How I Do Love A Good Workaround Rick Klau has been busy, figuring out how to make RSS feeds using Radio's Distiller for those who are RSS deprived, including yours truly. He has the feed for this blog available at http://www.rklau.com/tins/RssDistillerChannels/bgbg.xml. It will only update when his copy of Radio is running, which is alot. So, this is a step in the right direction until Blogger moves RSS out of the "coming soon" category. Thanks, Rick! Airport Security Ate My Tape Don't send your d.v. camera and tapes through airport security if you can help it. The three tapes I brought to Mexico recently are toast. They'll play in my camera but won't import to the computer. Michael and Mason with Apple were so helpful about all this, and once we figured out what was up even suggested the workaround I hope will save the footage - exporting to VCR tape then back to a good tape in the camera, then to the computer. It's unreal to talk to tech support people who (1) know what they're doing and (2) give a damn. I keep pinching myself.

Sound Advice Beds: "Any time the judge starts telling you that your typing is flawless and your brief disciplined, suggest a new hearing date. Ask for a continuance. Faint at the counsel table. Something. Just don't let him or her rule on your case after those comments." [From this month's column, "Happy Easter; Case Dismissed," on prison inmate and would-be deity, Chad Gabriel DeKoven]

Excellent Commute Fodder There's something too appropriate about downloading this to an iPod - Part I of Eliot Van Buskirk's interview with Rep. Rick Boucher concerning digital rights issues in Congress (stay tuned for Part II). [via c | net Electronics and LawMeme] A much longer listen, but I have the feeling it will hold my attention, is Going Wireless by Jaclyn Easton. [via Audible and Jenny]

Link Softly, And Carry A Big List Hello - a meta-list of link-law links, from the dmoz open directory project, edited by librarian John Hubbard. Thanks, blogdex news weblog.

Preemptive Strike 321 Studios makes a product, DVD Copy Plus, that copies video from DVDs, including CSS-encrypted ones. Last week, 321 Studios filed a complaint in the Northern District of California (San Francisco division), seeking declaratory relief from the court. According to the complaint, 321 Studios is facing an FBI investigation and allegations from the MPAA regarding potential violations of the DMCA. Its lawsuit, against MGM Studios, Tristar Pictures, Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Time Warner Entertainment, Disney Enterprises, Universal City Studios, The Saul Zaentz Company and Pixar Corporation, "seeks declaratory judgment that its distribution of DVD Copy Plus (1) is protected by the First Amendment, (2) does not violate the DMCA, (3) does not violate other provisions of the United States Copyright Code, and (4) does not render 321 Studios liable for direct, contributory or vicarious copyright infringement." (Complaint, para. 38) 321 takes on the DMCA as applied to its activities on a host of fronts, including fair use and the First Amendment. (Complaint, paras. 43 and 48) On its site, 321 invites visitors to sign a petition to movie studios and the MPAA in support of DVD copying: "I can avoid incurring financial losses if any of my DVDs became scratched, overheated, broken, lost, stolen, or otherwise rendered unwatchable. I know, and you know, that DVDs are susceptible to this kind of damage, and it is unfair to ask me to replace a disc that is no longer usable through no fault of my own." 321's "Media Backgrounder" is worth a read, and its News page points to a host of articles about the filing of the suit, including Ernest Miller's deconstruction of the complaint on LawMeme, and Thomas Claborn's (Senior Editor, Ziff Davis Smart Business Magazine) talk with 321's President, Robert Moore, addressing spam concerns. [via Declan McCullagh's Politech] The implications of this case are far-reaching. It will be one to watch.

Smart Stuff: Tech Briefs It's getting easier to find the text of court decisions free and online, but finding the briefs filed in a particular case can still be a challenge. The Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy clinic, and U.C. Berkeley's School of Information Management & Systems, appear to have a rescue strategy in mind. These folks have put up a searchable BriefBank for "law, technology and public policy" cases. The site appears to be in draft form (there are several "prototypes"), but is a great idea. The plan seems to be to become a central repository for briefs you might otherwise find spread around at other sources, and possibly only at fee-based ones. As the "about" page presently puts it, "The growing legal field of techlaw now contains a vast array of legal documents. Researchers are faced with wide-ranging searches. Our field is largely ignored by large information services, except in the instance that a decision goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. Current competing systems lack relevance to techlaw and are expensive, too large, disparate, and require a lot of support."

"Generic: Relating to or descriptive of an entire group or class..." [via Bartleby] Last fall, RealNames and Verisign got together to institute registration for "Keywords" that work in Microsoft Internet Explorer, as CNN, PC World and others reported at the time. In theory, Keywords have much to recommend them, in the way that ActiveWords does: type "la times" into the IE address bar and go straight to the Los Angeles Times web page - as long the Times has registered the Keyword (it has). As of February 13, 2002, RealNames began offering Keyword registration: for $49.00 U.S., you can instantly register a "Basic" Keyword that, when used, includes an ad for the service: "Basic Keywords are lower traffic web addresses which are available for immediate registration. Basic Keywords provide direct navigation through the Internet Explorer address bar and include a Keyword Window that is displayed at the top of your website. Basic Keywords do not work in MSN searches." [from RealNames] (Try the "la times" example.) Fees are charged on a per-country basis; if you'd like your Basic Keyword to work in the U.S. and Austria, for example, you will pay two $49.00 fees. (Most available countries are $49.00, but prices vary. France, for example, came up in my search results as costing $799.00 U.S.) Unlike the more expensive "Plus" product, "Basic" keywords do not appear to be subject to review by a human prior to registration; rather, a check is done to see if the desired keyword is available. If it is unregistered but uses a recognized brand or potential trademark, the would-be registrant gets this message: "Your Keyword may be available as a Keyword Plus. It must first be reviewed and approved for appropriate ownership." "Basic" keywords that do not raise such an "ownership" flag need only be available and not generic:

"When you check for Keyword availability, the RealNames database checks for terms which are already registered and filters out many generic terms. Generic terms include 'common terms' which can be found in the dictionary or identify an entire category of goods, products, or services. Terms such as these are identified in the RealNames system as generic are not available for registration." [sic; from RealNames]

So far, so good. But here's what caught my attention. A friend was telling me over the weekend about the Keywords he had registered, and they struck me as, well, common terms that identified an entire category of goods, products or services. So, to get a better idea of what RealNames considers too generic to register as a Basic keyword, I ran a few searches of my own: ● "plumber" - too generic, not available. ● "California plumber" - available. ● "best California plumber" - available. ● "guru" - too generic, not available. ● "plumbing guru" - available. ● "web guru" - available. ● "expert" - too generic, not available. ● "clog expert" - available. ● "web expert" - available. Elsewhere on the site (follow the link "for detailed descriptions of reasons why your Keyword may not be approved"), while explaining its "Plus" product, RealNames explains what it seeks to accomplish by restricting registration of "generic" terms:

"Web users understand that this term could reasonably be expected to apply to a collection of web sites or businesses, and would expect to receive a list of web sites that meet their needs, rather than to navigate directly to one particular site. User expectation, rather than asserted intellectual property rights, is the primary criteria during Keyword Review. Trademarks, which are granted by industry category, do not supersede the requirement for clear user expectation within the Country Keyword locale. As such, we encourage our customers to choose Keywords that represent their unique identities, across industries and geographies. Anything that increases the specificity of a Keyword will contribute to its success. We encourage Keyword submissions that include specific qualifiers, such as geographic location, e.g. Henry's Books of Monterey."

I'm curious: if you entered the term "web expert," would you expect to receive a list of sites, rather than navigating to one in particular because someone had paid a $49.00 fee?