Jim McGee has some interesting thoughts on the problem of magical thinking, especially as manifested in policy discussions. (He also says some kind things about me. Thanks!)
Archives for January 2003
Register: Massive P2P Worm
January 14, 2003 by
Here’s one from the Don’t Believe Everything You Read Department.
The Register credulously reports that an anonymous group called “Gobbles” was hired by the RIAA to create and release a worm that infects peer-to-peer networks. The story says that 95% of peer-to-peer connected hosts are infected, and that the worm reports back the contents of infected computers to the RIAA. The story is based on a Bugtraq posting.
If this were true it would be an outrage. But it is almost certainly a hoax. The story is pretty thinly sourced. More to the point, there’s just no way the RIAA could be dumb enough to try a stunt like this. I would have thought the Register was too smart to fall for this kind of tall tale.
RIAA, Tech Leaders Agree on Status Quo
January 14, 2003 by
Ted Bridis at AP reports that the RIAA and at least one big tech-industry trade group will announce today that they have reached a “landmark consensus” on lobbying strategy. Essentially, both groups agree to support the legal status quo. The tech industries will join the RIAA in lobbying against consumer fair use measures like the Boucher and Lofgren bills; and the RIAA will join the tech groups in lobbying against technology mandates like the Hollings CBDTPA.
This ramps up the pressure on the movie and TV industry, who will be left alone in supporting technology mandates. The RIAA has never really supported tech mandates but has stayed on the sidelines on that issue; now the RIAA is apparently promising to actively oppose tech mandates.
As usual, end users were not at the table when this deal was made.
Another DMCA Attack on Interoperation
January 14, 2003 by
Chamberlain Group, a maker of garage door openers, has brought a DMCA suit against Skylink Technologies. Chamberlain makes garage door openers; Skylink makes remote controls that can interoperate with Chamberlain systems, i.e., if you have a Chamberlain opener, you can operate it with a Skylink remote.
Chamberlain’s complaint is short on details, but their summary judgment memo is more informative.
According to Chamberlain, its systems use a special security code designed to prevent burglars from recording the systems signals and playing them back later to trick the door into opening. Skylink’s openers can interoperate with openers that use this code, and Chamberlain claims that violates the DMCA. Chamberlain says that the security code system is a technological measure that effectively controls access to the software in its door-opening device, and that Skylink is circumventing that system.
This case differs from the Lexmark/Static Control case, because Chamberlain claims that Skylink, rather than using the full security code algorithm, uses some kind of alternative “resynchronization” protocol that opens up the customer to more risk. The technical details of this are redacted in the documents I have seen, so I can’t conclude anything more about this argument.
Kling on Free Content
January 13, 2003 by
Arnold Kling, over at the free website TechCentralStation, offers an odd little op-ed arguing that free content is crap. Some of it is crap; but there’s a lot of great free content out there too. The beauty of the web is that you only have to read the stuff you want to read; and most readers are pretty good at finding the good stuff.
[In case any of you think you would like this blog better if you paid for it, you are welcome to pay. Just send me a check, at 35 Olden Street, Princeton NJ 08544 USA. (The rest of you can go on reading it for free.)]
Kling argues that Creative Commons is based on “a strikingly naive 60’s-retro ideological view … that content publishers earn their profits by using copyright law to steal content…” I don’t buy that. Creative Commons is mostly just a tool for writing copyright licenses; you can choose from a wide variety of licenses, ranging from pure public domain to much more restrictive licenses.
Kling seems to be attacking Dan Gillmor for Gillmor’s supposed opposition to selling content through established publishers. Never mind that Gillmor sells his content through an established publisher.
