There's tremendous confusion out there about February's required switch for broadcast TV from analog to digital. For example, an awful lot of people who have cable or satellite TV don't realize that this conversion basically has no impact on them. It's only for over-the-air TV (you know, the kind you used rabbit ear antennas for). Many assume, incorrectly, that it has something to do with cable TV's "digital TV" or (even less related) needing to get HDTV. Digital TV and HDTV are two separate things. Yet, there has been some accusations that cable companies are taking advantage of this confusion to get people to upgrade, even if they don't need to. In response to such criticism, cable TV operators have now all agreed to put their own digital conversion plans on hold until after the over-the-air conversion is complete, to avoid "complexity." It might also help them avoid lawsuits for misleading consumers...

We've said it probably 100 times, but trademark was never designed to be about "ownership." Rather, it's always been about consumer protection from fraud: making sure that you didn't buy one product, believing it was made by someone else. Yet, unfortunately, trademark is often lumped into the category of "intellectual property" with patents and copyright, and that falsely leads people to believe that trademarks are about ownership and, with it, full control over the mark. That leads to some really questionable situations, where companies overreach in trying to block others from using their mark. Luckily, some courts are pushing back on this. Steven Hoy writes in to let us know that a European court has ruled that there's absolutely nothing wrong with a company using a competitor's trademark in an advertisement for comparative purposes, just so long as there's no confusion on the part of the customer. This is exactly the way it should be. Hopefully, we'll start seeing European courts use the good old "moron in a hurry" test more frequently. After all, that "moron in a hurry" trademark test was a European invention in the first place.

We were just discussing how copyright has been stretched and twisted so many times that it really just isn't designed properly to handle internet communications -- and a good case in point may be the funny little spat we covered a few weeks back between Prince and Radiohead. If you don't recall, Prince performed a cover of a Radiohead song at a concert. Someone in the audience videotaped it and put the video on YouTube. Prince's representatives demanded that the content be taken down under a DMCA request -- raising all sorts of questions. After all, Prince didn't own the copyright on the song. That's owned by Radiohead, whose lead singer wanted the video back online. Prince didn't own the copyright to the video either, since he didn't take it. So how could he use the DMCA to take down the video?

But, it's not that simple, apparently. As Ethan Ackerman details, as lawyers began to think about the situation, the more confused they got, noting that maybe there was a right under anti-bootlegging laws. Only, then things got more confusing, because it turns out that anti-bootlegging laws aren't actually a part of the copyright act (though it does fall under the same "title" just to add to the confusion), and the DMCA (under which the takedown occurred) only applies to copyright law.

However, again, we're left in a situation where the "law" is hardly clear at all, and even those who follow the space were somewhat confused over whether or not Prince had any sort of legal standing here. A law is not useful if the boundaries of that law are not clear, and if someone has no clue if their actions go against the law. In the internet era, copyright certainly falls under that category of laws in which it is no longer clear what is and is not legal -- and that should be seen as a problem.

There's been a huge amount of confusion concerning the February 2009 transition from analog over-the-air TV to digital over-the-air TV, but one of the big points of confusion is the false assumption by many that this has something to do with HDTV. It doesn't. It's just about the television content that's available freely over the air -- as opposed to via cable or satellite TV. For anyone who is a subscriber to cable or satellite (i.e., the majority of Americans) the transition basically means nothing. Yet, thanks to years of FUD from folks resisting the transition (mainly the TV broadcasters who wanted to keep their spectrum) many people are quite confused about what this means. Some new studies have looked at public readiness for the switch, and while most of the headlines focus on the fact that about half of those impacted are unready for the shift, what may be much more interesting is a tidbit not found in most of the coverage, but tucked into the Washington Post coverage:

About 30 percent of the respondents indicated they had plans to ready themselves for the transition, even though they do not have to do anything to maintain service.

In other words, an awful lot of people who already have a digitally enabled TV, cable service or satellite service somehow think they need to upgrade to keep service after February. Obviously, they're confused, and it would be a good guess to assume the root of at least a significant percentage of that confusion is that idea that this has something to do with HDTV. So, it sounds like a large group of cable or satellite TV subscribers are planning to upgrade to HDTV, not because they want to, but because they incorrectly think they need to to keep getting TV after February of next year. HDTV providers must be thrilled.

As for the percentage of folks who will be impacted and haven't done anything about it yet, that doesn't seem too troublesome. After all, there's still seven or eight months to get it done, and people sure do like to procrastinate. What's more troubling, perhaps, is the fact that the $40 coupons for converter boxes that are being sent out to those who request them expire after 90 days. Why? No one seems to have any clue, and its leading to many of these coupons expiring before people have a chance to redeem them.

Sometimes you wonder if Microsoft is just messing around with people for the hell of it. Remember Microsoft's fairly useless DRM offering called PlaysForSure? The one that was (like pretty much all DRM systems) easily hacked? The one that was used to convince a bunch of partners to sign up as Microsoft partners? The one that Microsoft itself then ditched itself when launching the Zune, abandoning all of the partners who could only laugh at the irony of Microsoft devices not playing content using Microsoft's own "PlaysForSure" system? Well, Microsoft has decided that perhaps it was time to change the name of PlaysForSure. Given how inaccurate the name is, perhaps that makes sense -- though, not nearly as much sense as just letting the damn thing die. However, even in changing the name it appears Microsoft has bungled the situation. The new name is "Certified for Windows Vista" which (oops) just so happens to be the same classification used for the Zune and its content... yet, as just noted, PlaysForSure content doesn't work on the Zune. Confusing enough for you? To recap: we've got DRM from Microsoft called PlaysForSure that surely doesn't play on Microsoft's own Zune player -- so Microsoft changes the name to "Certified for Windows Vista" using the same logo as found on the Zune, even though the content still won't play on the Zune. And the company thinks this isn't going to confuse and upset even more people?