The Bangus Ultimatum

Well, the Grokster decision came out earlier this week. So many things going on in law school (and more things are going non-linear in national politics), I only managed to scan the decision. or read blog entries about the decision. The most important holding seems to be:

“We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.”

So, the judgment does not apply to P2P technology in general. The architecture, the technology, the use thereof—not illegal.But directing the technology (inducement) towards copyright infringement is. Fair enough. However, as my Constitutional Law prof would often ask: “What is the test?”. What constitutes an affirmative step ans/or a clear expression? The fuzzy “inducement test” that the Court used to draw the line can cover so many legitimate applications. As Cory Doctorow wonders:

Burning a copy of a CD isn’t necessarily infringement, but it is if you give it to a friend, or maybe even if you loan it to her, so does the marketing phrase “Rip, Mix, Burn� qualify as inducement to infringe? Could Apple be sued? It’s unclear. But you can be sure that the in-house counsel at a technology company will err on the side of caution—as will the investors in every potential new garage start-up. Such seemingly innocuous statements as “E-mail larger attachments with Outlook� or “Play MP3s on your Sony-Ericsson phone� could qualify as inducement to infringe under this ruling.

The good news is that it’s a US Supreme Court Decision, so it doesn’t bind us. The bad news is that US decisions have a “persuasive” weight in our jurisdiction. Grokster can cast its long shadow in our country, and a P2P company wil find it harder to make a case here as well.

The US Supreme Court’s decision on MGM v. Grokster is due tomorrow. Here’s the crib sheet from EFF, for anyone bracing for the outcome:

# It’s not about P2P. The P2P genie is irreversibly out of the bottle, with the software already installed on hundreds of millions of computers and developers in countries beyond the reach of American laws. It’s the rest of America’s innovation sector that will be living with the Supreme Court’s ruling. So, as you read what they have to say, ask how it will affect not just Apple, HP, and Intel, but also the next “genius in a garage,” like Sling Media or the kids developing urban vehicular grid technology.

# No matter what, we’ve won. From the beginning of this lawsuit, the entertainment industries pushed the lower courts to adopt extreme, outlandish interpretations of copyright law. For example, they argued that the Sony Betamax decision doesn’t apply at all to Internet technologies, and that simply knowing that somebody is using your technology to infringe triggers an obligation to redesign it. No matter what the Court may announce on Monday, it will not be adopting this extreme position. So remember what we’ve already won.

(Cross posted from the iBlog website)

What a crazy weekend indeed, and the fact that mainstream media has flip-flopped from knee-jerk screaming and hair-tearing to an eerie “nothing to see here, move along now” compliance doesn’t help. I manage to zone out the noise and the faff by going through my blogroll:

The PCIJ blog has audio files of the taped conversations ready for download. They’re mirrored over at Yuga’s blog.

MLQ3 has commentary on the latest developments.

Ultraelectromagneticblog offers some comic relief if all this Sith-style politics becomes too much for you.

Then, you can’t have a proper political scandal without the lawyers (heh). The Sassy Lawyer blogs about some legal aspects of the controversy (and urges sobriety and common sense as well). Over at Punzi’s Corner, there are blog-lectures that will help you wade through the legalese. My boss, JJ Disini weighs in on the legality of disseminating the audio of the taped conversations.

But then, GMA (or any politician) wouldn’t have this charlie foxtrot had she used encryption and VOIP.

[Update: Jobarclix sees it as a Digital Signal Processing problem]

Although I failed to express it earlier, my initial reaction to Adobe’s acquisition of Macromedia was one of dread. It’s so easy to see through the PR-speak and predict the consequences. Before long, all the client-side tools I use for making web sites/applications will be under Adobe. From Photoshop and Acrobat to Fireworks and Flash and Dreamweaver. There is now One Company to Rule Them All. I should have seen the trend earlier: Homesite, Coldfusion, Drumbeat were all gobbled up by Macromedia before it too was eaten up by Adobe. If you’re a GUI oriented web developer or designer, spoiled by these easy-to-use, feature-rich tools, all your base are belong to Adobe now. Ironically, your only other alternative is Microsoft (but when’s the last *you* touched Frontpage?)

What a bummer. If Adobe’s current leadership is any indication, then you can bet on the same kind of innovation, openness, and competitiveness you’d expect from a monopoly.

Sigh. Now I can sense why some of my friends insist on using open source software and nothing but. Now if I can only train myself to use XEmacs for my entire workflow.

Sorry for the semi-hiatus in the middle of the summer vacation. The emacs installation wasn’t just to strut my stuff for nerdy chicks. I’ve been busy working on the iblog blog.

“iblog” is the Philippine’s 1st Blogging Summit. Whether you’re a veteran blogger curious to see just how vital a force you’ve become, or a newbie who’s interested on what this blog thing is about, you’re welcome to attend. We’ve invited The Sassy Lawyer, among others, to speak. Everything’s FREE, you just need to register

So what is the next greatest terror threat the MRT guards are watching out for?

Unlabeled cd’s, apparently - even if you burned ‘em yourself

Though the standard of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” is reduced while you’re in transit (thus, checkpoints have been upheld, and warrants would usually not be required), there is still such a thing as a state action being “overbroad”. Though legitimately directed against infringement, the action (as contemplated or as implemented) adversely affects a broad range of legitimate activity as well, in violation of the Due Process Clause.

Back in my old college, the journal is publishing a paper on Friendster, and they asked me to write a reaction. It’s not a full-blown paper really. Just an overgrown essay with a post-modern pretense and the pedantic stench of a judicial opinion. If you need something to put you to sleep, here’s the first protoplasmic draft.