Copyleft: the magazine

After a month of comment, the Free Software Foundation has launched the final version of its GNU GPL version 3 license. As we reported a month ago, this new version of the public license is more international and more restrictive with regards to deals like the Microsoft/Novell patent sharing fiasco (but, ironically, allowing that deal). The open source community still seems relatively unsure of whether they like the new document, and both Sun Microsystems and the creator of Linux have expressed misgivings. However, change is inevitable, and it remains to be seen how the new license will affect the open source community once people start actually using it (or refusing to do so). We’ll keep you posted.

(via Wired and the FSF)

In a publicity stunt worthy of His Steve-ness, eMusic.com has offered to give the Mr. Jobs a “free lifetime subscription” so he can play eMusic’s DRM-free tracks on his brand new iPhone. The country’s self-proclaimed “only significant legal music download service, other than iTunes, whose tracks will play on the iPhone” is also offering 35 free downloads to anyone who signs up this week for a trial membership (up from its usual 25 free songs). Of course, since you HAVE to set-up an iTunes account to use the iPhone’s new music player, this might seem a tad redundant to most users (particulary Steve Jobs).

(via eMusic)

This is not a huge deal for the average Joe or Jane (or Steve). eMusic has been pushing its iPod compatibility for years, and this is just an extension of that campaign. New eMusic subscribers get 10 extra free songs, so yay for them (and boo for those of us that already have accounts…). We’ll see if His Steve-ness responds.

Full disclosure: eMusic.com is a sponsor of this site. That little banner eMusic image up top there? That’s an ad. However, they didn’t give us anything for running this story, which is not an ad but is, in some way, actual news. Thanks for reading.

According to Ars Technica, Judge Lorenzo Garcia of the US District Court of New Mexico has denied the RIAA’s request for discovery against 16 unnamed individuals using the U of New Mexico’s networks to allegedly infringe copyrights. Judge Garcia noted that the RIAA could not prove “irreparable harm” if it was not able to subpoena the University for the John or Jane Does’ identities, then, presumably, send them a nasty-gram demanding money or threaten to sue. Given that people are counter-suing the RIAA for extortion at this point and the music industry group is, at this point, one of the most hated organizations in the country (we’re sure that the Nazis are at least slightly more despised, but we sadly have no statistics to confirm that gut feeling). While this particular case’s direct reprecussions are confined to New Mexico, it sets a strong precedent that (1) the music industry is not suffering irreparable harm from supposed copyright infringements and (2) fighting back against the RIAA’s tactics can be successful. Gives us a little more faith in the judicial system. Just a little.

(via Ars Technica)

The EU is calling on content creators to comment on a new licensing arrangement after it charged the International Confederation of Authors and Composers Societies (or CISAC, because they are French) with anti-competitive behavior. The EU contends that CISAC had designed its licensing contracts to be too restrictive given the increasingly unified Europe. Specifically, if you happened to run and online music store, you had to get separate licenses for each EU state you sold in (for all the Americans out there, that’s like having to have a separate license to sell in New York, New Jersey, California, Michigan, Florida… you get the idea). This makes it rather difficult for music sites to sell across countries, as any of you out there with European eMusic accounts may well know. Point, if territorial restrictions, EU citizens will be able to (theoretically) but music from any EU state, and musicians will be able to license their songs for distribution across the entire Union. Composers and authors have until July 9 to cast their votes on the new contracts.

(from Reuters)

PassAlong Networks, a software developer whose StoreBlocks platform powers f.y.e.’s music store, among others, has inked a new deal with EMI to offer DRM-free downloads of 100,000 songs in its catalog. This new deal, coming on the heals of the liberated catalog’s availability on iTunes and a confirmed deal with Amazon.com’s up-in-coming music store, is making EMI alot of friends in the blogosphere, as well as greatly expanding the sales channels through which its music is available. Good financial sense (EMI doesn’t want all of its eggs in one Apple basket). More importantly for the general population (and our loyal readers), there are now even more places to download the latest Norah Jones or Rihanna (not that we’re saying you should, just that you could) without crippling security “features”. Now, if only other labels would take the hint and start offering their music without DRM… (we’re looking at you Universal).

(via Digital Trends News, PassAlong Networks)

The UK press is abuzz with speculation that Universal Music will be the next major label to offer its catalog DRM-free . The Times of London, which broke the story on Amazon.com’s new music store last month, reported this weekend that the world’s largest music label is going to start trials of of selling DRM-free music in the coming months, with a final decision at the end of this year. However, Tech.co.uk has supposedly spoken to a senior Universal VP how outright denied the Times story. So, what’s a freedom loving music fan supposed to think?

Universal has alot to gain by ditching DRM. It would be able to dominate Amazon.com’s up-in-coming music download service with its immense catalog, while at the same time giving it the upper hand in any negotiations with Apple and the iTunes store (Universal is said to have a spiky relationship with Apple, so it is doubtful that even if it drops DRM, it would go to iTunes first). iTunes Plus has had some success, but differential pricing and privacy concerns have hurt what had at first seemed a promising shift in the status quo with the availability of EMI’s catalog on iTunes without crippling digital rights management.

In the end, this may just be another rumor. Universal is in a position to do pretty much whatever it wants. However, one thing is for certain. IF Universal ditches digital rights management, Sony/BMG and Warner Music will be in the minority in supporting DRM. More to come as this story develops.

(via The Times, Tech.co.uk)

AnywhereCD.com and Warner Music have settled a set of short-lived mutual lawsuits regarding AnywhereCD’s plans to sell bundled physical CDs and the accompanying, non-DRM secured MP3 files of the album. In April, Warner claimed that AnywhereCD’s plan violated their distribution deal by selling the MP3s and sued, and AnywhereCD countered shortly there after claiming Warner’s behavior was “malicious and in bad faith.”

Well, the two sides made nice this week, agreeing to disagree, but allowing AnywhereCD to sell the CD/MP3 bundles (which other labels apparently never had a problem with) until September 30, 2007. So, if you have a hankering for buying fair use-friendly digital downloads when you buy a new Green Day or (god forbid) My Chemical Romance CD (instead of, oh, we don’t know, ripping your CD yourself…), you’ve got a little over three and a half months to do so.

(from Defective By Design, Digital Media Wire)

The Free Software Foundation has released the fourth version of its GPLv3 license. GPL, for those of you who have been living under a rock for the last decade or so, is the license that lets you download and modify Linux, FireFox and most any other open source software you use without asking permission and (frequently) paying. However, the importance of the actual text tends to be less important to the average user than it is to the developers and programmers that build software based on open source standards.

That said, this draft of GPLv3 does represent some changes from previous versions. First, FSF is still making it very difficult for companies to make “discriminatory” patent deals (like the one Novell did with Microsoft in November 2006), but is making this rule affect deals that occurred after March 28, 2007. So Novell is in the clear-ish, as should be, theoretically, its Linux customers. The FSF also hopes to force Microsoft into distributing software with GPLv3 (specifically, Novell’s SLES GNU/Linux). Kind of sneaky, but as we said before, it at least keeps Novell’s Linux customers free from prosecution.

More important for the general population is that this version has been made much more universal, with U.S.A. specific legal language having been stripped in favor of more universal and specific guidelines for keeping one’s software free.

So far, the public reaction seems somewhat mixed, with many wanting to punish Novell, while at the same time reacting generally positively to the rest of the draft. The FSF is only taking comments on this draft of the license until June 28, so all you open source developers and programmers out there should check it out and post your major gripes, criticisms and/or praises on their website.

(via the FSF)

Citing very low demand and conflicts with other projects, Creative Commons has decided to retire its DevNations and Sampling licenses. Lawrence Lessig, who wrote the notice of the change on CC’s website, specifically mentioned that the DevNations licenses, which gave individuals in developing nations a wider range of copying and usage rights than those in the developed world, lacked provisions for worldwide redistribution. So, someone in Uganda (for example) could use a work however they wanted, but someone in Spain had no copying options, which is antithetical the Creative Commons mission. Creative Commons is looking into incorporating an option into its standard licenses that allows users to offer wider developing world freedoms while maintaining a basic, world-wide copying provision.

The aforementioned Sampling license had the same problem: anyone could use the licensed work, but there was no way of sharing it once you did. Again, kindof goes against the whole “Free Culture” thing they’ve got going, so they scrapped it. Which, we might add, we at Copyleft: the magazine applaud. Creative Commons has done really well in offering a range of licensing options to allow creative types (like yours truly) to offer our work freely to the world. However, licenses that allow an individual to copy a work, but not do anything with it (share it) don’t make sense.

All of you out there who had DevNations and Sampling licenses, never fear. The links to your current licenses will remain live, CC just won’t be offering any more.

(via Creative Common’s Blog)