This leads to a number of problems, not least of which is that the person who’s name appears on the ISP billing statements is often not the person who did any infringing activities. The infringer, if there is one, might not be in the household or even known to the person being identified. There is often a great deal of pressure to settle however, even if the person identified by the IP address is totally blameless.

Story on Techdirt with Judge Baker’s Opinion

FTC’s Statement
CNN’s “Do Not Track Would Cripple Web Giants”
Statement from the EFF
How Would Do Not Track Work?

I think this is noteworthy for two reasons. First, its a sign that the intersection of privacy and marketing is no longer an issue just for law geeks. Second, the blog seems to have done a fairly good job of visualizing how data is used by third parties.

It will probably surprise many to see that something as seemingly innocuous as online dictionaries can be used to collect so much information about people.

Another sign that perhaps section 1201 might not be as broadly applied going forward is this recent decision from the Fifth Circuit. That case involved the use of software that controlled uninterruped power supply devices. GE and PMI were accused of copyright infringement and circumvention because they had accessed and used the software which had an already circumvented or compromised dongle. The Fifth Circuit held that GE/PMI’s activities were not otherwise infringing and thus the circumvention was not actionable under section 1201. This seems to be a somewhat different position than that taken in the DeCSS case.

I’m not sure if this is really part of a trend, but it is encouraging for anyone who believed otherwise non-infringing activities should not give rise to a copyright lawsuit merely because a digital lock was circumvented. Section 1201 has been used unsuccessfully in the past to try to prevent competition in the markets for garage door openers and printer ink cartridges.