http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/ Engadget Comments for Microsoft's war waged with FairUse4WM http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
If peopel REALLY wanted free music, they would go ahead and download it for free using any P2P program out there. The sole reason why i don't immerse myself in any DRM program is the fact that my use of the music may be hindered by very restrictive DRM. Buying my MP3's from a russian site that says "Pay me, here's a file, go all willy nilly" sounds better than "Pay me, here's a file that works on a certain amount of players."

I don't think there would be such an opposition to DRM if more thought went into end user solutions instead of making a haphazard system and claiming that piracy is killing the music industry when there's a "working" alternative. Aggravation is what pushes people to downlaod music for fre, not that it's "free". That may have been the reason in the mid to late 90s, but now people actually want to pay for music, but are hindered by complicated DRM.

The only exception to this is iTunes, but then you are locked into buying all Apple products (or trying to find other players that support AAC). While this may work for some people, what is a person like me, who doesn't want to by an iPod, supposed to do? ]]>Nov 13th 2006 12:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
Has MS contacted you or Peter for info on Viodentia?]]>Nov 13th 2006 12:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
One of the developers quipped that that I should of just striped the DRM before reinstaling the OS :P ,so now I no longer have DRM issues and I now have 500+ DRM free songs .

]]>Nov 13th 2006 12:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
I stopped buying CD's because I am tired of paying the same prices for the same product I bought 20 years ago. DVD's are better and cheaper than the Laser disks they replaced, so I am willing (but not happy) to accept that DVD's are DRM'ed while Laser disks were freely copyable.

Give me something in exchange for DRM. iTunes and other online services are now offering a slightly lower price, offset by low quality (lossy compression) and restrictive DRM; I'll consider buying music again when better quality and less restrictive DRM are offered for those lower prices.]]>Nov 13th 2006 1:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/(...I feel like I should put a link to some kind of medication in this comment, it's too similar to all of the spam on my blog)]]>Nov 13th 2006 1:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
I really think fair use is under the microscope and at this point, is so narrow in what's acceptable, that it's no surprise that companies like Microsoft really don't care about fair use.

My personal feeling on fair use is that people, regardless of any details or additions to the DMCA, individuals will still want to find fair and open ways to protect their purchases.

I apprecaite these programs that are out there because they really do work for those of us that are honest and just wanting a way to make backups that don't lock us into a single system.]]>Nov 13th 2006 2:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
However, it could be more tightly edited. The sentences: "Legal defeat, however, has not at all magically eliminated the availability of DeCSS on the web. This may give some insight as to how effective current legal relief in the US will be once internet users take hold of a desirable new technology" (para. 5) appear almost verbatim in the 13th paragraph.]]>Nov 13th 2006 3:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
But honestly....MS is going to have this case thrown out because they will most likely not find the person and what's to say that some ISP in a foreign country even has to respect a US Subpoena. Its ludicrous to think that the US Legal System has such "far reaching implications" on stuff like this as though we trump all other laws in foreign nations to help out US companies further dominate the market.

]]>Nov 13th 2006 3:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
MS will lose.]]>Nov 13th 2006 6:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
Thank you engadget for such an informative and enlightening article!
I doubt the authors of Viodentia will be found, unless they are stupid (which i doubt)...
Its not too hard to use an anonymous proxy such as TOR... Should be interesting how things turn out... I hope it gets ugly! it would be fun to watch! lol

]]>Nov 13th 2006 8:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
For those that have not discovered the less expensive, DRM-free, legal alternative to iTunes, Napster, etc., head over to:

http://www.allofmp3.com/

]]>Nov 13th 2006 8:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
If someone is able to circumvent the technological measure then it isn't effective, is it?

IMHO the only way to effectively make a piece of media 'secure' is to make it unusable--not able to be seen or heard by a human. As soon as it's viewable or audible it is subject to the analog hole, and there is no effective technological way around this. MS et al could spend tens of billions on uber-DRM, but that won't stop anyone from recording the screen with a camcorder or putting a mic up to the speaker.
]]>Nov 13th 2006 10:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/Nov 14th 2006 2:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
This is effectively accusing Microsoft's lawyers of violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which (in general) requires that a lawyer have a good-faith basis for believing there is legal authority for relief he's seeking before he signs a pleading seeking that relief.

Microsoft doesn't hire shopping center lawyers.

I'm not a copyright or intellectual property specialist, but I am a former federal circuit court clerk who's practiced in state and federal court for 25 years. And while you're certainly correct that taking discovery before a defendant has been identified, served with process, and answered is unusual and requires a discretionary ruling by the federal district court, I'm not aware of any statutory language or precedent that makes the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [i]inapplicable[/i] to actions brought under the DMCA. And yes, [url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html]17 U.S.C. § 512(h) authorizes "copyright owners" to seek subpoenas. But so does [url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule30.htm]Rule 30(a)(1)[/url] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (in combination with Rule 45 and, here, Rule27(a).

In other words, as a general rule, in any case in federal court, any party can have the Clerk issue a subpoena compelling a non-party witness to appear and give testimony, and to bring with him specified documents (e.g., computer files showing IP addresses, ISP subscribers, etc.) -- in [i]any[/i] sort of civil lawsuit. What's your authority saying that a plaintiff filing suit under the DMCA [i]can't[/i] do that?

I'll also grant you that ISPs and companies like Google and Yahoo! typically resist such non-party subpoenas as a matter of principle based on their users/subscribers' privacy concerns. That means they'd have the burden of filing a motion to quash and persuading the judge hearing that motion (who might be either the judge in whose district the case is pending or the judge in the district where the non-party witness resides) that those privacy rights outweigh the plaintiff's legitimate need to acquire the information. A judge might inquire whether there are less intrusive means to acquire the same information; Microsoft can probably establish that there aren't any. And the "privacy rights" at issue here are not constitutional in nature: You have no expectation of privacy under Fourth Amendment law in the commercial records of your ISP (or the phone company or your video rental store). I'll also grant you that the purpose and likely effect of 17 U.S.C. § 512(h) is to tip the balancing act of privacy versus plaintiffs' need to know in favor of [i]copyright[/i] plaintiffs; I haven't looked at the legislative history, and don't know if the actual language was just inept, or the product of some deliberate compromise.

But show me the statute or case that says a federal district judge lacks discretion to order a non-party witness like Google or Yahoo! or AT&T to produce duly-subpoenaed, highly relevant records that will reveal critical information without which a statutorily created cause of action can't proceed. Then I'll believe you got this right.]]>Nov 14th 2006 6:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/
Sexilicious!]]>Nov 15th 2006 10:55AM