I have to post this right now. I know piracy is a big issue, and I understand that corporations have a right to secure their profits, and I realize that movies are in fact being pirated right now, but this is ridiculous.

A women is now facing a year in jail and a $2,500 fine from the MPAA for promoting a movie. She recorded 20 seconds of the movie Transformers in and effort to get her brother to go see. Now she faces years of court proceding and thousands of dollars lawyers fees at the best, and additional 2.5 thousand dollar fine and a year in prison at the worst.

http://digg.com/movies/Recording_20_seconds_of_a_movie_can_get_you_a_year_in_jail

I think I'm done with the MPAA. I have never seen a company (or group of companies) so vehemently fight tooth and nail against their own customers. Depending on how this case goes, I'm probably done with going out to see MPAA movies.

If anyone knows more about this case, please leave a comment. I will be trying to get contact info of the manager of the theatre and anyone involved in the case so I can get more information.

It appears that the "Spread This Number Again" link on digg has been blocked despite getting over 10,000 diggs. Let's just say I have lost a lot of respect for Digg.

The number that allows one to crack the encryption of an hd-dvd is not copyrighted as far I know. Can you copyright a number? It's not a trade secret because it was discovered without inside knowledge. I'm pretty sure it's not patented. If it were, that would be great, but would also make the number a matter of public record and defeat the point of having a secret key.

About that DMCA: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_and_Performances_and_Phonograms_Treaties_Implementation_Act_of_1998

“(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

“(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

“(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

“(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

First of all, is a number a technology? (not really) product? (of two other numbers maybe) device? (don't think so) component or part thereof? (unclear, maybe in much the same way the numbers needed to make a key for a lock are part of the lock)

So assuming the first part applies, clearly B and C do not apply, as this number is needed to build dvd players or write dvd software, which is able to be sold (a significant commercial purpose, see Red Hat) . Additionally, the number is being spread mostly to allow linux users and programmers to create programs that are able to play hd-dvds. Hd-dvds that they already own mind you. It is unfair I should not be allowed to exercise fair use. (A) doesn't make a whole lot of sense when talking about a number. It's not really designed or produced. However, it is primarily used for constructing software to circumvent a technological measure. "That effectively controls access"? I'll get to that.

"a technological measure ‘effectively controls access to a work’ if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."

Certain things like iTunes music, are downloaded in an unencrypted format then DRM'd on your computer. Thus, you don't really need any information from the copyright holder to listen to the unencrypted music (before the DRM). [need a source]. Even if it's not true, there are so many programs that can strip a music of DRM without information from the copyright holder, that it's hardly effective. In much the same way, CSS's effectiveness is flimsy at best.

Now for the fair use thing:

(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

So if I want to rip my dvds to my computer, so I don't have to carry the discs with me everywhere (a fair use), it's not illegal for me to circumvent DRM, effective or not.

I really wish people would stop blindly obeying DMCA takedown notices, more often then not, they are false anyway.

Till next time, go freedom.