public knowledge
Latest
Advocacy groups notify AT&T of net neutrality complaint with the FCC over FaceTime restrictions
Public advocacy groups aren't all that impressed with AT&T's justifications for limiting FaceTime access over 3G and 4G to those who spring for its costlier Mobile Share plans. Free Press, Public Knowledge and the Open Technology Institute have served formal notice to AT&T that they plan to file a net neutrality complaint with the FCC within 10 days. It's not hard to understand why, given the groups' existing pro-neutrality stances: the Free Press' policy lead Matt Wood argues that the carrier is unfairly pushing iOS users into plans they don't need, a particularly sore point for iPad-only customers that have no AT&T phones to share. We've reached out to AT&T for comment, although we're not expecting a change from its position that allowing app use over WiFi makes its restrictions okay. As for the FCC? It's mum on the current situation. A literal reading of its net neutrality rules, however, doesn't include a WiFi exemption and might not favor AT&T when Skype video is allowed and Verizon has no problems with unrestricted access.
Congress to hold a hearing tomorrow on the Future of Video
If you're reading this, then you're probably always looking ahead at what technology might bring next. Tomorrow at 10AM ET, US Congress members of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will be doing that too. The specific segment of the market being discussed is video and on the docket to testify is a who's who of the video business. The old guard, NCTA and the MPAA, is being represented by Michael Power -- yes, the previous Chairman of the FCC -- and Michael O'Leary, respectively. On the other side are representatives from Dish Network, Sky Angel, Netflix, Roku and Public Knowledge. So yeah, this could get interesting. The NCTA has already starting posturing on its blog, Cable Tech Talk, with a post highlighting all the wonderful changes in the video distribution industry in the past 20 years -- however, curiously, the upwardly creeping price of the average bill wasn't mentioned. Of course a subcommittee hearing is just the first of a very long process towards real change, and while we'd be shocked if any of our ideas are implemented anytime soon, it's good to see some movement in Washington on a topic we care about.
Alliance for Broadband Competition forms to sway opinion against Verizon's AWS acquisition
The effort to prevent Verizon Wireless from its purchase of AWS licenses from SpectrumCo and Cox just became a bit more intense, as several opponents to the deal have now banded together to form the Alliance for Broadband Competition. The coalition includes T-Mobile and Sprint, along with advocacy groups such as Public Knowledge, the American Antitrust Institute, the Rural Cellular Association and the Rural Telecommunications Group. Today, the newly formed alliance held a press conference in which it called on the FCC and Department of Justice to block the transfer, which it said would lead to an "excessive concentration of spectrum" held by Verizon Wireless. While it's not much of an olive branch, the group similarly suggested that it would support the deal if Verizon were to divest some of its spectrum holdings, establish roaming agreements and agree to a backhaul pricing structure. As you may recall, Verizon Wireless estimates that it'll exhaust its network capacity by 2014. Regardless of how this $3.9 billion proposal shakes out, it's rather clear that something's gotta give.
The AT&T / T-Mobile senate hearing: deciphering the war of words
Over the course of the next year, AT&T and its opponents will be in the ring, duking it out in a war of words in attempt to convince the government that a $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile by AT&T should or should not take place. Consumers have the most to win or lose here, yet we are resigned to watching from the sidelines as both sides lob countless facts and stats at each other like volleys in a tennis match. If you look at the merger process as a stairway to climb up, AT&T is still near the very bottom. Every rung will be full of intense scrutiny as it is: if the two companies are allowed to merge, the national GSM market becomes a monopoly, and the wireless industry as a whole would shift to only three national players plus a handful of less-influential regional carriers. The carrier's going to blow as much as $6 billion if the merger is not approved -- almost enough to buy Skype -- it can't just expect to put up some feel-good facts and stats to win the hearts of the decision-makers. AT&T has to be absolutely sure it'll come out victorious in the war, else it risks losing the trust (and money) of its shareholders. But to accomplish such a feat, it has to be on top of its game. There was no better time to show off what it's made of than last week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing conducted by the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. When the Committee entitles a hearing "Is Humpty Dumpty Being Put Back Together Again?," it's either exercising a sense of humor or a preconceived notion of the merger due to the implication that Ma Bell is simply reforming. CEO Randall Stephenson appeared as a sacrificial lamb, going before Congress and his opponents to explain his side of the story, answer hardball questions, and endure a hard-hitting round of criticism. Continue reading as we take you topic by topic and examine what he -- and his opponents -- had to say about the merger.
Blizzard wins lawsuit against bot makers
You may recall the long running Blizzard vs. MDY battle from various reports here on WoW Insider. In short, Blizzard sued MDY, the makers of the MMOGlider bot (formerly the WOWGlider bot), claiming that the bot violated Blizzard copyright by writing portions of the game to RAM in order to work (since you only have a license to run the game files, and do not actually own them, unauthorized copies are against the EULA). They also claimed that the bot tortiously interfered with Blizzard's customer base. MDY sued them right back, claiming they had every right to sell and distribute their bots. MDY received a crushing blow yesterday as the court ruled against them, Virtually Blind reports, declaring them guilty of copyright infringement and tortious interference (Apparently, bots stealing your kills is now a legal issue, which is sort of cool). The ramifications of this decision are still being discussed in various corners of the net and legal world.
Blizzard responds to Public Knowledge about WoW Glider
As we've been posting on WoW Insider, Blizzard is entangled in a lawsuit with the makers of WoW Glider, a bot program that is against WoW's terms of service. And there's been a wrinkle in the case -- an advocacy group called Public Knowledge has filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit arguing for Glider, and saying that if Blizzard wins this case, it could set a precedent for copyright law that would make any copying of a computer program (including the simple act of copying it for an install to the hard drive) be illegal at the IP owner's will. That's unacceptable, says Public Knowledge, so even though they agree that Glider may be against the ToS, they don't think Blizzard should win the case.And now Blizzard has responded to Public Knowledge, and their argument isn't all that new. They claim that when you "buy" your WoW software, you don't actually own it -- you're just "licensing" it to use it on your computer. This is an argument that's long been used by copyright owners to claim that end users don't have the right to hack or otherwise modify their software, and it opens up a whole other can of worms, not least of which is that Blizzard is claiming if Glider wins this case, then all software "sales" ever really will give end users the ability to hack or modify it at will (something that a company like Microsoft, with their Windows OS, wouldn't want to happen).As we've said before, there are a few ways this case could pan out, and it's likely that it won't end with either of the doomsday scenarios that Blizzard and Public Knowledge are describing -- the court could still rule narrowly in favor of Blizzard, stopping Glider but staying away from the other messes brought up here. Oral arguments in the case started this week -- we'll keep an eye on what happens next.[via Massively]
Blizzard responds to amicus brief in MDY bot suit
Last month, digital rights advocacy group Public Knowledge filed an amicus curaie -- "friend of the court" -- brief regarding Blizzard's argument that a user making a memory copy of the World of Warcraft software for purposed of using MDY's Glider program to bot violated their terms of use and their copyright. Public Knowledge noted that loading legally obtained software into the memory for purposes of running it is explicitly allowed by copyright law. The judge required Blizzard to respond to the argument last Friday, and Virtually Blind has Blizzard's response. The basic argument that Blizzard makes is that the software is only rented and that they control and license every allowable use, and every non-allowed use (by their license) is copyright infringement. (Public Knowledge points out that this would mean using non-allowed names, or communicating in game with a member of the opposing alignment, is also copyright infringement).Do you feel when you buy a game or other software that you are buying the software -- and can therefore do what you like with it, regardless what some EULA allows -- or do you feel the publisher of the software retains all rights to that box and the particular copy of the software you have licensed? This goes beyond WoW and beyond video games entirely.
Interest group speaks up against Blizzard on Glider case
Blizzard's lawsuit against the Glider folks (who were trying to sell a bot that was used to play the game while /afk), has a new wrinkle in it. According to PC Gamer, an interest group called Public Knowledge (they're funded by a variety of creative arts foundations) has filed a brief in the case accusing Blizzard of overstepping their rights under copyright law. In the brief, and an accompanying blog post, they say that while what Glider is doing in-game may be wrong, it isn't actually copyright infringement, because the Glider software doesn't actually infringe on any copyrights that Blizzard holds. And they're worried that if Blizzard wins this case, it could set a precedent strongly in favor of copyright holders, to the point where any misuse of the software at all, from using bots to using the wrong name, would be interpreted instead as copyright infringement.They kind of have a point here -- Blizzard just used all the tools they had in this case to try and send a clear message to anyone out there trying to sell automation software that what they were doing would get them in trouble, and they may have thrown copyright infringement on the menu when it didn't really belong. For Blizzard's part, they claim that making a copy in RAM of the game's information constitutes copyright infringement, but again, that's only because Glider is misusing those RAM files -- every user everywhere needs to copy parts of the game into RAM in order to run it.At any rate, Public Knowledge has filed their brief and had their voices heard. It's up to the judges in this case to decide what comes out of it.
