Tim Lee points us to an interesting blog post from a patent lawyer who tries to parse out why software patents feel so offensive to some. The lawyer, Steve Lundberg, who tends to be a software patent supporter (and whose blog posts I've strongly disagreed with in the past) does make some interesting points. Lee highlights the following:

There is one more factor that makes software very unique — because a single person can successfully develop and distribute software applications, the experience with the system is highly personalized for a large number of developers. Software patents, in a sense, and almost unlike all other technology areas, restrict what feels like our treasured personal freedom, and understandably thus generate a visceral reaction to those so affected. In almost all other mainstream industries, inventors do not act as manufacturers, but are employed by them. This decouples and depersonalizes infringement concerns from the inventor/developer. In actual practice, it is extremely rare that a small developer would ever be sued for infringement by any entity other than a direct competitor. In this instance, the developer would be able to quite easily see it coming, but there is a possibility that they could be sued and not see it coming. So, I can understand why smaller developers would feel personally threatened by software patents. And even software developers in large companies often still fancy themselves as independent souls who, in their dreams, find fame and fortune founding a start-up and striking it rich. So, they too, often can take umbrage as much as an independent developer.

Lee responds to this paragraph by almost totally agreeing with a couple of important caveats. First, he notes that Lundberg greatly underestimates how many small and indie developers are hit by patent lawsuits these days. Actually, I'd say even that massively underestimates the problem, because it doesn't take into account all of those who are never sued, but who are hit with threats that can be tremendously damaging to small companies. Lee's other point is also important:

the part about patents restricting “what feels like” freedom. There’s no “feels like” about it. Patents are a restriction on the treasured personal freedom of programmers, which is why so many of us are upset about them.

I think that's true, but again, I'd take it even further. I'm not sure I agree with Lundberg's assertion that this is somehow unique to software developers. I think it's absolutely true that we see more software developers than other patent-intensive fields, and thus we see more such activity, but any use of patents (or copyrights for that matter) are restrictions on the freedom of others by definition. Patents and copyrights are rights to exclude. That's their fundamental property. They are a government granted tool with which the holder can restrict the freedoms of others. There is a calculus involved, over whether or not that restriction on freedom is worth it in the long run. Does it incentivize more inventiveness? Does the benefit outweigh the restriction? That's what we're supposed to be determining.

The problem isn't just that indie developers feel super independent and blindsided by patent disputes, but, rather that they don't see the patents helping in any way, and thus the restriction on freedom is way too costly. A big part of the problem, of course, is that thanks (in large part) to regulatory capture, those who benefit most from patents (and copyrights) have done their best to tilt the law over time such that those key questions are never asked. They've created a world in which we are told to first assume that of course such restrictions create more incentives for invention and that of course the benefits outweigh the restrictions. People are yelled at for even suggesting otherwise, and it's rare to find a serious discussion on those topics. Instead, maybe questions are allowed at the margins about a specific part of the law that is seen as going too far. But the larger questions are never asked.

But for the people who live these things day in and day out, they know intuitively that the restrictions on their own freedoms are much much more problematic than any benefits given from patent law. And that is why they're upset. It's not just that the development and the infringement concerns are linked, but that the overall restrictions on freedom are just not seen to be worth it.

The DOJ triumphantly announced the five year sentence handed down to Jeremiah Perkins, who was named as the "leader" of IMAGiNE, a group that coordinated the recording of movies in theaters for upload to the internet. The DOJ and ICE arrested many of those involved in the group last year, and was able to convince them to do plea deals over "conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement." It's a bit of a stretch to claim their actions met the requirements of "criminal" copyright infringement, but they did get some money for their actions, and that tripped the wire. I don't have an issue with them getting in trouble for their actions, which were pretty blatant infringement, though I'll say that the punishment of five years in jail seems ridiculously excessive when this one group's actual impact on movie piracy was non-notable. So many leaks are internal leaks, rather than cams -- and even if they take down this one group, it's not like it stopped any movies from showing up online quickly. And, of course, none of this does anything to make people buy. So I fail to see the value in spending taxpayer money going after these people, and then paying for their prison sentence at a time when our prisons are overcrowded.

But the issue that gets me about this is this bit, highlighted by TorrentFreak:

After his imprisonment ends Perkins will be subjected to a further three years of supervised release and will be banned from possessing “any electronic device with the capability or reproducing and distributing copies of copyrighted materials.”

That's basically pretty much any electronic device these days. Computer, phone, camera, tablet. Anything that can record audio or video or take a picture has that capability. Five years from now, it's likely to include many more commonly used devices as well. That seems ridiculously excessive. Especially given that devices that can infringe on copyrights also do a ton of legitimate and important things, to say that he can't possess any such device seems ridiculously limiting. The MPAA, who pushed this prosecution (which, again, was led by Neil MacBride -- the former industry anti-piracy enforcer -- who now does the same job for the government and rarely misses an opportunity to support his former colleagues), don't see any problem with completely taking away all devices that can infringe on copyright from someone, but that's because they still don't realize how central to culture and society such devices have become these days.

I'm always amazed at what people who run sports teams think will draw away people's interests. For years, sports teams have tried to make it more difficult for people to get information about sports other than by attending games lives directly. They've tried instituting blackouts (especially if games aren't sold out) for local TV, sued services that (accurately) report scores in realtime and many other things all of which seem to be based on the ridiculous belief that if people can get some info about a game from another source, they won't actually want to go see the game. This, to put it simply, seems really stupid, and shows little understanding of how sports and fans work. Sports fans love the sport and would like to see it live when they can, but when they can't, those alternatives offer a way to keep them connected and keep them interested.

This "can't give away too much" attitude has gone past just broadcasts of the game directly to the way that sports teams and leagues seek to control reporters and what and how they report. While they can't legally tell them what they can and can't do, they do have control over who they provide press passes to -- and then threaten to pull those passes if they disobey "the rules." These rules often seem focused on the same kind of "restrictions" in hopes of getting people to show up live, even if that's impossible.

Thankfully, these rules rarely seem to be enforced, but the University of Washington recently instituted a "Live Coverage Policy" for credentialed reporters that says they can only provide a maximum of 20 "in-game updates." A reporter for the Tacoma News Tribune, who was live tweeting a recent game, was reprimanded for going over his allotted 20 tweets and daring to go all the way up to 53. Not surprisingly, the reporter, Todd Dybas, then Tweeted about the reprimand:

Also, tonight I was reprimanded by the University of Washington for tweeting too much during a live event.

— Todd Dybas (@Todd_Dybas) November 12, 2012

It's not even a case where the policy is just outdated. Apparently the policy is brand new. I'm amazed that someone (or some group of people) in charge here actually think that someone providing a bunch of live tweets will somehow take away from other forms of coverage available. However, if I'm the Tacoma News Tribune (or any other publication) the first thing I do is suck it up and send a reporter to buy a season pass so that they're not at the whims of some ridiculous policy, and let them cover the games however they want via Twitter. Either that, or (better yet), ask for volunteers already attending the game to be the designated live tweeter for the game.

We have already mentioned that some game developers were having a hard time accepting Windows 8 as a viable gaming platform. The primary concern is with Microsoft's insistence on walling off its Metro UI and accompanying Windows Store. When a distribution system is walled off, new restrictions come along that limit the type of content that can be made available. As application and game developers learn more about the restrictions Microsoft plans to implement, their concern is growing.

Take for instance the recent discovery that Microsoft plans to limit the games made available through its Windows Store and Metro UI. In a broader piece on what a closed Windows 8 platform means for developers, Casey Muratori highlights one of the strict and ultimately contradictory restrictions on game content. Using the 2011 Game of the Year, Skyrim, as a hypothetical Windows 8 candidate, Casey asks the question, would it be allowed on the Windows store and Metro UI.

Because no software can ship on this future platform without it going through the Windows Store, the team that built Skyrim would have to send it to Microsoft for certification. Then Microsoft would tell them if they could ship it.

Do you know what Microsoft's answer would be?

I do. It would be "no".

This is not speculative; it is certain. Skyrim is a game for adults. It has a PEGI rating of 18. If you read the Windows 8 app certification requirements you will find, in section 5.1:

"Your app must not contain adult content, and metadata must be appropriate for everyone. Apps with a rating over PEGI 16, ESRB MATURE, or that contain content that would warrant such a rating, are not allowed."

And that's the end of it. No Skyrim for the Windows Store, unless of course the developers go back and remove all the PEGI 18-rated content.

Unfortunately, Casey does not highlight the contradictory nature of this arbitrary rule -- what if a game has both an M rating by the ESRB and an 18 rating by PEGI, as Skyrim does. What will Microsoft do? Will it block the game entirely, region-restrict it to only ESRB regions or make an exception to its own rule and allow it for all the world? These are the kinds of questions that frustrate developers. Apple has had its fair share of arbitrary enforcement of content restrictions and you would think that Microsoft would at least attempt to learn from that example.

To further highlight the problem with this restriction, Casey lists four games that are in competition to be 2012's Game of the Year. Of those four games, none would be allowed on Windows 8 for the same reason, they got an ESRB M rating and a PEGI 18 rating. Microsoft has set itself up to exclude some of the best selling games of the future. Hardly a way to attract the support of developers.

The best way to combat piracy is to offer content at a reasonable price, make it easily accessible and hamper it with as few limitations as possible. Very, very slowly, the major studios are coming around to this line of thinking. A few tentative (and pretty much awful) steps have been taken, but it seems that for every minute, baby step forward, the motion picture industry staggers several steps back.

Case in point: Amazon's Instant Video service, which has "over 100,000 top movies and TV shows to rent or buy." This includes many new releases, and the purchaser can stream the movie indefinitely and at any time to compatible devices. The purchaser also has the option to download the movie to a PC or Kindle Fire for viewing without an internet connection.

It all sounds like a pretty good deal, until you realize that the words "indefinitely" and "any time" mean something completely different to the studios.

Consumerist reader Rebecca found this out the hard way, when she purchased Puss In Boots for $14.99 from Amazon, believing that, per Amazon’s marketing, she would be able to watch the movie when she wanted and for as many times as she wanted.

And all was going well for a few weeks until Rebecca went to stream Puss In Boots and instead saw a message stating that the film was no longer available for viewing.

As Rebecca found out, "any time" means "any time the studio is not currently milking every last dollar out of its latest release by shuffling it in and out of rental, PPV and premium cable windows." Why these windows should matter to someone who has already paid for the movie is beyond me. After all, the purchaser should be able to set his or her own "window," starting from the point they paid for the movie and going forward.

Amazon's marketing seems to agree with this customer-friendly "any time window." But once something like this happens, the real details come out. Rebecca contacted Amazon for some clarification on this bullshit "anomaly" and received this:

Due to licensing restrictions, videos can become temporarily unavailable for viewing or downloading. The video will automatically be made available again once that restriction ends.

Availability of videos for purchase, re-download, or access from a backup copy is determined by the owners of the content. On very rare occasions, a video you previously purchased may become unavailable.

Well, that's kind of crap. The video you "previously purchased" may become "unavailable" at the whims of "THE OWNERS OF THE CONTENT." No doubt wrinkles of incomprehension form on the brows of studio and label execs when customers make bizarre claims of "ownership" after purchasing movies and music. According to the execs, they only "licensed" the content to you (with all the billions of lousy stipulations that transaction entails). [Unless you're Eminem and demanding to be paid larger "license" royalties. In this specific case, you were sold actual songs.]

While this studio chicanery is nothing new, especially when it comes to digital goods, Amazon isn't helping matters by burying the exceptions and limitations that come with purchasing "indefinite" access. The licensing restrictions Rebecca had detailed for her by Amazon appear nowhere on the purchase pages. In fact, the "Amazon Instant Video Usage Rules" page carries none of this information either. Instead, it gives you this phrase and link:

Viewing Period: Indefinite — you may watch and re-watch your purchased videos as often as you want and as long as you want (subject to the limitations described in the Amazon Instant Video Terms of Use).

The TOS link brings you to a less-than-helpful wall of text, leaving the purchaser to scroll up and down before finding the pertinent information that explains exactly why something they purchased is unavailable.

Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service, as applicable, but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions and for other reasons, and Amazon will not be liable to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming. You may download and store your own copy of Purchased Digital Content on a Compatible Device authorized for such download so that you can view that Purchased Digital Content if it becomes unavailable for further download or streaming from the Service.

Nice, huh? For any reason, your purchase may be limited, unavailable or removed completely by the "content provider." Amazon suggests (when it's done letting you know that "hey, not our fault") that the purchaser download and store their own copies to avoid being locked out of their purchases by the content providers. Well, thanks for the suggestion, Amazon, but even that half-assed "workaround" is useless thanks to the fact that the content provider can also make purchases "unavailable for further download." It's not as if Dreamworks is going to send an email blast letting customers know that their purchased streams are about to vanish thanks to a six-week run on pay-per-view. And the studios certainly aren't going to tell customers "Download now because we're yanking that movie from Amazon completely." Everyone involved would just rather the problem be dealt with when the angry emails start pouring in, if at all.

Now, Rebecca obviously prefers streaming, so getting shafted by the studios probably isn't going to drive her to massive torrenting. What it may do, however, is send her towards streaming services like Amazon Prime or Netflix. Because of its shortsighted urge to drain every last penny out of "Puss in Boots," Dreamworks seems willing to sacrifice actual "digital dollars" from Amazon Instant Video for the "digital dimes" of other streaming services. Of course, if the studio already has your $14.99, it's probably not very concerned about how satisfied you are with the spotty availability of your purchased movie license. It's not like Rebecca can return it. All she can do is wait for Dreamworks to reopen her (prepaid) window.

Streaming is becoming the preferred option for movies and music and Hollywood seems to be willing to fight it every step of the way. It's sad and it's ugly. The industry has crippled Hulu and Netflix (while offering nothing comparable of their own) and now seems ready and willing to kick Amazon and its customers around for as long as it can get away with it. It's one thing to play stupid games with content when customers are playing a flat rate for "all you can watch." It's quite another to yank content away from customers who have paid directly for a title at prices that rival a physical DVD purchase. That's not a "business model." That's abusing your customers for fun and profit.

I've pointed out before that, contrary to the smug insistence of many people who dislike this site, I don't download any unauthorized content. At all. In 1999 I had Napster on my computer, but I was stuck on a dialup connection, so I never had a chance to test it out before it got shut down (and, at the time I had no real desire to listen to music via my computer). Since that time, I've always legally obtained the various content I consume, preferably directly from artists themselves, but otherwise through buying the CD or via Amazon or CD Baby (and now I use Spotify a lot too, though I still like to directly support artists when I can). Despite people insisting that I must be "pirate Mike," as I've said repeatedly, I'm simply not comfortable with going against the wishes of copyright holders. My arguments concerning the economics of free and why I think many artists should embrace these markets has a lot to do with what I think would be best for them, but I've never tried to use that to justify copyright infringement (again, contrary to what some insist).

During the SOPA fight, I explained this to someone who was heavily involved on the other side of the debate, and he simply couldn't believe it, and made comments to the effect that even he would download unauthorized content, even if he felt it was wrong and he felt morally obligated to pass an internet-harming law to try to prevent himself from continuing to do so. Of course, for what it's worth, I'm sure that I accidentally and incidentally infringe all of the time. Someone sends me a YouTube video? Could be infringing. These days it's impossible not to accidentally infringe all the time. But when it comes to actually getting copies of content, I feel a personal obligation to do so in an authorized manner.

So, I identify quite closely with Brian Barrett's recent article at Gizmodo, where he basically explains that he's just like me: he pays for all the content he consumes. And he follows it up by noting that, even as he knows this is the "right" thing to do, it makes him "feel like a sucker," because the experience he gets is much worse than what those who download unauthorized copies get.

I waited nearly a full year to watch Game of Thrones, because that's how long it took to get from HBO to iTunes. If I had any interest in purchasing a Avatar 3D Blu-ray, I would have either had to buy a Panasonic 3DTV or wait three years just for the right to spend thirty bucks on FernGully with giant blue cat-people having tail sex.

Even content that's accessible doesn't often make much financial sense. Amazon's the most reasonably priced e-retailer in the world (seriously, it's got 1,000 albums for five bucks each right now), but even it can be fraught with peril and annoyance. Ebooks that cost more than their paperback equivalents. The specter of DRM haunting every click. A layout so unnavigable you feel like you're being punished.

Want to comparison shop? Forget about it. Ecosystems aren't just apps and software anymore, they're movies and TV shows and everything you'd ever want to watch, read, or listen to. On any given day the best price might be on Amazon or iTunes or Google Play or Xbox, but if you want the simple comfort of knowing everything you paid for with your own American dollars lives in one place? Expect to pay full freight for most of it.

This is why I've always been arguing from the position of copyright holders and the content creators for why they shouldn't just scream about how awful piracy is, but rather learn from it, and note that many people who are infringing are getting a better user experience. When they don't do that, the end result may not be "infringement," but it may just be people dropping out of the market entirely. Lately, that's what I've done with movies. Despite being a movie buff, the limitations and controls on movie efforts has just made the whole thing not worth it. Combined with less time than I used to have (yay, family life), it's made me pretty much stop watching movies or TV shows over the past two years. These days, the market is so fragmented, and the offerings still all seem so half-baked, that I'd rather spend my time reading or writing or just spending time with friends and family. I don't necessarily feel like a "sucker" as Brian does, but I find that it's just not worth the hassle.

Eventually, I figure the market will catch up, and perhaps I'll go back to it at that point. But if the industry has lost some of my spending dollars it's not because of infringement -- but because they've failed to deliver a compelling customer experience for me.

Oh, HBO. You want so many people to love you. And they do, shelling out for additional offerings like HBO Go in order to take the shows they love with them on their mobile devices. And what do you do with this love? You crush it. You crush it like a heartless Lothario parting ways with a high-school girlfriend after a quick round under the bleachers, announcing "I'm going to college out of state. Call you sometime," leaving her half-dressed, teary-eyed and a bit dusty.

The issue has been knocking around for awhile, but today, the unfortunate high school girlfriend was Fred Wilson, respected blogger and venture capitalist.

I put the awesome HBO GO app on the family's iPad yesterday and tried to Airplay into our family room TV. I got audio on the TV but not video. I thought I was doing something wrong. So I rebooted everything and tried again. Same thing.

So I did a web search on the topic to see what was going on. Turns out HBO GO has disabled the video on Airplay but not the audio. That's right. They disabled the video but include an Airplay button in the app.

Why would someone do this? Why brick half the service and leave end users scratching their heads and casting about wildly over at the Apple support forums?

The "why" is the usual "why." Or rather, two usual "whys." The first "why" is somewhat of a licensing issue. HBO really doesn't want to do anything to jeopardize its relationship with the studios and cable companies, so it's limited the functionality of the Go app to mobile devices only. HBO wants you to use HBO On Demand if its current slate of programs isn't working for you. I would imagine there's a revenue stream hidden there, but taking advantage of it would mean damaging some valuable relationships. In HBO's view, Go isn't broken because fixing it would break something more valuable.

The second "why" is piracy, or rather, the fear of. From the comment thread at AVC:

Having developed these sort of systems before, I can tell you it's because AirPlay is considered an insecure protocol. It's too easy to capture the AirPlay stream and thus, in theory, create HD copies of the video. That's why they don't do it.

I've found that the cryptographic particularities don't always matter when you're in discussions with the studios. They have a list of approved DRMs and technologies and you're either on the list or you're not. Otherwise, you face at least a 6+ month in depth technical review of the stack.

TL;DR: The studios can be somewhat arbitrary in approving or disproving technologies. Last I heard, AirPlay was not approved.

Even if HBO wanted you to have this freedom (and it's not necessarily clear that it does), it still has to keep the upstream (studios) happy. And if the studios think there's a possibility that the TV you're streaming to is actually some sort of unauthorized recording device (like a VCR made out of hard drives?), it's never going to get the green light.

The next question is this: why put an Airplay button in your app if it's completely (or at least, mostly) unusable? No real answer is available. Perhaps the hope is that at some point the button will work. Or developer cruelty.

The whole situation is clearly ridiculous and highlights just how incestuous all these services (cable companies, movie studios, premium channels) are. HBO can't piss off the up and downstream sides of the equation, so it locks down anything that might be perceived as "leaving money on the table." The combined fear of piracy between these three entities (well, two of them anyway) is likely verging on "unmeasurable." This results in some very arbitrary restrictions created in the name of copy protection.

Caught in the middle is the cheerleader/consumer. HBO Go requires having an active cable account. The cable box (an additional monthly charge) only provides access to HBO On Demand (another additional monthly charge). Then there's HBO Go itself (another additional charge). It's tough to see much more than couch cushion change being left on the table in this situation.

And why do people want to stream HBO Go to their TVs? Because of HBO itself. HBO's On Demand selection is very limited as compared to HBO Go. On top of that, many users seem to feel that HBO Go's interface is better and more easily navigated. So, if it's all paid for, why is this feature bricked?

See above. Piracy fears. Fear of upsetting the balance between the three related parties. But further than that, it's the inability to recognize that users and customers will want to use your products and services in ways you never intended.

To HBO, it's likely inconceivable that someone would want to stream to a device and kick it right back to the TV set where its other content resides. But they do. And they're going to find ways to work around this limitation. When these roadblocks become easily circumvented, rather than realize that these efforts are made to make paid services work the way the customer wants them to, the content providers usually start worrying about their loss of distribution control. This worry leads to less innovation and more disabled features and bogus restrictions.

What they need to be doing (HBO, studios, cable providers) is taking long looks at these complaints and adjusting their offerings to better fit customer expectations. Consider yourself lucky you're still able to monetize nearly every aspect of these services and look to improve your current offerings. Do this often enough and you may learn to anticipate customer wants and needs. If you're looking to keep the food chain happy and trim down on "unauthorized" viewing, your best bet is to get to the "anticipation" point as quickly as you can. 

Every time a major player in the content industry does something obtuse or flat-out malevolent in an effort to preserve whatever "market share" or "positioning" it feels is more important than actually serving customers the way they prefer to be served, the discussion turns to the benefits of piracy. Pirated content is usually free of DRM, regional restrictions, limited installs, etc. Why is it free of this? Because piracy is efficient. Not needing to serve hundreds of masters with licensing/royalty fiefdoms, pirated goods are streamlined to deliver what potential customers actually want: content. The price is just icing on the cake.

Whenever this pro-piracy argument is broached, usually in the form of "This is why I pirate," or "Pirated x doesn't have this problem," it is responded to with shocked gasps of "I can't believe you feel entitled to just take something if it's not available/at the right price point/otherwise nonexistent." The person pushing this take generally starts telling those talking up piracy that they could "just go without." To do otherwise means the commenter (or post author) is nothing more than a child with an outsized sense of entitlement.

Here's a stellar example, as provided by TD resident sideshow, bob:

Let me get this straight. I can write an open letter asking the food companies to do better on calories/taste/freshness/whatever and until they do, I'll feel free to just shoplift whatever I want. They need to earn my money.

Maybe the editors of Maxim or Playboy could write an open letter asking the women to "do better" at satisfying them and until then, they'll act like rakes or cads.

Or maybe I can just write an open letter to cancer and ask cancer to do better or else I'll refuse to die. Yeah. That will work.

So I can just write my own open letter and ask Bobbi Smith to "do better" and cough up more cash for my work. After all, that's the mechanism that's supposed to work. It's like a magic wand, only with text.

What is fascinating is that there's little acknowledgement that there are living, breathing humans on the other side of the transaction. There's no acknowledgement that the creators need to eat, pay the rent, and purchase health insurance. Nope. It's all a focus on the consumer who is supposedly allowed to simply stamp his/her feet and if the hard working creators don't snap to it, the consumer will feel free to simply take it. Wow, that's a model of one spoiled brat.

Well, of course they could "go without." Everyone has that option. Do without. That's the "honorable" way.

But let's look at this in a more realistic way. What exactly does "doing without" do for the content creator? How does "not purchasing" (or not having the option to purchase) the disputed content do anything for the creators? Because the bottom line in both scenarios is that $0 has made its way from the potential customers to the people desiring the income.

If everyone just "does without," how does this improve the situation for either the content creator or the customers? Once you've taken the piracy out of it, all you've got left is a set of lousy options that do nothing for everyone involved. If rights holders are happier merely saddling up their high horse and riding to the nearest moral peak, so be it. Riding that horse won't make you any richer, though. All it does is further separate you from your potential income.

A bit of the old infringement, on the other hand, gets your work into the eyes, ears, brains, etc. of potential customers. Sure, not all of them would buy if they had the chance, but at least in this scenario, you're building a bit of a fanbase that may decide to reward you whenever the distributor finally pulls their head out of their legacy and starts meeting customers, at minimum, halfway.

Then there's the infringement itself. It takes many forms. Some of it is just watching uploads on YouTube. I've caught some BBC series I can't purchase here in the US via the 'Tube. Or there are shadier streaming sites that serve a ton of ads along with even rarer uploaded video or stuff YouTube has content-matched right off its servers.

Streaming video is infringement? (Or was, pre-Posner.) Or somehow morally wrong? That's a position I can't even fathom. I realize that ad revenue or DVD sales are "lost" when this happens but I have a hard time believing a temporary video stream represents a true loss to the creators. It's not as though it's residing on my hard drive and being transported to and fro by portable devices. It's not a replacement for an actual product I can use in a more versatile fashion.

To me, streaming video is about as "infringing" as going over to a friend's house to watch their TV. True, the internet gives me a bigger selection of "friends" and a bottomless DVD selection. Other than that, when I'm done with the stream I "leave my friend's house" and the "DVD" stays with "him." If I want to watch it again, I can't do it from my TV. I have to visit him again.

Even if it does somehow do "irreparable damage" to the rights holders, what's stopping them from just erecting a streaming site of their own? Or at least something much better than what exists now in various crippled forms? The attempts to shut these sites down seem to indicate that massive amounts of potential earnings are being siphoned away. If so, why put up with it? Build your own and collect the ad revenue, just like the operators of these sites do.

Oh, now you say ad revenue is minimal and unsustainable? If the content industries do it, it has to be gated and pre-paid because no one can make a living on ad revenue. If the helpful pirates do it, they need to be shut down because they're profiting off the backs of the creative industry. Which is it? No money or plenty of money? My guess is: not enough money. Ad-supported streaming sites can't match the licensing fees these companies can extract from other services. So we're right back where we started: money being left on the table.

How about all these file lockers that are such a threat to the American Way of Life™ that we need to send the combined forces of the local SWAT team and FBI in order to show that We Are Indeed Serious About Pirates? Aren't they making a killing? Christ, look at Dotcom. Virtually swimming in opulence and personal tanks. He's a multi-millionaire. Do what he does. Throw all your stuff onto some servers, get the links passed around the internet, sell faster access for monthly rates and start re-living the life you always thought you'd be living.

Can't figure out how to do any of the above without dealing with a nightmarish tangle of royalties, licensing and release windows? Don't look at me. I never thought any of those things were good ideas. Here's a suggestion: create a blanket licensing group for this new venture a la ASCAP. Dump it all into a big pool and trickle the monies down on the usual suspects. Or, you know, go one better and use all this precise info you'll be gathering to actually pay the creators appropriately.

I don't know what's more annoying: the moral ground cowboys who would rather the creators made no money than fix their broken delivery systems or the industry "titans" who are constantly being outdone by any techie who can set up a decent file locker.

Bottom line: the real entitlement belongs to industries that feel the public should be grateful for whatever half-assed digital "services" they throw our way. Honestly, if you'd rather get piracy shut down completely (will never happen) just so the only other option is "do without," you'll have accomplished nothing more than swapping out your high horseshoes for platform boots. $0 is still $0, no matter how "honestly" this big pile of nothing is "acquired."

P.S. This argument also bugs me: "X is an asshole so I'm going to pirate the shit out him." Really? I don't know how someone can argue "piracy's effect is overstated" or "piracy is a convenient scapegoat for the content industries" and then make a grand statement that you're going to punish someone by doing something ineffectual, only ANGRIER. Vindictive piracy makes absolutely no sense.

After three failed attempts over the past seven years, copyright changes are coming to Canada. Bill C-11 enters the final stage of committee review next week, and after that it's all-but-guaranteed to pass into law. As Michael Geist puts it, "while there will still be some additional opportunities for debate—third reading in the House of Commons, Senate review—the reality is that next week's discussion will largely determine the future of Canadian copyright law."

The bill as written is nowhere near as damaging as SOPA/PIPA or even the DMCA, and it has significant bright spots, such as extending Fair Dealing (our comparatively toothless version of Fair Use) to include parody, satire, education and non-commercial remixes and mash-ups. But it does include one big problem: an anti-circumvention clause that, like the DMCA in America, will make it illegal to break copy protection even for the purposes of legal copying. This makes no more sense under Canadian copyright law than it does anywhere else: if the act of copying is legal, why should the means to do so be illegal? The Canadian Library Association has proposed a common-sense amendment to the so-called "digital locks" provision, clarifying that circumvention is only infringing if it is "for the purpose of an act that is an infringement of the copyright". It makes no sense to exclude such a requirement.

The other major concern is the amendments requested by content industry representatives, which if accepted would turn C-11 from a relatively tame bill into a monstrous cousin of SOPA/PIPA. Proposals include notice-and-takedown systems, graduated response from ISPs, website blocking provisions, warrantless access to subscriber information, and many of the other worst parts of SOPA/PIPA and the DMCA. Additionally, the licensing agency Access Copyright is opposing the bill's expansion of Fair Dealing, and even trying to go in the opposite direction and scale it back.

All these proposals will be reviewed by the committee in a "clause-by-clause" review of the bill. For Canadians who value progressive copyright and a free and open internet, the good news is that most of the bad amendments will likely be rejected, both because the committee members are well aware of the massive public backlash against SOPA/PIPA, and because many of the proposals are not the mere "technical amendments" that are permitted at this stage. But there are no guarantees, and that means that now is an essential time to make your voice heard, and ensure that the right decisions are made about the future of Copyright in Canada. We must let our representatives know that we support common-sense changes to the digital locks provision, and oppose the SOPA-fication of the bill by industry groups, as well as the attack on Fair Dealing by Access Copyright.

Geist has provided a convenient list of e-mail addresses for all the committee members, and Open Media's Say No tool allows you to contact your Member of Parliament—though it does not allow you to enter a custom message, so I recommend finding and contacting your MP directly. I also hope that American and international readers will not see this as a purely Canadian issue: it is, in fact, a part of ongoing American efforts to introduce stronger copyright wherever possible. Canadian copyright legislation has been largely driven by U.S. interests and pressure tactics like the USTR's Special 301 report. You can be confident that if the American government gets its wish and Canada enacts harsher copyright laws, they will soon be pushing to "harmonize" the law and bring the same restrictions back to the U.S.

In many ways, Canada is benefitting from the fallout of the SOPA/PIPA protests, which is helping to shield us from the worst of the proposed changes—but that cannot be an excuse for complacency. If we make the effort to fix the problems with C-11, and push back against industry proposals that aim to inject it with new, bigger problems, we can emerge from this process as an example of the right way to approach evolving copyright law.

We received an interesting email recently from Bilal in Dubai, explaining just how difficult it is to purchase legal music online from the Middle East, and wondering why it is that the recording industry keeps complaining that not enough people are buying, when it does nothing to allow them to buy in large parts of the world:

I am a frustrated music listener, who is tired of hearing the music industry weep of low sales.

I've been living in the Middle East for the past 5 years, specifically Dubai, and apparently we are not worthy of buying music online as all the legitimate online music stores (iTunes, Amazon MP3, etc...) are not available in this region.

I don't understand how the music industry claims that it's suffering, and yet they forbid paying customers such as myself from buying their content. This region is not lucky enough to be part of the online music community, and I would like to know why. I always hear the answer that "the rights are not available", but the record labels are the rights owners, they control the switch! I hate to pirate music, but I don't have any other choice.

I'm guessing the answer has to do with the fact that the major labels likely have "sold off" the regional rights to third parties in these parts of the world. But it seems like they really should be doing something to get those services available globally. It's pretty ridiculous that it's so limited already.

Update: Worth pointing out: apparently iTunes did recently open in UAE, though its unclear how complete it is or why it took so long to open there. Update 2.... And, no. Turns out, despite the confusing article, the "store" in question is only for physical Apple products (iPhones/iPads). iTunes software is available but no music downloads.