GrepLaw reports that news.com reports that the CRTC decided over the iCraveTV/JumpTV issue.

I really don’t know enough about the issue to comment. I just know that it’s one more area, along with P2P and radio webcasting that no one will touch for a while. Can’t see that as a positive thing.

I was just reading about the WIPO Copyright Treaty, in particular on the
interpretation of the right of communication to the public (art.8).

The WIPO
Expert Committee, in its Basic Proposal for the Substantive Provision of the
Treaty on Certain Question Concerning the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works, considered
that the term « communication » involves « making the work available, not the
mere provision of server space, communication connections, or facilities for
the carriage and routing of signals »[emphasis added].

Hillary Rosen (RIAA), probably does not
think the same.

CNET reports that last Saturday, during the Midem
music conference on the French Riviera, she affirmed that ISPs « must be held
accountable » for online piracy, considering that they are profiting of the
growing demand of broadband services: « Let’s face it. They know there’s a
lot of demand for broadband simply because of the availability (of
file-sharing) ».

« RIAA: ISPs should pay for music swapping », CNET, January 18, 2003

[Via the Cla morning news report] Did you thing I was that inspired at 7h30 in the morning?

Update: also picked up by Lawmeme

Siva Vaidhyanathan [blog] in Salon about Eldred.

While disobedience might be more fun, the power of civil discourse remains. In fact, the ruling gives public interest activists both motivation and ammunition in the continuing battle against the excessive expansion of the power to control information and culture.

It echoes the « we lost a battle but not the war » mood shared by many, including Lessig.

For all things Eldred, Copyfight circa Jan 15 is the de facto reference.

And since in my daily Cla update included a link to Siva Vaidhyanathan’s blog, it’s only fair I mention his book, which I learned about this this morning. The title is « Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity« . I admit I’m curious.

Doc Searls quotes a discouraging email by a confrère who states that the Eldred decision is in the interest of IP rights owners.

The author also stresses the need to own everything IP related. I don’t agree.

You definitely need to assess everything own-able in your business. You need to know where you stand, you need to evaluate the value of your intellectual assets.

Does this mean milking it for all it’s worth? It’s a possibility. Some may argue that it is duty to the shareholders.

Does this mean realizing that not all IP should be locked down as much as legally possible? I think so.The view that owning IP is the same as holding rights in a piece of real estate is flawed.

Does this mean rejoicing over a decision that will create a very unhealthy intellectual property environment? I can’t help to notice how much people build upon other people’s ideas. You can lock IP down, licence IP, free IP, toss IP in a drawer and forget about it, but in any case there should be a time limit to one’s custody of our global intellectual assets. Why can’t we realize that what we do now is not the be-all end-all of creation?

People came before us, people will come after us. Let’s create a rich legacy instead of a dead end of obfuscated content and perpetual ownership of a walking and talking mouse. Let’s work with policies aimed at moving forward instead of digging trenches and burrowing in our current position.

So really, if it might be in one’s immediate commercial interest to applause the conclusions of Eldred (haven’t read the decision yet), let’s at least realize that this decision is not all positive for anyone.

Greplaw has a post asking if the DVD CSS can really be considered copy protection, since making an exact copy of a DVD is totally possible without knowing the encryption method. The copy will then have to be read in a normal DVD player like the original.

The original question is here and there is an answer by Edward Felten who does address the strategic advantages to rely on a trade secret protected method to control distribution of players.

I must assume that some people must have thought of the ambiguous nature of CSS before since the DMCA uses the words « technological measure that effectively controls access to a work » rather that make any reference to the copying process.

The WIPO copyright treaty originally used  » circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law« 

Through this wording, laws worded like the DMCA grant protection and status to any trade secret, which in traditional IP laws are not subject to any particular protection. It’s that broad delegation, that blank check to a method yet to be determined, that bothers me a lot in with the DVD issue.

Eldred. 7-2. Sad day.

More on Lawmeme

Suggestion de la Grande Rousse, cette ressource .

Au second chapitre, anglicismes. Au troisième, traduction juridique. C’est lent, mais riche.

[via Les coups de langue de la grande rousse]