davidNeedham

Article 1

Running Over Fair Use Like the Hogwarts Express?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/11/running-over-fair-use-like-the-hogwarts-express/?mod=googlenews_wsj

Usually, I feel like copyright law and fair use law should be loosened up and made more "user friendly". This case however, shines a good light on the copyright owner for once. For the most part, fan websites and art are ignored by publishers and producers because it's free advertising. That is, until the infringers start to make money from their product. This issue came up between the fan website "Harry Potter Lexicon" (an online encyclopedia of Harry Potter-related facts) and JK Rowling (as well as her publisher, Warner Bros). They didn't mind the fact that they were breaking tiny bits of copyright in making the website in what others observe as fair use. However, the website (through RDR Books) produced a paper copy of their Lexicon and prepared to sell copies. This, a flagrant misuse of fair use, did not go unnoticed and legal action was taken.

RDR Books deserved to be sued for copyright infringement. Fair use is not even an issue in this case because they intend to not only sell the re-purposed copyrighted material, but earn a hefty profit from it in the process. My opinion was further backed up by the opinions of my peers in the comments section of this news article. Furthermore, the facts from the articles we've read this past week about the details of fair use have sealed the fate of RDR Books' case. Despite the website creator's initial good intentions (given the benefit of the doubt), they went over the line when they tried to mass product and make money from it.

Article 2

Flash and DRM: Does Adobe really have any choice?

http://www.betanews.com/article/Flash_and_DRM_Does_Adobe_really_have_any_choice/1203629674

Apparently Adobe has been working towards adding DRM options to it's flash player and content server. I hadn't really ever thought about this being an issue before, but I suppose it makes a lot of sense. YouTube will soon be adding DRM protection to their videos, and so will other companies that stream popular content online. I imagine they would work well on television websites, music websites, flash game websites, and a number of other places. As the article notes, no one expects this to reduce the number of infringers a significant amount. Why then would they consider doing this? Because if you break DRM (even for fair use) it becomes automatically illegal and can therefore be sued for. Adding DRM is like hiring the best lawyer in the world - I don't see how they could ever lose a fair use case for something that mattered (assuming it was protected).

I could see how this could all be taken as a good thing, however I'm deeply concerned that Adobe (and the content manufacturers that use their products) will just turn in to one of those businesses that make their livelihood from suing infringers. As I mentioned in the 2/21 ticket report, those companies really piss me off. In my opinion it should be illegal for a company to make more than a certain percentage of their total income from lawsuits. What's to stop a small company from taking advantage of the system and making a killing at the expense of the end users? At least in this case the end users should know they're doing something wrong (by willingly breaking DRM).

Article 3

New Software Allows File Sharing Between Devices

http://www.nme.com/news/nme/34495

Speaking of breaking DRM, a new software company has developed a new program called "DoubleTwist". DoubleTwist takes songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store and eliminates the DRM so that the files can be played on other media players than the iPod. There are certainly ways that this software can be used legitimately, but just like bit torrent (thepiratebay.org) and LimeWire, someone is more likely to use this software for illegitimate reasons. How is it legal? According to DoubleTree's creator, it does exactly what people have been doing for years to get around the DRM: you burn the music to a cd, then copy the songs from the cd onto the device you want the music on. Further research into this case has turned up reports from prominent law professionals who say that the software creator's case is pretty weak, but there isn't a lot of clarity in the gray area that is fair use. This is obviously one of the down sides the book mentioned about fair use qualifications being so vague.

I can't help but wonder how this software will live when Apple starts selling DRM-free music. This is hopefully coming soon, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Despite having other uses as a image and video converter, I can't imagine there being a use for the software after that. That said, it doesn't appear that Apple cares much if they do this or not. I wouldn't be too surprised since they're moving in that direction anyway. They've wanted to stop DRM-ing music for a long time. Why should they stop someone from doing it for them without any liability to them?