I can't decide if whole sectors of my brain are being rewritten to house the volumes of baby specific information I can now rattle off like some sort of modern day, West Coast Mary Poppins, or if I'm somehow retaining the pre-baby knowledge as well (things like how many copies to send the Supreme Court). All I know is I'm now the proud owner of factoids like:

• Breastfed babies might poop only once every 7 days or more and that's ok.
• This one knocked me back when I first read it: you can breastfeed an adopted baby. Really.
• Huggies Supremes are fluffier and more contoured than Huggies Ultratrims, and you need to buy the next size up for nighttime.
• Aquaphor is diaper rash's worst nightmare.
• Swim diapers are hard to find, but available at Drugstore.com. (They don't look all that watertight. I suppose it's nonetheless necessary to get in that kiddy pool, huh?)
• If you're going to partake of Mommy and Me (go ahead: click it, turn up your speakers, and welcome to my world) or some reasonable facsimile thereof, it's best if it's been awhile since you've seen Raising Arizona. That way, the song about "Mommy would never leave me, Mommy would never forget me" might not evoke images of John Goodman, William Forsythe, Nathan Jr., and the car seat, and you might not erupt in inappropriate yet uncontainable sniggering.

And don't worry, the phone isn't broken. It's just waiting for the baby to fall asleep.

David Opderbeck, Assitant Director of the Institute of Law, Science and Technology at Seton Hall Law School, has news of an upcoming P2P symposium on April 16: "The Symposium will review recent developments in the law and business of peer-to-peer networks, with a view toward determining where the law is going and where it should go."

Why has no one done for binder clips what so many have done for duct tape? I'm convinced the baby and I could summit Everest with a box of 5/8"s and a sufficiently durable jogger.

Just discovered iTunes Essentials (Story's tip about enabling the "date added" column is key). Also clued into the hours and hours of fascination lurking in the Appendices to the special extended editions of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. Mmmm, that's good media.

Have you seen the iTunes Music Store RSS Feed Generator? Great way to stay up to speed on what's new, popular, and/or featured in your genres of choice.

New looks abound: Copyfight has moved and gone from army of one to squadron. Technorati sports cool blues and greens. And Shelley Powers is outdoing herself — if that's possible — with nature's fireworks. Vive l'Equinox!

(My March contribution to the weekly IP Memes newsletter follows.)

The collision of First Amendment and intellectual property law can lead to interesting and sometimes strange results. In cases where First Amendment protections are urged for an original work of authorship, questions arise about whether the work is expressive in nature or intent (e.g., "code as speech"). In other instances, the copying and use of the work by another brings the First Amendment into play. This issue of IP Memes looks at the California Court of Appeal's recent decision in DVD Copy Control Association v. Bunner and other recent intersections of intellectual property law and the First Amendment.

BUNNER: INJUNCTION AGAINST POSTING CODE PLACED UNNECESSARY BURDENS ON SPEECH

DeCSS is a now famous bit of code attributed to Norwegian Jon Lech Johansen. It undoes the copy protection (CSS) included in commercial DVDs. DeCSS spread rapidly on the Internet and elsewhere (including washable/wearable formats) from October 1999 onward. Defendant Andrew Bunner was one of many who posted DeCSS on his Web site, and was sued for misappropriating trade secrets of the DVD Copy Control Association, a consortium of entertainment and technology companies. Although initially enjoined by the trial court, Bunner claimed an expressive purpose in posting the code and appealed, contending the injunction infringed his free speech rights under the state and federal constitutions. The Court of Appeal agreed, noting the lack of evidence of trade secret status, and concluding an injunction would burden more speech than necessary to protect the CSS property interest. Although the speech at issue was the posting of the code, as opposed to the code itself, it's worth noting that computer programs generally are considered "literary works" for copyright purposes.

Links:

• DVD CCA v. Bunner (PDF)
• Court rejects ban on DeCSS
• Ban on posting of DVD cracking code overturned
• Court to Address DeCSS T-Shirt
• Got DeCSS? t-shirt
• Perl DVD decryption t-shirt ("I am a circumvention device forbidden by 17 USC 1201(a)(2). Do not manufacture me, import me, offer me to the public, provide me, or traffic in me or in any part of me.")
• The Problem of "Symbolic Speech"
• Freedom of Expression: The Philosophical Basis
• What Works Are Protected?
• Is Code Free Speech?
• EFF Archive, Bernstein v. Department of Justice (First Amendment protection urged for class materials on encryption posted to the Internet)

(Thanks to Frank Paynter for inspiration, links, and further discussion.)

SO FAR, FIRST AMENDMENT NO SHIELD FOR 321 STUDIOS

321 Studios takes DeCSS to the next level by making and selling a product that helps consumers get around the copy protection on their DVDs. On 2/19/04, District Judge Susan Illston rejected 321's argument that provisions of the Copyright Act, if interpreted to bar the sale of DVD Copy Plus, violate the First Amendment: "the First Amendment does not protect commercial speech that involves illegal activity, and this court has found that the CSS circumvention portion of the 321 software is illegal." 321 Studios is appealing Judge Illston's determination.

Links:

• EFF Archive (including 2/19/04 order)
• 321 Studios re the lawsuit
• 321 Studios re the appeal

THIS ACT WILL SELF DESTRUCT

The proposed Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act (H.R. 3261) acknowledges that prohibiting the misappropriation of databases (traditionally considered to contain factual, noncopyrightable material) may violate the First Amendment, and includes a provision repealing the Act should the Supreme Court so find.

Links:

• H.R. 3261
• Slashdot
• Tech firms fail to squelch database bill
• Database Piracy Plague

PARDON MY PARODY

Robert Cox needled the New York Times with a parody site, purporting to provide various op-ed corrections, that mimicked the look and layout of a real Times page. Despite initial receipt of a DMCA cease and desist letter, Cox now reports the Times has acknowledged his parody is protected by the First Amendment.

Links:

• Tough times for parody
• NY Times Backs Off
• The National Debate
• New York Times Backs Down — DMCA Claim Withdrawn
• Technorati Link Cosmos

PC Forum looks really good this year (if hopping-around-the-side-of-the-pool-so-you-don't-scorch-your-tootsies hot). I'm hoping dear old DDD (in this case, Doc, Dan, and Dave) will come through with characteristically fine coverage and/or commentary. Hank Barry's panel Tuesday morning should be interesting: "They are no longer passive consumers, but active participants in downloading, sharing, sampling...."