The SCC yesterday refused to hear an appeal of the private copying decision case.

This means that the private copying levy that was for a while charged on MP3 players is no longer applicable.

While this saves Canadians from paying that levy on MP3 players, it also puts into question the legality of copying music on to them. One of the reasons private copying of music in Canada is felt to be legal is the copyright tariff that is part of the private copying regime under the Copyright Act.

A couple of blog postings worth reading are Michael Geists discussion of the ramifications, and Techdirt’s thoughts on the music industry’s reaction.

Read Michael Geist’s post

Read the Techdirt post

This should not be news, but projects that implement new technology continue to have significant rates of failure, delay, cost overruns, or disappointing results. These risks can be reduced if proper project management principles are used.

ITBusiness.ca has an interview with a project management guru who comments that basic principles such as aligning projects with corporate needs and strategies are often overlooked.

Read the ITBusiness.ca article

No, that’s not a scene from a science fiction movie – Pod Slurping is when people use iPods or other MP3 players as portable hard drives to steal informaton from computer systems.

The threat is real, but as Techdirt points out, it is hardly new. This has been possible for as long as there has been portable memory – dating back to the 5 inch floppy disk. The only difference is that portable memory has become much smaller, holds much more, and may have other functions (mp3, pda, smartphone).

Some suggest iPods should be banned from offices for this reason. Most technology can be used for both good and evil – If we banned new technology just because it has the potential to be used for evil, we would still be in the stone age.

Read the Techdirt post

The New York Attorney General announced this settlement yesterday. Seems that the recording companies gave gifts to radio announcers in return for playing their songs.

So let me get this straight: The music industry denounces peer to peer downloading as illegal and goes to great lengths to sue thousands of people – but at the same time resorts to illegal and unethical methods to get airplay for their music.

Seems rather inconsistent – and perhaps a fundamental failure to understand consumer desires and the tools available (ie the Internet) to market their products.

Read a NY Times article
Read a second NY times article

A decision released last week (I have been out of the office on vacation) says that a bank (or indeed any organization) must allow individuals to opt out of receiving generic marketing materials that are included in the envelope with their statements. Many had thought that merely putting generic “statement stuffers” into envelopes with statements was not a use of personal information, and thus consent was not an issue.

Any business including material within a statement envelope will have to consider whether that material is “secondary marketing”, or is information about the business that the customer needs to know. If it is “secondary marketing”, it will have to implement a way to leave that material out of envelopes sent to those who have requested it not be sent.

Personally – while I sometimes find that secondary marketing material annoying – its not as if the bank has given my info to anyone – and its just one more thing for the shredder.

Read the decision

DAVID CANTON – For the London Free Press – July 23, 2005

Read this on Canoe

The recent United States Supreme Court decision regarding the entertainment industry’s lawsuit against Grokster and StreamCast has uncertain effects.

The Supreme Court held against Grokster and StreamCast, services used by people to share files over the Internet, including music and video. The case has been returned to the district court to try the two software companies for infringement.

The unanimous ruling held file-sharing networks can be liable for copyright infringement if they actively encourage customers to illegally share copyrighted material.

(more…)

ZDNet runs an interview with Gary McKinnon, a British man accused of committing the “biggest military computer hack of all time” against the US Department of Defense among others.

It is an interesting read for many reasons.

He says he started to access the systems to find evidence of government knowledge of extraterrestrial life. He also claims he found evidence that the US has an antigravity device. (I’d like one of those for my birthday, please.)

The matter does raise some serious issues, such as the adequacy of security on those systems, and the rights of British citizens accused of committing crimes in the US while in Britain.

Read the ZDNet interview

DAVID CANTON – For the London Free Press – July 16 2005

Read this on Canoe

E-mail has become a staple in business and personal communication.

And the content of many business e-mails has landed its writers in hot water.

It may be easier to say something confrontational or unpleasant in an e-mail than in person or on the phone — but it is recorded for posterity.

Type that e-mail in anger or disgust if you want — but save it until the next day and rethink whether you want to say that before you send it.

(more…)

SCO is the company that has sued IBM and others claiming that Linux uses UNIX source code that belongs to SCO. Those who have been watching the continuing saga know that SCO has an uphill battle on many aspects of their claim.

Groklaw, a site that follows the SCO/Linux issue closely, reports that an internal SCO email has come to light that essentially says they were hoping to find similarities so they could make some money on it, but that they could not find any evidence of infringement.

Read the Groklaw post
Read a CNet post

We have all seen the press over the last few days about the injunction that a British Columbia court granted to stop the early release of the new book. Seems that a store put them on the shelves earlier than the publisher’s release date in error, and a handful were sold.

Michael Geist has several interesting entries in his blog that analyse the injunction. Prof Geist finds it noteworthy first because it went so far as to order people who bought it not to read it, not to discuss it, and to return it.

Second because of what other things the publisher asked for that the judge denied, including requiring all those who bought the book to disclose their identiy, and the identity of anyone they talked about the book to.

He comments that: For a judge to issue such a blantantly unconstitutional order is appalling. For a book publisher and a children’s author to request such an order, is shameful.

This link is to his latest entry. Do a search on “Potter” within his blog to get to all of his posts.

Read Michael Geist’s comments