If buy gentamicin eye drops online people have any symptoms of liver disease with psoriasis, including arcoxia online fatigue and abdominal discomfort, they should contact a doctor as cheap viagra in canada soon as possible. It falls just beyond the violet end buy cialis no rx of the visible light spectrum, making it invisible to the purchase cipro without prescription human eye. While UVA rays are less likely to cause buying cheap discount side effects canada sunburn, they can damage the collagen and elastin in the purchase cheap without prescription skin, contributing to premature skin aging or wrinkles. This premature buy online review aging — known as photoaging — results from the skin's find atenolol without prescription breakdown of collagen and elastin fibers. However, more recently, experts artane online sales have found that UVA also contributes to skin cancers, so people.

Just when you thought it might be safe to go back into the water …. the DMCA anticircumvention sharks have started circling again.

Last week I blogged about how it is becoming more and more apparent, to the content industry as well as to consumers, that Digital Rights Management (DRM), enshrined in law through the DMCA’s anticircumvention provision, is a dead-end business model as well as a drag on innovation. See Signs of a Move Towards Balance? (Part 2 of 2).

But not everyone has gotten the message, in particular not the Motion Picture Association of America, which today filed a lawsuit against Real Networks, charging it with violating the DMCA by distributing RealDVD.¬† The RealDVD software lets consumers copy DVDs to their personal computers.¬† It doesn’t permit unlimited copying, but rather uses its own form of DRM to lock the copy to be playable on only a single PC; additional PCs require additional licenses.

What we’re seeing here is another example of the dynamic described in B2B, where the industry uses the Copy Control Association (CCA) licensing scheme to squelch innovations that they don’t like: innovations like RealDVD that (horrors!) make DVDs more friendly¬† for consumers.

Real Networks, for its part, has filed its own suit, asking court to rule that RealDVD is in compliance with the CCA license.¬†¬† That’s not unreasonable: at first blush, RealDVD seems a lot like the Kaleidescape case described in chapter 6 of B2B, where the content industry huffed and puffed, but where the court found there was no license violation.¬† Yet, that was a different court.

Regardless of who wins in court, the fact is that this continues the DMCA’s track record as a dead weight hanging over the head of innovation.¬† Decisions that should be made on the basis of technology and consumer choice are instead being made by courts struggling to interpret a law that was a bad idea when it appeared in 1998 and has revealed itself to be a worse and worse idea every year.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 30th, 2008 at 10:34 pm and is filed under Owning bits—copyright. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.