I'm travelling in Mexico right now, but some interesting IP news from the register . In Spain a judge has apprently ruled that downloading is legal.

The ruling sent shockwaves through the music industry as the decision allows Spain's 16 million internet users to swap music without being punished. Spanish recording industry federation Promusicae says it will appeal against the decision.

Meanwhile, the manager of the rock groups Clash and Pink Floyd is quoted as saying

They [the big label managers] don't [believe in DRM]. Not anymore.

And that was done by Sony BMG - what the fuck was that [rootkit DRM] about? The other was iTunes - and they've seen how kids don't like it. The unitary payment doesn't suit the technology, it doesn't suit how they're actually using downloads - which is to explore and move around. You don't want to pay a dollar for each track when you want to explore music.

"But he's also optimistic that for almost everyone else [except the big labels] - indie labels, musicians, songwriters and budding entrepreneurs - as well as network providers - the future's going to be pretty bright."

And so am I. And no, I don't think they should "go out and sell more T-shirts." There are a lot of better revenue generating models, although none quite so lucrative as Jenner's proposal for government tax financing.

Forgent Networks has claimed for some years to own a patent covering JPEG compression. Those it sued generally concluded that it was cheaper to pay than to defend their right, although for several years the patent has been challenged as involving prior art. The Patent office agreed to review the case last winter but the process is a long one. Seeing the end of this gravy train, Forgent has now settled the last of its claims for $8 million. Forgent had about 60 license deals worth $100 million in royalties. (Links include news.com, techdirt, techdirt, and techdirt)

This case makes it pretty clear that our patent system is busted.

A British research organization, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), is pushing for a change in British law so that it reflects widespread current practice in copying music and videos from one format to another, as from their iPod to their computer or MP3 player. Such a "private right to copy" for individual use by people who have bought the material makes sense as long as they don't transfer it to others. (For a good discussion of the pros and cons see this yahoo news link.)

There doesn't seem much chance that the right will be enacted, but its nice to have someone on the side of reason.

Mike at techdirt (link here but see also here and this) reports that a Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) member sued a man, claiming he had shared a movie through a file sharing website and thus violated its copyright. The man fought the case, despite the potential cost far exceeding the amount sought for settlement. He owned the DVD of the movie and claimed he hadn't shared or downloaded it. In court the plaintiff so far hasn't been able to show it owns the copyright or that it isn't faulty. The case may be dismissed on a technicality but the basic question of fact seems to be whether the man had violated anybody's copyright. Case pending but what a waste.

Two stories today provide more details on the purge of copyrighted material appearing on YouTube (link here and here).

It now seems that the vanished material is taken down at the request of the copyright owner and that the items chosen follow some idiosyncratic criteria that only it knows. Some owners of TV videos, however, face a quandary. The Post describes their dilemma: the web “could siphon off their TV audiences and ad dollars or [provide] a powerful promotion machine that could generate buzz for the shows.”

YouTube, the website that allows individuals to post videos, is in the process of being purchased by Google. In preparation, it has begun taking down copyrighted videos from TV shows like Comedy Central and Howard Stern (link here). "A week earlier, nearly 30,000 clips of TV shows, movies and music videos were taken down after the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers cited copyright infringement," according to the article.

The US take-downs were reported to be at the request of a third-party, presumeably a TV advertiser which paid for the show but gets little or no credit on YouTube. I wonder whether they would withdraw their objections if YouTube included the ads at no direct cost to the advertiser.

The US Supreme Court will hear an appeal in a dispute between Microsoft and AT&T over Windows programs sold overseas which use an AT&T patent on speech coding technology (yahoo news link here). An appeals court had extended US patent protection abroad and would cost MS an estimated billion dollars. The patent had already been ruled valid for software sold in the US.

The Justice Department sided with MS, arguing that AT&T should seek its remedy in foreign courts where it has a valid patent. Congress had previously extended the reach of US patents to commerce abroad after the Supreme Court ruled against it.

This looks like another opportunity for the court to overrule the Congress. If so, and given its conservative tinge, the the grounds will be interesting.

Wikipedia proposes a new tactic, buying up desired copyrights and making them freely available (yahoo news lnk here). Wikipedia Foundation members are being asked what material they would like to see freed. In a letter to members, it is suggested that a funder may be available.

Interesting idea. Utopian?

Hollywood studies have begun an anti-camcording website against pirates who record a film at a theater and then produce DVD copies for sale (yahoo news link here). It quotes Motion Picture Assn. of America president Bob Pisano that 90% of pirated films worldwide are the result of camcording. Schemes to cut off the practice include getting laws passed against such camcording and campaigns to get theater owners to throw camcorders out of the theater and patrons to report the practice to the theater manager.

The story also notes that pirated copies of films currently showing in one country are made from DVDs already released in another country. The industry wants to stop the original sale while the film is still in theaters in another country.

For anyone who has ever lived in a low-income country (not to mention New York City), getting laws passed and enforced against film piracy is sisyphusian.

Yahoo today has a story entitled “Be loyal, kind and don't steal Movies” about a Boy Scout merit badge awarded for learning about the “evils of downloading pirated movies and music" (yahoo news link here). The curriculum was developed by the movie industry.

Fortunately, this nonsense is confined to the Los Angeles area, at least for now.