DVD publishers add DRM to their movie releases so they can control whether the dvds can be copied and even what devices are allowed to play the dvds. In February 2007, Arnezami, a hacker on the Doom9 forum who was frustrated because his purchased HD-DVD movies wouldn’t play on his Linux-based computer (I believe), cracked the code and published the 128-bit number on the web. The Wired blog wrote up an article about what that meant for the future of DRM.

The AACS Licensing Authority recently took a stand against those who published the number on the web and set out a bunch of legal threats. In protest, Digg users began voting for sites that contained links to the crack.

The Digg staff, who had received one of these legal threats, decided to comply with the law and removed several links to pages with the published code. Digg users got mad and started a massive campaign to get every link on Digg’s front page to point to sites linking to the code. Eventually, Digg founder, Kevin Rose gave up the fight against its community members and posted his comments on the Digg blog.

So what’s the issue at stake here? Why all the fuss? First off, the AACS Licensing Authority isn’t trying to copyright a 128-bit number, like many sites proclaimed. (For an interesting legal perspective on if you can actually copyright a number, see Ben Manevitz’s post, You CAN Copyright a Number. But Not As Such.) They are simply claiming that the key violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)’s ban on any “component” or “part” of a “technology” that circumvents AACS, according to Fred von Lohmann of the EFF in a great legal primer on the issue.

And the user revolt hasn’t deterred Michael Ayers, the chairman of the AACS-LA, from threatening to go after all the sites that have published the code.

In all of this, there’s been talk about what this means - and a number of sites have cropped up poking fun at the issue. One of the more imaginative sites explains how you can get your own 128 bit number that you can claim violates your rights via the DMCA. The idea is that you can publish your own copyrighted stuff and then encrypt it with your own 128-bit number. Thus, if anyone attempts to publish that number, you can sue them (or at least threaten them) just as the AACS Licensing Authority.

And of course, it proves that Digg users wield a heck of a lot of power over the website.

But Viacom wasn’t the first company to sue YouTube. There’s also a much smaller lawsuit involving Robert Tur, a LA news reporter who sued for copyright infringement. NBC Universal and Viacom just recently asked the US District Court in LA that they be allowed to file a friends-of-the court brief. The thought is that this case will be tried before the Viacom case and could set precedent for how the Viacom case plays out in court.

Next, the Premier League (the UK soccer league) sued YouTube for copyright infringement, apparently claiming that YouTube encourages copyright infringement and doesn’t pay copyright owners. They also have a class action suit site up for anyone else who feels YouTube violated their copyright and wants to get in on the settlement (if there is one).

Finally, Thailand is also taking YouTube to court because they hosted a video that many Thais felt insulted their king. At the heart of the case is whether Google lied about not being able to stop the video clip last month that ridiculed Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

At least Google has the cash to fight back. In the copyright infringement cases, it’s likely that Google’s response will be similar to the Viacom one. I’m not entirely sure how it will respond to the Thailand claim which wants YouTube to censor inappropriate content.

If I understand the complaint, Thailand has blocked the site since April 4 because YouTube didn’t take the clip down. According to this BBC article, eventually YouTube did cave to censorship and removed the clip. While I’m not sure exactly what the clip was about but a search on YouTube shows a number of derogatory videos still up about the Thai King. Are they looking to have YouTube ban each one? Will they provide a list of “inappropriate content” and hope Google caters to their demands? I guess we’ll see…

Here’s the chart Charlene Li posted on her blog. The rungs at the top of the ladder indicate a higher level of participation.

Like the Pew study, the Forrester study places those who engage with blogging and video creation as the high end of the tech spectrum, though here, they’re at 13% vs the 8% in the Pew study.

Of those Elite Tech Users, 8% are avid Web 2.0 devotees. This group is far more likely to own a digital or video camera, a web cam, and an iPod/MP3 player than the rest of the groups. They also are more likely to create and engage with video content. Nearly all (97%) have broadband connections at home or work. Not surprisingly, most are young - the median age is 28 - ethicnically diverse, and are mostly male (70%).

In contrast, the least connected group is more likely to watch TV every day and have cable or satellite service. This group is the oldest - median age is 64 - and they report the lowest levels of household income. They are more likely to be women (57%). Three quarters are white and 18% are African American.

I can’t say I’m surprised that young people are more likely to actively engage with online technology and have made it part of their lives while older people tend to prefer to do things they way they’ve always done… I wonder, however, if it’s more of an educational thing - people would like to learn more about technology but don’t have the time/resources to do so - or simply a matter of preference - ie they’re more efficient without technology.

1) Watchdog group, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), got involved and started requesting that anyone whose materials were unfairly removed because of the blanket search were to contact them as they started building a case.

2) Fox demanded that Google turn over user data on anyone that uploaded unaired episodes of 24 - and Google complied.

3) Copyright lawyer, Wendy Seltzer of ChillingEffects.org, uploaded a snippet from the Super Bowl which stated that all rights, accounts and descriptions of the game were owned by the NFL onto YouTube in an experiment to see if YouTube would remove it. They did within 5 days but after protests that the video was clearly “fair use”, reinstated her video last week.

4) Yesterday, Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube in New York for $1 billion in damages - quite steep given that Google paid about $1.7 billion for YouTube last year - because “almost 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom’s programming have been available on YouTube and that these clips had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.” It is also requesting an injunction that will prohibit Google and YouTube from other copyright infringement.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out in court. I wouldn’t be surprised if other lawsuits will follow but Google does have a huge chunk of change - $11 billion in cash - to fund their legal defense. It’s going to be difficult for any media company to stop YouTube, which serves over 100 million video streams a day, but that doesn’t mean that lawyers won’t try.

While BitTorrent is still a P2P distribution network, it works differently from the others. For most P2P, a file (mp3, video, pdf, etc) sits on a server in cyberspace. You connect to that computer, request the file, and download it from that computer.

BitTorrent changes the model. Instead of one server holding the file and handling all the bandwidth transfer, it allows you to connect to a bunch of people and download the file from them - even as they are still downloading the file from someone else. You still need at least one computer to hold the completed file (called a “seed”) but as long as a bunch of other computers are also trying to download that file, you share resources and bandwidth among all connected computers. (see Wikipedia for a more in depth explanation.)

Admittedly, I first started using BitTorrent to download various Asian tv programming like anime and kung fu that hadn’t been launched yet in the US. Many others used it to download the latest tv shows, movies, and music - and because you can find virtually anything through BitTorrent, it’s not surprising that it soon had a reputation for piracy.

So, it’s somewhat interesting that in December, BitTorrent raised $20 million and decided to go “legitimate”. I suppose it was either that or be dogged by the MPAA, RIAA, and other Digital Rights Management (DRM) supporters.

Two weeks ago, BitTorrent launched its BitTorrent Entertainment Network. Now, you can use BitTorrent to access over 5000 movies, tv shows, and songs at a price between $1.99-$3.99 per download. Unfortunately, like iTunes, they’ve implemented DRM on their files, which limits their usage - and there have been all sorts of complaints by customers trying to download their content and not being able to because of the DRM.

I haven’t tried it - and don’t plan to, honestly. While I like the idea of digital content, I can’t stand DRM. I once bought an eBook on Amazon.com because it was out of print and impossible to find. It took me 2 hours to configure my computer to work with Microsoft and Adobe Acrobat’s DRM before I could even open the book. It was an absolute nightmare - made worse because Microsoft’s registration servers were down for about an hour and kept telling me to come back later to re-register.

I love iTunes for its free content - and subscribe to numerous podcasts - but would never buy music from it. I’d prefer to buy the audio cd, which I can do virtually anything with, than worry about what mp3 players I can and can’t play my music with.

I anxiously await the day when companies realize that DRM doesn’t work and stop trying to restrict my media consumption, but I doubt that day will come any time soon. Until then, check out Gizmodo’s Anti-RIAA manifesto.

“We feel strongly that since you are creating the programming and controlling the internet-based network, not just advertising on it, you have a higher responsibility to ensure that youth are not exposed to the marketing on your site,” the letter to A-B reads. “We fail to see how your use of age verification on the Bud.tv site is a genuine attempt to keep youth from accessing the site’s content.”

Apparently asking people to enter their birth date isn’t good enough for lawyers - even though you can’t actually buy beer from the website! Apparently, they are calling for more follow up - phone calls and/or mailings to the person to ensure that the registrant is who they say they are.

Today’s technology, I suppose, could do something like that. I’ve made two purchases recently - for web hosting and for a web template design - that had a computer call me up and I had to enter a pin number to verify I was who I said I was before they’d complete my order.

A-B could do something similar, but I have to wonder how effective that would be. If kids are lying about their age, wouldn’t they just lie when an automated system called them up?

The AGs also found fault with A-B’s attempts at viral marketing, which they claim defeats the purpose of having viewers register. If users can send the video to friends to view, there’s a chance that kids under 21 will see it as well.

The whole spiel makes me curious about what A-B is broadcasting on Bud.tv. Is it really just advertising and product placement for their line of alcoholic beverages? And if so, how is that different from, say, turning on any sporting event and seeing beer commercials? I thought they were actually broadcasting shows with some semblance of a storyline and focused around something other than hard partying 20-somethings drinking beer…

Over the course of the next week, his vote total went from less than 2000 votes to over 17 million, thanks, in part, to his computer savvy fanbase who developed a script to repeatedly submit votes. The discussion over on the discussion forums at Colbert Nation is a fascinating look at how easy it is to hack a website’s voting system with minimal effort.

I’m sure when the Hungarians set up the site, they never expected worldwide coverage and a lot of techies trying to game the system - especially when the poll is merely a “suggestion” for what the committee should name the bridge and there’s (probably) no way Colbert’s name will even be a consideration.

Still, it’s impressive the lengths some people will go to in order to follow through with a joke. Imagine if this was a legitimate contest or say, there was money involved. It makes you wonder how many other sites out there are vulnerable to part time hackers with free time on their hands.

I love Wikipedia: any site that has a longer entry on truthiness than on Lutherans has its priorities straight.

He then went on to make a point that Wikipedia reports “facts” as a collection of ideas that a group of people agree with.

He initially claimed to log onto Wikipedia during his show and change one of his documented quotes. I logged on right after the show, and it didn’t look like the text he mentioned was included anywhere on the page, but the page was getting sufficient traffic that Wikipedia had to lock the article to prevent vandalism.

What they missed was the screenshot below on elephants. Colbert mentioned that we can collectively change world facts by agreeing that say “The number of elephants has tripled in the last 6 months.” Within seconds, that text appeared at the top of the Wikipedia article on Elephants.

There’s been all sorts of talk about the pros and cons of Wikipedia after the Adam Curry incident. Recently, Wikipedia added to the confusion surrounding Ken Lay’s death by posting a number of details about how he allegedly died.

In my own personal research, I tend to use Wikipedia as a starting point, but inevitably, I will find an error, omission, or something that is just downright confusing. I would never use it as the definitive source for anything. I think Colbert’s experiment just goes to show how easy it is for anyone to add incorrect information to an entry. In this case, the edit in question was highly publicized, so easily correctible, but as of 12:10AM, the entry is clearly wrong.

Tur, who apparently has a reputation as “an active litigant”, is asking for $150,000 for each infringement (it was viewed 1000 times) - or $150 million in damages! He decided to sue YouTube rather than the person that upload because

“idiosyncratic choice of descriptive terms to describe the content of the video - tags - making it extremely impractical to identify plaintiff’s copyrighted works.”

Apparently, Tur didn’t even bother to send a “cease and desist” letter informing of YouTube of the copyrighted content and giving them the opportunity to remove it. YouTube has been known to cooperate in the past to letters including the popular Saturday Night Live Lazy Sunday video that went viral back in Jan 2006.

Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation blog thinks that YouTube will probably win this case based on Section 512(c) fo the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Rule No. 1 is the implementation of a “notice and takedown” system to respond to infringement notices from copyright owners. YouTube, of course, has this in place and takes down material once properly notified by an owner that a clip is infringing.

So that makes one more lawsuit challenging the DMCA.