Blogger Matt Yglesias has an interesting take on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the success of the iPod (http://www.matthewyglesias.com/). When you buy an iPod, the only place you can buy music for it is at the iTunes Music Store. And the only place you can play the tunes is on an iPod, since at the behest of the record companies, the DMCA makes it illegal for anyone to make a player for iTunes .

It's a monopoly essentially created by government.

Hollywood studies have begun an anti-camcording website against pirates who record a film at a theater and then produce DVD copies for sale (yahoo news link here). It quotes Motion Picture Assn. of America president Bob Pisano that 90% of pirated films worldwide are the result of camcording. Schemes to cut off the practice include getting laws passed against such camcording and campaigns to get theater owners to throw camcorders out of the theater and patrons to report the practice to the theater manager.

The story also notes that pirated copies of films currently showing in one country are made from DVDs already released in another country. The industry wants to stop the original sale while the film is still in theaters in another country.

For anyone who has ever lived in a low-income country (not to mention New York City), getting laws passed and enforced against film piracy is sisyphusian.

Yahoo today has a story entitled “Be loyal, kind and don't steal Movies” about a Boy Scout merit badge awarded for learning about the “evils of downloading pirated movies and music" (yahoo news link here). The curriculum was developed by the movie industry.

Fortunately, this nonsense is confined to the Los Angeles area, at least for now.

Responding to a comment, I tried again today to get into the NYTimes TimesSelect to get the url for its article on patents for tax strategies but still couldn't, though as a subscriber to the paper version I had been able to up till a few days ago.

By Googling the title of the article, however, I came up with the text at here One must wonder how long it stays there.

My Google search also came up with another website that took a view of the practice similar to mine at here. Have a look.

The New York Times reports today that tax strategies can be patented, that forty nine have been granted, and that eighty one are pending. This absurdity results from a case in which the court ruled that tax avoidance strategies are a business method and under a 1998 federal appeals court ruling, business methods can be patented. This has the potential for all kinds of mischief, as the article points out. Someone wishing to use a strategy will now have to search whether it is patented, and such a search could prove time consuming and expensive. If the strategy has been patented, a new user will have to seek a license. Patent trolls will have a field day with this one. (I am unable to provide a link, as the New York Times now insists that I must subscribe to its on-line access, TimesSelect, in addition to being a hard-copy subscriber, and I refuse to pay twice for the same product.)

Microsoft has failed to keep its EU bargain according to security software makers Symantic and McAfee (Yahoo news link here).

After promising to alter its new operating system, Vista, it has apparently not allowed access to the core of the 64 bit version of Vista which they believe is necessary to provide real security. Such access had been allowed them with Windows XP.

Microsoft says it has complied, providing a list of the things it has done and disclaiming all knowledge of what the complainers are talking about.

Negotiations continue but time is running out if Vista is to be shipped for launch in January.

The new Windows operating system, Vista, apparently will be further restricted than previous versions in that it can only be reinstalled once in an upgraded or successor machine (see Yahoo news here).

The defense is a “kill switch” which comes on when the software is installed and makes the computer unusable except to contact Microsoft through Internet Explorer to establish that it is a valid installation.

Since there are still lots of illegal and legal copies of Windows XP around, Vista may be a hard sell except on new machines with it already installed. And who knows how long it will take hackers to find a way around the switch.

Picking up on the previously reported copyright owners threat of suits against YouTube, the Universal Music Group is now filing lawsuits against similar file-sharing sites Grouper and Bolt, for letting users swap pirated versions of its musicians' videos (see the NY Times here), Universal claims damages of $150,000 for each infraction and costs.

Bolt's chief executive says that it takes down copyrighted material as soon as it is notified. It also seeks a licensing agreement with Universal Music. No word as yet from Grouper.

This suit raises the question of whether it is enough to claim lack of knowledge that an item is copyrighted and if removing it is sufficient response.

Microsoft has begun a complex dance with competing security software suppliers, notably McAfee and Norton, to satisfy them about their ability to continue to sell their products to buyers of its new operating system, Vista. There is another party to the negotiations as well, the EU Commission for European sales and the Korean government for sales there which are trying to make sure the negotiations work out in the public interest and settled law (see yahoo news here and here.)

The news stories suggest that all is largely agreed in the negotiations, but it seems much more likely that this is only the beginning of a back-and-forth in which each side sees how much more it can get. Microsoft is quite clearly responding to user criticism that the security of its products in the past has been insufficient at best, so its attempts to provide better security must be seen as good. One can be reasonably sure that security will be enhanced and consumers will benefit, but whether the negotiations end up with a really great deal for consumers is questionable, at this point.

Speculation that YouTube's adoption of an "anti-piracy" screen will reduce its audience appeal has begun. YouTube, an internet video site just purchased by Google, apparently plans to use a filtering device to determine that posted material is not copyrighted. Similar filters are expected to be applied to other similar posting sites (link here).

The copyright police come to plague the internet. Will all websites be required to check if they include copyrighted material? What happens to fair use of limited extracts from copyrighted material? Can a filter determine what is permitted and what not? Big Brother is watching.