Even though your company might be based in Croatia, Malaysia, or scattered throughout US airports we're all linked together by a single common thread: Google image search and a penchant for the Engadget logo. The latest infringer of our beloved IP is E-pins Corporation, a self-described telecommunications contractor employing some 500 people in the Philippines. With staff like that you'd think they could hire their own graphic designer.

[Thanks, Jeffrey S.]

Looks like smartbooks really are the new netbooks, after all. Aptly exemplifying déjà vu, German company Smartbook AG has issued a cease-and-desist to Netbooknews.de, claiming it owns the trademark and copyright on the term "smartbook" and that its use on the news site is damaging to the company's reputation and credibility. The letter demands that within two weeks all instances of the word be stricken from both the German and English-language versions, despite the latter being hosted in the US, outside of German jurisdiction. Of course, the logical thing would be to go after a company like Qualcomm who's been using the designation all along, and not the outlets who report on it, but why let a little common sense get in the way of some good ol' fashioned internet drama, eh Smartbook? By our count, it was almost exactly six months between Psion sending out its first cease-and-desist on "netbook" to media outlets and its eventual acquiescence and settlement with Intel, so consider the clock here officially ticking.

[Via jkOnTheRun]

Man, these Copyright Office triennial DMCA hearings seem to be some kind of competition for media-industry lawyers to present ridiculous arguments -- just a couple months after the MPAA tried to convince us that videotaping DVDs was an acceptable alternative to ripping, the RIAA's claiming that consumers shouldn't expect their DRM servers to stay online and allow them to play their music to play forever. No joke. The argument comes as the Copyright Office decides whether or not to allow a DMCA exemption for breaking DRM, and RIAA lawyer Steven Metalitz's position is that copyright owners shouldn't be required to "provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works," since "no other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards." Of course, that's only partially true, since properly maintained physical media and DRM-free content theoretically can be played forever, but why acknowledge reality when you can jack up your legal bills making completely absurd arguments that make your porcine, slowly-decaying clients seem even more doomed than before?

So the Copyright Office is currently in the middle reviewing proposed exceptions to the DMCA, and one of the proposals on the table would allow teachers and students to rip DVDs and edit them for use in the classroom. Open and shut, right? Not if you're the MPAA and gearing up to litigate the legality of ripping -- it's trying to convince the rulemaking committee that videotaping a flatscreen is an acceptable alternative. Seriously. It's hard to say if we've ever seen an organization make a more tone-deaf, flailing argument than this.

Take a good look, kids. This is what an industry looks like right before it dies. Video after the break.

[Via BoingBoing]

Let's face it -- quite a lot is resting on the outcome of this case. For months now, RealNetworks has been unable to legally sell its RealDVD movie ripping software after a court issued a temporary restraining order that remains valid until it's decided if the application violates the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Now, the software is finally having its day in court, and the outcome could shape the future of the DVD player (for better or worse). You see, Real has already assembled a prototype Facet device that hums along on Linux; essentially, this DVD playing machine would sell for around $300 and could store up to 70 movies internally. On the surface, this sounds entirely like a poor man's Kaleidescape, but only time will tell if The Man agrees. Cross your fingers folks, we get the feeling fair use advocates are going to need the luck.

The reason Blu-ray recorders have migrated from Japan to the UK recently -- and why you'll likely never see them in the U.S. -- is all about the copyright holders. Danielle Nagler, head of BBC HD, hit the blogs to break down the wheres and hows of the DRM changes associated with bringing FreeSat disc HD DVRs like the Panasonic DMR-BS850 and Humax FOXSAT-HDR to market, basically meaning users are allowed one HD copy of a show, which can be played back on protected devices and connections only (transfer to portable players is planned to the future.) Follow the flow chart for the details, and figure out if it'd be worth it to make your own BD-R DVR backups so easily.

[Via Pocket-Lint]

In what's being described as a landmark verdict, four men responsible for assisting throngs of dubious internet users to download all sorts of copyrighted material are being ushered off to prison cells for twelve whole months. The Stockholm district court in Sweden found the defendants guilty not of hosting materially illegally, but of "providing a website with sophisticated search functions, simple download and storage capabilities, and a tracker linked to the website [that helped users commit copyright violations]." As expected, the foursome seems unaffected by the ruling, with Peter Sunde (shown) tweeting that "it used to be only movies, now even verdicts are out before the official release." After jail, the crew will be forced by pay 30 million kronor ($3.56 million) to a number of entertainment companies, which is far less than those firms were hoping for. Curiously, we're told that the verdict didn't include an order to shut down The Pirate Bay website, and you can pretty much bank on an appeal being filed in record time.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

Oh, Amazon. Just a couple weeks after the Authors Guild's overzealous copyright-maximalist stance forced the bookseller to modify the Kindle 2's text to speech feature, the company's lawyers have had a fit of irony and sent out a DMCA takedown request to MobileRead, claiming that the site's links to a Python script that enables Kindle owners to shop at Mobipocket-format ebook sites constitutes circumvention of the Kindle's DRM. There's all kinds of corporate-lawyer idiocy at play here: MobileRead was just linking out to another site hosting the script, which can't actually be used to break Kindle DRM, and the only people using it are the people who want to buy more books -- not exactly the sort of customers you'd want to piss off. Amazon's sole motivation here seems to be the fear that people might buy Kindle content from somewhere besides Amazon, and it appears to be using copyright law to try and prevent that. Another corporation driven mad with DRM power? Say it ain't so.

[Via TechDirt]

As you're no doubt aware, this week's launch of the Kindle 2 came complete with copyright controversy -- the Authors Guild says that Amazon's text-to-speech features will damage the lucrative audiobook market. To be perfectly frank, we're of two minds on on this debate: on one hand, we're obviously all for the relentless progression of technology, and on the other, we sussed out the fundamental reasons for the Guild's objections almost immediately. It's pretty easy to find the first set of arguments online, but we wanted to make sure we weren't missing anything, so we sat down with Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken and asked him some burning questions. Read on!

Uh oh, Ashton, it looks like Apple might have a thing or two to say about that jailbroken iPhone of yours. Every three years the Copyright Office asks for proposed exemptions to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's rules against breaking access protections, and this time around the lovable scamps at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have asked that jailbreaking phones -- like, yes, the iPhone -- be classified as one of those exceptions. As you might have guessed, Apple's response to the EFF isn't exactly supportive of the idea: it says the proposed rule will "destroy the technological protection of Apple's key copyrighted computer programs in the iPhone device itself and of copyrighted content owned by Apple that plays on the iPhone." Both sides have filed long briefs supporting their positions with extremely detailed legal arguments, but the main takeaways are that the EFF thinks that allowing jailbreaking will result in more apps and innovation, and Apple points out that the App Store is already hugely successful and that jailbroken phones are technically running unauthorized modifications of Apple's copyrighted iPhone code that allows them to run pirated applications. Interestingly, Apple's convoluted App Store approval process is the center of a lot of discussion, and Apple is totally disengeniuous about it, saying there's no "duplication of functionality" rule and as proof claims to have allowed "multiple general web browsers... and multiple mail programs." Note to the Copyright Office: if you believe this we have a very nice bridge to sell you.

Now, let's be clear: while we're definitely hoping the EFF pulls this one out, the worst thing that can result of all this is the status quo -- Apple isn't asking for jailbreaking to specifically be ruled illegal, it's just asking that it not be specifically ruled legal. If that sounds like a fuzzy distinction, well, it is, but that's the sort of gray area that keeps everyone else out of court for the time being. We'll find out more in the spring, when the Copyright Office holds hearings -- final rulings are due in October.

Read - EFF page on the jailbreaking debate
Read - EFF's brief (PDF)
Read - Apple's reply (PDF)
Read - EFF's second brief (PDF)

Well, we can't say we didn't see this coming -- Judge William Alsup in the federal Northern District of California today dismissed Psystar's antitrust counterclaims in Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit against the wannabe Mac cloner. According to the judge, Psystar's hotshot legal team failed to provide facts "plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors." Not only that, but the judge also found that Psystar actually contradicted itself in pointing out that Apple has to advertise heavily to promote OS X against competing operating systems that perform the same tasks, and that Apple is "certainly entitled" to ask its customers to only use OS X on Apple machines. Yeah, that's a smackdown. Psystar has until December 18th to amend its complaint and try these arguments again, but we can't say we think it's got a shot in hell here -- and something tells us that that court-mandated alternative dispute resolution process isn't going to get very far in Psystar's favor either.

Disclaimer: Nilay's a lawyer and sells bootleg OSx86 machines out the back of his van, but he's not your lawyer and this isn't legal advice.

[Via Macrumors]

It look like Hollywood's won the first round in court against RealNetworks' RealDVD DVD-ripping software -- Judge Maralyn Hall Patel (of Napster fame, remember her?) ruled yesterday that a temporary restraining order blocking sales of the software will stay in place indefinitely until she decides whether it violates the DMCA. The central issue is whether or not making a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD constitutes circumventing copy protection: the studios claim the encryption keys must be read off the disk under the terms of the license agreement, and RealNetworks obviously disagrees. There's a lot at play here, including the studios' argument that fair use doesn't serve as a defense to backing up DVDs, so we'll be tracking this one closely -- it's sadly clear to us that Hollywood's fight here is against consumers having flexibility with their media, since it lost the battle against actual piracy ages ago.

We're going to guess you've never heard of the Weemote, a little blue remote control made by a company called Forbis. The egg-shaped remote control and its parent company are reportedly in financial trouble ever since another company came out with something a lot of people are calling the "Wiimote." While the Nintendo Wii Remote's official name isn't that word (we refuse to type it again), evil bloggers and retail chains have taken to the term and Forbis claims its brand has been diluted, confused, and passed up. Owner John Stephen told Game Politics that he would like nothing more than to have Nintendo buy out the trademark and let him move on to something called, oh, let's say, the X Bocks, a new microbrewery project. The big surprise out of all of this? Nintendo isn't interested. In fact, it has no legal reason to do so, either -- it's never officially called the Wii Remote anything else. Of course, that's not to say Ninty shouldn't do the right thing here (and make our jobs just a hair easier) by buying out the mark and sanctioning the nickname, but don't hold your breath.