Clem-ee-ology...

Name:
Location: Singapore

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Plagiarism Checker getting sued for Copyright infringement!

Turnitin has, over the years, become a widely used service for schools to catch 'would-be' cheats. The programme works by comparing any uploaded works to a large database of previous works. The problem is that these works will themselves be added to the database for future reference.

It has been about 4 years since it was initially reported that students were unhappy with the use of the programme (with some questioning its legality). However, recently some rather clever students to sue the company for themselves infringing copyright - producing for us an interesting test case.

The two students clearly thought this through ahead of time. They registered the copyright on the papers, which gives them the ability to sue for statutory damages, rather than just be made whole. At least one also had explicit instructions in the paper that it not be included in the Turnitin database (and of course those instructions were ignored).

If Turnitin has registered under the DMCA, they could potentially claim safe harbor provisions (e.g. YouTube and your typical ISPs), pushing off the liability to the teachers and professors who actually uploaded the works, rather than Turnitin itself. However, it's not clear if the company will go that route or just claim that it's use isn't infringing at all. Either way, this should be an interesting case to follow.

We eagerly await the outcome!

Friday, March 30, 2007

Judges Behaving Badly - Revisited

In July 2006 I commented on a story about a judge in America who allegedly masturbated (or used a penis pump) while in court. The following are some British judges behaving badly. The information below were taken from UK newspaper, The Independent.
In the past year, there has been a record number of complaints against judges, magistrates and other judicial office holders.

The Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) said it looked into 1,434 cases in the first 10 months of its existence. These include allegations of racism, drink-driving and other improper conduct. Eight judges and magistrates were removed from the Bench with a further 10 reprimanded.

There are currently about 400 of the original complaints still being investigated or have yet to be considered.

I remember reading a story in the UK papers a few years ago (while I was a student there) of a magistrate who was quoted by the local newspapers as saying that women should stop “crying rape” (implying that most rape cases were not genuine). He was reprimanded of course.

Also in the past year, a number of high-profile cases have made national headlines. The case of the Brazilian cleaner, Roselane Driza, 37, who was convicted of blackmail and theft at the Old Bailey last year exposed the behaviour of two immigration judges. They are still being investigated by the OJC over allegations of bringing the judiciary into disrepute.

This month, a Court of Appeal judge was charged with exposing himself to two women on trains. Lord Justice Richards, who is no longer sitting while the case is being heard, was arrested in January following a complaint about an incident on a train in the South-west last October. A spokeswoman for the OJC said a full report on the case would be published in June this year.

Under investigation

Mohammed Ilyas Khan
Judge Khan, 60, and another judge identified only as Miss J, are being investigated for unfitting conduct after it was revealed they were part of a love triangle with an illegal immigrant, Roselane Driza, 37, a Brazilian cleaner. Driza was convicted of blackmail and theft.

Alan Mitchell
The 68-year-old magistrate was reprimanded after complaining about 'bloody foreigners' in a Manchester courtroom. He made the remark after dealing with his list of cases. He was overheard by a colleague, who complained, saying she was married to an Iranian and that she was unhappy with his comments.

Ahmed Nadim
A Crown Court recorder, 47-year-old Mr Nadim is being investigated by the Office for Judicial Complaints after a newspaper alleged he had links to a property deal with a fugitive crime boss.

Wireless piggybacking case sets precedent: experts

Yet another newspaper article on IT law. This article recounts previously reported stories of piggybacking or mooching WiFi (wireless Internet connection) attracting criminal liabilities. First, was teenager and avid gamer, Garyl Tan, who tapped on to a neighbour’s WiFi signal because his parents had confiscated his computer modem to stop his game-addiction. Second, was the student who tapped on a neighbour’s network to send out a bomb hoax. He was sentenced to 3 month’s imprisonment and received a S$4000 fine.

It is likely that these were the first such cases in the region. While Hong Kong and Korea have laws relating to hacking, Howard Lau (the president of Hong Kong's Professional Information Security Association, an industry grouping) said that, "There is no similar criminal case in Hong Kong. And we believe Singapore is quite a pioneer in this area".

Singapore had 779,000 broadband subscribers in January 2007, while household broadband penetration was 62.8 percent, according to government figures. The city-state has a population of about 4.4 million. Wireless connectivity is also becoming increasingly common. The government has also announced plans to increase the number of wireless hotspots from 900 to 5,000 over the next two years. All this, in its effort towards the city-state having a 90 percent home broadband usage by 2015.

According to network firm Cisco Systems Asia Pacific, moochers make up an estimated five to 10 percent of the region's wireless traffic at any time. Residential wireless networks are more vulnerable to piggybackers than corporate networks because only about 40 to 50 percent of home networks are secured, compared with 80 to 90 percent for corporate users.

With so many people currently using the Internet, what is surprising is not that we have these 2 cases at all, but rather why there aren’t more such cases.

The reason for the lack of cases seems to be that enforcement is difficult to say the least.

Top technology lawyer, Bryan Tan said that "the sheer number of Wi-Fi networks used at homes is so large and typically are not monitored by experts. Therefore, it would be difficult to identify whether unauthorised access has taken place”. He expects that this will soon change.

Another comment on the SLR lecture: Steve Jobs open letter on DRM

This was another point that Bryan Tan brought up which I think is worth mentioning and baring in mind when one thinks about (or encounters) issues relating to the IPR owners and technology companies such as YouTube, Google, Apple, etc.

Although this was said early on in his address, I think that it has some baring on a later question that was directed at him by an NUS student (in communication or something like that). The question related to Steve Job’s open letter on the DRM (Digital Rights Management) system.

For those who are unaware, DRM refers to any of the preventive schemes or technologies used by publishers or copyright owners to control access to and usage of digital data or hardware, and to restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work or device (I do not have time nor the expertise to go into too much detail here).

Getting back to Jobs, he appears to be sympathetic and supportive of the anti-DRM camp. He says that iPods and iTunes have always been to play music that is not DRM protected. But:

“The rub comes from the music Apple sells on its online iTunes Store. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices.

Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods. Obtaining such rights from the music companies was unprecedented at the time, and even today is unmatched by most other digital music services. However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.”

This leads us to the current state of affairs as explain by Jobs:

“with each manufacturer competing freely with their own “top to bottom” proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music. It is a very competitive market, with major global companies making large investments to develop new music players and online music stores. Apple, Microsoft and Sony all compete with proprietary systems. Music purchased from Microsoft’s Zune store will only play on Zune players; music purchased from Sony’s Connect store will only play on Sony’s players; and music purchased from Apple’s iTunes store will only play on iPods.”

Finally, he suggests that the best solution to the problem is:

“to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.”

Now before you think that Steve Jobs and Apple really understand us and are all equally victims of these Big “Evil” 4, I want to go to what Bryan said at the lecture.

He said that the rapid advancements in digital and Internet technologies have brought about a number of consequences. One very notable one is that the interests of content and technology owners have diverged. Whereas, in the past, as in the days of the printing press, the publisher was likely to own the technology (ie he owned both the content and the printing press – the technology). In today’s digital climate, content owners and technology owners are seldom the same entity.

Correspondingly, they have different interests. Since humans are all social creatures, any connection would not be meaningful without some exchange of content. Hence, content is required to support the technology. As such, technology owners would willingly sacrifice content owner’s rights if it means that people will use their technology. This is likely the reason why Jobs doesn’t support DRM. Of course, appearing to understand user’s sentiments and aligning himself along with that would help.

Even if things don’t change, Jobs is likely to still be happy. As much as he claims that users are really not locked to iPod or iTunes, quoting many wonderful statistics to that effect, they kind of, sort of, are. Afterall, he did mention that songs purchased on iTunes are locked to iPod. Furthermore, Apple claims to have the best licence ie you are able to make more copies than any other music service providers (up to 5 computers).

One also needs to bare in mind that Apple is by no means a small pawn in this whole “game”. They, after all, own the biggest market share world-wide in relation to the MP3 market. I severely doubt that they are at the mercy of the Big 4 music companies.

That blog spat again?! A*Star on why it wanted to sue student

In this morning’s edition of the AsiaOne Online news reports, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) has finally come out to explain why it had wanted to sue a blogger, Mr Chen Jiahao, who posted comments about the agency in his blog in 2005.

It was because he had implied that the agency was corrupt.

Among other things, he alleged that A*Star bribed universities to enrol its scholars, paid professors to accept scholars into their labs and suggested that its scholars enrol in universities with which it had 'connections' rather than the more expensive, top-notch ones.

The agency has decided not to disclose the exact nature of Mr Chen's remarks in the past as this would amount to repeating the libel.

However, many people, especially those in the blogosphere, mistakenly thought that
A*Star was taking issue with Mr Chen’s query about the high Grade Point Average (GPA) its scholars must achieve. They may also mistakenly have thought that the agency had forced Mr Chen to shut his blog site, casting the blogger as a victim of bullying.

Even Amnesty International cited this incident to be a form of government clampdown on freedom of expression (but then again, of course they would say that!).

Philip Yeo, the outgoing chairman of A*Star, said that the threat to sue had nothing to do with the GPA issue as anyone was entitled to have an opinion on it the subject. But Mr Chen's assertions that A*Star indulged in bribery and corruption went well beyond fair comment.

Mr Chen's allegations had damaged the reputation of the agency and its officers and scholars, who were unjustly portrayed as being not good enough to get university places on their own merit.

Now that the facts are out, A*Star does seem to be entitled to sue to redeem its reputation.
Nominated MP and technology lawyer Siew Kum Hong (former Director of Keystone Law Corporation), who had seen Mr Chen's original posts on Mr Ng's site, agreed that the revelations put a new complexion on an incident many saw as a 'heavyweight' agency facing down a 'poor student'.

Writing on his blog, Kum Hong said that Mr Chen's statements might well have appeared in the context of a posting discussing A*Star's scholarship policy as a whole.
'But they went way beyond fair criticism as such, and alleged outright corruption by A*Star in obtaining places for its scholars.

'This is a case where I can, and I think most unbiased and rational people would be able to, completely understand why A*Star threatened legal action,' Mr Siew said.

People need to understand they will be held accountable for what they say or publish, whether in the physical or cyber environment (I dealt with defamation a little in a previous entry on Human Rights in Singapore, see below). These legal liabilities include defamation, libel, copyright and intellectual property infringements, inciting others to commit offences such as the two Singaporean bloggers who were charged for posting racist remarks in their blog sites.

Perhaps one solution might be to establishing some sort of guidelines for bloggers.

Mr Tan Min-Liang (former Technology lawyer and associate director at Keystone Law Corporation, current CEO of Razer) believes that such guidelines would be a win-win situation (although these comments were made in a different context, that of employee blogs, I humbly suggest that it would ring true here as well).

=================

UPDATE:
Call for blogging code of conduct

I found this article in the BBC website which highlights some of the abuses of blogging and calls for a code of conduct.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

“Music, Video & Movie File Sharing: Trends & Implications”

In light of the rapid advancements in computer, digital and internet technologies, consumers and other end-users have begun to acquire illegal copies of copyright material in the privacy of their own homes.

Instead of purchasing such illegitimate copies from the street vendor, they have discovered that it is far more efficient and cost-effective to download them from certain internet websites or through peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks.

They may further decide to share these digital copies with others on the Internet or P2P file-sharing communities.

In the process, however, they inadvertently expose themselves to civil action for having committed primary acts of copyright infringement, and may even face criminal prosecution if primary infringers like themselves are found guilty of willful infringements of copyright. (Singapore Copyright Act section 136(3A))

If, however, you obtained the music from an illegal source (e.g. from a P2P website) where a licence has not been paid for or obtained, you would be infringing upon the copyright owner’s exclusive right to make a sound recording under s82 of the Copyright Act. If the amount of infringement is considered to be “significant”, you may be liable under both civil and criminal law. Upon a successful prosecution, the levy is as follows: 1st offence – fine not exceeding S$20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both. 2nd and subsequent offence – fine not exceeding S$50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or both.

=====================

I just came back from the 20th Annual Singapore Law Review Lecture 2007. This year, the topic for discussion was Intellectual Property Law, specifically, its implications on technology.

Mr Bryan Tan, top Technology lawyer and founding Director of Keystone Law Corporation (one of the best IT/IP law firms in the region), explained that the reason why IP issues related to technology (specifically the Internet) is such a difficult area is because the rights involved are actually many different rights bundled together. For example, in every musical recording, there are the literary rights in the lyrics, rights also subsist in the musical score, there is also the performance rights owned by the artist, not to mention the arrangement (owned perhaps by someone else?), the distribution rights owned by the production company, and the list goes on. In this way, when someone commits an infringing act, they may be committing many different infringing acts. One can just imagine the implications!

One of the questions raised during the Q&A session, which I found very interesting , was what was the difference, if any, between a person downloading content from the Internet (perhaps from a P2P website) and someone recording the same content when it is broadcasted on the regular TV channel (e.g. Channel 5 or Starhub Cable TV)? Presumably the former action is likely to be illegal while the latter is legal. Or is it?

Prof Ang, from the NTU Business School, suggested that the TV channel paid the copyright owner for the licence to broadcast the TV programme. As such, the right owner already had the opportunity to earn his due. It is likely that this did not occur in the former example. This seems to mean that he agrees with the presumption that recording a TV programme would, in fact, be legal. I did not, however, confirm this.

This answer wasn't really very satisfactory to me. In fact, it seems to raise many additional questions.

I personally believe that the presumption that the recording a TV programme may actually be wrong. If the TV station obtained a licence from the IPR owner, it would be for broadcasting only. Wouldn't this leave the person who recorded the programme without a licence to record the programme?

Alternatively, one could argue that since Starhub is offering a new service called "SmartTV" (where subscribers are able to record programmes and watch them at a later time), Starhub may be granting subcribers a licence to record those said programmes (similar to licences granted to purchases of music on iTunes etc). If this is true, then recording could be legal. But again, this wouldn't apply to those who are not SmartTV subscribers.

Another interesting point that was brought up by Bryan, in response to a question posed by a student at the Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy, was that we need to appreciate the economic factors involved. He explained that in many cases, musical artists such as Madonna would likely have assigned their rights to the record, production, or distribution company. Their resources are necessary to get the music to the masses. As such it would seem that when we hear about these artists objecting to the distribution of their IP material, it may be the record company behind the action.

The situation may change in the future as technological advances make the production and distribution of quality musical works much cheaper. Also with the reach of the Internet, it may be possible to get their music out to more for less (not having the costs of producing physical CDs would maximise profits and still offer consumers are cheaper rates; muscial file downloads also costs the producers virtually nothing).

HPB’s latest anti-smoking campaign

I’m sure that most people have caught the newest anti-smoking advertisement to be played on television here in Singapore. It depicts a smoker suffering from oral cancer. She tearfully tells of her plight, her regrets – barely able to speak really properly.

The Health Promotion Board (HPB) said that the anti-smoking campaign is meant to shock (as usual) and claim that this tactic is working – citing increases of callers to their QuitLine rising by about 5 times.

I must say that I was not the least bit shocked by the advertisement. What I was shocked to discover (from a Channel News Asia online article) was that the cancer “victim” in the advertisement was an actress! I fail to see how successful the campaign is going to be now that this has (or will soon become) common knowledge. This is their first fatal mistake.

In addition, I always feel that such campaigns are always destined for failure and are therefore a complete waste of time and money. They are obviously thought of by non-smokers who have no idea what goes on in a smoker’s psyche. As such, at best, they may be able to prevent children form taking up smoking (although I severely doubt it) and may also help reaffirm existing non-smokers current convictions and resolve not to pick up the habit. But getting smokers to quit is something completely different.

Just like promiscuous teenagers (and adults), nobody thinks that they will either get pregnant or HIV/AIDS. It just simply wouldn’t happen to them. Would advertisements depicting sufferers of AIDS and other STDs be likely to curb those raging hormones? I seriously doubt it.

At the end of the day, it is a personal choice (and for many people, an addiction). Smokers don’t really need to be told the dangers of smoking. We all are familiar with the fact that smoking may cause lung, throat, and probably other types of cancer. We also know that smoking may cause infertility and perhaps ED (impotence & erectile dysfunction – a big deal for us guys! All of us would definitely be concerned!)

Apart from being doomed from the start because they fail to understand why people smoke and how best to help them quit, there is the irony of the government not really wanting smokers to quit (perhaps this is why the prevailing method is still “shock”). Afterall, the government collects approximately S$7.2 billion in cigarette tax revenue yearly (that’s quite a lot of money indeed!) Imagine what kind of impact it would have to the economy if the sale of cigarettes are banned (afterall that is yet another method of getting people to quit smoking!)

============

UPDATE: 30 March 2007
Singapore to warn viewers of graphic anti-smoking TV ads

This article was posted on AsiaOne today. It says that:

"The Health Promotion Board has received feedback that our advertisement may be too disturbing to some children," the board's chief executive, Lam Pin Woon, wrote in an open letter published Thursday in The Straits Times newspaper.

The board said the three-month campaign that began March 20 will continue, but the ads will now only be shown after 8 p.m local time and will be preceded by a message warning viewers of the graphic content.

Trademark law Spinning out of Control??

Apparently there has been a trend for lawyers in the States to encourage, among others, celebrities to trademark phrases that they are famous for using. Examples of these are Donald Trump’s “You’re Fired!” and Paris Hilton’s “That’s hot!” and most recently, Larry Birkhead’s (who’s that?!) trade marking the phrase “Goodnight, My Sweet Anna Baby” (yes, he’s one of those guys fighting for custody of the late Anna Nicole Smith’s baby daughter). Obviously they stand to make a handsome profit from all this.

Birkhead’s former attorney, Debra Opri, claims that she advised him to trademark the phrase to "protect himself" and not to pursue any deals. "There's no agenda," she told ABCNews.com. "You don't want someone else to take advantage of something he said internationally — after he said it in court and then on one of the TV shows, it became famous."

The primary purpose of Trademark law is often said to be consumer protection. It is to prevent the possibility of a consumer being ‘confused’ as to the origin of the product he is purchasing. This has caused some to take the view that Trademark law should thus be excluded from the ambit of the “Intellectual Property” umbrella entirely. This is because copyrights and patents are designed to specific ownership over an idea or work to those who created it for a period of time. This is primarily meant to encourage innovation. The rationale is that unless businesses are able to recover and make profit from their innovation, they would not have the incentive to risk the huge investments needed in the research and development process. As such, they need to be given a monopoly (albeit limited to a determinate period) where they can exploit the innovation and recoup their investments (of course this is a rather simplistic view of the entire situation).

But of course, as often is the case, intentions and reality are completely different creatures. Trademark has already been used and abused to cover a whole myriad of activities that (in my opinion) it should not. For example, it has been used by trademark owners to block or prevent parallel imports into particular countries. What this means is that if Sony or Canon finds out that there are businesses engaged in parallel importation of their products from Asia into the US or UK, they may be able to block such importation using Trademark law. I personally do not see how this fulfils its purpose of preventing consumer confusion. “Its (still) a sony” isn’t it? (fortunately for many Singaporeans, the government encourages parallel importation).

Of course it could be argued that they contain completely different specifications, intended for different markets. But this would raise further questions. What about consumer choice? What would warrant such a difference in specifications in the first place?!

At the end of the day, it would seem like purely a commercial motive. Businesses know that they have to segment the market and that in order to enter into certain markets, they will have to lower prices of the final product? For example, companies who desire to enter into the Malaysian market cannot possibly be retailing their products at the same prices as in countries like the US and UK. They necessarily will have to engage in price adjustments. This may also inevitably affect the quality of the final products (as they may have to reduce the number of features, among other things).

So do I personally think that trademark law is going out of control? Not really.

Now before you start wondering what the hell is going on, let me explain. As with the majority of (commercial related) law, the stated objectives and principles are one thing, the reality is often completely different. We just need to recognise and accept it. For example, is everybody really treated equally under the law? Does every party to a contract really have equal bargaining power? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that, as much as we would like to think it does, it never works out like this. I think its one of those things that lawyers like people to think to keep the veneer of law embodying the highest values of society and keep them in awe of it.

But the reality is that Law is a whore.

Yes, and I’m one of its pimps!
(I’m feeling particularly cynical today!)

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Viacom Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against YouTube andGoogle Over Unauthorized Use Of The Company's Shows
Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., YouTube, LLC,and Google, Inc.
March 13, 2007

Viacom and its companies file a copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube and Google seeking at least $1 billion in damages.

The media company charges that “YouTube has harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale,” by taking “the value of creative content on a massive scale for YouTube’s benefit without payment or license. The suit alleges that the copyright infringement is on such a large scale that it “identified more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of their copyrighted programming on YouTube that had been viewed an astounding 1.5 billion times.”

The suit also charges that YouTube selectively deploys filtering technology "[b]y limiting copyright protectiong to business partners who have agreed to grant it licenses," even though copyright holders are entitled to protection of their works under federal copyright law without such business agreements.

Viacom gets sued for blocking parody on YouTube

Activist groups are suing Viacom for improperly asking the video-sharing site YouTube to remove a parody of the network’s The Colbert Report. The parody in question, “Stop the falsiness” is a play on the host Stephen Colbert’s use of the term “truthiness” and was produced by MoveOn and Brave New Films – an activist production company that has made documentaries on the Iraq war, Wal-Mart, and the Fox News Channel. They argue that although the video contains clips taken from the television show, it was protected under the “fair use” provisions of copyright law.

They also claim that Viacom should have known that the use was legal and thus its complaint to YouTube to have the video blocked amounted to “misrepresentation” and therefore subject to damages under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (DMCA).

Under the DMCA, YouTube and other service providers are generally immune from copyright lawsuits as long as they promptly respond to copyright complaints, known as takedown notices. A takedown notice was sent to YouTube last week, and the video was blocked almost immediately.

Service providers are not required to investigate claims under the DMCA and in fact could lose their immunity if they take too long to respond. The law does give users the right to sue the issuer of the takedown request when it contains misrepresentations that an item is infringing.

This suit comes a week after Viacom filed a $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube.

DMCA Architect Acknowledges Need For A New Approach

After looking at the above 2 articles it seems fitting to add this entry I found on Michael Guest’s blog site. Dr. Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. The following is what he had to say about a conference hosted at the McGill University, featuring Bruce Lehman, the architect of the WIPO Internet Treaties and the DMCA as one of the speakers.

The most interesting - and surprising - presentation came from Bruce Lehman, who now heads the International Intellectual Property Institute. Lehman explained the U.S. perspective in the early 1990s that led to the DMCA (ie. greater control though TPMs), yet when reflecting on the success of the DMCA acknowledged that "our Clinton administration policies didn't work out very well" and "our attempts at copyright control have not been successful" (presentation starts around 11:00).

Moreover, Lehman says that we are entering the "post-copyright" era for music, suggesting that a new form of patronage will emerge with support coming from industries that require music (webcasters, satellite radio) and government funding. While he says that teens have lost respect for copyright, he lays much of the blame at the feet of the recording industry for their failure to adapt to the online marketplace in the mid-1990s.In a later afternoon discussion, Lehman went further, urging Canada to think outside the box on future copyright reform. While emphasizing the need to adhere to international copyright law (ie. Berne), he suggested that Canada was well placed to experiment with new approaches. He was not impressed with Bill C-60, seemingly because he does not believe that it went far enough in reshaping digital copyright issues. Given ongoing pressure from the U.S., I'm skeptical about Canada's ability to chart a new course on copyright, yet if the architect of the DMCA is willing to admit that change is needed, then surely our elected officials should take notice.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Quote of the DAY!

"Just shoot them. Especially if they are Singapore vessels."

-Former Indonesian President, Abdyrrahaman Wahid.

This was in today's ST, p11. He was referring to vessels smuggling SAND to Singapore. LOL

Pirates Spray DVDs with chemicals to throw off dogs
The Straits Times, 27 March 2007, p11.

I just read this article in the Straits Times (27th March 2007) about what DVD pirates have now doing so as not to evade the police. Most of us are familiar with the street vendors and even the shops in malls with secret rooms (fitted with CCTV and even remote-controlled doors). We all know how big these operations must be. So it really doesn’t surprise most of us to read stories of police raids seizing US$2.8 million worth of pirated DVDs, CDs and computer games. We don’t even finch at the news that they’re all back to business within under 24 hours.

It seems that in a bid to help law enforcement to apprehend these pirates and “destroy” their operations, the Motion Picture Association of American has loaned the Malaysian authorities 2 Labrador retriever sniffer dogs. The pair have apparently been very successful in operations throughout the country. This has caused pirates to spray their loot with chemicals to throw the dogs off. This again didn’t surprise me.

But what did get me interested and somewhat surprised is how this “game” between pirates and police is starting to play out like one of the many movies that the pirates are producing and distributing! It seems that last week authorities had to move the dogs to a “safe house” after a source revealed that there was a plot (and reward) for the death of the dogs. Imagine that!

As much as I love animals (and dogs in particular… and even more specifically retrievers) I couldn’t help but see the “funny” side in all of this. I can just imagine these “harden” criminal types coming together (mafia-style… in their expensive suits… all from separate entrances and locations… bodyguards surrounding them…) in some remote location, to discuss the plot! (yesh yesh, I have an over-active imagination! I blame too many movies I’ve watched (and continue to watch)… Afterall, I go to the movies every week and watch everything indiscriminately!!).

Monday, March 26, 2007

How many people become Music Pirates?

I found this story in The Consumerist, a watchdog website for comsumer to speak out about their experiences (mostly bad i suspect). Its titled "How I became a music pirate", have a read.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Online criminals banding together
The Straits Times, 20 March 2007

I just read another piece of rather disturbing news. According to the abovementioned news report, personal information such as verified credit card numbers can be purchased for as little as US$1! Complete personal data (date of birth, US bank account, government-issued identification numbers, and credit card details) might set you back a mere US$14. Access to someone else's online bank account would cost more at US$300 while a PayPal account would cost US$500. A Skype account costs US$12 an an acount for the World of Warcraft online role-playing game could be had for US$10. Bearing in mind that these costs are not to set up an account but to steal someone else's, its dumbfoundingly easy to get the necessary information to commit all manner of fraud!

Another alarming fact is that researchers at software security firm, Symantec, found a worldwide rise in "bot network activity". Bots are compromised computers controlled remotely and operating in concert to pump out spam or performing other nefarious acts - typically without the knowledge of their legitimate owners. The percentage of bot-infected computers rose by 29 percent from the previous 6 months, to more than 6 million computers.

My initial concern was how the soon to be enacted Spam Control Act would be used to deal with such software (afterall, how high is the risk of getting knicked for spam because someone, unbeknown to you, sends spam with your computer? And in addition, are there methods to trace the actual person who sent out the spam available in Singapore?). Of course in terms of the offence itself, the author of the spam would be chargeable under both the Singapore Computer Misuse Act (for unauthorised access) and the Singapore Spam Control Bill (for the actual spam itself - although this only attracts civil liability, unlike the unauthorised access).

Anonymity of Wikipedia reviewers being questioned
Digital Life, The Straits Times, 20 March 2007, p5.

I came across this article in today's ST papers. Basically it reports that Wikipedia, which has been a "major player" in the current digital revolution (the "share" culture), is now requiring contributors who claim special qualifications to produce them for verification. This is in light of the recent discovery that one of their high-ranking members/contributors (who was promoted to the position of arbitrator - tasked with the authority to overrule an edit made by another volunteer and/or block people who abuse the site) had lied that he was a professor of religion.

This will however not be required of all contributors as wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales maintains he's still an "anti-credentialist" and further believes that anonymity is neccesary to place attention on the substance of what people have written rather than on who they are.

I suppose that being in very much a "rights" culture, the majority of us would value our privacy very highly. But perhaps, we need to realise that these are not absolute rights, and further recognise that anonymity on the Internet has proven to be the root cause of countless problems - used by paedophiles and rapist to single out and lure their victims.

Of course, compared to those instances, wikipedia's current problems seem rather trivial, but it is still no doubt quite scary. Personally, I find myself using wikipedia as one of the first "port of calls" when searching for information online, albeit its for relatively unimportant stuff (no I do not do any legal research on wikipedia). Although, one may argue that I should be smarter than to assume that everything on wikipedia is truthful, you have to realise that these things are easily identified with the benefit of hindsight. Don't/Wouldn't most people make that assumption too, especially when one considers that wikipedia (and other sites which use wikipedia information such as answers.com) ranks very highly on any and every search engine you use? Is it really so unexpected and unreasonable?

The question then is whether there is a need for contributed articles to be verified and/or whether there is a need for the contributors to identify themselves and their qualifications? I believe that there must be a balance between the 2. Certainly articles should be verified and inaccuracies corrected. Perhaps, to this end, wikipedia could engage a panel of advisors (people qualified or regarded as experts in the various fields). I don't know they currently have such an arrangement in existence - but if they don't, I think it would definitely be a step in th right direction. Furthermore, I agree that it is reasonable to expect those who claim "special" knowledge, expertise or qualifications to make them available for verification.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Anti-spyware legislation in US??

I came across this, and other, articles this morning on the proposed anti-spyware law in the US. It has passed through the legislature on 2 previous occasions and legislators are hoping that this 3rd time would lead to it being enacted.

I have not done any research on this, but I suspect that its created a multi-million (perhaps multi-billion???) dollar industry (in anti-spyware software and also hardware replacements?) at the expence of consumers.

As such, my view would be that any move to make those pesty spywares illegal would certainly be welcomed. However, i wonder what that would mean for companies like Microsoft (I shall leave it there.. ).

Provisions of the proposed Bill cover actions unauthorized by a computer's owner, including: (1) hijacking browsers, (2) changing a browser's default home page, (3) changing the security settings of a computer, (4) logging keystrokes, and (5) delivering advertisements that the computer user cannot close without turning off the computer or closing all sessions of the browser. The bill requires computer users be notified and be allowed to give consent before software that collects and transmits personal information is installed on their computers. Penalties include fines of up to $3 million.

I wonder whether Singapore will follow suit and enact similar legislation to curb spyware here. Of course it is probably unnecessary (seeing that I suspect the Singapore Computer Misuse Act is suffcient to deal with the problem), but from what I've read from the US-side, it seems that the legislation was unnecessary there too!

I guess only time will tell... We'll just have to wait and see...


Politicians press for antispyware law yet again
Both parties say they hope the third time's the charm for a bill that overwhelmingly passed the House twice already.
By Anne Broache Staff Writer, CNET News.com -->
Published: March 15, 2007, 3:27 PM PDT

update WASHINGTON--Members of the U.S. House of Representatives vowed Thursday not to let a bill aimed at curbing spyware die for a third time.

Leaders of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee focused on consumer protection issues said they were mystified that earlier versions of the so-called Spy Act overwhelmingly passed the House in 2004 and in 2005 but were ignored by the Senate. Politicians from both parties said they hoped the third time would be the charm.

"Spyware is simply nasty stuff that clogs computers, slows down processing power and is costly to remove," Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), the panel's chairman, said at a morning hearing here about the proposed legislation.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the co-chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, said that unlike some issues, such as Net neutrality, "there's 100 percent unanimity" that antispyware legislation is necessary. "This legislation ought to be an automatic-passage bill," he said.

The latest effort, chiefly sponsored by Reps. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) and Mary Bono (R-Calif.) but backed by many others, would impose extensive regulations on what types of actions software may perform.

Among other things, the proposal would make it unlawful to engage in various means of "taking control" of a user's computer, to collect personally identifiable information through keystroke loggers, and to modify a user's Internet settings, such as the browser's home page.
The bill would also broadly prohibit collection of information about users or their behavior without notice and consent, and it prescribes specific notice requirements. Exemptions from the regulations would go to Web cookies, law enforcement and national security activities, and software intended to prevent fraud.

Previous versions of the bill drew support from a number of high-tech companies, including Yahoo, eBay, AOL Time Warner, Dell, Microsoft and EarthLink, according to Rush and Barton.

But some companies have questioned the necessity of such legislation. Under current federal and state laws, the Federal Trade Commission has already brought 11 spyware enforcement cases, and four states have brought a total of 10 spyware lawsuits, according to research compiled by the Center for Democracy and Technology, which generally supports the bill.

The FTC has also lamented not having the ability to levy large monetary penalties on spyware purveyors. The Spy Act would put in place such an increase, allowing the FTC to seek fines as hefty as $3 million for the most egregious violations.

Online advertisers said they generally support the bill, but they argued that some parts of it go too far beyond combating insidious software. At Thursday's hearing, industry representatives said they remained concerned that its proposed notice and consent requirements, which ask consumers to opt in to have their information collected, could unintentionally threaten Web sites that rely on cookies and other tactics to target ads and to provide free content to their users.

"As all media advertising increasingly migrates to interactive platforms, we are concerned that this bill may unnecessarily limit business interaction with consumers," said Dave Morgan, founder and chairman of New York-based Tacoda, an online advertising company. Morgan was also representing the Interactive Advertising Bureau, of which News.com parent company CNET Networks is a member.

Bono, one of the Spy Act's primary authors, said she "didn't really have a problem with cookies...because anyone with a slight degree of sophistication on the Internet knows how to delete the cookies. That's not hard to do."

Also on Thursday, the Anti-Spyware Coalition released final versions of "best practices" documents for makers of antispyware. The guidelines are designed to help companies identify malicious software and overcome conflicts with each other.

Later on Thursday, Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Calif.) reintroduced an identical version of their own spyware bill, known as the Internet Spyware Prevention Act. That bill also passed the House in two previous sessions of Congress but died in the Senate.

It differs from the Spy Act in several ways, including its shorter length. Rather than attempting to define what illicit software is, it would make it a crime to copy computer code on a machine without authorization if doing so divulges personal information about a user or "impairs" a computer's security. It also proposes criminal penalties of up to five years in prison for violators.

The bill's sponsors said the approach is designed to combat spyware without stifling software development or issuing heavy-handed regulations. Goodlatte said in a statement that the approach is designed to "punish the bad actors, while protecting legitimate online companies."

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Law Lords must have had some really funky breakfast…

Of all the stupid rulings the UK House of Lords could have come up with, this must take the prize… (for those who do not get the title of this entry… you should have paid more attention in jurisprudence classes!)

Talk about adding insult to injury!

Wrongly convicted men must pay 'lodgings' costs for prison
By Stephen Howard
Published: 15 March 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2359086.ece

Three men who spent years in jail because of miscarriages of justice will have to pay "living expenses" for the time they spent behind bars, the law lords ruled.

By a four to one majority, the judges decided yesterday that those wrongfully jailed must repay 25 per cent of their compensation.

Michael Hickey and his cousin, Vincent, were wrongly convicted of the murder of the newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater, 13, who was shot dead in 1978 at Yew Tree Farm, Wordsley, West Midlands. Their convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal in 1997. Lord Brennan QC, the Home Office-appointed assessor, had awarded Michael Hickey £990,000 and Vincent £506,220, subject to 25 per cent deductions to pay for their saved "board and lodgings" expenses.

Michael O'Brien, who was 20 when he was wrongfully convicted in 1988 of the murder of a Cardiff newsagent, was awarded £670,000 compensation after spending 10 years in jail. His award was subject to the same deductions.

The three appealed to the House of Lords against a Court of Appeal ruling that the independent assessor was entitled to a deduction from compensation for loss of earnings made to victims of long-running miscarriages of justice cases to reflect the necessities of life which they would have had to buy from their wages, had they been at liberty.

The law lords also dismissed a second challenge, again by four to one, over deductions from compensation for past criminality.

Susie Labinjoh, repre-senting the Hickeys, said: "The men are devastated by this decision.
They feel that it adds further insult to injury. To deduct saved living expenses from their compensation offends against justice."

Should there be a criminal defence of being an “Idiot”??

I was having a casual chat with a Criminal lawyer friend of mine and discussing some cases he’s currently undertaking (it will become apparently why I’m leaving him anonymous). It got me thinking that perhaps there should be a criminal defence for being an “idiot”. If so, I can just imagine lawyers including statements such as “since there’s no cure for stupidity, reformatory training would be completely inappropriate” (haha! Like that will ever happen!).

Since we’re on the subject of the stupid things that people have done (and then gotten [and before you are too quick to correct my Engrish.. its an American word “gotten”] caught for them), I would like to share 2 online articles that I chanced upon.

Enjoy but also beware not to make the same mistakes!!


Murder Suspect's Google Searches Spotlighted In Trial
By K.C. Jones, TechWeb News
http://www.crn.com/it-channel/173602157
4:54 PM EST Fri. Nov. 11, 2005

Prosecutors claim a Mac specialist on trial in connection with the killing of his wife did a Google search for the words: "neck snap break" and "hold" before she was killed.
Robert Petrick, who is defending himself in Durham, N.C., cross examined a computer forensics expert this week. The expert testified about digital footprints he said the state discovered on several hard drives in Petrick's home.

Prosecutors claimed that Petrick, who stands out in his Christian North Carolina community as a self-professed Pagan, left behind a trail of digital evidence including a visit to a site called bloodfest666. Investigators are also focusing e-mails to women they said Petrick was having affairs with and a download of a document entitled "22 ways to kill a man with your bare hands."

Authorities claim that Petrick looked up the depth and topography of a lake where the body of his wife Janine Sutphin was found -- before he reported her missing.

Google's press office did not respond Friday to an email inquiry about the case, but a lawyer standing by for Petrick said he believes the evidence was all culled from the hard drives and he has no information that Google participated in the investigation.
Mark Edwards, who Petrick dismissed to represent himself, said that he believes he could have argued several legal points more expertly than the defendant but he may not have been as adept at cross-examining on computer forensics.

"He's a computer geek," Edwards said in an interview Friday. "I think he knew more about MacIntosh computers than the state's witness did. I'm not sure how much the jury caught, but he seemed to be pretty pleased."

The state's laws require that Edwards attend the trial in case he is needed.

Edwards said the Google searches just came up, though the investigation began nearly two years ago. He said that there was a massive amount of information on all of the hard drives. Edwards said investigators also retrieved emails Petrick's wife sent before her death.

Edwards and local television journalist Julia Lewis of WRALsaid Petrick apparently supported himself by running a computer business. Lewis said he seemed to know a lot about Linux and operating systems.

Prosecutors could not be reached Friday because of the holiday.

More computer forensics information is expected to come up during testimony as the trial wraps up next week. WRAL has been carrying live streaming coverage on its Web site.

Cop: Wife googled 'How to commit murder'
BY RICK MALWITZ STAFF WRITER
http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007703130391
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
At exactly 5:45:34 on April 18, 2004 a computer taken from the office of the attorney of Melanie McGuire, did a search on the words "How To Commit Murder."

That same day searches on Google and MSN search engines, were conducted on such topics as `instant poisons,` `undetectable poisons,' 'fatal digoxin doses,' and gun laws in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Ten days later, according to allegations by the state of New Jersey, McGuire murdered her husband, William T. McGuire, at their Woodbridge apartment, using a gun obtained in Pennsylvania, one day after obtaining a prescription for a sedative known as the "date rape" drug.

Jennifer Seymour, who worked for the State Police digital technology unit, testified thismorning how she examined the digital contents of computers and hand held devices obtained as part of the investigation.

Her testimony was the strongest evidence yet in the state's circumstantial evidence case against the 34-year-old McGuire, who allegedly murdered her husband with a .38 caliber weapon, dismembered his body and placed body parts in three suitcases found in the Chesapeake Bay in May of 2004.

While the jury has yet to see any fingerprint, blood or DNA evidence in the case, the evidence presented by Seymour illustrated how computers can be a valuable investigation tool.

Seymour was still being questioned by Assistant Attorney General Patricia Prezioso when Superior Court Judge Frederick De Vesa gave the jury its lunch break. Testimony was scheduled to resume at 1:45 p.m.

Seymour, now employed by the U.S. Department of Defense, testified how digital investigators can trace activity on a computer, including information the user has deleted.
She testified that she isolated data that was accessed in the weeks leading up to the murder, by inserting the keyword "search," which showed activity by Google and MSN search engines, with the searches center-ing on poisons and gun laws.

The murder took place the same day, according to allegations by the state, that a two-ounce prescription of chloral hydrate was purchased at a Walgreen's in Edison.
A search on April 26, 2004 of the computer seized by the state found that the user accessed the site www.walgreens.com/storelocator.

On Monday Yan Kim Lee, a pharmacist at the Walgreen's on New Durham Road in Edison, testified that on the morning of April 28 she filled a prescription for chloral hydrate for a woman named Tiffany Bain, on script signed by Dr. Bradley Miller of Reproductive Medicine Associates in Morristown.

Melanie McGuire worked at the RMA office as a nurse, and at the time of her husband's death she was having an affair with Miller.

Lee testified that she typically fills only about three or four prescriptions annually for chloral hydrate.

In her testimony Seymour said she was able to trace e-mails on Hotmail accounts allegedly used by McGuire and Miller. She said the e-mails seemed to indicate the two had a romantic relation-ship, with such phrases as "I love you," and "I miss you."
Seymour said that on Sept. 8, 2005, the State Police obtained eight computers, three laptops and eight hand-held devices as part of the murder investigation.

In her testimony today, she said she examined the contents of a computer obtained at the office of McGuire's attorney, though she did not identify the name of the attorney. She also said she tested a home computer used by the Woodbridge couple, and a home computer used by her parents, who now live in Barnegat.

The HP Pavilion computer obtained from McGuire's attorney's office had a 60 gigabyte hard drive, and not all of it was searched by Seymour.

She told the jury that it is known in the computer industry that if information stored on a 12 gigabyte computer was put on paper it would create a stack of paper higher than the Empire State Building.

The first person to testify Tuesday was David A. Barron, a forensics examiner for the state of Virginia, who participated in the initial murder investigation.

Barron testified that he did not examine William McGuire's re-mains for chloral hydrate. He said his office no longer has the samples it used to test for alcohol and certain drugs.
"The protocol is once we complete our testing we submit it to the investigating agency," he said. "My understanding is that it has been destroyed."

Under cross examination by defense attorney Stephen Turano, Barron said no test for chloral hydrate was done on the remains.

When asked by Prezioso if it is routine in autopsies to test for "every substance known to man-kind," Barron said, "We could do a research project on any case we receive, but we don't have the manpower."

The state's second witness, Donna Todd, the director of the Kinder Castle daycare center in Metuchen where the McGuire's 4-year-old son was enrolled, testified for the state about the child's attendance record on April 28, 2004, the day the state alleges the murder take place.

On cross examination by Joseph Tacopina she also testified about his attendance on April 29. Ac-cording to her records the boy arrived at the daycare center at 8:30 a.m.
Todd told the jury that Melanie McGuire explained to her that she was obtaining a temporary restraining order against her husband, and told her about a fight the night before that ended when William stuffed a dryer cloth into her mouth.
Tacopina asked Todd if McGuire looked "upset or crazed."

"She did look upset," said Todd.

Michael Moore: Champion of truth or False prophet?

I chanced upon this interesting article on Michael Moore’s (the director of docu-movies Bowling down Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11) questionable methods in making his documentaries. I’ve watched both the above-mentioned docu-movies, and each time I came out feeling like he was attempting to take everyone on a ride.

Unfortunately, despite being the ‘most damaging’ critique of Moore’s methods in moviemaking (considering its coming from his own camp), I suspect that it would accomplish precious nothing – the damage would already have been done (it is very common for inaccuracies and even complete lies to make it into the common public consciousness and therefore becoming entrenched as gospel truth). By now, most people are already set in their views about the subjects he has dealt with in his movies. So whatever your view is - it is also likely to remain.

I guess what’s most troubling is the fact that when it comes to movies, generally, we all know that its make-belief – we expect Hollywood to sensationalise even those apparently ‘True Stories’ – its part of movie magic. But when its cast as a documentary, we are normally more inclined towards accepting things ‘wholesale’ – after all, they’re meant to be educational – stuff we let ‘our kids’ (metaphorically, seeing that I don’t have any yet!) watch.

Below is the article, in case you’re interested in reading… So is Michael Moore a champion of truth of a false prophet? You decide.

==========================

"Manufacturing Dissent": Turning the lens on Michael Moore
By John Anderson
Published: February 26, 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/23/news/moore.php?page=1

Michael Moore, who carries around controversy the way Paul Bunyan toted an ax, has won legions of fans for being a ball- cap-wearing fly in the ointment of Republican politics. For tweaking the documentary form. Even for making millions of dollars in the traditionally poverty-stricken genre of nonfiction film.

Many despise him for the same reasons.

The Toronto-based documentary filmmakers Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk started out in the first camp. But during the course of making an unauthorized film about Moore, they wound up somewhere in between. In the process, their experience has added a twist to the long-running story of an abrasive social critic who has frequently been criticized from the right, but far less often, as is the case with Melnyk and Caine, from his own end of the political spectrum.

"What he's done for documentaries is amazing," said Melnyk, 48, a native of Toronto and a freelance TV producer, who even now expounds on the good she says Moore has done. "People go to see documentaries now and, as documentary makers, we're grateful."

But according to Caine, 46, an Ohio-born journalist and cameraman, the freewheeling persona cultivated by Moore, and the free-thinking rhetoric expounded by his friends and associates were not quite what they encountered when they decided to examine his work. "As investigative documentarists we always thought we could look at anything we wanted," Caine said. "But when we turned the cameras on one of the leading figures in our own industry, the people we wanted to talk to were like: 'What are you doing? Why are you throwing stones at the parade leader?'"

Melnyk added, "We were very lonely."

Their film "Manufacturing Dissent" will have its premiere on March 10 at the South by Southwest Film Festival in Austin, Texas. To say it sheds an unflattering light on Moore — whose work includes the hit "Fahrenheit 9/11" and the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine" — would be an understatement.

Moore, who was reportedly in London finishing "Sicko," a planned exposé of the American health care system, did not respond to voice mail, e-mail messages or third-party requests for an interview; a spokeswoman for the Weinstein Company, the distributor of "Sicko," said Moore had no comment on "Manufacturing Dissent," and referred inquiries to a Web address, www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/ f911reader/index.php?id=16as.

That link contains a refutation of a number of complaints taken up by conservatives regarding "Fahrenheit 9/11," but the Melnyk-Caine movie isn't really about that. "We didn't want to refute anything," Melnyk said. "We just wanted to take a look at Michael Moore and his films. It was only by talking to people that we found out this other stuff."

In part the "stuff" amounts to a catalogue of alleged errors — both of omission and commission — in Moore's films, beginning with his 1989 debut, "Roger & Me." That film largely revolved around Moore's fruitless attempts to interview Roger Smith, then the chairman of General Motors, after his company closed plants in Moore's birthplace, Flint, Michigan: an interview that occurred, Melnyk and Caine said, although Moore left it on the cutting-room floor.

"I'm still a big proponent of 'Roger & Me,' especially for its importance in American documentary making," said John Pierson, the longtime producers' representative who helped sell the film to Warner Brothers and now teaches at the University of Texas in Austin. "But it was disheartening to see some of the material in Debbie and Rick's film. I wouldn't say I was crushed. I'm too old to be crushed. But my students were."

Calling the Melnyk-Caine film "unbelievably fair," Pierson said it asks what really matters in nonfiction filmmaking: Should all documentary-making be considered subjective and ultimately manipulative, or should the viewer be able to believe what he or she sees? "I found it encouraging," he said, "that my students were dumbstruck."

In "Manufacturing Dissent" Caine and Melnyk — whose previous films include "Junket Whore," about movie journalists, and "Citizen Black," about Conrad Black — note that the scene in "Fahrenheit 9/11" in which President George W. Bush greets "the haves, and the have-mores" took place at the annual Al Smith Dinner, where politicians traditionally make sport of themselves. Melnyk and Caine received a video of the speeches from the dinner's sponsor, the Archdiocese of New York. "Al Gore later answers a question by saying, 'I invented the Internet,'" Caine said. "It's all about them making jokes at their own expense."

Still, support for Moore can be found in the film, from the likes of friends like Ben Hamper, from the actress Janeane Garofalo, and even from Pierson, a self-proclaimed "flag-waver" for "Roger & Me." Others, including the writer Christopher Hitchens, and filmmakers Albert Maysles and Errol Morris, take exception to Moore's methods, which have involved questionable lapses in chronology and what some would call a convenient neglect of pertinent material.

There have been attacks on Moore: "Michael Moore Hates America," a rebuttal of "Bowling for Columbine," was produced in 2004 by Mike Wilson, who says he was inspired by "righteous indignation," but came to a more temperate conclusion. "I understood what the guy struggles with," Wilson said.

Melnyk and Caine, who are married, admit to one fabrication of their own: They printed their own business cards before an appearance by Moore at Kent State University, identifying themselves with Toronto's City TV and its owner, CHUM Limited, their chief financial backer and owner of Bravo! in Canada, where the film will eventually be broadcast. (The network is no relation to the American Bravo! network.) "We weren't employees, so we didn't have cards," Melnyk said. Despite their ruse, the Kent State sequence ends with them being banished from the event by Moore's sister, Anne, who also knocks away Caine's camera.

The incident represents in microcosm the obstacles Melnyk and Caine said they faced while trying to make their portrait of Moore. Among other incidents, they said, they were prevented from plugging into the sound board at Wayne State University in Detroit during a stop on Moore's "Slacker Uprising" tour and were kicked out of his film festival in Traverse City, Michigan, while other press members were admitted.

"I don't think he expected us to follow him around," Melnyk said.

Caine added: "We're bit more persistent than your average film crew that way."

Legal Interception…

I found this article from the Washington Post website on 'new' Legal Interception laws in the US. I guess it really wouldn’t shock any Singaporean to read this article (in fact its highly likely that Singaporeans would be more shocked if told we didn’t already have such laws in place!!), but I suppose to Americans and perhaps most of the Western world, such laws are viewed as an affront to the most sacred of values – privacy!

I suppose I could say quite abit about the current political climate (after 9/11) and how everybody’s trying to use ‘Terrorism’ to justify all kinds of invasive and extreme laws and precautions – but I won’t. I’m Singaporean after all.

For those interested in having a look at the Singapore laws on the matter, see the Telecommunications Act (Chapter 323), the Code of Practice for Competition in the Provision of Telecommunications Services 2005, the Computer Misuse Act, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Competition Act, and the Kidnapping Act. Have fun! (hahaha!)

==========================

The Legal Tangles Of Data Collection

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 16, 2007; Page A09

When it comes to data collection, federal laws often have been outpaced by technology, critics say. And sometimes, the executive branch carves out its own exception.
Take eavesdropping.

U.S. law requires that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant to tap someone's phone or intercept e-mail. But President Bush, drawing on decades-old precedent, asserts that he has "inherent authority" to authorize agents to intercept electronic communications without a warrant in the interest of national security.

That is the rationale underpinning the National Security Agency's warrantless-wiretapping program. The new Democratic-run Congress has vowed to renew scrutiny of this program and others that involve collection and analysis of Americans' personal data.

Under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III of the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control & Safe Streets Act, if the government wants to listen in on phone calls, it must have a warrant or wiretap order showing probable cause that the target is involved in criminal activity or in foreign intelligence or terrorist activity. A later law extended that standard to electronic communications.

But months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush secretly issued an executive order authorizing warrantless electronic intercepts for national security purposes -- even on U.S. citizens, as long as one party is suspected to be outside the country. This action is at the heart of several lawsuits against the government and telecommunications companies alleged to be collaborating with the government, charging that such eavesdropping is unlawful.

E-mail is a slightly different matter. The law makes a distinction between intercepting e-mail in transit and obtaining stored e-mail from a service provider's servers. The distinction made sense in the 1980s and early 1990s when downloaded e-mail often sat only on the user's computer. If the government wanted the records, it had to go to the e-mail recipient.

These days, most e-mail is held and stored by third parties. So the government claims the authority to read someone's most intimate communications, including stored chat sessions, by serving a subpoena -- no probable cause required. A person may never even know that this has been done, as there is no legal requirement for an Internet service provider to provide notice. In most cases where the government subpoenas the e-mail, it demands that the third party keep that fact confidential, at least for a while.

The same holds true for virtually any information held by a third party: phone company records that indicate who called you, when they called and how long the call lasted; Internet service provider records on what Web sites you visited, when and for how long; tollbooth records; security camera footage; records of emergency calls made from a car; supermarket purchase records. All that and more can be requested by the government with a search warrant, or sometimes with an administrative subpoena or other demand, frequently without judicial review.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the government also has vastly increased its power to obtain Americans' private financial, phone-call and Internet-transaction data using national security letters, which do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress. The FBI issues more than 30,000 a year, The Washington Post reported in 2005. And the Pentagon issues its own version, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

Such data can be helpful to law enforcement agents, but sometimes mistakes are made. Last fall, an Internet provider mismatched a customer and an IP address, resulting in a guns-drawn raid by a child-porn squad on a farmer in rural Virginia.

The bottom line, privacy experts say, is that more and more personal data are being stored on the Internet and in databases over which individuals have little or no control. Increasingly, the government, the private sector and criminals are looking for ways to exploit those data. And the laws, the experts say, are not squarely on the citizens' side.

Man 'Canned' for SPAM...

I found this article today from the NY Times about the first person to be convicted under the US Can-Spam Act of 2003 (on which much of our, soon to be passed, Singapore Spam Control Bill is based – more on that when it eventually receives Presidential assent).

Apparently, this California man operated a phishing scheme where he managed to send out thousands of emails that were set up to look like they were from AOL’s billing department (So the next time you receive an email, even from a company you know and patronise, be careful! I noticed that I've received email "bills" to my yahoo! email account apparently from ebay - although my ebay account is registered with my hotmail account). These were sent to AOL users prompting them to reply with personal and credit card information or risk losing service. He then used the information to make unauthorized purchases.

The man, Jeffrey B. Goodin, was found guilty of 10 other counts, including wire fraud, aiding and abetting the unauthorised use of an access device (a credit card in this case), possession of more than 15 unauthorized access devices, misuse of the AOL trademark, attempted witness harassment, and failure to appear in court.

Goodin is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Christina A. Snyder on June 11. He faces a maximum sentence of 101 years in federal prison.

I’ve included the NY Times article below for your reading pleasure. This is definitely a story that I would like to keep up with.

Note that Singapore already has a number of legislative instruments in place which covers these various crimes (e.g. among others, the Singapore Computer Misuse Act).

============================

Man Convicted Under Antispam Law
NY Times, Published: January 17, 2007http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E3DE1130F934A25752C0A9619C8B63

A California man who defrauded users of AOL by sending e-mail messages requesting credit data became the first defendant found guilty by a jury under a 2003 federal law barring Internet ''spam.''

The defendant, Jeffrey B. Goodin, 45, of Azusa, Calif., was convicted under the 2003 Can-Spam Act, the United States attorney's office said yesterday in a statement. The statute prohibits sending unsolicited e-mail messages with falsified header, or return address, information.

Prosecutors said that Mr. Goodin operated a so-called phishing scheme that duped AOL subscribers into providing personal and credit information in the belief they were dealing with the company's billing department. He used the credit card information to make unauthorized purchases.

Mr. Goodin is to be sentenced June 11 in Los Angeles.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

The Benefits of Piracy... How pirated copies of software may help Microsoft...

I found this article which I think poses some interesting new insights on the issue of software piracy which are worthy of comment and thought, I shall hold my comments til the end of the article.. enjoy..


Bill Gates on Piracy: "They'll get addicted, and then we'll collect"

Bill Gates may not be entirely dismayed by software thieves. They seed the world market and make Microsoft a standard.
By Charles Piller
Times Staff Writer
April 9, 2006

Microsoft Corp. estimates it lost about $14 billion last year to software piracy — and those may prove to be the most lucrative sales never made.

Although the world's largest software maker spends millions of dollars annually to combat illegal copying and distribution of its products, critics allege — and Microsoft acknowledges — that piracy sometimes helps the company establish itself in emerging markets and fend off threats from free open-source programs.

The gist of the beneficial piracy argument is that the retail price Microsoft charges for signature products such as Windows and Office — as much as $669, depending on the version — can rival the average annual household income in some developing countries. So the vast majority of those users opt for pirated versions.

The proliferation of pirated copies nevertheless establishes Microsoft products — particularly Windows and Office — as the software standard. As economies mature and flourish and people and companies begin buying legitimate versions, they usually buy Microsoft because most others already use it. It's called the network effect.

"The first dose is free," said Hal Varian, a professor of information management at UC Berkeley, facetiously comparing Microsoft's anti-piracy policy to street-corner marketing of illicit drugs. "Once you start using a product, you keep using it."

Even as the Internet makes global piracy easier than ever, Microsoft's revenue and profit have risen steadily. It earned $12 billion on $41.4 billion in revenue in calendar '05.

That record of success has led many experts and software companies to regard piracy as less of a problem than initially assumed or even part of a comprehensive strategy, said Eric Goldman, a law professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee and the former chief counsel of a Silicon Valley Internet firm.

"Is widespread piracy simply foregone revenue, a business model by accident or a business model by design?" he asked. "Maybe all three."

Of course, Microsoft executives prefer that people buy, but theft can build market share more quickly, as company co-founder and Chairman Bill Gates acknowledged in an unguarded moment in 1998.

"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

That's exactly what has happened around the globe, according to the Business Software Alliance, a Microsoft-backed anti-piracy group. Even Vietnam, which at more than 90% has the highest piracy rate in the world, has improved from 100% in 1994. The No. 1 software firm in Vietnam: Microsoft.

Closer to the company's Redmond, Wash., headquarters, the decline of piracy in the United States has tracked Microsoft's rise. Stratospheric 25 years ago, the U.S. piracy rate dropped to 31% in 1994, then to 21% in 2004 — the lowest in the world.

Microsoft's public posture on piracy is one of zero tolerance.

"We're all working five days a week and getting paid for three," said Cori Hartje, the company's director of license compliance. "We do everything we can to stop piracy."

The company sues online auctioneers and computer makers that supply pirated products, including Windows, the operating system for more than 90% of the world's personal computers. It cooperates with law enforcement agencies to seize pirated discs and warns users around the globe that counterfeit programs may destabilize their systems.

The effort even prompted Islamic clerics in Saudi Arabia and Egypt to declare fatwas, or religious edicts, against software piracy.

Microsoft, like most other software companies, has experimented with technical tricks to prevent copying, such as discs that could be used only once and hardware "dongles" that had to be connected to the PC before a software program could run.

Legitimate users complained bitterly. Such methods caused software bugs and prevented customers from reinstalling programs when their computers malfunctioned, yet hackers quickly subverted each new attempt.

"Copy protection is a balancing act because it always reduces the value of your product," said Bruce Schneier, chief technical officer of Counterpane Internet Security Inc. "State-of-the-art copy protection makes your customers hate you."

By 1986, like most other software companies, Microsoft abandoned copy protection.

Now it attacks piracy with technical and legal carrots and sticks. In 2004, it launched the Windows Genuine Advantage program, which offers special features and updates for legal users. It also requires a product activation key — a string of letters and numbers the retail buyer of Windows or applications such as Word must enter to install the product on a computer.

Experts applauded the approach as thoughtful, given past problems with copy protection. But it does little to deter piracy, because thousands of activation keys — stolen or generated by software programs — can be found easily on the Web.

Microsoft's legal approach differs sharply with that of the music industry, which sues as if it were in the fight of its life, said John G. Palfrey Jr., director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.

"They put Napster out of business and sued Grokster to the Supreme Court," he said.

Like Microsoft, the music industry sees network effects from piracy. For little-known artists who have trouble getting airtime, piracy can be crucial to create buzz. But instead of generating revenue growth, pirated music generally replaces a CD purchase. In most countries, music revenue is falling.

In a loudly public campaign, music publishers have pressed more than 15,000 suits against individual pirates worldwide. Microsoft and the Business Software Alliance have rarely sued individuals, instead making claims against dozens of distributors and institutional users of illicit products.

More commonly, according to industry observers, Microsoft has cut pragmatic deals to convert institutional piracy into standard sales. Instead of suing, it asks organizations found to use illicit copies to replace them with licensed, paid versions. Microsoft wares become entrenched without competitive bidding, via piracy, and formal forgiveness cements the commercial relationship.

Microsoft declined to comment on how often it uses this approach.

Piracy also prevents free, open-source alternatives such as Linux from chipping away at Microsoft's monopolies, especially in developing nations.

China, for instance, promotes Red Flag Linux — a local, open-source competitor to Windows. As Gates concluded in 1998, piracy may be the only way Microsoft can stay in that market, embracing the opportunity to gradually convert pirates to payers. If Microsoft launched a draconian crackdown, UC Berkeley's Varian said, it would provoke the obvious reaction: "People would just switch to open source."

In China, pirated versions of Windows are easy to find on the street for 5 yuan, or about 62 cents. Why doesn't Microsoft put the thieves out of business by giving away or deeply discounting local-language versions of its products? The strategy would offer network benefits while providing better data on users.

Consistent global pricing reduces confusion for multinational buyers, Hartje said.

Experts believe high prices encourage piracy but offer the company offsetting advantages. If Microsoft sold Windows for, say, $10, it would lose money on every copy because of manufacturing, distribution and support costs. At zero cost to Microsoft, piracy enhances network effects by getting Windows out to users who can't or won't pay, without undercutting normal prices.

"Microsoft benefits from piracy, then says, 'If you think prices are high, blame the Chinese, because they are the thieves,' " said Ariel Katz, a law professor at the University of Toronto and an expert on the economics of piracy.

"They like us to feel guilty — to think that piracy is wrong and immoral. Economically, it's not necessarily true, but it resonates with the public."

=================================

I find the arguments detailed here to be a rather interesting.

With the recent influx of newpaper coverage on cybercrime in the Straits Times (some of them I had a hand in) Singaporeans would have become more aware of the possible criminal liabilities of using pirated software. Gone were the days that we could brush it off as "merely a civil wrong" and that it would be impossible and completely impracticeable for Microsoft to track every user and commence legal action against them.

Perhaps Microsoft's new enlightened view will come to fruition much sooner rather than later in Singapore. I guess time will tell.

In the mean time, feel free to let me know your thoughts.. ;)

Monday, March 12, 2007

Its coming up to 6 months since my last entry on this blog...
For now, I'll just upload some articles for sometime in the near future...

Will the EU ruling against Microsoft have unintended consequences?
The Guardian
Wendy M Grossman
Thursday March 8, 2007

Last week, in the latest twist in its three-year-long investigation into Microsoft for antitrust issues, the European Commission published a "statement of objection" accusing the company of not honouring the settlement reached in 2004. Everyone But Microsoft 1, Microsoft 0, right?

Not so fast.

For the moment, let's leave aside the question of whether Microsoft has behaved badly. A careful reading of the ruling - such as that provided by Ovum research analyst Gary Barnett - suggests there's a hidden patent trap. The 2004 ruling being enforced by Neelie Kroes, the EU competition commissioner, required Microsoft to ship versions of Windows without its media player and also to open its client/server interface to competitors by publishing the protocols that define interactions between clients such as ordinary Windows PCs and workgroup servers so that other companies could make interoperable products.

Microsoft produced a list relating to these protocols, but noted that they were subject to patent protection and were Microsoft's intellectual property. The company accordingly proposed to charge for them; the commission ruled that the protocols weren't innovative enough for Microsoft to charge for them. In other words, Barnett argues, the commission is making a judgement about the value of patents awarded by the European Patent Office.

Patents on software are wildly controversial in the technology world and the EPO, along with the UK's patent office, is reputedly more willing to grant software patents than any other office in the EU. In the first few years of this century, the EU tried to bring in the Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive to harmonise the way patents are granted. The directive included a test for determining whether a particular piece of software was worthy of a patent: did it take a "technical step" forward? The directive failed in 2005 after a lot of wrangling, and even at the time it seemed clear that part of the reason was a power struggle between the various components of the EU government, rather than simple dissatisfaction with the aims of the directive. To anyone who followed those efforts in detail, the European Commission's ruling has a familiar ring.

Many - and not just open source advocates - have called for the reform of the patent system. But few would argue that the reform should be carried out unilaterally by the European Commission or that the commission should take the place of the courts that review patents when they're challenged. And if Microsoft's patents can be overridden by the commission, doesn't that set a precedent for everyone else? Even hardware manufacturers like IBM and Hewlett-Packard have software patents.

So before you pop the champagne corks, consider: is this any way to run a patent regime?


If you'd like to comment on any aspect of Technology Guardian, send your emails to tech@guardian.co.uk