal government and therefore has no copyright; it is in the public domain. Nevertheless, when I selected some text and and hit ⌘-C to copy it, I get this lovely message:
If I click to enter a password it tells me that I have permission to read and print the document, but not to copy from it. Because there is no copyright, the government has no right to prevent me from copying. I could circumvent the DRM on the PDF, but then it’s possible that I’d be violating the DMCA (not the way I read it, but I’d have to take the risk). Even if I’m not breaking the law by circumventing the DRM, how am I supposed to do that? I have no hacking skills; I’m just a non-profit lawyer trying to read a government document. Normally I’d buy some software utility that would let me do this, but such a utility is something the DMCA definitely prohibits. I better start writing my petition for a Copyright Office exemption next time they grant them in two years.
Implementing the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations was the House Democrat’s top priority during their recent “first 100 hours” legislative spree. One of the recommendations addressed in the resulting H.R. 1 bill had to do with public safety communications interoperability. The 9/11 Commission found that communications between firefighters, police officers, and other emergency personnel failed that day with deadly consequences. Here is a quick analysis of H.R. 1’s interoperability provisions, as well as the Commission’s recommendation itself, in which I argue that they are both overlooking the fundamental causes of the interoperability problem.
Continue reading →
The New Yorker has a dispatch from Jefferey Toobin updating us on the Google Book Search case. It’s a good primer if you haven’t been following this issue, and also fills in some details if you have. Interesting tidbits include the fact that they haven’t started witness depositions yet, and the parties won’t be able to make motions for summary judgment for another year. More interesting is the fact that both Google and the plaintiffs (authors and publishers) are sure this will settle out of court.
“The suits that have been filed are a business negotiation that happens to be going on in the courts,” [Google’s] Marissa Mayer told me. “We think of it as a business negotiation that has a large legal-system component to it.” According to Pat Schroeder, the former congresswoman, who is the president of the Association of American Publishers, “This is basically a business deal. Let’s find a way to work this out. It can be done. Google can license these rights, go to the rights holder of these books, and make a deal.”
Lawrence Lessig points out that while a settlement would be good for both parties, it could create a practical precedent that if one wanted to start a book-scanning project, one had to license the books–a lot like the precedent set by the MP3.com case that was ultimately settled out of court.
Another interesting bit about the technology itself is how Google plans to rely on linking from the wider web to give the information in books the context its search algorithms need to produce good results:
“Web sites are part of a network, and that’s a significant part of how we rank sites in our search—how much other sites refer to the others.” But, he added, “Books are not part of a network. There is a huge research challenge, to understand the relationship between books. … We just started, and we need to make these books networked, and we need people to help us do that,” [Google’s Dan] Clancy said.
Is Sam Brownback the answer for limited government types in the Republican party? He bills himself as a “full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative,” which implies a leave-us-alone attitude. Doing research at the FCC’s site today, I came across a press release (PDF) announcing the formation of something called The Task Force on “Media and Childhood Obesity: Today and Tomorrow.” Co-sponsor of the “task force” is Brownback.
The Task Force will produce a report that will recommend “voluntary” steps advertisers and broadcaster will be able to take to protect children from getting fat. Again, these suggestions will be completely voluntary, but the FCC just wanted to make sure to remind you on its obesity website that it has adopted children’s TV rules including “the requirement that television broadcasters, cable operators, and satellite providers protect children from excessive and inappropriate commercial messages,” and they can do so again.
Republican Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate is “elated” about the task force, but shows her conservative principles, saying (PDF), “Government cannot and should not be responsible for solving every societal problem; however, this affects not only our nation’s health but our budget as well.” Right.
“Given the saturation of media in our children’s lives, we need to understand how media impacts their health and behavior,” said Brownback. “Because parents have no control of how much media saturates their children’s lives, nor how it impacts their health,” he didn’t say, but he might as well have.
In an op-ed in The American today (and also in comments to National Journal on the reintroduction of the Boucher fair use bill), PFF’s Patrick Ross writes that those of us who advocate reversing the DMCA and strengthening fair use rights have little faith in markets. According to him, curtailing the DMCA means government intervention in emerging markets.
What arguments like Patrick’s ignore is that copyright is unlike other property rights, copyright is a different animal. This is evident in the fact that the power to create copyright is one of the enumerated powers of Congress laid out in the Constitution. Copyright would not exist but for the grace of Congress. If Congress decides to create copyrights, it has complete discretion (within constitutional bounds) to set the outlines of copyright. Congress can decide, among many other parameters, that copyright is for only one year or for 100 or for any length of time in between. Therefore, whatever market in copyrighted works emerges once Congress has created copyright, it must conform to the shape of the copyright Congress created.
Continue reading →
At an Apple Store a few weeks ago a clerk had to take down info from my driver’s license so that I could qualify for the education discount that previously only required that I flash my school ID. “Sorry, Sarbanes-Oxley,” she said. Really? “Yeah. Also, if you buy a custom Mac now, you have to have it shipped to your home; you can’t pick it up at the store anymore.” Whah?
Well, if you need one more reason to believe that the unintended consequences of SOX really suck (especially for Mac people, it seems), today comes word that SOX may force Apple to charge Mac users for a feature that would otherwise be free. See, Wi-Fi comes in three flavors: 802.11b, g, and n, each respectively faster. The “n” standard is still a draft, but it’s almost complete. Apple has been shipping computers with unadvertised “n” capability that they have left dormant. That is, you buy a notebook with what you think is just a “g” Wi-Fi card and three months later, when the standard gets ratified, Apple sends you a software update that unlocks it into an “n”. Voila, surprise instant upgrade and a happy customer.
Unfortunately, the word is that Apple will charge $4.99 for the upgrade, which is a suspiciously un-Apple thing to do. iLounge editor Jeremy Horwitz offers an explanation: “Because of the [SOX] Act, the company believes that if it sells a product, then later adds a feature to that product, it can be held liable for improper accounting if it recognizes revenue from the product at the time of sale, given that it hasn’t finished delivering the product at that point. Ridiculous.”
Update: Houman Shadab took this story and ran with it. He posts a great explanation (via iLounge) of how SOX accounting rules could result in the $5 charge. I’m posting it in full after the jump.
Continue reading →
We can all agree how pernicious the DMCA is when it’s used by the MPAA to put out of business Load ‘N Go–a small company that sold iPods preloaded with movies along with the DVDs of those movies. Piracy was not an issue here because consumers had to buy the DVD of every movie loaded onto their iPod. The reason MPAA acted, of course, is because Hollywood wants us to pay twice for movies–once for a DVD and again for an iPod or PC version.
Sometimes, however, the content industry has a point. Today Todd Dominey posted on his excellent blog his experience getting rid of his 3000-CD collection and going completely digital. He ripped everything to his computer and then sold all the CDs on the Amazon Marketplace. Today’s post is a great howto for folks with big collections. The thing is that he kept the music, but every used CD he sold is arguably one new CD the recording industry didn’t sell. (There’s probably not a one-to-one correlation there, but probably pretty close.) As more folks move to digital, this practice will only grow.
As far as I can tell this is plain and simple copyright infringement. I don’t think DRM coupled with the DMCA is the solution. Given the new reality of the internet, the only choice the content industry has is to change its business model. But when you see something like this, you have to feel their pain. I believe ripping your CDs or DVDs for use on your portable devices is fair use, and I think the Copyright Office should have issued a DMCA exemption for the practice. That said, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.