Public Knowledge - Blogging, Events, and Action Alerts

Public Knowledge Pleased With Introduction of Antitrust Net Neutrality Legislation

Art Brodsky — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:47:17 -0400

Background: House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) today introduced H.R. 5994, the “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.”

The following statement is attributed to Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:

“We are grateful to Chairman Conyers and Rep. Lofgren for introducing this legislation.

“The bill squarely addresses the issue of the enormous market power of the telephone and cable companies as the providers of 98 percent of the broadband service in the country. The bill restores the principle of non-discrimination that allowed the Internet to flourish in the dial-up era, making certain that the same freedom and innovation will flourish in the broadband era without burdensome regulation.

Microsoft Zune and NBC Universal Copyright Filtering Collaboration

Alex Curtis — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:24:03 -0400

If you haven’t read about it, the New York Times reported yesterday that: Microsoft May Build a Copyright Cop Into Every Zune. Essentially, the large content provider would withhold their content from a distributor unless the distributor put in effective measures to prevent against piracy. We’re not talking about DRM here, we’re talking about filtering software, whether it resides on the playback device like a Zune or iPod, or in the software on a syncing computer that stores the consumers’ library of music and movies like the Zune or iTunes software. This software would troll your library checking for content that was somehow infringing or unauthorized. It may even be spyware that could report back to someone about the contents of your media library.

Tying, subsidizing, and IMS

Susan Crawford — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:56:16 -0400

In response to my post a couple of days ago about the possibility that VZ might not plan to comply with the 700 MHz “open platform” rules, someone wrote:

would you have the FCC mandate that every mobile device must be capable of running every operating system? If Verizon sells me a BlackBerry, should the device allow me to install Android, Palm OS, Windows Mobile, or Symbian OS? Obviously, Google believes the answer is yes (they will make the most money if they can install their OS on every device). Is it good for consumers if the FCC starts managing software specifications for computers and mobile devices?

Public Knowledge Commends Approval of Orphan Works Legislation

Art Brodsky — Wed, 07 May 2008 17:14:54 -0400

Background: The House Intellectual Property Subcommittee today approved H.R. 5889, the Orphan Works Act of 2008. Orphan works are works, such as photographs, music or film, or other works for which the copyright holder can’t be found by someone who wants to use the work in a way that normally would require permission. Works can become “orphaned” for a number of reasons: the owner did not register the work, the owner sold rights in the work and did not register the transfer, the owner died and his heirs cannot be found.

The following statement is attributed to Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:

Rescue Orphan Works!

Webmaster — Wed, 07 May 2008 09:32:23 -0400

[CLICK HERE TO WRITE YOUR LETTER NOW][repform]

The House and Senate both introduced new legislation to allow for greater use of so-called “orphan works” — books, music, photos, movies or other works whose owners can’t be found. Why are these bills important? Because there are literally millions of works in existence that are currently under copyright protection but for which the copyright owner cannot be easily found. Because if you use a copyrighted work without permission, you could be on the hook for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work, orphans go unused.

Think of a diary kept by someone during the second world war and recovered from an attic. Think of a box of old photographs happened upon at a yard sale. Think of an illustration used in an advertisement but not clearly attributed. At the moment, these works are unavailable to publishers, filmmakers, collage artists and many other creative professionals who would like to use them and gladly pay for the privilege, but can’t because of the potential for massive penalties if the original copyright owner does emerge.

The newly introduced bills allow artists to use orphan works as long as that user makes a diligent effort to find the original copyright owner. In the unlikely event that the original owner does emerge, the compensation that a user pays should be reasonable. The two bills currently on the table — S. 2913, the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 (PDF link) and H.R. 5889: The Orphan Works Act of 2008 (PDF link) — go a long way to address these issues and if passed, would grant the public access to millions of previously inaccessible works of art.

These Bills are being considered in there respective committees this week. We need you to write letters and call your Members of Congress to ask for them to support the bills and make a few tweaks.

More IP Pigeons Come Home to Roost

Harold Feld — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:37:06 -0400

It must be spring, and a delightful spring at that. Like swallows to Capistrano, numerous pigeons created by the IP mafia over the years are at last coming home to roost. Today’s NYT provides the most recent returning pigeon dropping its unintended consequence out of a clear blue sky.

700 MHz Update: Will VZ comply with the rules?

Susan Crawford — Tue, 06 May 2008 09:49:04 -0400

Last Friday (HT: IPDemocracy), Google filed a petition [PDF] asking that the Commission ensure that Verizon understands what those “open platform” requirements for the C Block really mean. Verizon has taken the position in the past that its own devices won’t be subject to the “open applications” and “open handsets” requirements of the C Block rules, and Google says it is concerned that Verizon doesn’t plan to follow those requirements in the future.

This is big. Here’s the background.

Public Knowledge Tells Court World of Warcraft Overstepped Copyright Law

Art Brodsky — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:31:32 -0400

The producers of World of Warcraft may not like gamers using automated “bots” to play the game, but the company can’t ban the practice under copyright law, Public Knowledge has told a federal court in Arizona.

In a brief filed Monday (May 5) with the U.S. District Court in Arizona, Public Knowledge said that Blizzard Entertainment, which produced the game, misinterpreted copyright law in its suit against MDY, which produces the “Glider” software that plays World of Warcraft while the owner is not even at the computer. Blizzard claims Glider infringed on the game’s copyright, arguing that by breaking the rules in a license agreement, the players are violating copyright each time they load the game into computer memory in order to play it.

MDY v. Blizzard: Cheating at WoW may be bad, but it's not copyright infringement

Sherwin Siy — Mon, 05 May 2008 11:59:38 -0400

Today, PK asked a federal court in Arizona to accept our “friend of the court” arguments in MDY v. Blizzard, a case pitting distasteful gaming behavior against an unsavory over-assertion of copyrights.

The basic details behind the story are here.

MDY, Inc. makes a program called Glider that plays World of Warcraft automatically. Players using Glider can gain experience points in WoW while not at their computers. This causes a number of gameplay issues for Blizzard, the makers of WoW. It also violates their Terms of Use (“TOU”), which are incorporated into their End User License Agreement (“EULA”).

So Blizzard sues MDY. Ok. For copyright infringement. Less Ok. Here’s why.

Why The 'Right' Gets Net Neutrality Wrong

Art Brodsky — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:40:29 -0400

Just in time for the House Telecom Subcommittee’s May 6 hearing on Net Neutrality legislation, Public Knowledge achieved a new level of notoriety when we were prominently mentioned in a blog post on the American Spectator, the publication best known for funneling millions of dollars to investigations of Bill and Hillary Clinton.