TechLawAdvisor points to this decision by Judge Posner, in which he notes in dicta that “a copyright licensee has no right to make further copies (except a single, backup copy for his own use).”

Only a single copy?  That’s kind of interesting.  I haven’t known other decisions to be so narrow.  The AHRA is certainly broader (”No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright … based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings”).

Go to TechLawAdvisor’s post for more.

The recent article ”Digital Wrongs” made me think of Declan’s piece “Debunking DMCA Myths.”

Declan brought up a lot of good issues in that article. On the one hand, the article showed that maybe there’s less to worry about when it comes to the DMCA and scientific research.  More importantly (I think) it showed how fine a line there is between creating awareness and activism,  and fear mongering.

What’s the connection between the two articles?  Well, when I read Hank Barry talk about not creating “a new technology that would allow music streaming for cell phones,” I wonder if anyone actually buys it.  I wonder if anyone says “that poor venture capitalist!” 

Does it generate sympathy or indifference?

I also wonder if people see a difference between what Barry’s saying and what Greg Ballard of SonicBlue is saying.  SonicBlue is actually losing money – it’s vulnerable, and many other companies like it are, too.  With Barry, it’s a “chilling effect” – but it’s not an actual commercial death sentence.  Actually getting sued by the MPAA is an incredibly difficult battle to fight let alone win, given cash constraints.  Barry’s not in that position yet.

One could argue that the actual, perceivable effects and the chilling effects must be seen together.  The chilling effects certainly are important.

But, rhetorically, I don’t think they’re equivalent.  Rhetorically, I think talking about chilling effects in the abstract is not as effective.  Especially when examples  of chilling effects are used to excess, they lose legitimacy.  Moreover, when you try to imply that there was a serious chilling effect, but nothing bad came of it, people are only going to say, “So, what the heck are you complaining about?”  It’s going to come off as fear mongering, rather than raising awareness.

Another point that came into my head: At the end of Declan’s article on scientific research and the DMCA, he notes, “Any type of publishing carries risks, including possible suits for libel, copyright infringement or invasion of privacy. Security research is no different.”

That’s definitely a good point.  Scientific researchers need to take responsibilty for following the law, just like anyone else   If they do publish something that they know violates the law, they accept the risks involved.

But, we still can’t overlook the fact that some people who aren’t breaking the law can’t afford to prove it in court.  That problem doesn’t just go away because “any type of publishing carries risks.” It doesn’t make it any better. (I’m not saying Declan meant this, but one could read that sentence as trying to shrug off the chilling effects of the DMCA.)

In case you haven’t seen it, here’s the EFF’s reply comments to the FCC.  Hopefully, the FCC will heed their strong rebuttals to the MPAA’s arguments.

Berkeley’s bIPlog directed me to this announcement by 321 Studios, the company being sued for the DVD Copy Plus and DVD X Copy software programs.  They are offering a reward to anyone who turns in DVD pirates using 321’s software.

Weird.

I’m pretty conflicted about this.  On the one hand, I like that 321 is taking these good faith actions to convince the MPAA that the software isn’t a danger.  This “Piracy Prevention Program” will hopefully help protect 321 and allow them to keep producing their cool software.  On the other hand, encouraging snitching always seems a little weird.  Moreover, they’re asking people to snoop on 321’s customers.  Just like the MPAA, 321 is treating their customers like potential criminals, who must be watched very carefully.  This does not seem like the optimal direction for the copyfight.