Without much fanfare, the US Copyright Office has made some modifications to its 2008 rules enumerating instances where defeating DRM will not be considered to be a violation of the DMCA. Those most likely to have an impact on most users:

• Copying and creating clips from a legally-purchased DVD for the purpose of use in: a) documentary filmmaking; b) non-commercial videos; and c) educational use by college and university professors and students.

  This is good news for a number of reasons. It enables groups like Brave New Films and others to use short clips for the purpose of creating new videos without any fear of receiving a DMCA violation notice, and allows for a higher-quality clip than could be obtained via capture.

• Defeating locks on wireless smartphones (jailbreaking) in order to run software made by third-parties. The iPhone is routinely jailbroken by many in order to run apps which are not approved by Apple or available in Apple's approved app store. Jailbreakers have, in the past, faced the threat that the DMCA would be used to keep users from jailbreaking the phone because a copy of the phone's firmware is used as the foundation for the enhanced version used to jailbreak the phone.

  The actual text of the rule takes a whack at Apple's iPhone silo in the process:

  Apple's objections to the installation and use of "unapproved" applications appears to have nothing to do with its interests as the owner of copyrights in the computer programs embodied in the iPhone, and running the unapproved applications has no adverse effect on those interests. Rather, Apple's objections relate to its interests as a manufacturer and distributor of a device, the iPhone.

• Unlocking locked phones - Another iPhone/ATT volley, it appears. I found this language particularly pointed:
  

  Moreover, because it appears that the opposition to designating the proposed class is based primarily on the desires of wireless carriers to preserve an existing business model that has little if anything to do with protecting works of authorship...

  ...It seems clear that the primary purpose of the locks is to keep consumers bound to their existing networks, rather than to protect the rights of copyright owners in their capacity as copyright owners. This observation is not a criticism of the mobile phone industry's business plans and practices, which may well be justified for reasons having nothing to do with copyright law and policy, but simply a recognition of existing circumstances.

  This echoes my biggest frustration about the mobile phone industry. I love my iPhone, but I'm not in love with AT&T. I should be able to pull out my AT&T sim card and connect to another wireless network with the same phone number and the same phone. Locking the phone locks me to a network not of my choice. That's not how a free market should work.

These are some pretty substantial rules, made by regulators as authorized under the law.

All of which proves that good government isn't only about what happens in the House and Senate, but what happens in the regulatory agencies after the House and Senate have done their job. For all of the complaints about how the legislative calendar has not fulfilled expectations, it's worth noting that a major shift in how government operates is underway. Regulations actually mean something, and benefit consumers.

How novel.

(via Techcrunch)

Via Boing Boing, some shocking news:

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:

* * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

* * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

* * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

* * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

And from an October 13, 2009 statement by Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, a group that received copies of the text:

While we appreciate USTR's recognition that increased participation is important, and its efforts in that regard, this process is still miles away from anything approaching real, public transparency. In terms of openness, a lot of the tension between what USTR says it wants to do and what has been done so far seems to come from the characterization of ACTA as a trade agreement, when its aims seem considerably broader than that. If we're going to be seeing a new kind of trade agreement that more broadly affects policy and legal interpretation, we're going to need a new, more open kind of process that lets the public see what agenda its government is pushing.

Nothing makes me angrier than corporations using the U.S. government for their own private security force - and the feds happily cooperating. I suppose we'll now require that copiers check copyrights every time someone makes a copy?

The Founding Fathers wanted copyrights that lasted no longer than 10 years. This isn't how America is supposed to be - and we have no right to demand it of everyone else, unless we're finally admitting we're more interested in protecting plantation corporate profits than we are in being a nation of laws.

I'm joining in to the music discussion that started over the weekend. The music world has changed incredibly in a short period of time, (technology, copyright laws, the Internet, etc...) so what's the big deal if bands let commercials use their music for a hefty fee? Back in "the day," it was the cool thing for a band to not "sell out" to the man, but as Amanda says: "That is so 20th Century." I still cringe a bit when I hear a Hendrix song on a commercial, but the times are a changin' and it has always been a struggle to make it in the music world.

What's sad is that the music industry knew that the dynamic was changing because of technology; file sharing in part was developed by them, but they sat on their hands because they DID NOT WANT to set a precedent. I'll have more on this later...

TOWER records went out of business and as expensive as a CD was, I still enjoyed browsing the store. Bands have huge costs to consider. A major tour takes a load of cash to pull off---now figure how hard it is for a lesser known band to do the same. When I toured with John Taylor (mostly for the House of Blues chain around the country) in the late 90's, Sixpence None the Richer opened for us. They were a great bunch of people and soon after they had a few hit songs, but they were just getting by...Duncan talks about supporting bands you like.

I find a lot of new music on TV these days. It seems like many more shows since Buffy are putting out compilation discs and featuring either new artists or old classics in their episodes...HOUSE, MD highlights some great music at the end of each episode most of the time..

Matt Yglesisas put together his: Ultimate Nineties Alt-Rock Playlist