Techdirt.

Senator Ron Wyden's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

Ron Wyden — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:00:00 PST

When Mike asked if I'd be willing to write this week's "Favorite Techdirt Posts of the Week," I'm fairly certain he thought I’d say no. He noted how busy I must be -- which is true -- but in a display of his trademark humility, he said he could think of a number of reasons that a U.S. Senator might not want to be associated with a site called "Techdirt." I can't think of anything further from the truth.

While I know I’m supposed to write about my favorite Techdirt posts from this week (I'll get to that in a moment), after the events of last week, it is impossible for me not to acknowledge the tremendous work that Mike Masnick and the folks at Techdirt have done over the last year and a half.

As loyal readers know, Techdirt was sounding alarm bells about PIPA, SOPA and even their predecessor bill, COICA, long before they became household words. Techdirt's regular and thoughtful posts throughout the PIPA/SOPA debate kept attention on the problems with these bills, while providing relatable explanations for even the most technical concerns.

In a debate that was won by people using the Internet to alert, inform and take action, Techdirt's voice was the loudest and most consistent.

Now to the favorite posts of the week...

One of the positive outcomes of defeating PIPA/SOPA has been a much wider public focus on the problematic ACTA agreement. These concerns are nothing new to readers of Techdirt, which has literally been raising alarms on this agreement for years.

As usual, Techdirt did an excellent job this week of recapping the history and main issues of the debate, showing that the struggle for an open, global Internet doesn't begin and end with the PIPA/SOPA debate. The agenda by the legacy content industry is executed deeply and broadly across the government, as demonstrated by ICE's Operation in our Sites and the office of the U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) work on ACTA and TPP, as well as its ventures into blacklisting.

Techdirt is doing important work to highlight the secretive process surrounding ACTA and the USTR which has a policy of chasing and negotiating international agreements under the cloak of "it's classified" (pdf). Getting information on USTR's actions and agenda is never easy.

So, given that ACTA was largely conceived and written behind closed doors, groups like the MPAA and RIAA were able to exercise a great deal of influence over the product. It wasn't until the draft texts of ACTA were leaked and then released, that we were able to influence ACTA's content. Mike did a good job of explaining how the leaks and resulting transparency were essential to tempering the worst of ACTA:

It is worth noting that the final ACTA text was very much improved from what was leaked out early on. In fact, it seems clear that, despite the attempts at secrecy, the fact that the document kept leaking really did help pressure negotiators to temper some of the "worst of the worst" in ACTA.

For example, ACTA initially tried to establish much stronger secondary liability for ISPs, including effectively requiring a "graduated response" or "three strikes" plan for ISPs, that would require them to kick people accused (not convicted) of infringement multiple times offline. One of the key problems with ACTA has been how broadly worded it is and how open to interpretation it is. For an agreement whose sole purpose is supposed to be to clarify processes, the fact that it's so wide open to interpretation (with some interpretations potentially causing significant legal problems) seems like a big issue. For example, while the original draft never directly required a three strikes program, it required some form of secondary liability measures, and the only example of a program that would mitigate such liability was... a three strikes program. To put it more simply, it basically said all signers need to do something to help out the entertainment industry, and one example is a three strikes program. No other examples are listed. Then they could pretend that it doesn't mandate such a program, but leaves little choice for signing countries other than to implement such a thing. However, thankfully, that provision was struck out from the final copy.

The final text of ACTA was ultimately made public and USTR invited comments. (Although seeking comments after the negotiations are through doesn't really provide for public input, now does it?)

Setting aside whether ACTA is fully consistent with U.S. law, pursuant to our Constitution, ACTA does not and can not bind the U.S. unless the Senate ratifies it. But until the Obama Administration says that, our negotiating partners may believe that ACTA provides them the right to challenge whether our laws are consistent with ACTA. That would result in what we call an international, legal quagmire.

My only guess as to why the USTR won't actually tell its negotiating partners that it is not legally binding is that doing so may dissuade them from signing onto ACTA, which would be embarrassing.

So, what is ACTA at the end of the day? A political document that took enormous government resources to negotiate. Which is ironic given that U.S. companies and citizens may be the only ones who won't have to live under ACTA's rules. (I think we'd all prefer that the USTR invest its resources into other efforts like combating the illegal subsidies that the Chinese government is using to monopolize the world's green tech industries...)

Mike's Thursday post entitled "Public Interest Groups Speak Out About Next Week's Secret Meeting In Hollywood To Negotiate TPP (Think International SOPA)" gets at an issue that I find far more troubling than ACTA: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Like ACTA, these TPP negotiations are being held in secret. Unlike ACTA, the terms of the TPP extend to just about every facet of our economy and society.

Now, when asked, the USTR will say that industry and public interest representatives are made privy to the details of the negotiations and are asked for input; however these representatives are sworn to keep what they know secret. How can an agreement claim to represent our broad economic, political, and societal interests if it's only being shaped by people handpicked by USTR?

As Techdirt has repeatedly warned, it will be important to keep a close eye on the TPP negotiations and press the USTR to make public at least what it is seeking in terms of Intellectual Property protection online:

And, if you thought that ACTA was negotiated in secret, you haven't seen anything. Rather than learn their lesson from the excessive and damaging secrecy around ACTA, it appears that the USTR has decided that the lesson to learn is "we can be as secret as we want... and we still win." Of course, this seriously underestimates the mood of the public towards backroom deals on IP laws that will benefit a few large industries at the expense of the public (in a big, big way). To show just how ridiculous this is, it has been leaked out that next week there will be a negotiation over TPP. Unlike ACTA, where at least the negotiators would admit where and when negotiations were happening (though, not always with much time for others to get there in time), the TPP negotiations are kept entirely in the dark from the public. However, it has leaked out that the next negotiation is happening from January 31st through February 4th... in West Hollywood (where else?).

The question we should be asking is: why keep the U.S. position secret, when the proposals USTR puts forward at the World Trade Organization aren't secret?

Finally, Glyn Moody had two interesting posts on the marketplace effects of new methods of content delivery. These pieces highlight the real world effects of innovation and technological change.

Among other interesting points, the study found that, "Across all three Scandinavian countries, ...over half the people who previously downloaded music illegally no longer do so after they have been given access to a streaming service." These posts underline the fact that embracing new distribution mediums is the way for traditional content industries to overcome the disruptive effects of technological change.

A number of commenters point out the real problem the content industries face: identifying the value they add to the creative process and finding ways to provide that value in the new mediums. If they can do this successfully they can build a business for the future.

It’s been a pleasure to connect with Techdirt readers this week. Just as I appreciate Mike and Techdirt's involvement in the PIPA/SOPA debate over the last year, your active involvement sent Washington a clear signal that the future of Internet policy can't be decided without engaging the Internet. I hope you will remain engaged in the policy process, as there are many important debates ahead where your voice will be needed.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Knowledge Is A Universal Natural Resource -- And Locking It Up Hurts Everyone

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:39:00 PST

One of the more important points in understanding some of the fights over the ridiculousness of today's copyright and patent laws is to recognize how knowledge (information) is a natural resource. It is the input that makes other great things. Economist Paul Romer's famous research really showed how knowledge and information as a resource is what creates economic growth. Once you recognize that fact, you begin to run into problems when you think about locking up that natural resource. Think of other natural resources. Do we think the world is better off if there's a greater supply of each of those? An abundance? If we have an abundance of wheat, that's a good thing. If we have an abundance of energy, that's a good thing. There may be side effects of such abundances, but the overall abundance is something worth cherishing.

The problem, however, comes when you have a new abundance where once there was scarcity. And that's because anywhere there's a scarcity, someone has built a business model based on that very scarcity. But that is a business model issue. Years ago, most economies rejected the idea of mercantilism, where governments would purposely build up monopolies and artificial scarcities, because of the realization that, in the long run, everyone was better off with a competitive market. The guy who had the sugar monopoly may have hated it -- but everyone else was much, much better off.

And, so, we go back to knowledge and information. Unlike most other resources, knowledge is not just abundant... it is infinite. As Thomas Jefferson once famously wrote:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

And yet... we still default to thinking that this amazing resource should be locked up. Because it's often easier to see how the guy who owns the sugar monopoly benefits, than to think through the more complicated market in which there are competing sugar providers, each trying to offer a better product, under which consumers benefit at a massive scale, markets grow and opportunity blossoms. It's easier to just focus on the fact that it makes life more difficult for the one monopolist.

And often, it seems that we run into this same issue when it comes to intellectual property law. Brent Ahsley recently wrote an interesting post, in which he talks about how something he created way back in 2002, one of the first DHTML-based embeddable chat windows -- has become a mainstream piece of technology, but one over which Ahsley has no control, nor profits from. But, unlike the typical analysis, Ahsley realizes that the world is much better off this way:

I occasionally find myself talking with someone about facebook chat or google chat and I'll say "I sorta invented that" and point them to my Feb 2002 blog entry where I built and released to the wild what was one of the earliest embeddable DHTML chat windows, using my also free and open what-was-not-yet-called-Ajax library I released in 2000, about 5 years before many people came along and pushed the state of the art much further down the road.

Invariably I am told that I should be rich and that all those sites and people "stole" my ideas. I disagree and say that these were all perfectly obvious inventions to me and all the others who came after me and that it was my duty to the net to feed my work back into it such that folks could stand on my shoulders as I had stood on those of others.

That is how the net works – or at least it used to. It still does in open development circles but the content and patent industries are fighting hard to brainwash everyone that knowledge is inherently owned.

And this, as Ahsley recognizes, is a problem. The world of monopolists is focused on protecting the monopoly. But if Ashley, for example, had patented aspects of his AJAX library, or his embeddable chat, would the world be a better place? It's likely that such chat features would not be as common. It's likely that such chat offerings (which are now everywhere) would not be as powerful or as useful. It's likely that the world would be a worse place. Ahsley, personally, might be a little wealthier -- perhaps someone would pay him to license the functionality, or perhaps he'd successfully sue someone. But the world would be more limited and there would be less to go on.

This, then, is the problem that many of us face in looking at and trying to understand the nature of economics, growth, innovation and progress when looking at the world of monopoly protections. It's easy to see the sugar monopolist, and see how taking down those monopolies might make his job harder (even if it creates a big market with more opportunity to make more money). But to recognize that bigger picture, as Ashley does, is difficult.

Ashley tries to put it all in perspective:

Anything that is knowable is a part of the universe of truth that has no owner and no bounds. The invention or discovery of anything results in the exposure of one or more hitherto undocumented universal truths to the collected human record.

The true and original purpose of copyright and patents is to create a temporary legal fiction which acts in many respects like ownership, conferring upon an individual person rights to control the use and dissemination of morsels of universal truth which they had the luck and/or tenacity to first identify, so they can be recompensed for their contribution to the universe’s growing stockpile of exposed truth for the benefit of all humanity.

The legal expansion to include corporate personhood and subsequent term extensions tending towards permanence of the legal assignment of ownership equivalence amounts to the expropriation and destruction of large parts of humanity’s natural knowledge resources.

It’s not too much different from bulldozing the rainforest.

At some point, it needs to be recognized that the purpose of these laws has been twisted and twisted and twisted to the point that they are broken. They're not acting as a reward for those who discover key elements of knowledge in exchange for sharing them. They've become tolls in and of themselves for the sole purpose of enriching the monopolist. And that takes us right back to mercantilism.

If we were able to reject industrial mercantilism as the wrong economic approach 250 years or so ago, at some point we're going to reach the age where we can reject intellectual mercantilism as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apparently, If Your Domain Has 'Dirt' In The Name, Section 230 Safe Harbors Don't Apply (Uh Oh...)

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:31:00 PST

Back in 2010, we wrote about an attempt to sue the website TheDirty.com for libel... in which the lawyer for the site accidentally sued a different site, called TheDirt.com. This resulted in some hilarity with a bogus default judgment and plenty of confusion. We joked how, given the similarities in the names of those sites to Techdirt, perhaps we should be happy that we weren't sued as well. However, once all the mistakes were realized, the case did shift to actually suing TheDirty.com's owner. TheDirty is (1) not safe for work and (2) not a particularly nice site. It mostly involves user submissions of pictures of women, along with generally mean commentary from the user -- and then maybe a short comment from the site's owner. It is a mean site, and the site's owner and readers seem to embrace that, even if it's exceptionally petty.

The specific lawsuit involved a Bengals cheerleader/school teacher, who wasn't happy with the pictures of her posted to the website... along with the comments made about her (such as suggesting she had slept with the entire football team). As we noted at the time, if this content is user generated -- it's a clear situation where the case should be dismissed over Section 230's safe harbors (which put the liability on the actual content creator, rather than the middlemen third parties). In this case, the actions that might reach the level of defamation clearly came from the user, not the site owner. Previous rulings in other districts have even made it clear that sites that merely pass along content created by someone else -- even if it involves a moderator "choosing" what gets displayed -- do not lose the basic protections. So this case should have been a slam dunk.

Instead... it appears that the judge has gone in the other direction, creating really convoluted arguments to claim that Section 230 does not apply. As Eric Goldman explains, there are serious problems with this ruling:

The court's discussion is short, yet it's surprisingly scattered. Pages 8-10 run through a gamut of gripes about thedirty's practices and statements, but the judge doesn't articulate the relevance of these facts (other than providing evidence of the judge's animus towards thedirty). Because the judge does a poor job connecting the facts to his adopted legal standard, we aren't sure exactly what thedirty did to foreclose the 230 immunity

The ruling, which is attached below, really is that bizarre. The judge twists and turns himself into contortions to try to come up with a reason to say that TheDirty.com is liable for comments made on the site. The simplest explanation, as Eric noted, is that the judge just didn't like the kind of site that TheDirty.com is (and from a quick glance, remains). The key to the judge's ruling is in trying to apply the infamous Roomates.com case. The problem, however, is that the case doesn't fit well. Roommates.com lost not because the site encouraged some actions against the law, but because its menu choices were a part of the content creation, and those menu choices, themselves, directly violated the Fair Housing Act.

It's a huge stretch to go from there to claiming that a site where mean things are celebrated is no longer protected via Section 230's safe harbors. But that's what the judge did.

And, in part, it gets really scary for me, personally, because the judge declares -- multiple times -- that the use of the word "dirt" in a domain name means that you are encouraging defamation:

First, the name of the site in and of itself encourages the posting only of “dirt,” that is material which is potentially defamatory or an invasion of the subject’s privacy.

Of course, there's absolutely nothing in Section 230 that suggests that if a judge doesn't like your name -- or falsely assumes that any website with the word "dirt" in the name is up to no good -- he can ignore Section 230's important protections. Like Eric suggested, it would be good if there's an appeal here, because it seems to go against pretty much any other Section 230 ruling. Not liking a site is simply not a reason to ignore those important safe harbors...

And, just to summarize, here are the basics. The site, TheDirty.com posted a user submission, with a one-sentence comment on it. That submission included a cheerleader/teacher, who didn't like her photos being widely available. Somewhere along the way the legal shenanigans began. Remember, the contents of the post itself may be defamatory -- but that, alone, should not make the site liable. It could very well make the original submitter liable, but the cheerleader doesn't seem to want to go that route of actually suing those who did the bad thing. So, instead, the site now faces a lot of liability... because a judge thinks that having "dirt" in your domain name must mean that you're seeking out something bad.

For reasons beyond just the standard defenses of Section 230, this is pretty bizarre and slightly terrifying. I certainly don't encourage the submission of defamatory information. But because I have "dirt" in my domain name, does that mean I should be worried too?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Security Theater... Or Why I Had To Go Dumpster Diving At The US Capitol Last Week

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:30:18 PST

We've had plenty of stories about the ridiculousness of security theater at airports, but it's been spreading elsewhere as well. Last week, I was in Washington DC from Monday through Thursday, for a few things (mostly related to the SOPA/PIPA debate). On Thursday morning, I took part in a press briefing about the SOPA/PIPA fight (this was before it had been shelved, but after the web blackouts) at the US Capitol. I was actually heading to the airport soon after, so I had checked out of my hotel, and had put the metal water canteen that I use in my bag. It was empty, knowing that I'd have to go through airport security a little later.

However, at security to get into the Capitol, I was told I could not bring the canteen in, even though it was empty. I asked if there was any reason for this. I was told I just couldn't bring it in. I asked if there was any place I could "leave" it, and I was told to go outside and there were dumpsters to the right. I even asked if someone could hold it for me, since it would just be an hour or so. No luck. Dumpsters, outside to the right. The canteen isn't anything special, but I do like it. According to the price tag still on the bottom, it cost $11 when my wife bought it for me. I can buy another canteen, but really, there's a bit of a principle thing to all of this. If the canteen itself is dangerous, then, putting it in a dumpster outside isn't going to change that.

I went outside and there were some police there, so I asked them if there was anything I could do. They also pointed me to the dumpsters. I asked if I might be able to get it back, and they said, "if you don't mind climbing in... and if the garbage isn't picked up by then." And so, an hour and a half later, after the press briefing was done, I (wearing a suit), climbed into the dumpster at the Capitol to pick up my water canteen, so I could take it with me back home. Again, it certainly wouldn't have been the end of the world if I'd lost it. But I'm at a loss as to what this little bit of security theater accomplished. Either the canteen is dangerous, or it's not. If it's dangerous, I shouldn't be able to leave it right next to the Capitol... and I shouldn't then be able to go retrieve it. If it's not dangerous (and, um, it's not), then the whole thing is a complete joke. Oh, and I shouldn't forget the other punchline: I saw at least two people in the press briefing with their own (brought from home) water canteens.

Somehow, none of this makes me feel any safer.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DailyDirt: Faster Food, Faster!

Michael Ho — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:00:00 PST

There are a lot of food options out there, and fast food is certainly one of the more popular choices for people on the go. Not surprisingly, though, fast food establishments usually don't have the best reputation for healthy dining, but some of them are trying to change their image. Here are just a few stories on fast food news.

Burger King is testing out a home delivery service for its food in the DC area. Best sentence in the coverage: "There are some real food-quality issues here," says Ron Paul, president of research firm Technomic. [url]
McDonald's tried a social marketing campaign on Twitter, asking for customers to tell some of their #McDStories. Oops. They didn't expect the #McSnideRemarks -- which is par for the course on the internet. [url]
Yum! Brands restaurants (eg. Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut...) in Kentucky lobbied to accept food stamps -- but some people don't think that's a good idea. Others argue that it's a step up from getting food from a gas station. [url]
To discover more food-related links, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon. [url]

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Responses To Nimblebit Point Out That Inspiration Comes From Lots Of Places

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:07:08 PST

We just wrote about Nimblebit's response to Zynga upon discovering Zynga's game that looks a lot like a Nimblebit game. In that post, we noted that even Nimblebit's game was hardly the first such game out there, and now (as pointed out in our comments), someone decided to take the format of Nimblebit's letter, and redo it as a letter to Nimblebit about the other games that inspired Nimblebit's game. The tone is a little snarky -- and to be honest, I never got the feeling from the original that Nimblebit was claiming that it, too, wasn't inspired by others. Still, this really does show the nature of creativity and copying these days. All of these games can (and do) happily co-exist in the marketplace, where they can compete with each other to improve and provide a better consumer experience. And that seems like a good thing. On top of that, for those who are worried about another company copying them, it helps to remember that then you can copy their best ideas right back.... and improve on them. It's through this sort of process that innovation rates increase...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hawaiian Politician Wants To Track Everyone Online Because Someone Doesn't Like Her... Backs Down After Public Backlash

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:59:00 PST

Always beware of politicans pushing legislation because of a personal experience. Declan McCullagh has the story of an astoundingly, ridiculously broad data retention bill in Hawaii that would require anyone who provides internet access to keep a detailed dossier on every website everyone who uses their service visits (tied to their name). The bill includes a broad definition of internet access provider, such that anyone who provides free WiFi may be forced to keep this same info. Furthermore, it has no privacy provisions at all -- such as requiring the data be encrypted or even forbidding service providers from then selling the data.

The really stunning part of the article, however, is that when McCullagh asks the Hawaiian state Senator who introduced the Senate version about the background of the bill, it becomes clear that the politician in question doesn't appear to know what's in the bill, nor understand the implications of her own bill. Instead, it comes out she introduced it as a favor to another politician who had a "personal experience" this is intended to deal with:

Democrat Jill Tokuda, the Hawaii Senate's majority whip, who introduced a companion bill, S.B. 2530, in the Senate, told CNET that her legislation was intended to address concerns raised by Rep. Kymberly Pine, the first Republican elected to her Oahu district since statehood and the House minority floor leader.

"I was asked to introduce the Senate companions on these Internet security related bills by Representative Kymberly Marcos Pine after her own personal experience in this area," Tokuda said. "I would defer to her on the origins of these bills as she has done the research and outreach, and been the main champion of this effort."

What happened with Pine? Apparently a "disgruntled web designer" had created a website about Pine that calls her a crook and says she owes him money. It sounds like a typical "I don't like this person" website. There are lots of them out there, and they can be obnoxious... but that's no reason to completely destroy everyone's privacy online. Pine also claims that her email was hacked, though it's not clear if that was related.

I'm sure it's no fun to be the subject of someone saying mean things about you online. Or to have your email hacked. Those things suck. But to then rush out to pass massive data retention laws that take away people's privacy seems like a massive overreaction.

Thankfully, with enough public backlash, Pine is apparently backing down somewhat, admitting that the bill probably went too far. It's great that she's realizing this now... but shouldn't politicians be expected to understand these kinds of things before they try to regulate?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Song That It Didn't License, Just Because One Of Its Artists Rapped To It On A Leaked Track

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:59:00 PST

Last year, when Universal Music issued a very questionable takedown of a Megaupload commercial -- which involved some Universal Music artists -- UMG suggested that it had extra special rights with YouTube in which it could take down videos that it didn't even have a direct copyright on. Google later said that UMG was greatly exaggerating the details of their deal, and all UMG could do beyond issuing normal copyright takedowns was to take down live performances.

So a bunch of folks are scratching their heads over a highly questionable UMG takedown of a song by a Florida-based rap duo, After the Smoke (who are not signed to Universal). The details are a bit complex, and to understand what appears to have happened, you first have to go back a bit. It seems that After the Smoke recorded an instrumental "beat" which they then shopped around to various artists to potentially rap/sing over. This is pretty common, and if someone likes the beat, they'll buy it. In this case, they offered the beat to Yelawolf, who they had opened for. Yelawolf claimed to like it, and apparently did record over it... but about the same time got signed to Universal Music and nothing happened with the track (and the beat was never paid for). However, about a month ago, the Yelawolf track over the ATS beat got leaked -- leading ATS to get upset about the lack of credit (and, one assumes, payment).

Some of the folks who participated in the Yelawolf track apologized and went public with a statement about how this track was not intended to be released and how leaks suck and how ATS definitely deserves credit. That statement also noted that ATS had (after not finding a buyer) recorded their own version of a song over the beat. And, indeed, soon after, ATS released their own official version.... but then UMG took it down. As far as I can tell, UMG apparently decided that because its act -- Yelawolf -- had recorded over this beat (despite not licensing it), it must own it... and because of that blocked ATS's song -- which was completely their own. It seems likely that UMG simply used the Yelawolf track with YouTube's ContentID to block any tracks with the same music -- but things got screwy when it turned out that neither UMG nor Yelawolf had actually licensed the beat.

Either way, in another report, ATS filed a complaint with YouTube... and was told, too bad, and that UMG owned the track. Eventually, as the story started spreading, someone at UMG realized the mistake and backed down.

But, in the short term, this really does (yet again) highlight one of the many problems of an aggressive takedown system. UMG clearly screwed up here and shut down an independent act's own song -- which, honestly, one of its own acts had infringed on the copyright for. This is really quite an amazing form of copyright abuse when you think about it: UMG artist fails to license beat on a song that is leaked... and then UMG claims copyright over the official song over the same beat. That's definitely adding insult to injury -- or, perhaps, adding injunction to infringement. While it appears that cooler heads prevailed and got this worked out eventually, it seems pretty crazy that any artist should have to deal with some giant industry conglomerate completely shutting down their own works based on bogus copyright claims.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Bar Fight! Sony Sues Karaoke Distributor For Infringement; Gets Sued Right Back For 'Copyright Misuse'

Tim Cushing — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:54:00 PST

A great many drinkers have watched helplessly as their BAC became inversely proportionate to their common sense, throwing around cash as thought it were Monopoly money before grabbing the mic to belt out Adele's latest track. Karaoke has been the go-to bar sport for thousands of people who feel the only thing keeping them back from superstardom is sobriety. It's a proven money-maker, but does it make ridiculously large damages-type money? Sony/ATV sure thinks so:

[O]ne manufacturer and distributor of karaoke discs [KTS] has just taken Sony/ATV Music Publishing to California federal court to get a declaration that it doesn't owe $1.28 billion for 6,715 acts of alleged infringement. The plaintiff not only wants to limit its liability, but also is seeking to punish the music publisher for unfair trade practices.

Sure, karaoke is lucrative, but $1.28 billion? From one manufacturer? And how about those damages -- $190,618 per violation? How does Sony get to this number? By going back to the well over and over and over and over. And they're not the only ones in line.

The use of the original music as the background score requires a license over the master recording. The use of the song composition requires a mechanical license too. When songs are performed in public, that requires payment to a PRO like ASCAP or BMI. When the music is matched to video images, it requires a synchronisation license. And if the lyrics are being republished, that might require an additional fee too.

Standard operating procedure for karaoke manufacturers is to hire their own lineup to play the hits, thus dodging higher royalty fees by paying a mechanical license for the cover versions. Obviously, this makes financial sense considering the sheer number of tunes required to run a karaoke business, not to mention the fact that it's frequently multiple mechanical licenses. You'd think Sony would be wary of shutting down a steady income stream. But a good thing can always become a better thing with the addition of lawyers and improbable maths, amiright? Not so fast, say KTS (also via lawyers):

In KTS' lawsuit two weeks ago, the company alleges that Sony is committing copyright misuse by attempting to collect multiple damage awards on a single work from the upstream producers, the downstream users (bars and restaurants), and KTS, the packager/distributor. KTS believes this alleged bullying "scheme" is unlawful.

In its lawsuit, KTS says that Sony/ATV has long since known about its operation, and rather than take reasonable steps to stop such products at the source, the defendant has: "instead committed copyright misuse by seeking to secure multiple license fees for the same allegedly infringed work by suing each link on the distribution chain, by demanding license fees for licensed goods and by attempting to obtain more than one statutory damage award for the continuing infringement (i.e., down stream distributions of the infringing work) of a SINGLE WORK."

This declaration only succeeded in irritating the music giant, which like many major labels finds itself easily angered in this "post-Napster" environment. Sony wants both damages and an injunction against KTS. KTS wants Sony to be realistic and to honor licenses paid by distributors instead of shoving all of its hands into KTS' wallet over and over again.

KTS wants a declaration that Sony is only eligible for one statutory award per work, which would trim the nearly $1.3 billion that Sony allegedly says it is due, but perhaps just as importantly, the karaoke manufacturer is bringing a bold copyright misuse claim that seeks to punish the publisher for trying to "recover multiple times for the same allegedly infringing conduct at rates greater than if the claims had been asserted against the manufacturers."

We'll see how this shakes out, but I have a feeling that Sony may be willing to slaughter one of its few remaining cash cows (you know, where people are still paying for music -- music not even performed by the original artists) on the altar of infringement, rather than settle for lower mechanical license fees. When all you have is sales declines, everything looks like a lawsuit.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

MPAA Exec Admits: 'We're Not Comfortable With The Internet'

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:50:00 PST

There have been a ton of post mortems about the whole SOPA/PIPA fight, with many trying to figure out where and how the MPAA "went wrong." After all, this is a group that is very used to getting its way inside DC. And it got slaughtered. We've already discussed our thoughts on why the MPAA failed, but what stuns me is how every time someone from the MPAA opens their mouth, they seem to make the situation worse by demonstrating just how tone deaf they are to the online community and what their concerns were. Whether it's just blaming Google or thinking that the solution is more backroom dealing, each response just sounds like a group of people who are playing a different game, and still don't realize the rules have changed.

The Hollywood Reporter's version of the postmortem is a good read, even though it covers much the same ground as many other such recaps. Still, it's worth reading to get a good feel for Hollywood's view of the world. But the really stunning part is the quote from Michael O'Leary, the MPAA's number two guy, who makes what may be the most tone-deaf statement we've seen to date in this fight:

The MPAA's O'Leary concedes that the industry was out-manned and outgunned in cyberspace. He says the MPAA "is [undergoing] a process of education, a process of getting a much, much greater presence in the online environment. This was a fight on a platform we're not at this point comfortable with, and we were going up against an opponent that controls that platform."

Yes, even when he tries to say that they're trying to learn about that confounded internet thingy, he sounds ridiculous and dismissive. But the real point is his inadvertent admission within that statement: the MPAA (and the rest of "old" Hollywood) simply "is not comfortable with" the internet. And that's really what SOPA and PIPA were about. Rather than trying to understand this new platform, and learn from the many entertainers who do get the internet, they did what the MPAA does and simply tried to regulate that which they don't understand and fear.

Furthermore, even more ridiculous is the end of that sentence: "an opponent that controls that platform." As the article makes clear, he means Google. Which shows that he still doesn't get it. First, Google didn't lead the protests. It came late to the game, after the grassroots had already taken off with this stuff and run with it. But, more to the point, contrary to what O'Leary and the MPAA seem to believe: Google does not control the internet. No one does.

This, of course, explains why the MPAA wants to "negotiate" with Google these days. But that's not going to work. The folks on the internet don't want a backroom deal, whether it's negotiated by Google or someone else. Either way, this suggests that the MPAA is desperately in need of new leadership. They need leaders who don't try to regulate that which they admit they don't understand. They need leaders who aren't so clueless as to think that Google controls the internet (or that Google is somehow "the enemy"). And, really, most important, they need leaders who recognize and understand that the internet is their future too -- and any leadership needs to not fear the internet, but understand it and learn to embrace it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that the MPAA is going to find such leadership any time soon.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

An Infographic Showing Just How Frequently Hollywood Has Cried Wolf About 'Piracy'

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:44:00 PST

A few folks have sent over this excellent infographic about the frequency with which Hollywood insists every new technology will destroy the movie business. It's based on the list that Steve Blank put together of Hollywood being totally wrong on lots of things: Figured some folks here might appreciate this...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Another Interesting White House Petition: Reduce The Term Of Copyright

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:46:00 PST

The White House's use of its "We The People..." petition system has been interesting to watch over the last few months since it was introduced. While they quickly raised the "threshold" necessary to get a response, lately it's been used in some interesting ways. We've highlighted a few different petitions -- specifically those related to SOPA/PIPA, Chris Dodd and ACTA. In the case of SOPA, it was in finally responding to the two related petitions that the White House finally came out against the approach in SOPA/PIPA.

The latest petition that some have mentioned is one petitioning for copyright terms to be reduced back to 56 years, like it was prior to 1978. Personally, I'd rather than before we pick an arbitrary time frame, that at least some research be done to figure out what might be the optimal time frame. But, clearly, reducing the term makes a lot of sense. Hell, even among many of the strongest copyright system defenders we hear them "admit" that perhaps copyright terms have been extended too far. Of course, if Congress ever did move to reduce the term, you can rest assured that all hell would break loose from the legacy players. They're not giving up any monopoly powers without a fight.

In the end, this petition might be a little pointless. Copyright law is left to Congress to determine, not the President. So petitioning the White House on this may come across as a little misguided. Of course, with the way politics runs these days, the White House often does set the legislative agenda, and under some weird mythical magic future where the President did take up this issue, it could potentially lead to a legislative attempt at reducing copyright term limits -- though, again, the freakout from the legacy players about how "the government is stealing from artists!!!!!@#!@#" would be deafening (of course, the flipside, that whenever Congress extends copyright they're "stealing" from the public, will never be acknowledged).

That said, even though the target here may be a bit misguided, I think it would be good to get this petition up to 25,000 signatures, pushing the White House to respond to it. Post-SOPA/PIPA, it would be nice for the White House to recognize that copyright policy is internet policy, and that the public really does care about this on a widescale basis. If copyright-related petitions keep hitting the 25,000 signature threshold, perhaps they'll realize that this never was about just the SOPA/PIPA bills...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Court Says You Can Copyright The Basic Idea Of A Photograph

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:25:00 PST

We've talked a lot in the past about the "idea/expression dichotomy." This is an important concept in copyright law that says you can only copyright the specific expression, and not the idea. This is supposed to protect people from getting accused of copyright infringement for basically making something similar to what someone else made. Unfortunately, as we've been noting with dismay over the past few years, the idea that there's some bright line between "idea" and "expression" has been slowly fading away, and courts are, increasingly, effectively wiping out the distinction. In the US, we've seen this with the ridiculous case between a photographer, David LaChapelle, and the singer Rihanna, because some of her videos were clear homages to his photographs. The expression was entirely different, but the judge didn't think so, and Rihanna ended up having to pay up.

Over in the UK, though, we have an even more ridiculous ruling, as pointed out on Boing Boing, where a judge has ruled that a photograph using a similar idea, but totally different composition is infringement. You can see the two photographs here: As you can tell, the expression is totally different. Obviously, the idea is quite similar, but ideas aren't supposed to be protected. You can read the full ruling here, in which the court seems persuaded by the fact that the original photographer had to do some Photoshopping to the image. Now, it's true that European copyright laws are much more open to "sweat of the brow" arguments for copyright (which is not the case in the US), but even so, this ruling is ridiculous and troubling. The court even admits that the basic elements of the photograph (Big Ben, Parliament, London bus) are pretty common. It also admits that highlighting an object in color on a black and white background is pretty common. But it still finds that this is infringing.

I have not found this to be an easy question but I have decided that the defendants' work does reproduce a substantial part of the claimant's artistic work. In the end the issue turns on a qualitative assessment of the reproduced elements. The elements which have been reproduced are a substantial part of the claimant's work because, despite the absence of some important compositional elements, they still include the key combination of what I have called the visual contrast features with the basic composition of the scene itself. It is that combination which makes Mr Fielder's image visually interesting. It is not just another photograph of cliched London icons.

What troubles me here is that this seems to turn the judge into an art critic in order to determine how the different pieces are put together and what counts as expression vs. idea, and what parts are "copied." Perhaps even more troubling is the following sentence:

Mr Davis submitted that a finding of infringement in this case would give the claimant a monopoly which was unwarranted. He uses the word "monopoly" in a pejorative sense but it does not help. All intellectual property rights are a form of monopoly, properly circumscribed and controlled by the law. In any case I do not accept that a finding for the claimant in this case is unwarranted.

While he's right that all intellectual property rights are a form of monopoly, the question here is whether or not this is an appropriate monopoly. The reason Davis pointed out that this was a problem was because, as the court admitted earlier, the fact is that this would be creating a monopoly on commonly used photographic elements. That's the problem. Either way, it's yet another example of copyright law being used to lock up culture.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As USTR Insists ACTA Doesn't Need Congressional Approval, Wyden Asks State Dept. For A Second Opinion

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:21:00 PST

Back in October, we noted that Senator Ron Wyden had sent the Obama administration a letter pointing out that it appeared unconstitutional for the President to sign ACTA without getting Congressional approval. The USTR had been insisting that because ACTA does not require any change to US law, it doesn't need any such approval. Of course, that ignores a few issues. First, while it may not change US laws, it seems likely that it would restrict future changes to laws if we wanted to stay in compliance. For that reason alone, it should have Congressional approval. But the larger point is that international agreements signed without Congressional approval -- so-called "executive agreements," -- can only be done for issues solely under the President's mandate. Copyright and patent laws, however, are the mandate of Congress, not the President.

The statement by the USTR confuses the issue by conflating two separate stages of the process required for binding the U.S. to international agreements: entry and implementation. It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law. But, regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law, a point that is contested with respect to ACTA, the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress' authority, absent congressional approval.

Thus, Wyden asked the President to explicitly state that ACTA was not binding and does not create any international obligations for the US:

I request that as a condition of the U.S. putting forward any official instrument that accepts the terms of ACTA that you formally declare that ACTA does not create any international obligations for the U.S. -- that ACTA is not binding. If you are unwilling or unable to make such a clarification, it is imperative that your administration provide the Congress, and the public, with a legal rationale for why ACTA should not be considered by Congress, and work with us to ensure that we reach a common understanding of the proper way for the U.S. to proceed with ACTA.

Instead, however, the USTR responded (embedded below) with the same exact response it's been giving out all along: nothing to see here because ACTA requires no changes to US laws. There are two very big problems with this. First, it's not clear that's even true. The Congressional Research Service's analysis of the language of ACTA (done at the request of Wyden) pointed out that ACTA may require changes to US law. The problem (and it's a big problem) is that the language is so vague, it all comes down to interpretation.

Second, even if the USTR is correct that ACTA requires no changes to US law, that's answering a different question. Wyden did not ask about what ACTA required to implement. He asked what was required to approve it. And the law does not say that the President can declare something an executive agreement if it doesn't require a legislative change -- but that he can only do it for things under his sole mandate. ACTA clearly does not qualify. Either way, this is a really disingenuous move by the USTR. It answers a different question and does so possibly inaccurately. And, nowhere in the letter did anyone respond to Wyden's specific request for a declaration that ACTA creates no international obligations for the US.

In response, Wyden has now sent a second letter (also embedded below) to the State Department, asking it to look into this and clarify if a mistake has been made. Here are the specific questions he asks the State Department to answer:

If ACTA is entered by the President without Congressional consent, what will be the nature of the agreement and its legal implications under U.S. and international law? For example, is it the Department of State's opinion that ACTA will be equivalent to a non-binding "memorandum of understanding," like some of the intellectual property agreements cited by USTR in the attached letter? Can ACTA be a valid and binding "sole executive agreement" under the U.S. Constitution, even though the regulation of intellectual property is not a sole executive function under the Constitution? Or must ACTA, to be binding, be a form of Congressional-executive agreement by virtue of ex ante or ex post congressional approval?

What is the nature of the international legal obligations that ACTA would create? Would the U.S. be in violation of the agreement if the Congress changed federal law in a way not consistent with the agreement, for example by ridding our law of statutory damages for online copyright infringement? What would be the implications of such a violation?

What are the constitutional limits on the President binding the U.S. to legislative minimum standard agreements over matters delegated to Congress under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution? Is the President free to bind the U.S. to any international agreement he chooses merely because he deems them to be consistent with U.S. law? (It is worth noting that many experts believe that ACTA is not, in fact, consistent with current U.S. law.)

These are good questions. The first and third are the crux of the Constitutional issue, but the second one is the really important one from a policy standpoint. We've argued that a rather serious problem with ACTA is that it will severely limit Congress' ability to fix certain aspects of copyright law. The example used by Wyden is a good one. There's a very strong argument to be made that statutory damages in copyright law are ridiculous, disproportionate and out of control. Fixing them would be a big help in making sure that copyright law isn't used regularly as a nuclear weapon against people who simply can't defend against the possibility of ridiculous damages awards. Another example would be if Congress decided to walk the courts back on their made up idea of "inducement" being a form of copyright infringement. Under ACTA, either of these moves would put the US in violation. So while it may not require legal changes to implement today, it may significantly prevent Congress from making those changes. And shouldn't Congress have the right to weigh in on that?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Onion Explains SOPA And PIPA (As Only The Onion Can)

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:05:00 PST

Well, it took some time, but with so much disinformation that was spread online about SOPA and PIPA, we really needed someone to cut through the clutter... and who better than The Onion? They've finally done so with their simple SOPA/PIPA explainer that includes some of the finer points of the law that you may have missed if you hadn't read the bill carefully:

Music review sites can only allude to a song's title and content in vague terms

All pirated material available only at the Commerce Department's new site, Torrent.gov

Government will actively encourage people to download only public-domain music, such as Pipey Lester's "That Cat's a-Mewing!" or Ukulele Ted's "Nickel For Your Hat"

Denies future generations the ability to watch hilarious scene from Dirty Work where Chris Farley yells at the Asian hooker anytime, free of charge, which is a fundamental right of being an American

Does absolutely nothing to get rid of goddamn Lolcats

Makes the MPAA and RIAA feel better, which, if you have any shred of a soul, causes pure rage to swell through your very being

Any person suspected of Photoshopping bill sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) in an unflattering manner shall be subject to a minimum sentence of two months in prison; sentence will be increased by an additional two months if MS Paint is used

No longer legal to steal Ryan Gosling's credit card information

If only they'd shared this info sooner, so much misinformation would have been stopped...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Tales From Ubisoft DRM: Latest DRM Goes From Horrible To Slightly Less Horrible

Zachary Knight — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:01:00 PST

We all know Ubisoft. That company that seems to think that piracy is such a huge problem on the PC and that DRM is the only way to stop it -- even when fans complain about how horrible the DRM is. So it is really no surprise to find out that Ubisoft is still at it. It still thinks that annoying legitimate customers is going to prevent piracy of its games. This latest story of Ubisoft DRM woe comes from Guru3d.

Gurur3d had wanted to do a benchmark test of one of Ubisoft's latest titles, Anno 2070, by installing the game on multiple PCs and switching out graphics cards. Unfortunately, Anno 2070 came with an activation limit of only 3 installs. Guru3d had not thought that would be a problem as they just wanted to see the difference between graphics cards. So they started switching cards. No sooner than they had begun, they hit the activation limit.

So yesterday I started working on a performance review. We know (well at least we figured we knew), that the game key can be used on three systems. That's fair, the first activation is used on my personal game rig. The second we installed on the AMD Radeon graphics test PC and the 3rd on our NVIDIA graphics test PC.

On the AMD Radeon PC we initially test the Radeon HD 7970, then to match the timedemo sequence we install the NVIDIA system, which has a GeForce GTX 580. So far it's all good, we have created a timedemo sequence, defined our image quality settings, took screenshots and the numbers for the first two cards.

For the NVIDIA setup I take out the GTX 580, and insert a GTX 590. When I now startup the game 'BAM', again an activation is required. Once again I fill out the key and now Ubisoft is thanking me with the message that I ran out of activations.

Not only does the Ubisoft DRM monitor the number of installations the game has been used for, but it also monitors changes to your hardware. So if you decide to upgrade your graphics card and nothing else, you just wasted an activation. Needless to say, this didn't make Guru3D very happy. So they called up the Ubisoft marketing department in the Netherlands and were met with indifference.

When contacting Ubisoft marketing here in the Netherlands, their reply goes like this: 'Sorry to disappoint you - the game is indeed restricted to 3 hardware changes and there simply is no way to bypass that. We also do not have 7 copies of the game for you'.

This is not the type of response that gamers would want to get from the people who sold them the game. This response basically reads "Sorry we screwed you over on your game and you can't play it. Feel free to buy another copy in order to keep using it." You know how most people will react to this? They will refuse to do business with that company, and/or they will decide to just download the DRM crack for the game and continue to play it. Neither option helps Ubisoft.

Lucky for Guru3d, they had connections and were able to get in touch with the actual developers of the game and were provided with an unlocked key so they could do their testing. However, this is hardly a solution for the average gamer. Very few will have connections with the developer of the game and very few will be able to get the attention of the larger gaming press. Lucky for us, someone at Ubisoft was paying attention and made a change to the Anno 2070 DRM:

Hi Hilbert,

Just wanted to let you know, that we now remove the graphics hardware from the hash used to identify the PC.
That means everyone should now be able to switch the GFX as many times as he/she wants.

Cheers,

So this is what it takes to get thrown a bone by Ubisoft these days -- have the press complain and raise a big stink for all gamers to see. Of course this isn't really a new thing for Ubisoft. It has always been blind to the will of its fans. There is no sense in thinking that Ubisoft has learned anything from this fiasco other than, "Do what we normally do and if anyone complains, ignore them. If that doesn't work, ease up just a hair." This will not fly for much longer. Gamers will learn to avoid Ubisoft products. Many already have. The question is will Ubisoft ever learn its lesson and provide its fans with the products they want?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Sorting Out the Sharing License Shambles

Glyn Moody — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:01:00 PST

At the heart of the various movements based around sharing -- free software, open content, open access etc. -- lie specially drawn-up licenses that grant permissions beyond the minimal ones of copyright. This approach has worked well -- too well, in fact, since it has led to a proliferation of many different licenses: the Open Source Initiative recognizes over 60 of them for open source. That's a problem because slight incompatibilities between them often make it impossible to create combined works drawing on elements released under different licenses.

To reduce these incompatibilities there has been a general move towards license simplification. For example, Wikipedia was originally licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), reflecting the fact that Wikipedia took its inspiration from the free software movement, which uses the GNU General Public License (GPL), and that in the early days of Wikipedia the Creative Commons licenses simply did not exist.

That became a problem as Creative Commons' cc by-sa license became popular, since it was not possible to re-use Wikipedia content with works released under that license. The solution was to relicense Wikipedia material under both the GFDL and cc by-sa, a shift that took place in 2009.

More recently, in the realm of software, version 2 of the Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0), used by Firefox and many other programs, has been drawn up; one of its key aims was to reduce incompatibilities with other free software licenses:

the license is now compatible with the Apache license - anyone who complies with the terms of the MPL should also be compliant with the Apache license's terms. Similarly, by default, the license allows the code to be distributed alongside code licensed under the GPL or LGPL.

The Apache license is used by the Apache Software Foundation for the well-known Apache Web server – currently running around 60% of the public Web – and many other applications. The LGPL is a variant of the GPL. That means that MPL 2.0 is now compatible with the two most important free software licenses – a big step forward in terms of tidying up the license mess in the free software world.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Twitter Decides To Censor Locally, Rather Than Block Globally, In Response To Government Demands

Mike Masnick — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:01:00 PST

Twitter just announced that it has set up the ability to block content on a country specific basis (e.g., if Germany demanded some content be taken down, Twitter can now just have that content blocked in Germany). I know some people saw this and got upset about "censorship!" but looking at the details, it actually looks like Twitter is doing a smart thing here. You could argue that the proper response would be to stand up to local governments and say, "sorry, we don't block anything" -- and I'd actually have sympathy with that response. But the truth is that if a government is demanding censorship, then Twitter is likely going to have to comply or face complete blocking. The solution that it came up with is somewhat more elegant: it will just block the specific content in the specific location and (importantly) will try to let users know that the content is blocked while also sending as much info as it can to the Chilling Effects website so that people can learn about what's being censored. This is a lot more transparent and hopefully actually shines more light on efforts to censor Twitter.

As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression. Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others are similar but, for historical or cultural reasons, restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content.

Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why.

We haven’t yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld. As part of that transparency, we’ve expanded our partnership with Chilling Effects to share this new page, http://chillingeffects.org/twitter, which makes it easier to find notices related to Twitter.

Oh, one useful tidbit of info? While it says it hasn't had to use this country by country blocking yet... and it uses the example of Nazi-related content, the place where it's already been censoring content... is in the US, in response to DMCA complaints as per Danny Sullivan:

Twitter’s already been pulling content where piracy or copyright claims are lodged, under the existing DMCA law. Today’s announcement isn’t changing that, though potentially, Twitter might begin disclosing DMCA takedowns within its own search results and Twitter timelines. That doesn’t happen yet, but Twitter says it hopes to do so over time.

We've covered some of those activities in the past, and if this actually brings more attention to highly questionable takedowns (such as many we've seen issued to Twitter...) that might actually be a good thing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DailyDirt: Looking For Science Projects...

Michael Ho — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:00:00 PST

Lots of companies are trying to encourage budding scientists to test out their wacky ideas. We've covered some of the more well-known contests before, but here are a few not-as-widely-publicized challenges for young scientists out there.

BioCurious and Assay Depot have a opened up a challenge asking for testable hypotheses and research plans that could be tested at a community laboratory or posted on Assay Depot's online marketplace for scientific research. A 1-2 page proposal is due by April 15th, 2012, and winners will be selected in May. [url]
The American Chemistry Council recently stopped accepting submissions for videos that explain how chemistry can help create energy solutions. Science geeks might want to make friends with more videographers for other contests like this... [url]
The YouTube Space Lab was looking for some suggestions for space experiments to be done on the International Space Station. The winners will be announced on Feb 21st, and the experiments will be streamed on YouTube when they're performed. [url]
To discover more interesting science-related stuff, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

European Parliament Member Marietje Schaake Explains How Europeans Can Stop ACTA

Mike Masnick — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:08:26 PST

As we've been discussing, there's been a lot of misinformation flying around concerning ACTA -- especially in the EU, where it has not yet been officially voted on. While we've tried to explain some of the problems with the agreement, there is still plenty of confusion over what to do about it. Thankfully, Marietje Schaake, a Member of the European Parliament (whose excellent work we've discussed before) has taken to Reddit to provide a lot more detail about the process itself, and what people can do to speak up. It's very useful info, especially for those in Europe (while also being a nice display of how politicians can use Reddit for good purposes). Basically, while ACTA has been signed by many members of the EU, it still needs to be ratified by the European Parliament. That's why there's still some time and why you should pay attention to what Schaake has to say. Here's a snippet:

So what can we do to stop ACTA?

If you are concerned about ACTA, you can convince the EP to vote against ACTA. In November 2010 we proposed an alternative resolution on ACTA, which intended to take away the main concerns. It was voted down by a very slight majority, please see here (the red section represents MEPs voting against our resolution). As you can see, the difference is only 16 votes, out of 736 (or 754 as it stands now). Another text was then voted in favour, which said the Commission should carry on its negotiations.

If you are concerned about ACTA, contact MEPs (from your country of political party), especially targeting the ones who are in the committees who will vote on ACTA in the coming months. You can find their email addresses on the EP website. Perhaps it won't have to come to a blackout!

She even includes a TL;DR version (it's so nice when politicians actually understand how the internet works). And, because that's all people want anyway, here's that one, too:

TL;DR: Important dates for ACTA in the European Parliament:
- 29 February/1 March: Discussion in international trade committee,
- April or May: Vote in international trade committee,
- 12, 13 or 14 June: Final vote in plenary (most important vote).
(Please note, all dates may be changed)

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story