RSS Feed
Twitter
[liveupdate] Digital Digest "LiveUpdate" Newsletter - Issue 210
Monday, August 9, 2010
fida
************
DIGITAL DIGEST | LiveUpdate Newsletter - Issue 210
8/9 August, 2010
************
INDEX:
1. Introduction
2. Weekly News Roundup
3. Weekly Software Roundup
************
1. Introduction
Sorry for the day late newsletter. I wasn't feeling well yesteday, and really couldn't have completed the WNR or newsletter without a high risk of throwing up, due to a bad combination of having a migraine and being car sick.
************ 2. Weekly News Roundup
Sorry for the late posting of this WNR. I was feeling a bit ill yesterday and couldn't really get any work done. Still not 100% today, but as they say, the roundup must go on (I think I've used this "joke" before). Luckily, this week is very news lite, so it won't take too long to get through this WNR.
Starting with copyright news, Australian ISP iiNet is back in court to fight the AFACT's appeal of a Federal court verdict early in the year that basically let iiNet off the hook when it came to its users' copyright infringement.
While iiNet also has a few points of appeal in the case, it is mainly the AFACT that is severely unhappy with the verdict handed down earlier by Justice Cowdroy. The AFACT, for those that don't know, is basically Australia's version of the MPAA, representing the interests of movie studios. iiNet is Australia's third largest ISP, and has increased in size since the court's decision in February due to its acquisition and proposed acquisition of several competitors. The AFACT still believes that iiNet is liable for copyright infringement because it did not do all it can to prevent unauthorised downloads on their network, but iiNet argues it's not really for them to decide what is authorised and what is unauthorised, without there being a court order to back up either claim. Since the notices that the AFACT sent to iiNet, which iiNet failed to pass on to subscribers, did not come with a court order, iiNet believe they were in the right to not take action. Regardless of the verdict in this appeal, it is likely the case will move to the highest court in the country before a final verdict on this issue can be made.
There was further development in the RIAA's lawsuit against file sharing website LimeWire, with the RIAA's request for LimeWire's assets to be frozen denied. The judge did not feel LimeWire was engaged in any activities to hide their assets, and so found no need to freeze them. This may only be a temporary reprieve for LimeWire, as experts agree that the judge is likely to rule in favour of the RIAA, and order LimeWire to be shut down, in the near future.
For those unlucky individuals fighting lawsuits of their own, against claims made by the US Copyright Group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has now launched a new website section with resources on how to fight the charges. The new section, titled "USCG v. The People", contains links to attorneys that can help represent defendants, as well as FAQs on the lawsuit and how to fight it. The EFF believes that current copyright laws, mostly written to target commercial offenders, not home users, is pretty lopsided when it is used against people who normally don't have the means to defend themselves. The $1,500 to $2,500 being asked by the USCG is just enough to make retaining a lawyer too expensive, and so many people are paying up without seeking legal advice, even though some firmly believe they are innocent. Readers of this roundup will know my opinions as to the bias in current copyright laws, so it is not surprising at all that enterprising firms like the USCG will take advantage. The real question is whether paying $2,500 is justified when pirating a movie that doesn't even cost $25, and while there are legal costs involved, there's no way to prove any real damages has even occurred. Statutory damages works fine for commercial piracy cases, but when it comes to home users, it seems a little excessive. This is why we had the outrageous six and seven figure damages being awarded against individuals in the two infamous RIAA cases, one against a single mother, the other against a student, because statutory damages are too inexact to approximate real damages. A settlement fee of say $250 would serve the same purpose, and would seem a more normal amount for a "fine", which is essentially what the USCG is asking for. Of course, a settlement fee of $250 will dull the USCG's, and other firms', enthusiasm for such mass lawsuits, but perhaps these mass lawsuits just shouldn't exist.
But then again, compared to what the French are planning, these mass lawsuits may seem quite fair. Hadopi, the French agency set up to handle their three-strikes law, has proposed some changes which will make the law more effective. You'll have to read my linked post to find out the full madness of what is being proposed, but the basic jist of it is to imagine the worst invasion of privacy and destruction of civil liberties that can be undertaken by a so called democratic government, and then apply that to stopping music and movie downloads, and that's pretty much Hadopi's plans. Hadopi plans not only to `tap' your Internet connection, but also your *personal* computer, with spyware like software, just to make sure you're not even thinking about piracy. It's so outrageous, that you would think the plan is made up, but it is real. And the funny thing is that even during the height of the fear in regards to terrorism, it didn't produce this sort of nonsense in terms of Internet surveillance. But I guess music labels and movie studios, with their vast *increasing* incomes, can produce moral outrage and cash (via lobbyist) in equal amounts, and their "argument" can be quite persuasive. This all sounds like something that comes out of countries like North Korea, not France, except North Korea will be doing this to preserve state authority, while the French are just doing it to protect the revenue stream of one particular industry (and at the expense of many other). In terms of the world's problems, or France's, Internet piracy should not even rank in the top 100.
There's actually some more copyright related news stories, but they also fit into the other regular sections, so I'll cover them there to make this WNR seems more varied than in actual fact.
In 3D/HD news, Kaleidescape, which got into trouble with the MPAA for daring to offer some innovation in the field of home theatre usage, is tempting fate again, but this time using a safer method to let people access their movie library without having to get up and change the disc in the player every single time.
Kaleidescape'
Speaking of Blu-ray's popularity, the recent Blu-ray sales result that I posted in the Blu-ray sales analysis thread seems to indicate otherwise, or at least point to some rather conflicting results. On one hand, the week ending 25th July saw, for the first time ever, a weekly result that was worse than the same week a year ago, in terms of Blu-ray market share. The simple explanation, however, was that it was comparing a fairly average/poor week in 2010 with the best week up to that point for Blu-ray, in 2009. But look deeper and you'll find that the week's top ranking Blu-ray movie managed to sell more copies than the DVD version. This isn't rare, especially when Blu-ray versions are being sold at lower prices than DVD versions due to sales and whatnot, but this was the first time that this had happened for a new release movie, I think (well certainly true for a new release movie that was also top of the sales rank, because a movie that sold only 50 copies on Blu-ray compared to 40 copies on DVD, doesn't really suggest much). It was just a shame that it had to happen with a movie called The Losers. Or perhaps it's signalling that the DVD format is soon to become the loser, although I doubt that.
And finally in gaming, but still somewhat related to copyright, is that the PS3 is possibly using a new anti-piracy feature.
New is probably not the right word to use, since apparently, this feature has been around since a couple of firmware updates ago (but a couple of firmware updates, in Sony terms, is not that long). The new system scans the audio of the movie, compares it with a online database of movie audio files, and if it matches, it either means you've ripped your own DVDs or downloaded a copy, and it will prevent playback (or prevent audio). So far, it seems to be limited to selected movies, possibly those that are copied from when the movie was showing at the cinema, but the same technique could be easily adopted to prevent playback of your own ripped DVDs. Converting the audio files, which contain inaudible watermarks, doesn't appear to defeat this copy protection measure. Regardless of what's true or not, the fact is that movie studios don't like people ripping their own DVDs even for personal use. It has nothing to do with piracy, it's just that you're using your own legally purchased product in a way they don't like, and if they could stop you, using anti-piracy as an excuse, then they will do just that. Somehow the idea of having movies without some sort of DRM scares the studios silly.
And for the 3.41 firmware problems reported by users, that has been fixed by Sony, through an updated version of 3.41. Somebody failed (again) to properly test the firmware before releasing it, it looks like. It's interesting to note that the version number remains the same, so no 3.42 or 3.41a. If Sony were really keen to own up to their mistake, they would have released a new version number, with the changelog indicating the SNAFU they made. And this again shows why one shouldn't become Sony's beta testers so willingly whenever a new firmware update comes out. Let those who need it urgently install it and test it for you, and wait a week or so before attempting it yourself. It's just a shame that some of the PS3's online services require absolutely the latest firmware, which shouldn't really be the case since most of these services don't require the new elements of the new firmware. There should at least be some kind of grace period or non mandatory updates, where online services continue to function with older firmware for a certain period, or that only certain updates are mandatory when it comes to certain online features (so if a firmware update only corrects a couple of typos, then not installing it shouldn't prevent me from playing games online). This is the sensible trade-off if Sony insists on releasing so many firmware updates without apparent proper testing, as was the case with the last one.
And that's all I've got this week, in terms of news, and in terms of energy, since I'm pretty tired from being slightly ill. So tired that I can't think of something funny or witty to say at the end of this WNR. Not that I usually write anything funny or witty in the outro anyway. See you next week.
************
3. Weekly Software Roundup
======END OF LIVEUPDATE NEWSLETTER==
Posted in 
