Virgin Media UK, a Broadband, cable TV, landline phone and mobile service provider began a trial of CView, a technology that allows for deep-packet inspection. Virgin plans not to tell the customers whose traffic will be examined.” They do not plan to target customers specifically but will inspect about 40% of all filesharing traffic. They also do not feel it is important to tell customers if they are part of this trial as, “it would be counter-productive because it doesn’t affect customers directly.”

It could come as a surprise that this trail comes on the heels of a recently announced Virgin Media music sharing initiative, in which Virgin is teaming up with Universal Music to create a legal (aka commercial) download service. Detica, the company that created CView, states in promotional material that, “CView could be used to categorize filesharers and apply technical measures against them, or target them to be sold legal alternatives,” although Virgin Media’s spokesman denied the companies plan to use those features. Jon James, Virgin Media’s executive director of broadband, however did say, “ “Understanding how consumer behavior is changing will be an important requirement of Virgin Media’s upcoming music offering and, should they become law, the Government’s legislative proposals will also require measurement of the level of copyright infringement on ISPs’ networks.”

Read story from the Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26/virgin_media_detica/

So, in the UK, ISPs are taking it upon themselves to look into the information contained in individual packets. Is copyright infringement so scary for the western world that we want to emulate countries like China? It seems funny that China uses DPI to shut down rebellion or free thought or human rights issues, but does not seem to care about copyrights, while the Western World which is supposedly free, wants to use this technology to stop piracy. I guess what bothers me about this is the nagging concern of: where does it stop? This is compounded by the fact that those who are performing DPI don’t feel the need to notify those affected because their personal privacy is of no concern to them. I guess with DPI, it comes down to a lot of negatives and not a whole lot of positives.

Maybe I would be more ok with the market research aspect of Virgin Media’s plan if they notified those users whose information they were gathering and also provided an option to opt out. We keep talking about the entertainment industry developing a new business model, and these facts on filesharing usage could be beneficial. However, in light of the 3 strikes debate in the UK this type of monitoring of illegal filesharing comes off as more oppressive then it has to. If it was open and optional, it might not have a soviet vibe. What do you think about positive uses of DPI? Do they exist or are they not worth it for the ‘where does it stop’ factor?

Orphan works are defined as a copyrighted work whose copyright owner cannot be found or is hard to find.  This first became a problem with the creation of the 1976 Copyright Act, which allowed any original work, that is “fixed in a tangible medium” to be automatically copyrighted.  In 2005, the Copyright Office conducted a yearlong survey on orphan works and concluded in their report that it was an issue that needs to be dealt with legislatively. Some legislation has been brought up in Congress that pertains to the orphan works (most of it highly contested by artist communities) though none of it has passed.  Most recently, orphan works have been a topic in relation to the Google Book Search Settlement, which came about as a result of Google deciding to digitize books from university libraries without the author’s consent.  If the settlement is accepted, Google will have control over all of the orphan works including the ability to sell them.

While the Google Book Search Settlement would effectively introduce most of the currently unusable orphan works to the public, it would be as a result of Google dominating the orphan works market.  Additionally, some think that the problem of orphan works needs to be dealt with as a legislative matter and that by solving it with this settlement, a lot of important considerations would be overlooked.  On the legislative aspect though, there has been much contestation to the bills that were proposed, voiced loudest by artist communities who argue that it is unfair that they would be responsible for keeping their works from being used.  Additionally, they argue that idea of creating a database would be expensive and take a lot of time to do so.

When looking at other countries and how they handle orphan works, we see that the UK is currently trying to better define their stipulations to make them clearer, while Canada has a Copyright Board that examines a potential user’s search process and grants non-exclusive copyright licenses.  I think that our generation and the current culture of remixing has shown that access to these orphan works is vital.  The best way to allow everyone to have access would not be through one company having control of all orphan works, but through a comprehensive way of determining ownership.  We see ourselves being moved toward a completely digital world, where it is feasible to expect that in a few years time, all creative content will be available online, making it easier for us to determine what has an owner and what is in the public domain.  If we prepare for this inevitability now, we can rid ourselves of the problem of orphan works.  With the system that we have in place at the moment, we are all being punished by not having access to orphan works and it is restraining us from reaching our creative potential.

My analysis of The Pirate Bay presents the controversial torrent tracking website in terms of some key events in its history in an effort to understand how it has affected copyright, commerce, and culture.  Before any deep analysis, a basic time line of TPB is sketched out, delineating the factors that came together to produce the website.  These include bit torrent technology, the Swedish pro-piracy organization Piratbyrån, and the climate of legal pressure being applied to other file sharing services at that time.  From these factors, the Pirate Bay is created, and it quickly attracts the attention of many file sharers, as well as the ire of intellectual property owners via their organizations such as the MPAA and it’s European equivalent, IFPI.  Through it’s antagonistic behavior to copyright owners, the Pirate Bay begins to develop a reputation as using what they perceive as principles of human nature and technology to take a stand against copyright owners.

» Read more: Summary of the Presentation on the Pirate Bay

Last week, Apple filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Media Solutions Holdings, a company that sells knock-off power adapters compatible with Apple products. It sells these knock-offs through several websites (Laptopsforless.com, Laptopacadapter.com, and Ereplacements.com).

Take a look at Laptopsforless.coms’ Macbook power adapters, listed at prices of $37.95 or less, approximately half of what a typical Mac adapter costs.

According to an InformationWeek article, Apple is claiming that these products violate its Power Adapter Patent that it filed in 2003.

As far as I can see, Apple’s patent only really covers the design of the adapter. The official claim listed in the patent reads as follows: “We claim the ornamental design for a power adapter, substantially as shown and described.” And design-wise, I don’t see an oustanding resemblance between the adapters, besides the fact that they apparently both possess magnetic plugs. I would also argue that a magnetic plug is more of an idea/function feature of Apple adapters, rather than an actual element of design. However, I suppose it is a component of the adapter that is “innovative,” since most PC computer chargers don’t have that feature.

It’s interesting to see which battles Apple chooses to pick. Why haven’t they ever gone after Senuti (yes, that is iTunes backwards), the application that lets you upload your friend’s iPod music to your computer? I’m sure there are dozens of websites and companies that Apple could squeeze money out of. The InformationWeek article reports, “Of the 15 or so filed during the second half of 2009 that involve Apple, the company is the plaintiff only in this one case.” Perhaps this has to do with the fact that Media Solutions Holdings makes a direct profit off of Apple knockoffs, whereas things like Senuti are free and user-driven.

While I completely understand why Apple filed this infringement case, I wouldn’t want to see those knock-off adapters go off the market to be perfectly honest. I’ve had my Macbook for 3 years and have already gone through 3 power adapters because they all seem to “mysteriously” stop working. And let’s face it, the Apple Protection Plan only lasts for so long. $73 for a computer charger? We’re in a recession, Steve Jobs. Get with it.