(Image is in the Public Domain)

There's just nothing more I can say about this so I'll stick with pointing you to the news articles and just shut up.

(Image is in the Public Domain)

Rather than try to prevent people from copying or sharing music with drm, Microsoft has patented a watermarking procedure that will allow them to tag music with IDs that are very hard to remove.

First take: this is bad, bad news. While Ars Technica believes that this could help to get rid of the much hated DRM, I believe the replacement is far worse. Now instead of merely being annoying in preventing you from copying a CD, the RIAA will be able to track music by ID to see where (and who) it came from. If your son shares a song online that's from your CD collection, you will be much easier to find and prosecute.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

It would be nice if this worked: allowing customers to pick only the channels they want and not charge them for all the ones they don't.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

Here's an interesting take on the whole situation. According to Computer and Communications Industry Association, fair use of copyrighted materials adds more value to the US economy than the copyright holders themselves.

(Image used under: Fair Use doctrine)

After one hour of use, a Vista machine that thinks it's illegitimate will go to a black screen with no functionality of any kind.

Remember the article about the activation servers failing and disabling thousands of computers a week or two ago? Combine that with this new policy and things should get pretty interesting. Does it seem to anyone that Microsoft is starting to go a little crazy in the head? It's like a paranoid king who starts killing off the subjects thinking they're going to turn on him.

The scary thing (if I hadn't seen it coming) is that this "feature" was built in to Vista and just needed to be remotely activated by Microsoft. Right now it's an hour then a black screen, but I wonder how far it can go? 10 minutes then self destruction?

(Image used under: Creative Commons 3.0 [SRC])

The Consumerist reports that one of their readers asked for a non-RFID credit card from American Express. Granted, they only disabled contactless transactions in their database and did not issue him a spychip-free card, but one of the commenters said that they were able to do so with Washington Mutual.

It never hurts to ask, but it can certainly hurt to not.

Of course, you could just physically disable the RFID with a hammer, drill, or knife.

RIAA

(Image used under: Fair Use doctrine)

From Ars Technica:

The over 20,000 file-sharing lawsuits that have been filed over the past few years share a single distinction: not one of them has made it to trial. The RIAA is trying to keep Virgin Records, et al v. Jammie Thomas from a jury trial, filing a motion for summary adjudication on some specific aspects of the case.

…

A loss at trial would be even more catastrophic for the RIAA. It would give other defense attorneys a winning template while exposing the weaknesses of the RIAA's arguments. It would also prove costly from a financial standpoint, as the RIAA would have to foot the legal expenses for both itself and the defendant. Most of all, it would set an unwelcomed precedent: over 20,000 lawsuits filed and the RIAA loses the first one to go to a jury.

That pretty much sums it up. It would be so cool to see them lose. I wonder if the people who settled previously could join a class action lawsuit against them. Probably not, but that would be nice.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

Stolen from Schneier (but always credited), three articles by Cory Doctorow on DRM. My favorite tag line:

Digital rights management is a lie concocted to bilk the entertainment industry out of a fortune - it's time to wake up.

That is the truth. I could almost feel sorry for the industry, if they weren't using copyright lawsuits.

Cory is a guy who gets it:

Not one of them has ever stopped the widespread, unauthorised copying of media. Not one of them ever will.

Sounds like something something I might have said once. You would think these companies have at least one IT person both smart enough to realize this and gutsy enough to tell management.

(Image is in the Public Domain)

From the Consumerist:

Early Termination Fees: FCC regulations would require companies to prorate ETFs, with the penalty for escaping a 2-year contract cut in half at the end of the first year.

Service Maps: Cellphone companies would be required to provide detailed maps showing call quality down to the street level. The maps would be augmented by data on dropped calls and coverage gaps collected and publicized by the FCC.

Fee Disclosure: Overage charges would be displayed separately from taxes, and companies would be prohibited from levying any fees, apart from the basic service charge, not expressly authorized by federal, state, or local regulation.

Contract Disclosure: Depriving us of a source of many posts, companies would be prohibited from extending contracts without "point-of-sale notification," and customers would have 30 days to cancel any contract, new or extended. Any contract changes would need to be sent to consumers in writing, and could not take affect for 30 days.

Unlocked Phones: The bill would give the FCC a homework assignment: a single-spaced report to Congress on the harmful and anti-competitive practice of locking handsets.

Military Exemptions: Companies would be required to release military members awaiting deployment from their contracts.

Wow. I can't remember the last time I saw a consumer friendly bill that didn't have some horrible drawback attached. No custom fees? Prorated early termination fees? Street level service maps! So very cool… Let's hope for the best.

DHL

(Image is in the Public Domain)

It's nice to hear that sometimes, companies can still get it right. I wish Comcast were more like this.