Patenting the use of all episodic media on the Web might sound absurd, but the US Patent and Trademark Office has granted just such a patent, to a company called VoloMedia. It’s a significant issue, one that could threaten the freedom of all media distribution online. Wherever you are in the world, you can help.

Intellectual property law was created in order to protect genuine inventions and innovation from exploitation. But predatory patents, based on bogus claims and attempting to stake out broad rights, threaten to do just the opposite.

Here’s a new idea: fight back.

Lawyers are the heroes this time. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s patent-busting project aims to take down unfair patents that threaten common-sense uses of technology. A number of these have applied to music and audio. The EFF has already won a big victory against what had been the worst offender – media giant Clear Channel actually successfully patented recording live shows. (No, really — recording a live gig, then burning them on the spot. The EFF was able to bust that patent.) The advocacy group also scored significant victories against patents on sending and receiving online streams and encoding media. (If someone thought they could patent your ears and charge you royalties for hearing, they probably would.)

Lawyers alone haven’t won these battles. The EFF’s clever twist is to crowd-source its case, by getting people like you to help the group document “prior art” – in plain English, to prove that something existed before the patent. (Without basic chronology, I could claim to have discovered electricity.)

In short, you can help save the freedom of online content.

VoloMedia’s Bogus Patent – And Why It’s Dangerous

VoloMedia has been granted a patent for “providing episodic media.” The patent is broad enough to endanger any independent podcast or episodic media producer. Over the summer, Volomedia’s own Murgesh Navar sidestepped concerns about patent abuse to brag on the company blog about just how broad that claim was – that even non-RSS-based episodic media belong to them:

With specific reference to our newly issued 7,568,213 patent, it was filed in November 2003, almost a year before the start of podcasting.  This helps underscore the point, that for nearly six years, VoloMedia has been focused on helping publishers monetize portable media…. and has continued these efforts with the addition of a wide array of smartphone-based applications.  The patent that issued yesterday helps to tie together and reinforce the value of the various technologies and services that VoloMedia has developed to help accomplish this objective.  VoloMedia’s intent is to continue to work collaboratively with key participants in the industry, leveraging its unique range of products to further grow and accelerate the market.  Today, podcasting is 100% RSS-based.  However, the patent is not RSS-dependent.  Rather, it covers all episodic media downloads.  It just so happens that, today, the majority of episodic media downloads are RSS-based podcasts, which is why we titled our announcement the way we did.

Aside from the “before the start of podcasting” lie – and I believe “lie” is the only accurate word – it’s the implied threat that should send a chill down the spine of anyone using the Internet. Make no mistake about it: VoloMedia wants anyone doing podcasting, via any mechanism, to work with them. From that same blog entry:

The impact of a strong growing IP portfolio is such that we would expect new entrants into the podcasting arena to have a collaborative relationship with VoloMedia, just as do many of the current players.

From the patent itself, as approved, the technology VoloMedia claims to own is described as:

A method for providing episodic media, the method comprising: providing a user with access to a channel dedicated to episodic media, wherein the episodic media provided over the channel is pre-defined into one or more episodes by a remote publisher of the episodic media; receiving a subscription request to the channel dedicated to the episodic media from the user; automatically downloading updated episodic media associated with the channel dedicated to the episodic media to a computing device associated with the user in accordance with the subscription request upon availability of the updated episodic media, the automatic download occurring without further user interaction; and providing the user with: an indication of a maximum available channel depth, the channel depth indicating a size of episodic media yet to be downloaded from the channel and size of episodic media already downloaded from the channel, the channel depth being specified in playtime or storage resources, and the ability to modify the channel depth by deleting selected episodic media content, thereby overriding the previously configured channel depth.

Plain English translation: if what you’re doing with media has episodes, you owe VoloMedia.

If this patent were allowed to stand, and if VoloMedia were able to successfully enforce it, it would have a chilling effect on all Internet distribution. Regardless of the likelihood of their legal success, that underlies the fundamental problem with patent law – it has come completely unglued from reality. That alone ought to motivate people to fully document these issues and try to effect change.

Wondering why you haven’t heard of VoloMedia if they supposedly invented all episodic content online? Right now, they advertise “solutions” for advertising and analytics, an iTunes plug-in, and branded mobile apps for platforms like the iPhone. That’s it. RSS and previous formats date back to the 1990s, with the intention of covering episodic media across formats, just as the VoloMedia patent claims. These were published standards years before VoloMedia’s claim. That’s why demonstrating the details of this history become so important: they could strike down VoloMedia’s bogus patent.

Help Write Episodic Content’s History

VoloMedia’s patent twists the law, and common sense. But the same laws also provide for disproving a patent. If you can prove that an invention existed prior to the date for which a patent is claimed, you can undo the damage.

For that reason, the EFF is asking for your help. Knowing the readers of this site, I imagine there are people out there who know those details, or know people who do.

You’re all old enough to remember the Age Before Fall of 2003, right?

Here’s the call to action:

In order to bust this patent, we are looking for additional "prior art" — or evidence that the podcasting methods described in the patent were already in use before November 19, 2003. In particular, we’re looking for written descriptions of methods that allow a user to download pre-programmed episodic media like audio files or video files from a remote publisher, with the download occurring after the user subscribes to the episodes, and with the user continuing to automatically receive new episodes. You can read the entire prior art request here, and if you have something that could help, please send it to podcasting_priorart@eff.org or fill out the form on our Volomedia page.

For more information:

EFF Tackles Bogus Podcasting Patent – And We Need Your Help

Patent Busting Project: VoloMedia

Prior art serves a second purpose. Part of the reason predatory firms can abuse patent law is because technology’s history is so poorly written. I would like to see these kinds of bogus patents struck down, but I’d also like the real history behind today’s technologies to be told. So even beyond this legal battle, I hope that we begin to make the story of technologies like what is now called “podcasting” accurate, complete, and fair. Future generations of technologists will thank us.

Certainly, the VoloMedia patent, if enforced, would do tremendous harm to media today. The entire strength of the Web is that it doesn’t have to have homogenized distribution channels, that anyone can publish without centralized outlets or “collaborative relationships” with any big partner.

If you’ve never cared about intellectual property policy before, this might change your mind. No one should be allowed to un-invent the Internet.

What happens when people targeted by record industry legal intimidation fight back? What if they not only defend themselves, but go on the offensive, counterclaiming the industry is abusing the law and legal process? What if courts decide the industry really can’t hijack an unrelated PC belonging to someone’s Mom and Dad? That’s what’s at stake in a case in Rhode Island.

Now, the exciting conclusion to the face-off between record industry lawyers and a class full of Harvard Law students and their professor. Well – sort of. This is legal drama we’re talking, so it may be neither exciting nor conclusive.

Our Story So Far

The case was this: as part of ongoing threats of litigation, Rhode Island residents Arthur and Judie Tenenbaum faced legal pressure from the US record industry group, the RIAA, on behalf of their son, Joel, a grad student at Boston University. Joel is accused of sharing music files online. 7 songs allegedly shared translates to $1 million in damages, according to the industry’s arithmetic, but it may not be the damages that are really what’s in question.

Here’s where things get a little weird. The hearing yesterday in Rhode Island federal court addressed a motion by the record industry to force Joel’s parents to produce their home computer, so that the computer could be inspected for evidence of illegal file sharing.  That would have made no sense, given that Joel is off at grad school, Arthur and Judie didn’t own the computer when Joel lived with them, and even the RIAA isn’t alleging that piracy took place on the computer. (You could place his uncle under house arrest and seize his parakeet as a witness, too, if you’re going to get that tangential to the case at hand.)

The hearing yesterday was rescheduled to January 6, however, because the Tenenbaum’s lead counsel – Professor Charles Nesson from Harvard Law School – was not admitted to argue in a Rhode Island court. (There’s a legal question there; I don’t think it’s just that they hate the Red Sox.)

The industry responded with a motion to prohibit any use of the parents’ computer until January 6. (Yes, Merry Christmas to you, too, RIAA.) I’m not sure what that would have accomplished, but the judge denied their request.

So, bottom line: the Tenenbaums get to hang onto their computer until January 6, and we find out what happens later.

You can expect a good fight, however. The Harvard team aren’t just defending Joel: they have a counterclaim. The basic argument: the RIAA isn’t really recovering compensation. The goal, says the countersuit, is simply to make young people, parents, and schools afraid of computer use. They are looking for damages from the RIAA, claiming that, as a criminal statute, the “Digital Theft Deterrence Act of 1999” the RIAA is using as its weapon deserves a trial by jury – and in the meantime, the RIAA has abused the law and the civil process of the courts.

Coverage

Some reading on the story from elsewhere:

Legal Jujitsu in a File-Sharing Copyright Case [NY Times]

Billion Dollar Charlie vs. the RIAA [Boston Globe]

RIAA Vs. Web 2.0? Social Media and Litigation [Slashdot, on the use of social media to combat the RIAA]

Boston Illegal: Will the RIAA finally get what it deserves? [Robert Cringley editorial for InfoWorld]

Judge postpones hearing in key RIAA lawsuit [CNET News]

And for an extra oddity:

RIAA May Be Violating a Court Order In California [Slashdot]

What This is About

Before we get another heated discussion going, let’s consider what this case is really about. Forget for a second the record industry’s business, the real issues around piracy and the value of music online. Ultimately, this is simply the case of an industry group that has been allowed to run wild, using legal intimidation and excessive, heavy-headed techniques. Going after Mom and Dad’s unrelated PC is clearly an unnecessary invasion of privacy.

The problem is, the strategy only works until someone protests. The assumption is that applying ample legal pressure gets more would-be defendants to settle out of court, saving a real legal test and helping the RIAA demonstrate that it’s doing something. Critics have said just that for years, but this could be a high-profile repudiation of these techniques if the Harvard team can move forward.

And as for the larger issues about the industry and its business, well, what about that? The RIAA’s response to criticism, even from members and music content owners, has been that the ends justify the means. But what, exactly, is the group accomplishing on behalf of their member businesses? Is their case really so weak that they have to resort to intimidation?

Many musicians are indeed opposed to piracy – and also believe the value of music, and the relationship listeners can have with artists and labels, can protect music as a business. Music creators are aware how much income comes from relationships – from freelance work, from t-shirt sales, from teaching, from live shows, and the many ways artists and creators support themselves. The single-minded, obsessive focus on piracy that would drive the RIAA to these tactics in the exclusion of all else seems to come from some alternate dimension.

Of course, this kind of nonsense only short-circuits those discussions. And from a legal perspective, the central question remains: is what the industry doing even appropriate to the law and legal process. We’ll follow this one as it develops.

Music DRM may be a thing of the past, online sales may be growing, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. record industry has missed a beat in its ongoing legal and lobbying campaign against music piracy online.

The latest battle starts today in Rhode Island federal court. The difference this time: the RIAA and record companies will have to face a Harvard Law prof and his students. Prof. Charles Nesson and his team allege the industry is abusing the court system, unfairly making “examples” out of the people they’re suing, and invading privacy.

Whatever your feelings about the righteousness of litigation as a deterrent to piracy, the case in particular gets pretty strange. Rhode Island residents Arthur and Judie Tenenbaum face having their home computer seized as evidence, despite the fact that even the industry legal team doesn’t contend this particular computer was used for the alleged downloading. The couple’s son faces a stunning $1 million+ in possible damages, but only allegedly shared seven songs on Kazaa – and the couple didn’t even own the computer when their son lived with them.

The team will be up for interviews, so I’ll try to follow up – let us know if you have questions for them. More here:

RIAA v. Joel Tenenbaum @ the blog CyberOne: Law in the Court of Public Opinion [Harvard Law]

Updated: Early word is that the hearing has been rescheduled, Prof. Nesson isn’t admitted to argue in a Rhode Island court, and the judge (rightfully) denied the RIAA motion to look at Joel Tenenbaum’s parents’ computer, since it wasn’t involved. More official details forthcoming.

In other news, Jim Griffin of Warner Music Group continues to push a plan to offer a blanket license to campuses to avoid litigation by allowing students to pay a voluntary monthly fee to download music from file sharing services. It’s not entirely clear to me why this scheme continues to attack such ire online. Ars Technica rightfully says hold the kneejerk responses and wait for the details. There’s certainly a precedent: clubs, bars, concert venues, and the like already pay blanket license fees for performance rights, and the revenue is ultimately distributed to the people who own the work (think publishers and writers). That’s not to say the plan isn’t rife with potential problems, and it seems to me could even endanger efforts to encourage things like Creative Commons licensing. But without more details, it’s tough to criticize the idea without taking into account both its pitfalls and potential.

One thing everyone ought to be able to agree on, perhaps even some of the beleaguered record labels: ongoing litigation has been ugly and unproductive, and still doesn’t solve the underlying problem. With broad wireless Internet access on the horizon, even if I were to play devil’s advocate and assume I was an RIAA member wanting to stop campus sharing, it seems just scaring campuses into blocking these services isn’t really a solution.

And as artists, our primary concern ought to be that these responses aren’t doing what we most desperately need: establishing a real business model and promotional possibilities for emerging distribution online.