ElcomSoft acquitted: DMCA not quite as effective as planned

ElcomSoft acquitted: DMCA not quite as effective as planned
“NYT” story.

“Dec. 17 [~] In the first criminal court test of a law intended to prevent digital piracy, a federal jury today acquitted a Russian company accused of illegally selling software that permitted users to circumvent security features in an electronic book.

The case, which was tried in San Jose, centered on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a technology-era update to copyright law. The act has engendered deep criticism from some legal experts who say it goes too far in protecting copyrights and, in turn, stifles innovation. Today, some of those critics hailed the jury’s decision as a sign that the government must choose its cases more judiciously…”

Scott Rosenberg on the Supernova conference

Scott Rosenberg on the Supernova conference

Typically thoughtful piece by Scott on the Supernova conference. “Conference organizer Kevin Werbach admitted that his “decentralization” label was “ugly,” but suggested that its very awkwardness was a sign that we were dealing with an underlying trend rather than a “marketing-concocted theme.” And he was right: The phenomena this event focused on, a grab bag of new technologies that have bubbled up from the humbled high-tech world in the post-crash era, are mostly geek driven and grassroots spread: Wi-Fi (802.11b), the wireless high-speed Net access method; blogs; and “Web services,” a fuzzy term to describe new methods of directly and quickly connecting software applications and data across the Net.

These disparate boomlets share an “end to end” design: They rely on the power of individual users’ computers — there’s no big, centrally operated piece of software or hardware mediating. The users connect across an open, “stupid” network — the Internet itself, today — that simply moves information without worrying about what it is. The resulting software is ad hoc, impromptu, flexible, “lightweight.” Empowered individuals at the ends of the network try out new ideas and build myriad new services. It’s geek heaven.”

Unfortunately — or fortunately? — there don’t seem to be many business models promising huge fortunes from this. Rosenberg goes on:

“By any rational view, the decentralized technology world Supernova envisioned is one in which small operators can make a living, but nobody is going to make a killing.

That sounds all right to me. But it doesn’t mean the venture capital money will stay away. (Talk about “stupid networks”!) There are alarming indications here and there that some of the technologies championed at Supernova are already heading down the same path that the Web itself traveled in the mid-’90s — as investors began to pile in, claiming market share today and putting off till tomorrow figuring out how to earn money. Cometa, the Wi-Fi provider that plans to sell a nationwide network as a wholesaler to ISPs, is one venture whose recent launch certainly had a “build first, improvise a revenue model later” feeling.

Should the geeks care? After all, the Web got built, even if the landscape is littered with defunct Web companies. If investors throw money at good technologies, does it matter whether the companies that are the money’s conduit flame out?

I think it does. When a technology begins small and has time to evolve, find its uses and build a following, it has staying power. (Look at the Net itself, whose protocols were two decades old before it became popular. Or look at how Linux, which had spent most of a decade emerging, was able to survive the hurricane of an infatuated Wall Street that swept over it two years ago and then abandoned it just as fast.)

The danger here is that the dynamo of the Silicon Valley boom-bust cycle, in its hunger for Next Big Thing fuel, will seize upon Wi-Fi, blogs and Web services and then spit them out, chewed-up and spent — before they’ve ever had a chance to mature and show off their potential. ”

Next step in the Open Source revolution: peer-reviewed scientific journals in the public domain (and on the Net)!

Next step in the Open Source revolution: peer-reviewed scientific journals in the public domain (and on the Net)!

The “NYT” is carrying a fascinating story today about a major new initiative (backed by serious money from Gordon and Betty Moore) to bypass commercial journal publishing and put stuff straight onto the Net. According to reporter Amy Harmon, ” group of prominent scientists is mounting an electronic challenge to the leading scientific journals, accusing them of holding back the progress of science by restricting online access to their articles so they can reap higher profits.

Supported by a $9 million grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the scientists say that this week they will announce the creation of two peer-reviewed online journals on biology and medicine, with the goal of cornering the best scientific papers and immediately depositing them in the public domain.

By providing a highly visible alternative to what they view as an outmoded system of distributing information, the founders hope science itself will be transformed. The two journals are the first of what they envision as a vast electronic library in which no one has to pay dues or seek permission to read, copy or use the collective product of the world’s academic research.”

Jefferson lives! Blogging’s emerging political role

Jefferson lives! Blogging’s emerging political role

Lovely piece on Davenet which is worth quoting in full.

” This CNN piece caught our eye at Scripting News.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/16/timep.lott.tm/

A quote: “If Lott didn’t see the storm coming, it was in part because it was so slow in building. The papers did not make note of his comments until days after he had made them. But the stillness was broken by the hum of Internet ‘bloggers’ who were posting their outrage and compiling rap sheets of Lott’s earlier comments. It took a few more days before Democrats denounced Lott and demanded a censure.”

Top down

Dave Winer comments:”I thought weblogs would rewrite the rules of US politics, but I thought it would happen slowly, and come from the ground up: that one candidate, perhaps for local office, would use a weblog well, and others would follow, and in a few years a weblog would be an assumed part of a political presence, much as telephones and airplanes are today.

This is a surprise. That weblogs would play a role in the toppling of a major US political leader, is growth from the top down, and it’s happening very quickly. The medium is perfectly suited for this. All of a sudden punditry is open to everyone.

I think somewhere, where ever he is, Thomas Jefferson is smiling.”

US Court begs to differ on location of Web-libel liability

US Court begs to differ on location of Web-libel liability

Just as I expected. NEWS.COM story:

“Less than a week after Australia’s high court issued a ruling suggesting that online publishers are fair game for libel suits anywhere their content appears, a U.S. federal court has veered in the opposite direction.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said two Connecticut newspapers could not be sued for libel in a Virginia court on the basis of allegedly defamatory articles posted on their Web sites. ” The key question was whether the newspapers intended “to direct their Web site content, which included certain articles discussing conditions in a Virginia prison, to a Virginia audience,” and concluded the answer was definitely no. Instead of targeting Virginians, the court ruled, the papers’ Web sites were designed to be useful to residents of Connecticut, with information about weather and state politics, and local classified ads.

“The facts in this case establish that the newspapers’ Web sites, as well as the articles in question, were aimed at a Connecticut audience. The newspapers did not post materials on the Internet with the manifest intent of targeting Virginia readers,” the court said.

Creative Commons launch.

Creative Commons press release. “People want to bridge the public domain with the realm of private copyrights,” said Stanford Law Professor and Creative Commons Chairman Lawrence Lessig.

This morning Creative Commons opened up a formerly private part of their site containing enumerations of the different licenses they support. It’s very simple. A document, a weblog, a RSS file, a PDF or whatever, can specify which license applies. On the CC site, they tell you how to do it with RDF, but I’m interested in a solution that can be used in RSS 2.0 files, so we can in turn add a user interface to Rado and Manila (and others can do it for other authoring tools) that tie into the CC system. I totally support the idea of lawyers helping creative people instead of controlling us, but I can’t convert everything I do to RDF to show my support. Tonight is their launch. I’m going to it. If we can get a namespace defined and vetted today, I can announce our support tonight.So here’s the RFC. Have a read, and post comments on the discussion group or send via email. Thanks.

RFC: creativeCommons RSS Module. “A RSS module that adds an element at the or level that specifies which Creative Commons license applies.”

[Scripting News]

John Markoff writes about military efforts to restrict unlicensed wireless use: The US military operates radar in the 5 GHz range, the same used by 802.11a, that they’re leery of talking much about. The 5 GHz range was considered mostly open space, and colleagues at the 802.11 Planet conference pointed out to me on a few occasions that the middle part of 5 GHz, currently not available for 802.11a, is used for overseas radar by the US, not domestic.

[80211b News]

Creative Commons launches today!

Creative Commons launches today!

Creative Commons machine-readable licenses will be available to the public free of charge from today. The release will take place at an early-evening reception in San Francisco which includes a chat and screening by DJ Spooky, That Subliminal Kid (NYC); a multimedia jam by People Like Us (London); and an address by Lawrence Lessig, Chairman of Creative Commons. Learn creative ways to distribute your works and find pointers to all sorts of licensed content you can use right away. It’s at the SomArts Cultural Center, 934 Brannan Street. Wish I was there.

At last — some real insight into file-sharing

At last — some real insight into file-sharing

Tim O’Reilly has written a terrific essay on the reality of file-sharing. Among other things, it’s a reminder of the importance of not letting the opposition get control of language — e.g. the way the copyright thugs seek to brand everyone who downloads a music file as a ‘pirate’. Piracy is something quite different — the wholesale copying of copyrighted material and its onward sale for profit. Tim structures his essay in terms of a number of ‘lessons’:

Lesson 1: Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy.
Lesson 2: Piracy is progressive taxation
Lesson 3: Customers want to do the right thing, if they can.
Lesson 4: Shoplifting is a bigger threat than piracy.
Lesson 5: File sharing networks don’t threaten book, music, or film publishing. They threaten existing publishers.
Lesson 6: “Free” is eventually replaced by a higher-quality paid service.
Lesson 7: There’s more than one way to do it.