According to the notorious file-sharing site, users will soon be distributing CAD (computer aided design) files just as they exchange music and video today. Those files, when loaded into a 3D printer such as MakerBot’s recently launched Replicator, can be used to extrude custom objects.

At the moment, 3D printing is relatively expensive – the Replicator is making headlines as it comes in at under $2,000, for instance – and the cheaper models are limited in what they can create and the materials they work with. As hardware evolves, however, a situation similar to the home printer market is envisaged: low cost devices that can create just about everything we currently buy – albeit perhaps in component form, ready for assembly – from raw ingredients.

TPB has already set up a “physibles” category for downloads, albeit currently sparsely populated, in preparation for what the site reckons will be The Next Big Thing in digital exchanges. Currently most CAD files don’t come with DRM, but that’s expected to change as brands realize they can offer limited edition printable objects

[via Extreme Tech]

Kim Dotcom – born Kim Schultz and apparently nicknamed “Dr. Evil” unofficially within Hollywood – is said to have earned $42m from Megaupload in 2010 alone. In fact, the entire file locker company’s staff shared in a spiraling bounty; among the assets seized were fourteen Mercedes-Benz cars, a Maserati, Rolls Royce and a vintage Lamborghini, Ars Technica reports, in addition to dozens of servers, domain names and other goods.

Part of the allegations from the US government include the suggestion that Megaupload’s much-vaunted anti-piracy tools – and, in fact, its entire stance on being against the illegal sharing of copyrighted content – was a PR fraud. In fact, it’s suggested, staff knew exactly what was being uploaded and shared, referring to content in internal messages, swapping links for their own downloading purposes, and even uploading stolen video themselves.

Meanwhile, the tools offered to content-owners themselves were artificially crippled, it’s claimed, with daily limits on how many takedown requests could be filed. Those limits, internal documents indicate, were adjusted based on Megaupload’s overall performance and growth. The growth itself – and the money it brought in – was flaunted at the media industry with high profile ad campaigns, such as the notorious video in which Will-i-am, Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, Ciara and others promote Megaupload as their sharing site of choice.

As of this morning, the Justice.gov, MPAA and RIAA sites are back online, though Universal Music‘s site is “under maintenance.” All of those Megaupload staff currently under arrest have been denied bail, though “superproducer” Swizz Beatz – who helped produce the promo video – has been confirmed not to be a shareholder in the company, Forbes reports, despite being named as its CEO after the advert debuted. The full indictment can be found here.

“As for me, what I am hoping is that people outside the US who have friends or family who are voters in the US, will ask them to make a call to their senator or representative,” Wales explained, “and I hope we send a broad global message that the internet as a whole will not tolerate censorship in response to mere allegations of copyright infringement.”

The alternative, the Wikipedia founder says, was the possibility of only taking down the site for US visitors. That resulted in a close vote on how broad the protest should be: in the end, 591 of the Wikipedia community polled said they were in favor of the global blackout, against 479 calling for it to be US-only. “While there was a solid majority, it wasn’t the overwhelming majority that we had for the whole concept” Wales admits. “It seems to have been somewhat of a tough choice for many people.”

SOPA has, most recently, been apparently shelved after the Obama Administration voiced concerns that the proposed act might be too dangerous in terms of challenging the underlying openness of the internet. It’s a stance that earned the US President a tongue-lashing from News Corp.’s Rupert Murdoch, who described Obama as having “thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters” while Google is apparently the “piracy leader.”

If you’re panic-stricken at the thought of being without Wikipedia for 24hrs, there’s still hope. You can download an offline version of the database from here, assuming you have sufficient drive space and bandwidth.

And to be fair, the worship of free information doesn’t exactly make them a “church for pirates”. But one of their central beliefs, if you can call it that, is that information is free and restricting its movement for monetary gain is immoral. For the Kopimistsamfundet, copying information isn’t just right, it’s an ethical mandate, spreading a wealth of knowledge freely throughout the world.  That isn’t too far away from some FOSS proponents’ worldview,  and in Sweden and other European countries the “Pirate Party” actually lobbies in favor for pro-piracy policies, though most of them stop short of actual religious affiliation.

There are no patron saints of pirates: priests are called “operators”, and they offer one-on-one counseling for their digital flock. The church accepts any and all who apply and have done so for over a year. As interesting as the idea of worshiping the flow of information is, it might be a little far out even for the new age types. I wouldn’t try try to claim that downloading a torrented copy of Transformers 2 is a religious rite any time soon.

[via Slashdot]

Some musicians got together and recorded Mega Song in support of MegaUpload and Universal Music has been trying to force YouTube to remove its video for a while. The catch is that Universal doesn’t own the copyright to Mega Song. A new court filing from Universal that hints it has a deal with YouTube that allows it to request the takedown of anything it doesn’t like on the video service. The key paragraph in the filing reads:

Your letter could be read to suggest that UMG’s rights to use the YouTube “Content Management System” with respect to certain user-posted videos are limited to instances in which UMG asserts a claim that a user-posted video contains material that infringes a UMG copyright. As you know, UMG’s rights in this regard are not limited to copyright infringement, as set forth more completely in the March 31, 2009 Video License Agreement for UGC Video Service Providers, including without limitation Paragraphs 1(b) and 1(g) thereof.

What exactly those paragraphs 1(b) and 1(g) say are unknown, but the clear indication is that those paragraphs give Universal the right to request takedowns of content they do not have copyright to. The implications if Google agreed to this sort of deal are very disturbing. What do you think?

[via BoingBoing]

The software the company used looked for keywords like “The Box” which is a title of a movie WB owns from 2009. The software issued take down requests on any content that had the two common words listed. That means that WB issued takedowns for books and all sorts of stuff it didn’t have the copyrights to.

It also means that legitimate content was taken down for no reason from the website Hotfile. Hotfile and Warner Brothers are in a suit right now alleging that Hotfile assisted in copyright infringement and violated the DMCA. Hotfile is now accusing WB of violating DMCA by asking for takedowns of content it doesn’t own. You would think someone would be checking what takedown demands were made before they went out.

[via ArsTechnica]

According to this same government source, Business Secretary Vince Cable will announce the government’s response to Hargreaves report on Wednesday. One of the most clear reasons why this set of findings done by Hargreaves, professor of digital economy at Cardiff School of Journalism, is that there’s room for 8 billion pounds (aka $13 billion USD) to be added to the economy. This change of law would shake up Britain’s 300-year-old ruling on copyright which Hargreaves says are obstructing innovation and growth.

Business Secretary Vince Cable will indeed signal the government’s agreeing to Hargreaves’ recommendation to legalize “format shifting” of legitimately purchased copyrighted works such as music, said the same source as mentioned above. This same practice has been legalized in most European countries save Britain, Ireland, and of course Malta. This changing of law will allow consumers to copy data from CDs to devices such as iPods or personal home computers, but does not allow for the sharing of content over the internet without the copyright owner’s permission.

This ruling will extend over Hargreaves recommendation to introduce an exception that includes copyright for parody, this meaning comedians such as, for example, Weird Al, would be able to parody someone else’s work without seeking permission from the holder of the copyright of the original work. Would that this weren’t already a law in the USA for many years now, we’d be without such classics as “Eat It,” “Smells Like Nirvana,” “Perform This Way.” Of course the law works a bit differently here in the USA than in England where the law is, instead, not written down with pen and ink.

Finally, the government has not yet spoken on how the introduction of a central digital copyright exchange will be rules upon, one where a licenses in copyright could be bought and sold – as per Hargreaves recommendation again.

[via Rueters]

Currently, an iOS device remembers an iTunes password for fifteen minutes, in which time any subsequent downloads or purchases do not need to be authenticated. The potential change in policy is to address inadvertent over-spending, either by users not realising they are buying paid upgrades, or from children making purchases after a parent has left the account signed in.

As for the content theft, a new clause to the app review guidelines spells out the penalties for attempts “to cheat the system.” That could include falsifying reviews or copying other developers’ content:

“If you attempt to cheat the system (for example, by trying to trick the review process, steal data from users, copy another developer’s work, or manipulate the ratings) your apps will be removed from the store and you will be expelled from the developer program.”

Meanwhile, ebooks masquerading as apps, or audio or video content doing the same, will also face tougher checks. “Apps that are simply a song or movie should be submitted to the iTunes store” the updated guidelines suggest, while “Apps that are simply a book should be submitted to the iBookstore.”

It’s basically as straightforward as a daily feed of articles pulled out by headline and a brief sample, complete with the thumbnail of the issue’s cover. Baio argues that linking to public articles is legal, and that since The Daily app only offers the current day’s issue, not previous versions, this is in fact a useful way to access content subscribers have already paid for.

Whether News Corp feels the same way, mind, remains to be seen. One commenter suggests that point 8(k) in The Daily terms of service, which deals with derivative works, will be the sticking point:

“You agree that, while using the Services, you shall not:] modify, reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble any part of the Services, whether in whole or in part, or create any derivative works from any part of the Services, or encourage, assist or authorize any other person to do so.”

Although not detailed by reports coming out of Japan, it seems likely that the furor has been caused by self-published iBooks content. Apple opened up the iBookstore to self-publishing authors back in May 2010 via iTunes Connect, and – as Amazon has discovered with its Kindle ebook store – it makes a tempting target for unofficial copies of electronic texts.

In a statement, Apple said “We fully understand the importance of intellectual property including copyright” and promised to “promptly and appropriately respond to complaints about violation of copyright.”

Cameron had the following to say about tech in the USA: “Right now, Silicon Valley is the leading place in the world for high-tech growth and innovation, … But there’s no reason why it has to be so predominant. Question is: where will its challengers be? Bangalore? Hefei? Moscow? My argument today is that if we have the confidence to really go for it and the understanding of what it takes, London could be one of them. All the elements are here.”

One of the large barriers developers face in the UK is their often-restrictive IP laws. Laws in the area have no “fair use” provisions like the kind Cameron refers to. “The founders of Google have said they could never have started their company in Britain,” Cameron continued, “The service they provide depends on taking a snapshot of all the content on the internet at any one time and they feel our copyright system is not as friendly to this sort of innovation as it is in the United States. Over there, they have what are called ‘fair-use’ provisions, which some people believe gives companies more breathing space to create new products and services. So I can announce today that we are reviewing our IP laws, to see if we can make them fit for the internet age. I want to encourage the sort of creative innovation that exists in America.”

This review of IP laws Cameron speaks of is being revealed by the Intellectual Property Office, due to be complete by 2011. This review will speak on “barriers to new internet-based business models, including the costs of obtaining permissions from existing rights-holders” and “what the UK can learn from the US’s ‘fair use’ rules covering the circumstances in which copyright material may be used without the rights-holder’s express permission.” Sounds neat, but also scary, if you ask me.

[Via ArsTechnica]

Google is going out of its way to “defend open-source standards,” and they do not intend to stop here, with this lawsuit brought against them. They call the whole thing “baseless,” in fact. And as both companies obviously push forward, we’re forced to look at what they’re fighting over here. What it all means, as it relates to Android in any case. The Dalvik virtual machine, at the heart of Android, is held front and center within this dispute. It would be pretty shocking to see either Google or Oracle back down from their statements at this point.

Google’s Official Statement

“We are disappointed Oracle has chosen to attack both Google and the open-source Java community with this baseless lawsuit. The open-source Java community goes beyond any one corporation and works every day to make the web a better place. We will strongly defend open-source standards and will continue to work with the industry to develop the Android platform.”

“Apple’s goal has always been to insure that our customers have a great experience with their iPhone and we know that jailbreaking can severely degrade the experience. As we’ve said before, the vast majority of customers do not jailbreak their iPhones as this can violate the warranty and can cause the iPhone to become unstable and not work reliably.” Apple statement

Cult of Mac also asked what Apple’s legal stance was toward companies or individuals that “publish or market jailbreaking software”.  The answer was relatively vague; the representative would only say that “in the past” they’ve not prosecuted anyone for doing that, but would make no comment about future intentions.

One prediction is that the hitherto underground jailbreaking community – and the app developers who populate the unofficial Cydia app store – will take a more public profile, choosing to bypass Apple’s official App Store and instead market directly to users with hacked devices.

“When one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphone or the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses” Copyright Office

Cellphone unlocking is also exempt from the DMCA, with the 2006 rule defining it as such being renewed; despite that, unlockers have been successfully sued.  ”The Copyright Office recognizes that the primary purpose of the locks on cell phones is to bind customers to their existing networks, rather than to protect copyrights” says Jennifer Granick, EFF’s Civil Liberties Director.

The full record of the rulemaking is here, while the EFF’s process is described in detail here.

Press Release:

Librarian of Congress Announces DMCA Section 1201 Rules for
Exemptions Regarding Circumvention of Access-Control Technologies

Librarian of Congress James H. Billington today released the following statement:

Section 1201(a)(1) of the copyright law requires that every three years I am to determine whether there are any classes of works that will be subject to exemptions from the statute’s prohibition against circumvention of technology that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. I make that determination at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding conducted by the Register of Copyrights, who makes a recommendation to me. Based on that proceeding and the Register’s recommendation, I am to determine whether the prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works is causing or is likely to cause adverse effects on the ability of users of any particular classes of copyrighted works to make noninfringing uses of those works. The classes of works that I designated in the previous proceeding expire at the end of the current proceeding unless proponents of a class prove their case once again.

This is the fourth time that I have made such a determination. Today I have designated six classes of works. Persons who circumvent access controls in order to engage in noninfringing uses of works in these six classes will not be subject to the statutory prohibition against circumvention.

As I have noted at the conclusion of past proceedings, it is important to understand the purposes of this rulemaking, as stated in the law, and the role I have in it. This is not a broad evaluation of the successes or failures of the DMCA. The purpose of the proceeding is to determine whether current technologies that control access to copyrighted works are diminishing the ability of individuals to use works in lawful, noninfringing ways. The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls, and therefore this rulemaking proceeding is not about technologies that control copying. Nor is this rulemaking about the ability to make or distribute products or services used for purposes of circumventing access controls, which are governed by a different part of section 1201.

In this rulemaking, the Register of Copyrights received 19 initial submissions proposing 25 classes of works, many of them duplicative in subject matter, which the Register organized into 11 groups and published in a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on the proposed classes. Fifty-six comments were submitted. Thirty-seven witnesses appeared during the four days of public hearings in Washington and in Palo Alto, California. Transcripts of the hearings, copies of all of the comments, and copies of other information received by the Register have been posted on the Copyright Office’s website.

The six classes of works are:

(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos

(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:
(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

(5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace; and

(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

All of these classes of works find their origins in classes that I designated at the conclusion of the previous rulemaking proceeding, but some of the classes have changed due to differences in the facts and arguments presented in the current proceeding. For example, in the previous proceeding I designated a class that enable film and media studies professors to engage in the noninfringing activity of making compilations of film clips for classroom instruction. In the current proceeding, the record supported an expansion of that class to enable the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into documentary films and noncommercial videos for the purpose of criticism or comment, when the person engaging in circumvention reasonably believes that it is necessary to fulfill that purpose. I agree with the Register that the record demonstrates that it is sometimes necessary to circumvent access controls on DVDs in order to make these kinds of fair uses of short portions of motion pictures.

Viacom, for their part, are “disappointed” by the ruling but “confident” they will win on appeal.  They also reiterate that anti-piracy controls were relatively simple to implement – pointing to Google “fixing” the issue with YouTube after Viacom first filed their complaint – and that they believe that before this happened YouTube “stole” content to build a billion dollar business:

“YouTube and Google stole hundreds of thousands of video clips from artists and content creators, including Viacom, building a substantial business that was sold for billions of dollars. We believe that should not be allowed by law or common sense.” Viacom

Nintendo president Satoru Iwata has already said that the company intends to ”enhance the ability to combat piracy in Europe through both legal and technological means”, predominantly through developing consoles that won’t play pirated titles, but it seems they’ll also have to challenge attitudes toward game ownership.  ”Everybody is using [magicom],” one gamer is quoted as saying, “and I don’t feel like I am doing something particularly wrong.”

[via Kotaku]

Unfortunately, Viacom’s process apparently didn’t involve keeping an accurate record of which video they’d uploaded and which had been put up by third-parties.  That led to embarrassing incidents where Viacom demanded clips be removed, only to request that they be reinstated at a later point.

“For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users.” Official YouTube blog

YouTube reckon Viacom expects content sharing sites to magically “know” which clips are legitimately uploaded and which are not, while Viacom are taking the far more direct approach of comparing YouTube to Grokster (despite having attempted to buy the video site at one point).  There’s an in-depth analysis of the summary judgement – and links to the raw judgements themselves – here.

“Psystar and Apple today entered into a partial settlement that is embodied in a stipulation that will be filed with the Court tomorrow. Psystar has agreed on certain amounts to be awarded as statutory damages on Apple’s copyright claims in exchange for Apple’s agreement not to execute on these awards until all appeals in this matter have been concluded. Moreover, Apple has agreed to voluntarily dismiss all its trademark, trade-dress, and state-law claims. This partial settlement eliminates the need for a trial and reduces the issues before this Court to the scope of any permanent injunction on Apple’s copyright claims” Psystar motion

Rebel EFI, Psystar insist, is entirely a software product of their own creation, and doesn’t contain or include OS X.  As such, they reckon it should be left on sale, since Apple’s assertion that Psystar have impinged copyright does not apply to the software tool (even if that’s what users then go on to do with the app).

The unusual element to the story is that Apple seem to have agreed to the settlement amount – as well as to “voluntarily dismiss all its trademark, trade-dress, and state-law claims” against Psystar – only being payable once all of Psystar’s appeal avenues are exhausted.  More details of the agreement are expected to be revealed later on today, as the motion is presented before the court in San Francisco.

After “carefully examining” the device, Otani decides there are a few differences between it and the Kindle, though when you’re scrabbling round flagging up differences in button shapes and logo it says a lot about the origins of your inspiration.  Inside the device there’s some form of wireless connection, probably GSM since it requires a SIM card, which can be used for downloading new ebooks while on the move.

According to Founder International this is a prototype, and the eventual product will arrive in China at the end of 2009, with a possible Japanese launch at some point after that.  It’s expected to be priced at around $210 and support the Peking University’s own Apabi ebook viewer software.

[via E-Ink-Info]

The 3.0-inch 240 x 320 touchscreen is okay, but the dualband 900/1800MHz GSM and GPRS data won’t win the Nokla N98 any plaudits.  It’ll play MP3 audio and MP4 video files, plus has an FM radio and WAP browser with Java support.

It measures 108 x 54 x 14mm and weighs 140g, and should be filling the streets of China right now.  The only good thing is the price: at 530 yuan, it’s roughly $78.

[via PMP Today]

So, what’s the basis for this supposed bias? Norstrom is a member of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Swedish Association for Copyright, which are publicly outspoken against websites and services like The Pirate Bay.

Should the ruling stand as it was laid out on April 17th, the four people that created The Pirate Bay will each have to serve a year long sentence in prison. We’ll just have to wait and see if the popular Torrent site founders will get the retrial they think they deserve.

Sunde announced via Twitter just before the official verdict came down and offered consolation to supporters. “Stay calm — Nothing will happen to TPB, us personally or file sharing whatsoever. This is just a theater for the media.” The trial, which ended March 2nd, was a joint trial pitting the admins of TPB against record labels and a government alike.

The trial was publicized online as a sort of circus, with the majority of the charges against the defendants being dropped due to a general lack of understanding of the technology and lack of evidence by the prosecution. However, the final charges could not be dropped, and the sentence isn’t even as bad as it could have been. The admins were facing up to two years and $13 million in fines for 33 movies and multiple music tracks. Hollywood and the prosecution are claiming a huge victory against illegal file sharing. Yet Sunde remained optimistic, invoking Hollywood in a smaller post-trial press conference: “We see this as a film,” he said. “This is the first set-back for the heroes…. In the end we know that the good guys will win, as in all movies.”

[Via Wired]

“They don’t have the right to read a book out loud,” said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. “That’s an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law.”

An Amazon spokesman noted the text-reading feature depends on text-to-speech technology, and that listeners won’t confuse it with the audiobook experience. Amazon owns Audible, a leading audiobook provider.

While Amazon’s spokesperson plays the argument down, you can believe that behind the scenes their legal team is racing to clarify exactly what makes an audio book.  What’s more bizarre, however, is the idea that Aiken appears to be suggesting, which is that a roboticized voice mindlessly reading out text is akin to a professional voice actor “performing” a title.

We’re bound to hear from both sides of the argument over the next few days, including – hopefully – some authors as to what exactly they think of text-to-speech technology and whether it will impact on their audio book sales.  I’m thinking that most will immediately see the difference and rubbish the Guild’s claims.

[via BoingBoing Gadgets]

Kevin Cogill from LA was found guilty of violating federal copyright laws by uploading nine of GNR Chinese Democracy tracks on his website. Not a smart move, and he should be glad that the court didn’t made an example out of him. He pleaded a deal, the charge was reduced from a felony to a less serious misdemeanor. In exchange, Kevin agreed to cooperate with the authorities in any future investigations of the case and assisting in identifying the originated leaks.

He will face sentences coming this March; more likely will be put behind bar, look forward to being-somebody-boyfriend for a year in federal penitentiary, a $100,000 fine and five years probation.