It looks like some of the countries negotiating the awful and secretive TPP agreement are beginning to realize that perhaps they're better off not giving in to whatever protectionist policies the US is about to push on them. Officials in Chile are apparently starting to realize that perhaps they're better off without the TPP altogether:

At a PIJIP-hosted seminar on intellectual property and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) last week, present and former Chilean trade officials questioned whether joining the TPP would be worth its costs if it included additional demands on intellectual property.

The officials voicing this concern included Senator Ricardo Lagos, son of the former president of Chile and lead of the negotiation of the US-Chile free trade agreement (FTA) as the head of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Trade Policy under President Michelle Bachelet; Alvaro DÃíaz, of CEPAL, the former Ambassador of Chile to Brazil and a senior official in the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Trade Policy at the time of the US-Chile FTA negotiation; and Ana Novik, a current senior official in DIRECON (the Ministry of Foreign Relations) overseeing the current TPP negotiations.

Each of the presenters explained that Chile already has market access agreements with every country in the TPP region, and therefore the trade benefits of joining TPP are likely to be minimal. Each therefore questioned whether the costs of joining TPP, especially in terms of any presumed increased obligations to expand proprietor rights in intellectual property law demanded by the U.S., would be worth incurring.

Apparently the session consisted of multiple Chilean experts (including some current government officials) making it clear that they're sick of the US bullying on this issue, when they know full well that there would be significant costs associated with signing up for the TPP. In particular, they point out that Chile's decision to participate in this discussion seems to come almost entirely because of the USTR's silly and bogus Special 301 report, that names and shames countries the US entertainment and pharma industries don't like -- but which has no objective methodology. Chile has been named and shamed in the report. Of course, the proper response is to tell the US to mind its own business, rather than putting in place draconian rules that will do significant domestic harm. Hopefully more people in Chile will recognize why it's a mistake to let the TPP process go any further.

People eat a lot of weird things, but most folks frown upon cannibalism. Some forms of cannibalism are more socially acceptable than others. Here are just a few examples of people eating other people (or parts of them).

• Ingesting placenta capsules doesn't sound like a very modern way to get vitamins and nutrients. But there are other ways to eat placentas -- dried and powdered, roasted, raw... uh. Yum? [url]
• Three people in Brazil have confessed to murdering and cooking up their victims for food. The murderers actually made empanadas out of their victims and sold them as meals to neighbors. [url]
• Armin Meiwes, the German cannibal, describes how he likes to prepare human flesh for dinner -- and insists he's just a normal guy. Meiwes is also serving a life sentence for killing and eating Bernd Brandes in 2001. [url]
• Two Dutch TV hosts have eaten each other's surgically-removed flesh. Their meat was cooked, but unseasoned -- without fava beans or a nice Chianti sauce. [url]
• To discover more food-related links, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

This month's Techdirt book club book is Copyfraud, by Jason Mazzone. If you missed them, we published some excerpts (part I and part II) earlier this month, and hopefully some of you have had a chance to dig into the full book. Over on our Step2 platform we're collecting questions and voting on them to send to Mazzone to kick off the discussion, which we'll have in a couple of weeks. You can, of course, also ask questions in the comments to this post, but we're using Step2 because it makes it much easier to track which questions get the most votes (and, if you have a login to Techdirt, it works there too, so you don't need to re-register or anything). We look forward to the discussion on this important aspect of copyright law that doesn't get nearly enough attention.

Head to Step2 and submit your questions »

Andy Kessler has one of his typically insightful Wall Street Journal opinion pieces in which he says it's time for real patent reform (rather than the joke of patent reform we had last year). His main concern is the toll that patent trolling is taking on innovation. He goes through a number of different lawsuits and shakedowns -- many of which we've spoken about here -- before suggesting a few potential changes to the patent system which he thinks should be in any patent reform effort:

Time. Reform should start with the phrase "limited Times." For patents, it was originally 14 years, until 1861 when it was lengthened to 17 years, and then in 1995 it was extended again to 20 years with a five-year extension under limited circumstances. That may seem fine or even a little short for pharmaceuticals or gas turbines, but in technology things move a lot faster. Even AT&T won't make you keep a phone for more than two years. Apple is on its fifth iPhone iteration in less than five years.

"Times" ought to float by product and industry, perhaps with expirations based on the half-life of the product. PCs and telecom equipment have about a three-year half-life, pharmaceuticals more like 10. Someone needs to bring a clever case to the Supreme Court showing that 17 years, let alone 25, is an eternity and damaging for a fast-moving industry like tech.

This is a good suggestion (and we've seen similar suggestions, of course, when it comes to copyright, where the terms are an order of magnitude more insane). However, given the Supreme Court's rulings in Eldred and Golan, it seems unlikely that it gives a damn about if the laws actually damage industries. The Supreme Court has basically said that it's Congress' prerogative to do what it thinks is best, even if what it thinks is wrong.

Still, though, it is important to keep focus on the "limited times" clause in the Constitution, because it really is key, even if the Supreme Court horribly misinterpreted it. Highlighting, repeatedly, how excessively long IP monopolies hinder progress is important, because eventually the message has to get through.

Value. We have to stop allowing juries to establish the value of patents. In just the iPad alone, I would estimate there are 50,000 to 100,000 patents covering the chips, display, storage, communications and other features. They can't all be worth $6 per patent per device. Money isn't mentioned in Clause 8, but the market rather than juries can determine value.

This is a problem. When you look at how much patent holders often demand, where they rarely take into account just how many other patents impact a product, it becomes impossibly expensive to do anything when you let juries come up with crazy rulings that have no basis in reality. But it happens all the time. It's why there's so much money flowing into patent disputes these days, and why the lawyers love it.

Exclusivity. It's time to require patent holders to actually make or sell products before citing infringement. Lots of people have good ideas. Patent reform has to define what are exclusive rights for "Discoveries." As if you "discover" an algorithm or gene splicing rather than pull a year of all-nighters perfecting your invention. The idea is just a start. The rest is the sweat of execution. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg had the right idea, telling his accusers in a deposition (perhaps the only true dialogue in the fictionalized movie "The Social Network") that "You know, you really don't need a forensics team to get to the bottom of this. If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook." That's the most sane logic against patent trolls.

This is a popular suggestion that we hear pretty frequently. And Kessler is right that the idea is just the start (and often, the idea has little to do with the final product). That said, I'm not as convinced of this one -- with perhaps a caveat. If we assume that there is a way to create a reasonable patent system, then you could see situations where this doesn't make sense: for example, if you have a university that patents something. It's not in the business of making things, so it just wants to license. That seems reasonable (again, assuming you could first solve other problems with the system).

So I'd propose a modified version of this, which Kessler also hints at later in the column: you can only sue over the patent if you're making or selling a product or if you've partnered with someone who is making or selling a product. That is, the patent holder has to be associated with actually bringing the product to market, even if it's through a third party. But if no such product is being made, then you have no ability to use the patent to sue those who actually are doing something.

Progress. Sane logic, however, rarely wins. Patent holders and even patent trolls have constitutional rights for their ideas. But the legal filter has always been "limited Times" or "exclusive Rights." Remember that the constitutional clause opens with "to promote the Progress of Science." Everything else follows.

Progress should take precedence over legal maneuvers and runaway jury awards. This is what James Madison must have meant. A smartphone is made up of thousands of interlocking pieces of hardware and software. Any number of them may violate a competitor's or troll's patents. Every time one of these is omitted, or worse, causes the final price of the end product to rise beyond its true economic value, the "Progress of Science" is seriously impeded. And progress is what creates jobs and increases our standard of living.

To some extent, this is related again to the first item. Actually paying attention to the part in the Constitution where it says that Congress is only able to pass such laws if they "promote the progress" seems important. If you're going to allow a patent system to exist, then why shouldn't it at least be a plausible argument in a patent dispute that allowing certain products is consistent with the "progress" argument?

Kessler then makes the key point, about just how ridiculously wasteful all this activity around patents has been lately:

Clearly we'd be better off having Microsoft, Apple and Google spending $1 billion on developing new products rather than buying up patents as an insurance policy so they and their partners can battle trolls and keep selling phones. How enlightening if we could see government actually promote progress as the Founders envisioned.

This is the key point that some people have significant trouble comprehending. Spending can go towards activity that expands the pie -- innovation, R&D, etc. -- or it can go to activity that does not expand the pie -- licensing, lawsuits, etc. This is an economic issue. Shouldn't we want more money going into non-zero sum games than zero-sum games? Yet the way the patent system is set up today, we get the opposite.

Of course, there's one other big reform that I think the patent system absolutely needs: an independent inventor defense. If someone creates something through their own smarts and intelligence, it's downright insulting to then tell them they can't actually do anything with that idea that they came up with themselves. For all the talk of the rights of individual inventors, it amazes me that patent system supporters aren't up in arms on this issue as well. Giving a patent only to whoever registered first is the most anti-inventor/anti-innovator concept around. Let people make use of their own ideas.

We recently wrote about how different parts of the music industry -- the RIAA, NMPA and DMA -- had come to an agreement on new royalty rates, as well as designating royalties for "new classifications" of services. While the groups celebrated this solution for being "flexible" for new providers, the details suggest a different story. We already expressed concerns about what are apparently licensing requirements for services that shouldn't need any license (i.e., personal music lockers). However, that was just based on the press release. When you look at the full details (pdf and embedded below), it gets even more troubling -- to the point that the whole agreement should probably be rejected.

Here's the big concern. This is a settlement among a few parties, who certainly don't represent the entire industry. Yet, if the Copyright Royalty Board and their (typically out of touch) judges accept the settlement, the details of the settlement become law. And that's problematic, because this thing is pretty crazy with restrictions -- some of which are nearly impossible to understand. If you think the tax code is confusing, you haven't tried to figure out what you have to pay to license certain services. Let's just say you want to set up a locker service that allows users to buy music which automatically goes into the locker. Well, among a ton of other rules, try this sucker on for size:

In the case of a purchased content locker service, the percentage of subpart C service revenue applicable in step 1 of &sec;385.22(b)(l)(i) is 12%. For the avoidance of doubt, paragraph (l)(i) of the definition of subpart C service revenue shall not apply. The minimum for use in step 1 of &sec;385.22(b)(l)(ii) is the appropriate subminimum as described in paragraph (b) of this section for the accounting period, where the all-in percentage applicable to &sec;385.23(b)(l) is 18%), and the sound recording-only percentage applicable to &sec;385.23(b)(2) is 22%, except that for purposes of paragraph (b) of this section the applicable consideration expensed by the service for the relevant rights shall consist only of applicable consideration expensed by the service, if any, that is incremental to the applicable consideration expensed for the rights to make the relevant permanent digital downloads and ringtones.

That's on page 40 of 44 pages. And is just one paragraph. Good luck figuring out the rest of the rules without a cadre of lawyers (oh wait... perhaps that's the idea).

But the bigger issue is that this agreement is a way to actually sneak DRM into copyright law. While existing copyright law has anti-circumvention rules, it makes no statement on how DRM actually impacts royalties or requirements (beyond anti-circumvention). Yet, this "agreement" has multiple sections that define types of DRM and with different rules for those specific cases. That is, the agreement defines the idea of a "limited download."

Limited download means a digital transmission of a sound recording of a musical work to an end user, other than a stream, that results in a specifically identifiable reproduction of that sound recording that is only accessible for listening for—

(1) An amount of time not to exceed 1 month from the time of the transmission (unless the service provider, in lieu of retransmitting the same sound recording as another limited download, separately and upon specific request of the end user made through a live network connection, reauthorizes use for another time period not to exceed 1 month), or in the case of a subscription transmission, a period of time following the end of the applicable subscription no longer than a subscription renewal period or 3 months, whichever is shorter; or

(2) A specified number of times not to exceed 12 (unless the service provider, in lieu of retransmitting the same sound recording as another limited download, separately and upon specific request of the end user made through a live network connection, reauthorizes use of another series of 12 or fewer plays), or in the case of a subscription transmission, 12 times after the end of the applicable subscription.

(3) A limited download is a general digital phonorecord delivery under 17 U.S.C. 115(c)(3)(C) and (D).

Is this really what we want in the law? A specific legal definition of DRM that applies to others despite not being a part of the negotiations? The main issue is that this is a standard contract between private parties. That's fine if it only applied to those parties who were subject to the negotiation. But thanks to the CRB process, the end result may be to stuff this private contract between private parties directly into the law, and that will expand copyright in highly questionable ways.

There are lots of other concerns about the document as well. It has lots of "this or that" calculations -- all of which default to the "greater of" option -- meaning that the rates are going to keep going up. Also, the agreement repeatedly defines "minimums" but we'll be waiting a looooooong time for you to come back with where the "maximums" are. The whole thing is crazy confusing, and while it may be perfectly fine if it were just a contract among a few players, the second it becomes part of copyright law, we should be concerned.

One of the big concerns we've had over politicians trying to regulate technology, is how gleefully ignorant they often seem to be about the technology they seek to regulate. It's no different with the cybersecurity bill CISPA. We've been asking for months for some actual evidence that shows that we really need a cybersecurity bill, and all we get are fanciful stories about planes falling from the sky and hackers taking down powergrids. If either thing was possible, the real response shouldn't be to set up a cybersecurity bill, but to disconnect those key infrastructure pieces from the internet.

Either way, we're learning, once again, that the backers of CISPA don't seem to know the slightest thing about "cybersecurity." Actual cybersecurity expert, Chris Soghoian has highlighted how the key sponsors of CISPA fail at basic cybersecurity for their own websites, raising serious questions about their competence in writing a cybersecurity bill.

Congressmen Rogers and Ruppersberger are, respectively, the chairman and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. Although it is no secret that most members of Congress do not have technologists on staff providing them with policy advice, we can at least hope that the two most senior members of the Intelligence Committee have in-house technical advisors with specific expertise in the area of information security. After all, without such subject area expertise, it boggles the mind as to how they can at least evaluate and then put their names on the cybersecurity legislation that was almost certainly ghostwritten by other parts of the government - specifically, the National Security Agency.

So, given that these two gentlemen feel comfortable forcing their own view of cybersecurity on the rest of the public, I thought it would be useful to look at whether or not they practice what they preach. Specifically, how is their own information security. While I am not (for legal reasons) going to perform any kind of thorough audit of the two members' websites or email systems, even the most cursory evaluation is pretty informative.

Take a wild guess what he found. First, he looks at whether or not they use HTTPS. As he notes, "It is now 2012. HTTPS is no longer an obscure feature used by a few websites. It is an information security best practice and increasingly becoming the default across the industry." So, what did Soghoian find? It appears that neither Reps Rogers nor Ruppersberger do a very good job securing their own sites. He finds some sites without any HTTPS at all, and the others have it configured incorrectly.

When I manually tried to visit the HTTPS URL for Congressman Ruppersberger's website last night, it instead redirected me to the Congressional Caucus on Intellectual Property Promotion. Soon after I called the Congressman's office this morning to question his team's cybersecurity skills, the site stopped redirecting visitors, and now instead displays a misconfiguration error.

Congressman Dutch's campaign webserver appears to support HTTPS, but returns a certificate error.

He notes that there is really no excuse for these configuration errors, because the House appears to be setup with an HTTPS server, and other Reps. have it properly configured on their site. Not much really needs to be done. However, the fact that other Reps have set up HTTPS really raises concerns about these two Reps and their staff when it comes to cybersecurity:

The webserver that runs all of the house.gov websites is listening on port 443 and it looks like Akamai has issued a wildcart *.house.gov certificate that can be used to secure any Congressional website. As an example, Nancy Pelosi's website supports HTTPS without any certificate errors (although it looks like there is some non-HTTPS encrypted content delivered from that page too.) This means that the Congressional IT staff can enable HTTPS encryption for Rogers, Ruppersberger and every other member without having to buy any new HTTPS certificates or setting up new webservers. The software is already all there - and the fact that these sites do not work over HTTPS connections already suggests that no one in the members' offices have asked for it.

Rep. Rogers, of course, recently stated that he's so concerned with the threats of cybersecurity that he literally "can't sleep at night." Funny, then, that he never bothered to make sure his own website was secure, huh?

I've expressed my skepticism in the past about the ability of The Pirate Party to make a real dent long-term in politics, but I'm beginning to wonder if I've underestimated the effort. While we've seen some successes in Germany, it appears that the party has now become the third most popular party in the country, surpassing the Greens. That's fairly surprising. Equally interesting is that in nearby Austria, a Pirate Party member won a seat in a local city election... which actually made front page news:

These are still small steps, of course, and I still doubt that the party will become a "major" political party -- but its success in Europe is already driving other parties to pay much more attention to the issues that have attracted so much attention for The Pirate Party: internet freedom, free speech, civil liberties, copyright law, patent law, privacy and much more. If the Party's one major accomplishment is to bring those issues into the mainstream of politics, I'd consider it a pretty big success.

When the new discussion draft of CISPA was published, many people including myself praised the one point of sincere improvement in the bill: the modified definition of cybersecurity that focused on network attacks. Unfortunately, the authors of the bill are spinning this to suggest that CISPA is now nearly perfect, and some media outlets and even advocacy groups are buying it—even though nothing could be further from the truth, and the White House still opposes the nature of the bill. CISPA still has big, big problems. In fact, closer analysis by the CDT and EFF suggest that the language may be worded to allow what is effectively direct government monitoring of private networks.

Government networks are protected by a network security system called Einstein, which is being steadily expanded to do things like analyze the content of communications. Such software meets all the criteria of a "cybersecurity system" under CISPA, and there is serious concern that the bill would permit the government to offer Einstein or a similar system to private cybersecurity companies. By CISPA's definitions, everything collected by such a system would qualify as "cyber threat information" and thus be open game for sharing with the government—and nothing in the bill would prevent these private systems from being connected live to government databases, effectively uniting them with the government's own security network.

Yes, it would still be voluntary—the government couldn't force a cybersecurity provider to install their software, and the provider would need to get permission from its clients to share the data. But it's not hard to envision a situation developing very quickly, in which the government gets a few major security players hooked up and their clients routinely agree without a second thought. After all, CISPA's extremely limited liability provisions mean there's little to no risk for companies. Some may question whether the government would actually move in this direction under CISPA, but given the fact that the NSA has been trying to expand Einstein to private networks since the Bush administration, giving them the legal ability to do so is a very bad idea.

Well, this is unfortunate, though Facebook does have a history of somewhat arbitrarily deciding what you can and can't talk about. A few years ago, we noted that it had blocked any link to The Pirate Bay -- even if it had nothing to do with infringing material. A year later, we discovered an even more unfortunate situation, in that it wouldn't allow any mention of Power.com -- a company it was in a legal dispute with. However, it keeps getting worse. We've written multiple times about Richard O'Dwyer's fight to prevent being extradited to the US for running a site, TVshack.net, which links to TV shows -- some of which were infringing. As we noted, there are all sorts of important questions being discussed around this case, both about copyright law and the US's influence over UK courts.

Apparently, Facebook doesn't want you discussing any of that.

The Guardian's James Ball wrote an interesting article about how some UK politicians are fighting to stop the extradition. It's a good article. But, you won't find out about it on Facebook apparently. The story details how Tim Farron, president of the LibDems, in the UK has called the extradition approval "ludicrous" and has asked the government to reconsider.

However, as James Losey discovered, Facebook won't let you post about it -- calling the article "spammy or unsafe." Specifically, it appears that (as with TPB) Facebook is blocking any and all mention of TVShack.net. However, Facebook's spam implementation is so stupidly programmed that it can't figure out that this is a story about TVShack.net in the well-respected Guardian newspaper, and not a direct link to TVShack.net. And, of course, merely linking to TVShack.net isn't against the law, so it's bizarre, obnoxious and stupid for Facebook to be blocking all such links in the first place. Finally, since the US government seized TVshack.net nearly two years ago, I don't think the site is really that unsafe any more, unless you don't trust the government to keep its server clean (which, actually, might be reasonable). Either way, shame on Facebook for hamfisted "filtering" which blocks important and legitimate discussions. Update: Facebook has fixed this particular issue, and now lets people post that story, but it's unclear what the overall rules are.

We've talked repeatedly about the federal governments' overly-aggressive nature in seizing and forfeiting things like domain names, but the government's abuse of forfeiture and seizure laws goes way beyond just seizing digital assets. Basically, law enforcement often sees seizure and forfeiture laws as an excuse to steal from the public with little to no recrimination.

Thankfully, it looks like the courts may be starting to push back a bit. The Obama administration appears to be losing its case in which it seized millions of dollars worth of assets from the son of the president/dictator of Equatorial Guinea. Included in the haul is an original Michael Jackson crystal covered "glove" from the Bad tour. The feds are claiming that these were ill-gotten gains from corruption. That may be true, but the guy, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, hasn't been convicted of any crimes either at home or in the US, so the courts are wondering why it should let the US just take his stuff. The feds have a chance to amend their argument, but it's good to see that the judge is quite skeptical that such seizures are legal.

This kind of thing seems all too common with such in cases, where law enforcement goes after the stuff, but never goes after the actual people involved. And, of course, sometimes they make big mistakes. Either way, hopefully cases like this lead to fixing (or getting rid) of the ridiculous process of asset seizures without due process or without any charges being filed. It's not just that it's open to abuse, but that it is, clearly, regularly abused to either enrich law enforcement or just to hassle people the government doesn't like. That shouldn't be allowed.

A few years ago, we wrote about a patent troll known as Gooseberry Natural Resources LLC who claimed to hold a patent (US Patent 6,370,535) which it believed broadly covered putting press releases online. It then sued a ton of companies, including Fark, Reddit, Slashdot, Digg, TechCrunch and others. While most of the companies played into Gooseberry's hands and "settled" along with the standard non-disclosure agreement (NDA), we pointed out that Drew Curtis at Fark stood his ground, and got Gooseberry to settle for nothing and (even better) to agree to no NDA -- meaning he'd be free to talk about it. This is important, because trolls rely on claims that they "settled" with others to insist that other companies recognize the validity of their patent. This isn't true. Many (perhaps most) companies settle because even if you were to win, it's usually cheaper to settle than to go through with the lawsuit.

Of course, unburdened by an NDA, Drew is making sure lots of people know what happened, and he recently did a TED talk in which he explains how he won, including some key suggestions for others in his shoes: The key lesson: don't negotiate with terrorists. As he points out, patent trolls have cost the US economy significantly more than terrorist attacks. He has three other points:

• Don't fight the patent, fight the infringement. Basically: overturning a bogus patent is crazy expensive and takes forever. It's generally much easier to show you didn't infringe -- yes, even if the patent is ridiculous. This is a problem with patent law today, but it's not one that anyone seems interested in fixing.
• Make it clear from the beginning that you have no money, or you'd much rather spend it on your own lawyers fighting this than giving it to the troll: the law firms that represent trolls almost always work on a contingency basis, meaning they only get paid if money comes through from the people they're suing. If that seems unlikely, the lawyers are much less interested in fighting, and are happier to "settle" often for little or no money.
• Let them know you'll make the process as annoying and as painful as possible: Basically flip the patent troll strategy back on the trolls themselves. Remember, the lawyers are on a contingency basis. Why bother with the annoying small company when they can be shaking down big companies who already have budgets set aside to settle such bogus lawsuits.

It's good to see Drew continuing to speak out about this and spread the lessons of his experience.

We've recently discussed the fact that HBO severely limits the availability of its shows to non-subscribers, and I've speculated that the success of HBO-style programming owes a lot to piracy as a way around those restrictions. But HBO is terrified of piracy—so terrified, in fact, that they're willing to toss roadblocks in the path of their subscribing customers as well. Ars Technica saw some complaints on a satellite forum, and discovered that DirecTV users with older DVRs and TVs are suddenly unable to watch HBO shows, thanks to newly-activated encryption:

"No problem until today trying to watch HBO," a standard definition TV owner with an HR 20 DVR noted on Saturday. "Get message that the program is content protected. I can view every other channel except HBO. This wasn't the case last week. Something new?"

Ditto declared another poster a few hours later: "Noticed something strange this week also regarding HBO. Although my Sony is connected via HDMI I get the message that my 'set is not compatible with..... ' displayed too briefly to read in its entirety. It is displayed when changing between HBO channels. Same TV, same HR20 for nearly six years, never a problem prior to this."

...

"As of today, I can no longer watch HBO over HDMI to my television," another consumer disclosed. "I get an error message that says 'HDMI connection not permitted. Press SELECT for more information.' (And pressing Select does nothing.)."

Turns out the problem is HDCP encryption, a newer part of the HDMI standard that premium channels are requiring pay TV operators to implement. Ostensibly this is to stop people from obtaining high-definition copies of movies and TV shows—but of course, HDCP was cracked a while ago and this will do little or nothing to stop the dedicated (and highly organized) groups that make such copies available. Meanwhile, it forces a bunch of paying customers who were happily and habitually enjoying the content to suddenly go out and get expensive new equipment (or, quite reasonably, turn to piracy to replace what was taken from them even though they still pay for it). DirecTV suggests a workaround—switching to component video instead of HDMI—but as Ars points out, this is a pretty weak response: component video is much lower quality, and some content still won't work, because first-run movies employ selectable output control (another silly DRM restriction) to prevent analog output.

It's truly amazing that companies like HBO still pursue such strategies. There is not, and never has been, a form of DRM that effectively prevents piracy—but every single form of DRM reduces the value of the product to legitimate subscribers. It's pretty bizarre to continually punish the only people who aren't engaged in the behavior you want to stamp out.

As if Italians didn't have enough problems, it seems that their government is trying to sneak through a proposal supposedly designed to provide those who are libelled online with an automatic recourse, which activists thought they had managed to kill off five months ago. Here's the plan:

In order to protect people from online defamation, this law states that each webmaster of whatever website must rectify within 48 hours (even if you’re a private blogger who just left for the weekend!) any page on the website itself, if somebody just tells him or her (how?) that they consider themselves wronged by that page. No discussion or reply allowed, no judge needed, and the fine for not "rectifying" within 2 days is 12K Euros [about $15,000].

The newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano gives an example of just how absurd that might be in practice (original in Italian):

A site writes about an arrest; the person arrested in prison could perhaps get his lawyer to say that it is not true that he has been arrested, and the Web site would be obliged to print this correction (without comment), or face a big fine.

Although it would be nice to think that such an absurdity would be thrown out once again by the Italian politicians, that's by no means certain, not least because the ACTA technique is being employed here:

As it too often happens in Italy with similar small but surely unpopular norms, it is "hidden" as a sub-section of a wider law proposal on an unrelated issue, in this case wiretapping.

Let's hope Italian bloggers spread the word about this shabby trick -- while they still can.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+