By way of Slashdot, Wired has reported that a man who distributed a program that deletes registry entries and files is being sued for  violation of the DMCA.  In short, the files and registry entries prevent members of Coupon.com from printing multiple coupons that are tied to the user's id through the software installed by Coupons.com.  

With this in mind, it is conceptually illegal under the DMCA to take a snapshot in a VMWARE virtualization and revert the snapshot, or even make the process of restoring from a backup illegal if said process bypassed any protections incorporated by intellectual property installed on that system.

BitTorrent is partnering with whole slew of media providers such as 20th Century Fox, G4, Kadokawa Pictures USA, Lionsgate, MTV Networks, and others to deliver movies and other media over the INTERNET.  To quote the article;

 "BitTorrent has become the most efficient means of distributing large, high-quality files on the Internet"

I've written about a similar partnership before. Yes, it is extremely efficient because you're using everybody's bandwidth that runs the client and has downloaded the same movie.  I imagine that the movies will still cost the same or perhaps a reduced online price such as Apple iTunes pricing.  It will be interesting to see how the client develops.  Will you be able to turn off sharing once the movie is downloaded?  Will you still be able to throttle the bandwidth?   How many users will not know the difference and continue to share their bandwidth long after they've watched the movie?

What I'd like to see is a rebate system paid by the media companies for keeping your paid movies available as a torrent.

The release notes for the beta  release of Windows Media Player 11 indicate that the DRM policy will be considerable tighter, most notably is the inability of moving your DRM'd media "Licenses" from computer to computer.   

Now I've been involved enough in computers to have had a hard drive crash on me once in awhile, not to mention upgrading my systems over the years.   According to the notes, there will also be a "limited" number of times of license recovery when burning copy protected music which is similar to Apple's Fairplay CD burning limitations.  Consider the fact Vista will require better hardware for many of us, so what you buy now, you may not be able to put on that new system.

And while it's beta still, there are also issues with the Windows Media Center Edition when you record a protected show off a premium channel not playing after three days.  So much for time shifting.  I guess I'll just have to cancel HBO and Showtime every time I go on vacation since it's useless paying for something I can't record and watch at a later date.

I'm not happy about the fact that If I choose to buy widows media player 11 DRM'd content that there may be issues on moving that content to the new system or a larger hard drive, such as Microsoft  Vista requiring bigger and better hardware.  I'm sure all the content producers would love a continual re-investment of media, but I don't see that happening when many of us have a significant investment in media and will choose to not upgrade to the latest and greatest software.

For one, I will not be buying any DRM'd media content if I can't be guaranteed that I'll be able to transfer that content to a new system, and not just for a limited number of times either, it has to be in perpetuity.

Universal Music is a wee bit upset at all the user created media available on social networking sites such as MySpace and UTube that open infringes on their copyrighted works.  And rightly so, as copyright and rights clearances should be observed when you produce anything for public consumption.

The problem is basically ignorance and the commoditization of media technologies where anyone can become a music or movie producer.  MySpace and UTube have become the target because of their deep pockets.

On the other hand, there's a certain amount of free publicity that the copyright owners get from such sites when their material is used. 

As media producers, the world of rights clearance and copyright, and fair use needs to be simplified to a point where both sides win.  The small media producer who wants to make something for free needs resources available to them to allow that  and needs to be able to clearly understand what constitutes fair use.  The copyright owner needs to have better control of their product and realize a profit from their works as well.

MySpace and UTube could alleviate some of the problem by providing (maybe they do, I haven't looked), a section of Free Assets, where independent artists, or even some of the big name record companies trying to promote an unknown artist, can upload songs that are specifically identified with a rights clearance so long as an interstitial is used or credit is given at the end, similar to what you see on some of the recent youth targeted TV series where at the end of the program you see an album cover stating that xxxxx music was featured in this video. 

CBC reported that Axing sex, swearing from films violates copyright: court in a lawsuit by 16 U.S. directors against three Utah based companies that scrub films.

I found the quote from Michael Apted interesting in regards to "Unauthorized editing" and "passion about protecting our work ".  So, if a TV station edits a film to "fit" a time-slot, do they get permission from the copyright holder?  If they cut short a film or start it already in progress due to a sport time-shift, does that constitute an unauthorized edit?  Based on the quote, shouldn't the same copyright holders be concerned about this type of editing? oh wait, they're getting paid to have it shown, so I guess it's all right if the film is chopped to heck so a few more commercials can be added.  I'm not privy to the contracts between copyright holders and TV stations, so I'm just guessing.

I really want to read the court decision, which wasn't posted.  I'm hoping that the major fault on the scrubbers is that they were copying the media and returning back a different copy of the scrubbed media.

 Now if the scrubbers were able to return the original media (nigh impossible with DVD format), but with VHS format, they should be allowed to blank out portions of the original tape and return it.

An owner of a copyrighted piece end product, should be allowed, other than copying (lets not get into public display, how many is public), to do whatever they want with that physical content, even to the extent of destroying that content.

Let's say I was a private library owner and decided to rip out anything I found objectionable in my collection of books and then lend those books out.  I'm sure the copyright owners would object, but wouldn't that be my right as the owner of the books to do so as I please.  Don't get me wrong, I'm against book burning and such and have the right to voice my opinion, but so do the book burners have the same right in burning their  books in the first place.

What do we truly own, or do we license everything?  "Before hanging this painting on your wall, you agree to....

Pete Ashdown is running against Senator Orrin Hatch (he sponsored the DMCA).  Being a techie at heart, there's a lot I like about Mr. Ashdown, but most of all, he's against DRM.  Here's a great article in Wired about Pete.