Well, this didn’t last long now did it? I think the warning sign was Real having to file a preemptive lawsuit last week when it launched RealDVD.

RealDVD, which allowed users to make personal copies of DVDs landed in legal hot water water with Hollywood as soon as the product became available this past Tuesday. Real and the Hollywood studios launched dueling lawsuits almost simultaneously, with Real getting the first punch in, pre-emptively asking for a declatory judgment and the studios wanting sale of the product blocked, saying it violates copyrights.

Comments

In the lawsuit between the movie studios and RealNetworks over Real's DVD ripping software, RealDVD, it appears that a judge has issued a temporary injunction against Real, keeping the company from distributing the software until the judge has had a chance to read through the various documents. A more complete decision allowing or disallowing the sale prior to a trial should come on Tuesday. Of course, the movie studios will claim that Real should be barred from allowing the software to be sold because it will cause "irreparable harm." That, of course, is ridiculous. Real's software only lets you make limited backups, by putting its own DRM on the copies. If someone really wants to make backups, and Real's software isn't available thanks to an injunction, then they'll most likely get a copy of other DVD ripping software that doesn't even include the limitations that Real's does. In other words, in taking RealDVD off the market, as the studios would like, it actually would probably lead to more movies being copied without DRM than if RealDVD were on the market. On a separate note, it appears that Real's decision to rush to court and file for a declaratory judgment on this case was a wise move. The lawsuit has been moved from Southern California, where the studios filed suit later in the day, to Northern California, where Real filed suit in the morning.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

John McCain and his Republican allies are "readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama's character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat's judgment, honesty and personal associations," several top Republicans told

More...

The Hong Kong government has issued a consultation paper on the “Review of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance” last Friday (Oct 3). The first round of consultation will be lasted until end of January.

A most controversial issue is the suggestion on introduction of an internet filtering system in Hong Kong. In part 4 of the consultation paper, it states that the main issue at stake is:

Given the emergence of new forms of media, particularly the growing popularity of the Internet, members of the public consider it important that measures are taken to protect youngsters from the dissemination of obscene and indecent materials on such new media systems.

The government layouts a number of options:

Option one: co-regulation approach that demands Internet Service Providers to:

1. tighten up their service contracts with subscribers by incorporating specific clauses which prohibit subscribers from publishing obscene or indecent articles;

2. formulate measures against repeated offenders, which may involve limiting the bandwidth made available to such offenders or imposing temporary suspension or termination of service in case of contravention of contractual terms;

3. implement a voluntary labelling system and encourage webmasters to label their websites to indicate whether they are suitable for children and youngsters;

4. provide filtering services to subscribers for the purpose of filtering out web content which is not suitable for children and youngsters.

Option two is mandatory approach via legislation:

to make it mandatory for ISPs to provide filtering service to their subscribers so that
children and youngsters will be protected from web content not suitable to them. This would enable filtering of content from both local and overseas websites.

Option three is statutory approach, which targets at content providers:

1. websites are required to provide warnings if they display indecent materials;

2. an access control system is to be established to authenticate the age of the web users. For example, web users are required to input their credit card data before getting access to webpage containing indecent materials to ensure that they have attained the age of 18;

3. empower enforcement agencies, upon receipt of a judicial warrant, to issue a “take-down notice” to the indecent websites or the ISPs concerned; and

4. prosecute content providers who fail to comply with the statutory requirements.

Martinoei criticizes that all the suggestions imply an introduction of Great Fire Wall in Hong Kong:

蘇錦樑呢æ¢X建è¯é»¨å“¡ï¼Œè©±å’å¿«å°±è¦åœ¨é¦™æ¸¯å¼•é€²é˜²ç«é•·åŸŽï¼Œæ·«å¯©è™•æœ¬ä¾†å·±ç¶“被指權力éŽå¤§ï¼Œä¾å®¶æ¬ŠåŠ›ä»²è¦å¤§åˆ°æžéŽæ¿¾å單，係咪想æžé¦™æ¸¯ç‰ˆé˜²ç«é•·åŸŽã€‚照香港有大衛åƒéƒ½ä¿‚淫褻嘅硬膠å‰ç§‘，隨時æˆå€‹é«˜ç™»éƒ½æœƒåˆ—å…¥éŽæ¿¾å單，å’樣仲æˆä¸–界？仲惡éŽå»¿ä¸‰æ¢ã€‚

Gregory So, party member of DAB (translator note: a pro-China political party in Hong Kong), soon after he got into power, he wants to introduce great fire wall in Hong Kong. Obscene Article Tribunal has been known to have excessive power, now they are to formulate black list for filtering. Isn't that in fact Hong Kong's great fire wall? As we have the most ridiculous record of turing the David Statue into indecent article, it is very likely that the whole golden forum would be included in the list. What will Hong Kong become? Such kind of policy is more evil that article 23.

Although the government stresses that it doesn't have any fixed position, erynnyes from Those were the days is still angry at the government's suggestions:

當然，政府把一切說æˆè«®è©¢ï¼Œæ”¿åºœæ²’有立場，甚至在文件中æ出åå°è€…è²éŸ³ï¼Œä»¥é¡¯ç¤ºä¸­ç«‹ï¼Œå¯æ˜¯åœ¨ç«¥å·¥è§’度，有些立場ã€å»ºè­°ï¼Œæ ¹æœ¬æ出也是罪，因為這是削弱香港互è¯ç¶²è‡ªç”±ï¼Œå®Œå…¨æ¯‹é ˆè¨Žè«–，皆因沒有任何妥å”之餘地ï¼é‚£ä»½è«®è©¢æ–‡ä»¶ï¼Œå°±åƒäº’è¯ç¶²çš„23 æ¢ï¼Œåªæƒ³æ‰“造一個超越中國的打壓互è¯è‡ªç”±çš„香港金盾ï¼

The government stresses that it is just consultation, and it doesn't have any stand. It tries to show its neutrality by mentioning some of the oppositional voices. However, from our viewpoints, some positions and suggestions shouldn't be included in the consultation, as it will erode the internet freedom. The very act of putting them into the agenda is a sin as we should not compromise human rights principle. The consultation papers is like Internet article 23 aims at constructing a Golden shield in Hong Kong, competing with what have been done in China.

Hystericireul posts a large picture of David Statue in his blog to protest against the Indecent censorship policy. He also makes a dozen points on the consultation:

10. 淫唔淫，根本就係åŒæ´©å””洩一樣，å„æ–½å„法å„隨心。除左少部分好明顯變態嘔心核çªæ—¢ç‰©å“之外，根本好多物å“就無一個清晰定義去界定點為之「淫ã€ï¼Œå°¤å…¶æ˜¯ç•¶ä½ æˆç­ä»†è¡—連大衛åƒéƒ½å¯ä»¥è¦ºå¾—係「淫褻ã€æ—¢è©±ï¼Œä»²æœ‰ä¹œé‡Žä¿‚唔淫？vv物語講西，淫唔淫？西廂記夢中交åˆï¼Œæ·«å””淫？莫éžæˆ‘地以後創作時就唔å¯ä»¥æ‰“ç ´å¤äººæ—¢æ›–昧，照樣講到扑野就「呵呵，哈哈，嗯嗯ã€ç®—數？

11. 根本個å•é¡Œä¿‚，å¥ç«‹ä¸€å€‹å¥åº·å¥å…¨æ—¢äººæ ¼ï¼Œå’ä½¢ç‡ä¹œéƒ½å””會變壞。而家係你ç­æ’šæ¨£æžæŸ’左個社會，æˆç­å°æœ‹å‹æœªå‡ä¸­å…ˆè¥¿çª¿ï¼Œ3456789p玩齊，呢個係佢地腦è€æœªç”ŸåŸ‹æ—¢å•é¡Œï¼Œæˆ‘地è¦åšæ—¢ä¿‚好好教導佢地，而唔係一味ç¦çµ•å›‰ã€‚

10. Whether something is indecent or not, its nature is like whether a kid is naughty or not. It is very arbitrary, everyone has his/her own standard. Except a very limited amount of perverted articles, it is very difficult to draw a line for most articles. Especially the fact that some assholes dare to define the David Statue as “indecent”, what else cannot be “indecent”? Vagina Monologues is all about vagina, is that indecent? Romance of the West Chamber have a scene on sexual intercourse in the dream, is that indecent? In the future, when we write story about love making, should we follow ancient reticence by omitting the descriptive part and substitute it with “oh… er……mum….”?

11. The issue at stake is to help our children to develop a healthy personality, then whatever they read, cannot have negative impact on them. Look at how this group of dick heads rule the society, children are having 34567 P (multiple sexual partners) before they enter high school because they are not mature in their attitudes. We should teach them, not prohibit them from knowing.

There are also some discussions from Internet forums, such as from pumb.org:

User169167 criticizes the government's official ability in governing Hong Kong:

雞有病 = 唔俾賣活雞唔使煩
樹有病 = 斬晒佢唔使煩
色情網é æ•™å£žç´°ä½¬ = block晒佢唔使煩

政府ç­é«˜è–ªåŽšè·æ—¢å¤©æ知唔知咩å«æ•™è‚²ï¼Ÿ

說穿了其實就係借管制色情網é ç‚ºé–‹ç«¯ï¼Œç¹¼è€Œé”至更容易收緊其它題æ網é (例如政治ã€ç¤¾è«–)，壓抑社會å¦é¡žæ¸ é“åå°è²éŸ³ã€‚

When Chickens are sick = ban all fresh chickens from the market and save the trouble
When trees are sick = cut them all and save the trouble
When pornography websites have negative impact on children = block them all and save the trouble

All these well-paid high ranked government officials, do they know what is education?

The hidden agenda is to start from controlling the pornography websites and then tighten the control of other websites (such as political and social critics) and repress oppositional voices.

User george2be said that the government power should stay out of the filtering mechanism:

家長åŒå­¸æ ¡æƒ³filter, 應該自己è£è»Ÿä»¶åš. 政府å¯ä»¥æ供資æºåŒæ¢ä»¶ä»¤å‘¢d軟件更易買到 (如跟機å¯ä»¥åŠ ). 根本無需è¦ç«‹æ³•è³¦äºˆæ”¿åºœè¨­ç«‹éŽæ¿¾æ©Ÿåˆ¶æ—¢æ¬ŠåŠ›.

正如莫乃光講, ç¾åœ¨æœ€å¤§å•é¡Œä¿‚淫審處è£æ±ºæ¨™æº–ä¸ä¸€, 缺ä¹å…¬ä¿¡åŠ›. 連定標準既機構都亂七八糟, 在未解決呢個å•é¡Œå‰, 點å¯èƒ½ç«‹æ³•æ¯”佢權力去éŽæ¿¾æ›´å¤šæ—¢è¨€è«–åŒè³‡è¨Š.

倒行逆施莫éŽæ–¼æ­¤.

The parent and schools, if they want to have filter, they should have their own filtering software. The government can provide informations and resources for them to buy the software. We don't need legislation to give power to the government for setting up filtering mechanism.

Like what Charles Mok has said, now the problem is about the double standard in the OAT judgment. They have lost their credibility in the public. If they don't have a clear standard, how can we give the power to the government in filtering information?

This is such a regression in local governance.

User P-U-M-B pointed out that the internet would eventually become intranet under such policy direction:

å’æžæ³• !! internet 變左intranet

Kay sets up a facebook group on defending internet freedom to follow through the consultation.

On the October 4 edition of MSNBC Live, Republican National Committee press secretary Alex Conant claimed that "The New York Times today has a 2,000-word story about Barack Obama's friendship with an unrepentant terrorist," referring to a front-page article about Obama's association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers. However, anchor Alex Witt did not challenge Conant's claim that the article was about their "friendship" by pointing out that the Times in fact reported that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close." Nor did Witt note that Obama has condemned Ayers' actions.

In the article, the Times reported that in 1969, Ayers helped found the Weathermen and "[t]wenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama's first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors."

The Times further reported that "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "

From the 10 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on October 4:

WITT: What about what we hear from The Washington Post today? Because according to an article there, the McCain campaign is preparing a new, aggressive approach on Senator Obama, including some attacks on his judgment, his honesty, and his character. Does that mean the campaign hasn't been tough enough thus far?

CONANT: Well, I think that while you and I have been following every up and down in this race for the last year, a lot of voters are just starting to tune in right now. We got a month to go. The New York Times today has a 2,000-word story about Barack Obama's friendship with an unrepentant terrorist. Barack Obama voted to raise taxes on people making as little as $42,000 a year. I don't think a lot of voters know that. That's what we want to be talking about. That's what people need to know more about over the next month.

WITT: OK. Let's talk about some of the strategy right now, Alex, because we know that Senator McCain is pulling his staff, his advertising out of the battleground state of Michigan. Is that because he can't afford to compete there financially? And can he afford to lose that state's 17 Electoral College votes?

On October 4, The New York Times published a 2,140-word front-page article about Sen. Barack Obama's association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers -- at least the 18th Times article this year mentioning that association. But the Times has yet to mention, let alone devote an entire article to, Sen. John McCain's relationship with radio host and convicted Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy. Indeed, in its October 4 article, the Times quoted Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman denouncing Obama's association with Ayers but did not note that Chapman has described Liddy as McCain's "own Bill Ayers" and has written that "[i]f Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy." The Times, moreover, quoted McCain criticizing Obama for his association with Ayers without noting that Chapman has faulted McCain for what Chapman described as McCain's "howling hypocrisy on the subject."

As Media Matters for America has noted, Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.) During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07" includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."

Additionally, in 1998, Liddy reportedly held a fundraiser at his home for McCain. Liddy was reportedly scheduled to speak at another fundraiser for McCain in 2000. The Charlotte Observer reported on January 23, 2000, that McCain's campaign vouched for Liddy's "character":

His [McCain's] campaign officials said Liddy's character will appeal to many voters because he was following orders from President Nixon and kept silent afterward.

"His (Liddy's) judgment might be in question, but I don't think his character is," said Ed Walker, the York County chairman of McCain's campaign. "He was following orders just like any good soldier, and he didn't tell on anybody. He felt like he was on a mission and kept his silence."

Liddy's 2000 speech was reportedly canceled due to bad weather.

Media Matters has documented that as of September 19, the Times had published 15 news articles and four opinion pieces referencing Obama's ties to Ayers. Since then, in addition to the October 4 article, the Times has published two more articles mentioning the association.

But despite having apparently judged Chapman's opinions on the candidates' controversial associations as being newsworthy, the Times has ignored entirely McCain's relationship with Liddy, according to a search of the Nexis database from January 1 through October 4*.

In his May 4 Tribune column, Chapman wrote:

What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers -- in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?

Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history -- and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."

All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.

[...]

Given Liddy's record, it's hard to see why McCain would touch him with a 10-foot pole. On the contrary, he should be returning his donations and shunning his show. Yet the senator shows no qualms about associating with Liddy -- or celebrating his service to their common cause.

How does McCain explain his howling hypocrisy on the subject? He doesn't. I made repeated inquiries to his campaign aides, which they refused to acknowledge, much less answer. On this topic, the pilot of the Straight Talk Express would rather stay parked in the garage.

That's an odd policy for someone who is so forthright about his rival's responsibility. McCain thinks Obama should apologize for associating with a criminal extremist. To which Obama might reply: After you.

And in an August 22 blog post about an anti-Obama ad highlighting Obama's association with Ayers, Chapman wrote:

But conservatives may not want to draw attention to the issue of ties to violent radicals -- since John McCain is longtime pals with convicted Watergate burglar Gordon Liddy, who once plotted a journalist's murder (which was never carried out) and has advocated the shooting of federal law enforcement agents.

If Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy. How about they both get started?

From The New York Times' October 4 article "Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths":

Their relationship has become a touchstone for opponents of Mr. Obama, the Democratic senator, in his bid for the presidency. Video clips on YouTube, including a new advertisement that was broadcast on Friday, juxtapose Mr. Obama's face with the young Mr. Ayers or grainy shots of the bombings.

In a televised interview last spring, Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama's Republican rival, asked, "How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?"

[...]

Since earning a doctorate in education at Columbia in 1987, Mr. Ayers has been a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform.

"He's done a lot of good in this city and nationally," Mayor Richard M. Daley said in an interview this week, explaining that he has long consulted Mr. Ayers on school issues. Mr. Daley, whose father was Chicago's mayor during the street violence accompanying the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the so-called Days of Rage the following year, said he saw the bombings of that time in the context of a polarized and turbulent era.

"This is 2008," Mr. Daley said. "People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life."

That attitude is widely shared in Chicago, but it is not universal. Steve Chapman, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, defended Mr. Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his longtime pastor, whose black liberation theology and "God damn America" sermon became notorious last spring. But he denounced Mr. Obama for associating with Mr. Ayers, whom he said the University of Illinois should never have hired.

"I don't think there's a statute of limitations on terrorist bombings," Mr. Chapman said in an interview, speaking not of the law but of political and moral implications.

"If you're in public life, you ought to say, 'I don't want to be associated with this guy,' " Mr. Chapman said. "If John McCain had a long association with a guy who'd bombed abortion clinics, I don't think people would say, 'That's ancient history.' "

A court has ordered RealNetworks to temporarily suspend distribution of its controversial RealDVD product until Tuesday so that the judge can review all of the papers filed in the case, according to an email from a RealNetworks representative. A visit to the RealDVD site shows a message from the company saying “RealDVD is currently unavailable.”

RealDVD, which allowed users to make personal copies of DVDs landed in legal hot water water with Hollywood as soon as the product became available this past Tuesday. Real and the Hollywood studios launched dueling lawsuits almost simultaneously, with Real getting the first punch in, pre-emptively asking for a declatory judgment and the studios wanting sale of the product blocked, saying it violates copyrights.

Yesterday, Real scored a small legal victory by having the case moved from a Central District Court of California in Los Angeles (the studios’ home turf) to a Northern District court, where the company hopes to find a more favorable setting.

Now we wait and see what happens Tuesday, and whether the blocking of the product will be extended and if so, for how long.

Unfortunately, this means that if you were one of the people who obtained a code from us for a free trial of RealDVD, those codes will not work.

(How's that for an engaging thread title? ;) )

Quote: McCain Plans Fiercer Strategy Against Obama
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 4, 2008; Page A01

Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama's character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat's judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.

With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain's team has decided that its emphasis on the senator's biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan's campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.

"We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here," said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity. I've already seen evidence of this. We're a battleground state here in Ohio, of course. I've seen one commercial (admittedly in passing, so I didn't notice whether it was paid for by McCain or a 527) that is a smearfest, laden with ominous music, dark clouds, portentous narration, and a scowling photo of Obama, seeking to link Obama to Tony Rezko, William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. In fact, it prominently displays Wright's infamous "God damn America" line.

Not able to win on their record and platform, the McCain campaign is gonna try to scare the **** out of people.

I think it might net them a few voters, but not enough to win. It's too late for that, and as for the scare tactics, the Republicans have been once too often to this particular well.