Techdirt.

DailyDirt: Autonomous Vehicles

Michael Ho — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:00:00 PST

Autonomous vehicles are getting better and better all the time as their software learns to navigate all kinds of terrain. Commercial airlines have been using autopilot systems for years, but nowadays more autonomous cars could be driving next to humans. It's either a really scary idea or a brilliant new way to commute. Here are just a few more links on robot vehicles that are being set loose.

The 24 Hours of LeMons is an endurance race for clunker cars (no cars worth more than $500), but this year, they've added a prize for autonomous vehicles. The X Ceedingly Bad Idea Prize will award $50,000 to a driverless junker that can cross the finish line without hurting anyone. [url]
Wired has interviewed several autonomous vehicle experts, which means a lot of hedged predictions on the future of self-driving cars on public roads. But automated airplane pilots seem to have gained more acceptance than replacing human drivers on the roads. [url]
NATO troops in Afghanistan have successfully received resupply cargo from an unmanned helicopter. Kaman Aerospace's K-MAX can carry 3.5 tons of cargo about 250 miles, and it may help reduce human casualties (for one side of battle, at least). [url]
To discover more interesting robotics-related content, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Dutch Government: Make European Copyright Exceptions More Flexible

Glyn Moody — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:39:16 PST

Well, here's a turn-up for the books. At a time when the European Commission is insisting that the copyright ratchet should be tightened up a few notches by bringing in ACTA, with its perilously vague terms that potentially criminalize even low-level acts of online sharing, here's the Dutch government planning to go in the opposite direction:

The Dutch government wants to change copyright law so new media users can continue to do "creative remixes" of protected content. [It] will no longer wait for the European Commission to find a compromise.

The Dutch government made that clear at a conference it had organized, entitled "Towards Flexible Copyright," where one of the speakers was Bernt Hugenholtz of the Dutch state committee on copyright law. On the subject of YouTube, he said: "Many of the videos we find there are creative remixes of material protected under copyright. They're mostly for laughs or political commentary, or they're simply absurd. If we applied the law today strictly, we would not be allowed to do these things."
Also speaking at the conference, Netherland's Deputy Justice Minister Fred Teeven said he was exploring "a more flexible system of copyright exceptions that would also work in a European context." One solution would be to replace the limited set of European exceptions to copyright, which are laid down by law and allow no flexibility, with a system more akin to US fair use, which gives courts a certain leeway to determine what exactly is permissible.

Of course, that's an eminently sensible thing to do, not least because it wouldn't require a radical overhaul of European copyright, just some tinkering at the edges. Despite that, the idea is likely to meet stiff resistance -- and not just from the industry dinosaurs that reflexively resist any change that might reverse the copyright ratchet by even a few degrees.

At a time when the European Commission is hell-bent on getting ACTA ratified by the European Parliament, it won't take kindly to national governments going their own way on exceptions. That's particularly the case since the Commission is also drafting a new directive specifically designed to harmonize EU copyright law.

The Dutch government will be well aware of all those countervailing pressures, which makes this unexpected move all the more bold. Let's hope it inspires other EU countries to lend their weight to this much-needed initiative to make European copyright laws fit for the digital age.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Canadian Politician: You're Either In Favor Of Letting The Gov't Spy On Your Internet Usage... Or You're For Child Pornography

Mike Masnick — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:14:00 PST

Up in Canada, they're pushing for a new "lawful access" bill, which is basically a "government can spy on your internet usage" bill. Michael Geist has a full and complete run down about the new effort and why it's crazy. But, the insane part came out of the introduction when Public Safety Minister Vic Toews apparently told people: "You can stand with us, or you can stand with the child pornographers," according to Dale Smith, a journalist who was present. In other words, like Lamar Smith here in the US, he's trying to push through a widespread internet surveillance bill by hiding behind claims that those against it are somehow "for" child porn.

This is beyond ridiculous, and an incredibly cynical political move that assumes that people are stupid. These kinds of arguments may have worked in the past, but I'm increasingly skeptical that they'll continue to work in the future. More and more people are learning about the details of these kinds of bills, and making ridiculous claims and false dilemmas won't cut it, and only call more attention to the ridiculousness of what's actually in the bill.

And, thankfully, some of that pushback comes in the form of people openly mocking such ridiculous claims. Smith points to an amusing response from Lukas Neville: "You can stand with false dilemmas, or you can stand with kicking puppies." Count me in for kicking puppies.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Oh No! Car Dealers Might Have To Deal With Informed Customers! That Must Be Illegal!

Mike Masnick — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:11:42 PST

A few folks sent over this recent NY Times article about how the traditional auto sales world was apparently up in arms about a company called TrueCar that seeks to make the process of buying cars easier by providing more info to buyers about what cars are actually selling for, what the dealers' true prices are, and also offering guaranteed "haggle free" prices from certain dealers. To be honest, this really doesn't sound all that different from a few other services online. The last two times I've bought cars, I've been able to get good deals using online services like this and just emailing directly to dealers (and for anyone buying a car, I can't recommend CarBuyingTips.com enough, even with its 90's era web design -- that site has saved me a ton).

However, what's really incredible is how the industry has reacted to this site -- basically freaking out and whining about how consumers actually being informed might put them all out of business. The excuses are typical of what you'll find with an industry that works on a collusion or gatekeeper system when it's finally faced with real competition. They start talking about how real competition is evil and how it will lead to a worse situation with more scams. In fact, TrueCar got hit with claims that what it was doing, in providing consumers with more info, was illegal. They've even had to change their practices in some states -- which really only goes to show just how much car dealers have influenced various state laws in their favor to protect against true competition and an informed consumer.

Others, including Honda, have argued that TrueCar could open the door to unscrupulous dealers trying to sell a more expensive car or more options once they get the customers in the door — which Honda said reflected poorly on the brand. Honda also threatened to cut off marketing dollars to dealers who promoted its cars on the site below the invoice price, a price that is supposed to represent something close to the dealer’s cost (though dealers usually make more money on other manufacturer incentives and programs).

Think of just how convoluted and insane this argument is. Honda doesn't want informed consumers because (wait for it...) informed consumers might lead dealers to try to trick buyers. Seriously. Okay, time to cross Honda off any future potential car list.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Debunking The EU Commission's 'Myths About ACTA'

Glyn Moody — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:11:42 PST

Crossposted from Computerworld UK where it was originally split into two separate articles.

It's a sign of the European Commission's increasing desperation over ACTA that it has been forced to send out a document entitled "10 Myths About ACTA" [pdf] that purports to debunk misinformation that is being put around. Unsurprisingly, the EC's document is itself full of misinformation. Here are just a few of the more outrageous examples.

1. ACTA will limit the access to the internet and will censor websites.

Read the text of the ACTA Agreement - there is no single paragraph in ACTA that substantiates this claim. ACTA is about tackling large scale illegal activity, often pursued by criminal organizations. It is not about how people use the internet in their everyday lives. Internet users can continue to share non-pirated material and information on the web. ACTA will not limit people's rights on the internet nor will it shut down websites, unlike the proposals discussed in the US (SOPA and PIPA).

There are some convenient half-truths here. Its supporters may claim that ACTA is about tackling large-scale illegal activity but nowhere in the document is there mentioned any minimum level for its operation. That is, potentially, it can apply to the actions of a single person, perhaps even sharing a single file, depending upon the circumstances. The problem is, ACTA's framing is so vague that it's not clear exactly who might be caught by its terms. Whatever the Commission may say now, it's how the text is interpreted later that matters.

After all, if the Commission had really wanted only to tackle "large-scale illegal activity", it would have added a minimum level to exclude the risk that ordinary Internet users would be affected. The refusal to add that minimum level to the treaty – something that would have been easy to do - can only mean that the Commission does indeed want the option of applying ACTA's rules to ordinary citizens, and that its claims to the contrary are simply whitewashing.

The next half-truth is: "Internet users can continue to share non-pirated material and information on the web". But what exactly is "non-pirated material"? Who decides? Because copyright has become such a complex set of laws that it is rarely clear – even to copyright lawyers – what exactly is or isn't "pirated": often the courts have to decide whether something is covered by "fair dealing/fair use", for example. So how can ordinary citizens possibly know in every case whether what they are sharing is "pirated"?

In particular, there is the situation that the term of copyright varies by country, and what may be in the public domain in one, is still in copyright in another. So what happens when someone in a country where some creation is in the public domain shares it with someone in a country where it isn't? The continuing injustice of the O'Dwyer case shows us that the US tries to applies its laws everywhere in the world: so does that mean its copyright laws apply in Europe?

Finally, while it is true that ACTA will not "shut down websites" directly, there is another clause that is even worse (Article 10):

judicial authorities have the authority to order that materials and implements, the predominant use of which has been in the manufacture or creation of such infringing goods, be, without undue delay and without compensation of any sort, destroyed or disposed of

Now, by definition, a Web site "creates" infringing copies when it sends or streams them to users; so lawyers could – and almost certainly will, knowing lawyers – argue that ACTA provides for the destruction and disposal of any computers whose "predominant use" is copyright infringement. So, no simple censorship, certainly, just the seizure and physical destruction of computers (assuming they are in one of the ACTA signatories), and probably the domain name too.

Not only that, but another section (Article 12) allows for "materials and implements" to be seized without informing the party affected, and even without any guarantee that people can defend themselves afterwards – so much for due process and justice.

3. ACTA is a secret agreement. Negotiations were not transparent and conducted "behind closed doors". The European Parliament was not fully informed, stakeholders were not consulted.

The text of ACTA is publicly available to all. The negotiations for ACTA were not different from negotiations on any other international agreement. It is a fact that such agreements are not negotiated in public, but with the Lisbon Agreement and the revised Framework Agreement there are clear rules on how the European Parliament (EP) should be informed of such trade negotiations. And these have been scrupulously followed.

Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht has participated in three plenary debates, replied to several dozens of written and oral questions, as well to two Resolutions and one Declaration of the EP, whilst Commission services have provided several dedicated briefings to Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) during the negotiations.

Likewise, the public was informed since the launch of the negotiations about the objectives and general thrust of the negotiations. The Commission released summary reports after every negotiation round and the negotiating text since April 2010. It organised press briefings and four stakeholder conferences on ACTA, one of them even only a few days before the first negotiating round.

This is extraordinarily duplicitous. The text of ACTA may be available to everyone *now*, but that is after the negotiations have been concluded – in other words, as a fait accompli. Even though the ACTA discussions began in 2006, the first formal draft that was officially released was only in 2010. The only reason people knew what was in ACTA was thanks to a document posted in Wikileaks in 2008: in other words, if the ACTA negotiators had got their way, ACTA would have been negotiated behind closed doors for four years before the public was allowed to see anything (and had there not been the Wikileaks leak, it's possible that even the draft would not have been released.)

The Commission claims "the public was informed since the launch of the negotiations about the objectives and general thrust of the negotiations": but what matters, of course, are the details, not the "general thrust". A few press briefings and stakeholder conferences are no substitute for actually allowing the public to give some – any – input to the ACTA process. But in the many years of negotiations, there was no possibility whatsoever to do that.

And yet even though the public was denied any opportunity to comment on a treaty that would have important implications for their lives, certain privileged groups were not just given access but consulted on their views, as Wikipedia explains:

Apart from the participating governments, an advisory committee of large US-based multinational corporations was consulted on the content of the draft treaty, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the International Intellectual Property Alliance (which includes the Business Software Alliance, Motion Picture Association of America, and Recording Industry Association of America). A 2009 Freedom of Information request showed that the following companies also received copies of the draft under a nondisclosure agreement: Google, eBay, Intel, Dell, News Corporation, Sony Pictures, Time Warner, and Verizon.

Given the fact that major US corporations that stand to benefit directly from ACTA's disproportionate enforcement terms were allowed to shape its details from early on, while the 300 million European citizens who will be subject to those same terms had not a single formal opportunity even to express their views, the Commission's attempt to suggest that this was not a secret treaty, and that the public was consulted, is risible and insulting.

6. ACTA favours IP right-holders. ACTA eliminates safeguards and exceptions existing under international law.

Quite to the contrary, ACTA is drafted in very flexible terms and contains the necessary safeguards to allow the participating countries to strike an appropriate balance between all rights and interests involved, in line with their economic, political and social objectives, as well as with their legal traditions. All safeguards and exceptions under EU law or under the TRIPs Agreement remain fully preserved.

Notice how the "myth" has two components, but that the European Commission only answers one of them. The whole treaty is predicated on the assumption that more enforcement is good: there is no consideration of the collateral damage it might inflict, for example on members of the public. That, of course, is because the public was never allowed to present its views; inevitably, the resulting document is incredibly one sided and biased in favour of the copyright industries.

This can be most clearly seen in Article 9, which spells out the damages for infringement (my emphasis added):

1. In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a Party’s judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.

2. At least in cases of copyright or related rights infringement and trademark counterfeiting, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings, its judicial authorities have the authority to order the infringer to pay the right holder the infringer’s profits that are attributable to the infringement. A Party may presume those profits to be the amount of damages referred to in paragraph 1.

3. At least with respect to infringement of copyright or related rights protecting works, phonograms, and performances, and in cases of trademark counterfeiting, each Party shall also establish or maintain a system that provides for one or more of the following:

(a) pre-established damages

(b) presumptions for determining the amount of damages sufficient to compensate the right holder for the harm caused by the infringement; or

(c) at least for copyright, additional damages.

Consider, now, how this might apply to sharing a few mp3s online. According to ACTA, the copyright holders can demand damages equal to the "lost profits" from those mp3s. And if you want to know how the recording industry calculates those, ask Jammie Thomas-Rasset, who was fined $1,920,000 for sharing 24 songs in the US. When that was later reduced to $54,000, the recording industries demanded a retrial because they felt it was far too low.

ACTA essentially validates this kind of deranged calculus, and permits copyright companies to claim for completely imaginary losses "to compensate the right holder for the harm caused by the infringement", even though it is impossible to quantify that "harm" in any sensible way when you're dealing with digital file sharing. Indeed, arguably there is no harm, since file sharing can actually *boost* sales – just ask Paulo Coelho; but ACTA's tunnel vision naturally cannot contemplate such a possibility.

Given these utterly disproportionate figures, it is extraordinary how the members of the European Commission can claim with any seriousness that ACTA does not "favor" rights-holders. Perhaps they imagine everyone earns the same as they do – 240,000 Euros a year - and can easily find a few million Euros down the back of the sofa if they need to....

8. ACTA leads to "harmonization through the backdoor". A study ordered by the European Parliament's committee for International Trade (INTA) to academics says that ACTA will require changes to EU enforcement legislation and/or to national laws.

ACTA provisions are compatible with existing EU law. ACTA will not require any revision or adaptation of EU law and will not require any Member States to review the measures or instruments by which they implement relevant EU law. ACTA is also in line with international law, in particular with the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The INTA study does not show evidence of any concrete situation where ACTA would contradict, repeal or require the modification of a single provision existing in EU legislation. This has been confirmed in very clear terms by the two above mentioned Opinions of the Legal Service of the European Parliament.

If ACTA is compatible with existing EU law – and that remains unclear, despite the Commission's assertions to the contrary – that's only so because the whole treaty is so vaguely worded. It is full of options – clauses that signatories "may" implement in certain ways.

But this is the central trick of ACTA: it is not that the treaty itself imposes new laws on participants *now* - the studied vagueness makes that unnecessary. What ACTA does is to create a framework whose assumptions are that laws will be passed in the future to comply with the optional, more stringent parts. In other words, ACTA is not so much about today's legal landscape, but about tomorrow's. It will allow politicians to say: "well, we really have to implement these harsher enforcement laws because it's in ACTA, and all of our partners have done so, and it would look bad if we didn't follow suit."

In fact, European commissioners aren't even waiting for ACTA to be ratified before moving down this path: with the “Proposal for a Revision of the Directive of Intellectual Property Rights” (pdf) they are already planing to bring in harsher copyright enforcement of precisely the kind that ACTA tries to establish as a benchmark.

In other words, it's the usual copyright ratchet, whereby a country's copyright maximalism in one area is used as an excuse to "harmonize" everyone else's. That's precisely what has happened with copyright term, for example, where the varying terms for different kinds of creation – text, music, sound recordings – have gradually been extended around the world in order to bring about "harmonization" (isn't it strange that there's never harmonization *downwards*, and that it's always in favor of the copyright industries and to the detriment of the public?) ACTA seeks to use the same trick to export the worst excesses of copyright enforcement first to all signatories, and later around the world through further treaties, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Protecting The Artists? Disney's Marvel Uses Copyright To Crush Already Broke Ghost Rider Creator

Mike Masnick — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:05:42 PST

Five years ago, we wrote about Gary Friedrich, the creator of the comic book character Ghost Rider, and how he was suing tons of companies, claiming that the copyrights associated with Ghost Rider had reverted back to him in 2001. As we noted at the time, there were some questionable things about his lawsuit -- including the fact that he waited years until after a movie and video game had been created and released before suddenly going legal about it. However, apparently Marvel (owned by Disney), in its ultimate vindictiveness, turned around and countersued Friedrich and won, leading to a ridiculous situation: Friedrich, who is broke, is now supposed to pay Marvel $17,000 for Ghost Rider merchandise he had sold in the past. He also isn't supposed to say that he's the co-creator of Ghost Rider any more if saying so involves him getting any kind of commercial advantage.

The full ruling in the case makes it clear that Friedrich's copyright claims were suspect in the first place, as it appears he clearly handed over the copyrights on the character to Marvel. The legal stipulation covers the specific terms, including the $17k payment, and the injunction against using the words "Ghost Rider" in connection with the sale of any goods, merchandise or services (i.e., "pay to get the signature of the creator of Ghost Rider!").

While Friedrich appears to have clearly overreached in his initial claim, the vindictiveness of Marvel/Disney is pretty ridiculous here. There's simply no reason for the company to demand $17k from a broke Friedrich, and (on top of that) make it that much harder for him to actually earn the money to pay them. As some are pointing out, you should remember this story the next time big companies claim they want to strengthen copyright law to "protect the content creators."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Publishers Repeated The Same Mistake As Record Labels: DRM Obsession Gave Amazon Dominant Position

Mike Masnick — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:54:34 PST

One of the more amazing things over the past decade or so is just how clueless legacy content companies are when it comes to the realities of DRM. For years, content creators have misunderstood the issue of online infringement entirely -- assuming that the effort had to be focused on somehow "protecting" works and ratcheting up infringement, rather than giving users more of what they wanted. The dirty secret of DRM is that it does exactly the opposite of what the content companies wanted: rather than protect works, it basically hands all the power in a market to a single tech provider, stripping much of the content companies' abilities to control their own markets.

We saw this in the music market first. Even as Steve Jobs was clear that he thought DRM was a stupid idea for music, he was happy to give the record labels what they "wanted" in the early years: building DRM into the early version of iTunes. Of course, this did absolutely nothing to stop infringement. Because all you need is a single copy to get out in the wild, and then all DRM is completely useless on that particular piece of content. So Apple's DRM did absolutely nothing to stop file sharing... but it did make Apple the most powerful player in the music market. Because the DRM locked people into Apple's platform, and there was no significant competition at the time, once people started using Apple, they were pretty much locked in. And the labels hated it, even though it was their own damn fault in demanding DRM. Eventually, of course, the labels agreed to give up DRM, by which point Apple was already so dominant that no one really challenged their position, though alternatives are finally starting to get more serious.

Three years ago, we noted that book publishers were bizarrely making the exact same mistake with Amazon. Publishers, just like the labels, were so focused on the fear side that they were adamant about having DRM. And, once again, all this has done is lock people into the Kindle platform, and made it (by far) the most dominant player... which people can't really get out of.

I was reminded of this after reading Joe Wikert's call for the end of ebook DRM, noting that all it had really done was give all the power to Amazon:

I often blame Napster for the typical book publisher's fear of piracy. Publishers saw what happened in the music industry and figured the only way they'd make their book content available digitally was to tightly wrap it with DRM. The irony of this is that some of the most highly pirated books were never released as ebooks. Thanks to the magic of high-speed scanner technology, any print book can easily be converted to an ebook and distributed illegally.

Some publishers don't want to hear this, but the truth is that DRM can be hacked. It does not eliminate piracy. It not only fails as a piracy deterrent, but it also introduces restrictions that make ebooks less attractive than print books. We've all read a print book and passed it along to a friend. Good luck doing that with a DRM'd ebook! What publishers don't seem to understand is that DRM implies a lack of trust. All customers are considered thieves and must be treated accordingly.

The evil of DRM doesn't end there, though. Author Charlie Stross recently wrote a terrific blog post entitled "Cutting Their Own Throats." It's all about how publisher fear has enabled a big ebook player like Amazon to further reinforce its market position, often at the expense of publishers and authors. It's an unintended consequence of DRM that's impacting our entire industry.

That Charlie Stross piece is also a great read, and makes the point pretty explicitly that the publishers created their own problem by insisting on DRM'd ebooks:

As ebook sales mushroom, the Big Six's insistence on DRM has proven to be a hideous mistake. Rather than reducing piracy, it has locked customers in Amazon's walled garden, which in turn increases Amazon's leverage over publishers. And unlike pirated copies (which don't automatically represent lost sales) Amazon is a direct revenue threat because Amazon are have no qualms about squeezing their suppliers — or trying to poach authors for their "direct" publishing channel by offering initially favourable terms. (Which will doubtless get a lot less favourable once the monopoly is secured ...)

If the big six began selling ebooks without DRM, readers would at least be able to buy from other retailers and read their ebooks on whatever platform they wanted, thus eroding Amazon's monopoly position. But it's not clear that the folks in the boardrooms are agile enough to recognize the tar pit they've fallen into ...

What's truly amazing about this was just how obvious it was years ago when we (and many others) pointed this out. I mean, with the music execs you could kind of understand the mistake, because if you really don't think through a few steps out, you could be forgiven for thinking that DRM makes sense as a protectionist measure. But if you're a Big Six publisher, you didn't even have to think ahead a few moves. You just had to look at the monster the labels created by demanding DRM in iTunes (something they'd already started to move away from just as the Kindle was ramping up) and realize that demanding DRM would create the same situation with Amazon. But what's even more amazing is the fact that the big publishers still haven't figured this out so many years later.

If the big publishers end up failing, it's their own damn fault for being perhaps the least perceptive strategists around. I can only imagine how bad they are at playing chess.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Being More Open, Human And Awesome Can Save Anyone Worried About Making Money In Entertainment

Mike Masnick — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:40:34 PST

I've been pretty busy traveling and appearing at various conferences over the last month, including Midem, where I released our latest research report, The Sky is Rising!. I did so with a quick ten-minute presentation about both the state of the industry... as well as the fact that the challenges for anyone in the entertainment industry can be met by being more open, more human and (most of all) more awesome: It's basically a follow-up presentation to my 2009 presentation, which introduced the Connect with Fans + Reason to Buy formula. Either way, it was fun to be back on the Midem stage, and I was thrilled with the overall response to the presentation. I heard from a lot of folks at the show about how much they liked it and how it gave them a good framework for building out their efforts as artists or as labels. It's always fun to be at Midem and talk to people on the ground about what they're seeing in the industry as well. Two years ago, I had thought that perhaps the industry had reached the bargaining stage, but I may have been wrong (or the five stages of grief aren't really applicable here). There wasn't nearly as much talk about "evil piracy" at this year's Midem... but there was plenty of lashing out about "evil Google" and how it was to blame for everything. If anything, it seemed to be a slip back into the "anger" stage. As we've explained time and time again, this anger seems entirely misdirected.

So it was nice to see so many people at Midem respond positively to my "totally positive" message about where some key opportunities were, by having them focus on how being more awesome to fans and treating them as human really has amazing results.

Separately, while I was at Midem I also did a much more technical "Midem Academy" session that was designed to be a hands-on interactive discussion about specific strategies for alternative business models that don't rely on copyright. That session was 50 minutes long and didn't have the same "entertainment" value, as I was told I had to use their limited Powerpoint format, rather than do my typical style (as seen above). Still, I quite enjoyed that discussion, and ended up spending almost as much time as we spent in the session talking to people and answering questions after the session. For some reason a lot of people were shy to ask questions to the whole group, but wanted to chat afterwards. There was also a cool "open table" session I did at "Direct2Fan Camp" at Midem, where I got to talk with a bunch of folks who were interested in new business models. That was a lot of fun.

Finally, a couple weeks before that, I was in Washington DC for the Congressional Internet Caucus' State of the Net event, where there was a panel discussion/debate over SOPA, which was recently put online as well. That panel has myself and Steve Crocker (head of ICANN) talking about problems with SOPA/PIPA... and the MPAA's Paul Brigner and the US Chamber of Commerce's Steve Tepp defending SOPA. The panel may seem out-of-date, but it actually took place the day before the mass internet blackouts that effectively killed the bills. So, when this discussion happened, the bills (even in reduced form, without DNS issues) were still very much alive. At this point, the debate might be more interesting in a historical context, rather than a present one: Either way the discussion was also fun (and, at times, a little heated). I also found it kind of amusing that we were told that there were to be no "opening speeches," and then everyone gave an opening speech. I don't know if it's a DC thing or what, but I had to create an "opening speech" on the fly, though I tried to keep it short.

Either way, it was great to meet many Techdirt community members around the globe at these various events as well, and I hope to see more of you at future events.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?

Mike Masnick — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:24:34 PST

We've discussed, for years, how copyright maximalists have continually played with and twisted the language to make infringement sound much, much worse. For years, of course, they liked to just call it "piracy," though in the last few years, they've sometimes shied away from that word, complaining that it made it seem glamorous. More recently, it seems they've been focused on calling it "content theft," somehow believing that that's more likely to get a reaction.

Of course, as we've also pointed out time and time again copying is not theft, and the two are exceptionally different: Of course, the second you start to go down this path, the copyright maximalists accuse you of playing semantics (which really means they don't like it when you prove their analogy isn't accurate at all). However, what if we accept their claim that copyright infringement is somehow "content theft"? Just as a thought experiment, let's grant them their ridiculous premise... and compare the punishment to similar forms of "theft." That's exactly what copyright lawyer Andrew P. Bridges has done, noting that since copyright infringement isn't anything like typical theft (since no product is missing), it could be described in similar terms to other "crimes" that involve someone failing to pay the required amount:

Under the “theft” conception of copyright law, what, exactly, is the deprivation when someone makes illegal copies? It really boils down to just one thing: money. Copyright infringement – renamed copyright theft — deprives the copyright holder of some of his or her expected profit from exploiting the copyright.

What are other, similar kinds of “theft” by depriving someone of expected money? Failure of a tenant to pay the agreed rent to a landlord is one. Parking in a parking space without putting money in the meter is another. Jumping the turnstile to ride on a subway without paying the fare is a third. (And, of course, failure of a studio or record label to pay artists or actors the promised contractual royalties for their work on a record or film is a fourth. But something tells me the studios and labels sponsoring the current bills won’t go near that topic. The bills don’t include rogue studios and labels in their scope.)

Okay, so if we grant them their premise, and then compare it to similar cases where people don't pay the requested fee, but still get the "benefit," then what is the punishment in those other cases? Bridges notices that there appears to be one... um... outlier in the group:

How do the civil damages or penalties for the different types of such “theft” compare? Failure to pay expected money under a contract doesn’t trigger a penalty: contract law usually says that a party can recover the money she expected but not punitive damages or attorneys fees (unless parties have specifically bargained to pay attorneys fees for a breach). Failure to pay rent usually requires payment of rent to cure the default. Failure to put money in the parking meter prompts a ticket for $60. In New York City, failure to pay the $2.50 subway fare results in a maximum fine of $100.

Copyright “theft” is a very different story. Copyright infringement statutory damages in civil litigation can be as high as $150,000 for infringement of a single work. Yes, a single work such as a single song with an iTunes download value of $1. A copyright holder can claim such statutory damages without needing to prove a single penny of damage or loss. Think such sky-high damages aren’t realistic? Think again. In the RIAA’s case against single mother Jammie Thomas, a jury awarded $1,500,000 for the download of 24 songs, with no proof that she had transmitted songs to others. The federal judge thought that was ridiculous and reduced the total award to $54,000 – and the RIAA and MPAA are now arguing strenuously on appeal that the jury verdict should return to the original figure, $62,500 per downloaded song.

What if we work backwards, and see how the law might punish those other, similar, infractions with a damages system similar to copyright:

If we take copyright law’s maximum-penalty-to-price ratio as applied to an illegal download, and apply that same penalty-to-price ratio to the New York subway, the maximum penalty for jumping that turnstile and avoiding the $2.50 fare would be $375,000 instead of $100. Copyright industries are on to a really good thing under current law. One could say it’s a steal.

And yet the industry claims that copyright laws are too weak currently? That seems difficult to square with reality.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

European Parliament President Criticizes ACTA

Mike Masnick — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:56:34 PST

We wrote about the mass protests against ACTA over the weekend, but the open question is whether or not they did any good. At the very least, it appears to be waking up more politicians to the problems with ACTA. European Parliament president Martin Schulz has finally made a statement on the matter saying, "I don't find it good in its current form." This is important, because the key thing that matters in terms of getting ACTA ratified in the EU is how the EU Parliament votes.

Of course, Schulz's choice of words is unfortunate, because it implies (incorrectly) that ACTA is still in the negotiation process and there may be another "form." That's not the case. This is the final version of the document, which has been around for about a year already. Perhaps he should have spoken up earlier... Still, hopefully these protests and comments from folks like Schulz will make other MEPs recognizes that voting for ACTA would be a mistake. It's all up to them at this point.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mass Protests Against ACTA All Across Europe

Mike Masnick — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:50:50 PST

Despite freezing temperatures in parts of Europe, it appears that tons and tons of people turned up in person at the various anti-ACTA protests held all across Europe. The amount of people definitely exceeded most expectations. Some of the protests were especially impressive, such as those held in Munich, which you can see in the video below: Not all of the protests were that impressive, but certainly an awful lot of people came out to protest.

What really amazes me about all of this is that ACTA was going on for nearly four years before pretty much anyone in the public started paying serious attention to it. And what caused it? The entertainment industry's massive overreach on SOPA. The response to that woke people up to other efforts by the industry to pass dangerous rules, laws and trade agreements in their favor -- and now the backlash seems to be in full swing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

Mike Masnick — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:00:00 PST

Sometimes we have comments that win the funniest or most insightful race by wide margins, but usually there are a few clustered at the top. This week, the most insightful comment was so far above the rest of the pack that it may be the largest "lead" I've seen. And, the number two comment also had a huge gap over number three (and, obviously, there was a big gap between one and two as well). So, clearly, the community found the following two comments to be the most insightful comments of the week without much question... and they were both on the same story: the one about the RIAA's Cary Sherman whining about how Congress didn't pass SOPA/PIPA. The highest ranked insightful comment came from E. Zachary Knight, and was part of a larger discussion he was involved in over whether or not "copyright" was a form of "property." While those who disagree with him will scoff, it appears that an awful lot of people agree with Zachary's sound reasoning:

I have a right to free speech under the first amendment. That does not mean I have "Free Speech Property". Rights are not property. You can have rights over property, but the rights themselves are not property.

Claiming that copyright is property is not intellectually honest. As a creator of a copyrighted work, you can claim ownership of the original work and you have property rights to the original work. However, copyright extends only to the ability to copy that work. That ability to copy is not property. It is a right. Rights can only be infringed not stolen.

Coming in second was an Anonymous Coward with a rather simple response to Sherman's request for "constructive alternatives."

Repeal the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

In finding my editor's choice comments of the week, I usually go through the top 20 ranked comments or so to find other gems... and this week, nearly all of them were from that same post. Apparently there was a lot of insight there. I particularly liked Jeremy Lyman's response to that same request from Sherman for constructive alternatives. Lyman noted that this appears to be jumping the gun:

Before we all agree on a solution we all need to agree on the problem.

For a little variety I chose a comment from a different post for my second editor's choice. I went with fogbugd's response to the story of a questionable NFL takedown notice to YouTube, over a Chrysler Super Bowl commercial:

Bogus copyright claims and DCMA claims ought to be a crime. And content should not be taken down under DCMA until the person who posted has a reasonable opportunity to dispute the claim.

Leaving violations up for an extra day or two probably does little damage to the rights holder, but examples like this show how huge the damage can be to the person holding the video.

I agree. I've never understood why a notice-and-takedown solution is better than a notice-and-notice system.

Moving on to the funny side of the equation, similar to the insightful, the number one comment was head and shoulders above any other comments in the voting tables, with number two having a decent bump over number three. But right up on top was an Anonymous Coward responding to a story about yet another study showing that release windows hurt movie revenues:

It's all about choice. See, by only providing content through locked down, time limited, location restricted methods, the studios are actually giving us a lot more choices in how we consume our content. Dirty pirates can only consume their content in one way: no encryption, HD, and worldwide. But the studios give us an unending stream of different choices that provide real value to their content. Maybe you want DRM that requires a constant connection to the internet. They have that. Maybe you DRM that limits you to only certain devices. They have that. Maybe you want content that's purposefully degraded. They have that. Maybe you want to be able to watch content only in the US. They have that. Canada? They have that too. Content that expires after 48 hours? No problem. Maybe you want to have to watch it in the theater? They got you covered. The depth and breadth of choices that the studios provide is something that the evil pirates just cannot cover. The other day I asked someone at the pirate bay for an encrypted copy of The Grey that would only play on my computer for a week and they couldn't do it!

That's so good it feels like someone should turn it into a "commercial" and put it on YouTube.

Coming in second was Gwiz and his response to Marcus Carab sarcastically saying: "Yeah and we could totally herd cats if we just gave the catherders megaphones" in response to the claim that playing the silly game of rogue site whac-a-mole made any sense. Gwiz saw a problem with Marcus' plan:

Sorry, you are shit out of luck. DOJ/ICE seized all the MegaPhones because they were part of the Mega Conspiracy. MegaPhones have been known to be used to amplify copyrighted music to the unwashed masses. Despite the fact that MegaPhones are only tools (and inanimate objects no less), DOJ/ICE was able to convince a grand jury that they were committing criminal copyright infringement and had all the MegaPhones in the US seized and destroyed, for the children.

For editor's choice, we've got another Anonymous Coward on the story about Lowe's demanding a license to link to its site:

Never heard of them.

Link plz

That one made me laugh slightly more than Benny6Toes suggestion of linking to Home Depot, using the term Lowe's...

And the final editor's choice funny comment of the week goes to Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), responding to one of our most frequent critics sarcastically expressing his belief that we "never cease to amuse," by pointing out that, under that person's own standards, there's a problem:

Well, why aren't you paying Mike for the entertainment? ...damn pirate!

Indeed. Pay up.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

The Mighty Buzzard — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:00:00 PST

It's been a heck of a busy month or two for copyright. We've had SOPA and PIPA. We've had the organization of a grassroots campaign against them. We had a significant number of serious heavyweights of the Internet join in. And now we have nations around Europe bailing on ACTA over protests of their citizens.

My question is, why? Why do we have to see stories like this:

Over 70 different groups, including many who were central to the January 18th online protests against SOPA, have put together a letter asking Congress to put a halt to any attempts to further expand intellectual property laws.

The movie industry has one main lobby that they can put all their weight behind. So does the recording industry. Why don't we have one?

And why are these yahoos still supporting bills that they know are poison? I thought they were supposed to be realizing that it wasn't Google lobbying that stopped SOPA/PIPA.

Anyway, those aren't necessarily my favorite Techdirt stories of the week but they are the ones that made me think the most. I consider that a bigger win than a good chuckle or a burn on Righthaven.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Iranian Filmmaker Banned From Filmmaking... Makes Documentary Via His iPhone About His Plight

Mike Masnick — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:39:00 PST

A little over a year ago, I asked how long it would be until we had a full, professional quality feature film filmed entirely with smartphones. This one doesn't completely qualify, but it is quite interesting. Ross Pruden points our attention to the story of This Is Not A Film, the documentary from widely respected Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi. The story behind this film is pretty crazy. Basically, Panahi was arrested and given a six-year sentence in prison, while also being barred from making films for 20 years. While he appealed the sentence, he was apparently able to remain in his Tehran apartment under house arrest... and decided to document his life as he dealt with this situation by filming it, often using iPhones to capture scenes (though not entirely). The film has been shown at various film festivals, but is hitting US theaters starting February 29th, and the trailer recently came out: Apparently the film itself was smuggled out of Iran to Cannes by putting it on a USB key, and then baking that USB key into a cake that was shipped out of the country. In all the news coverage of this film, I haven't seen anything about how the Iranian government reacted to this film, which they must know about by now.

Either way, there's something of a statement being made here about the power of smartphone cameras these days. It really was just a few years ago that the idea of mixing cameras with phones was widely panned as a dumb idea. And now they're helping internationally renowned filmmakers who are being censored and persecuted to keep making their art. It also says something about the need for some creators to keep making their art, no matter what the challenges to doing so. That's really amazing.

Also, it starts to lead you down the path to rethinking questions about censorship and free speech limitations. Obviously, banning someone from making a film is a form of censorship and an infringement on free speech rights. And, of course, Iran does not have a particularly good reputation on free speech issues. But technology changes things. When "making a film" is as easy as clicking a button on the phone you carry at all times, it changes the equation. "Making a film" is no longer "making a film." It's just something you and anyone else can do at any time. When that happens, the very concept of banning someone from making a film... just seems silly.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

TuneCore: RIAA Has Become A Part Of The Problem For Artists

Mike Masnick — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:38:00 PST

For many years, I've used TuneCore as one of the key examples of the new generation of middlemen who served as enablers rather than gatekeepers for artists. The company has a clear record of really helping tons and tons of artists make money from their music in ways that were entirely impossible for most of those artists previously. It's a true success story. That's why I have to admit that I was somewhat disappointed in late 2010 when TuneCore's CEO Jeff Price came out in favor of COICA, the problematic predecessor to SOPA and PIPA. Thankfully, since then it appears he's realized the error of his ways.

Beyond his continually awesome series of posts providing tons and tons of useful data that the legacy recording industry has totally ignored, he's written a brilliant response to Cary Sherman's NYT op-ed that we've been discussing. Price points out that the real disinformation campaign has been from the RIAA, and the key point is that the RIAA does not represent artists, but rather it represents the major labels, who very frequently have agendas that are at odds with artists:

The RIAA has become part of the problem of protecting copyright due to its occasional less than honest approach to things. You just can’t take what the RIAA says at face value as their agenda is not clear—is it to protect copyright or is it to protect the interests of its label members at any cost?
After all, this is the same organization that had the RIAA employee Mitch Glazer attempt to sneak language into a bill on Capitol Hill changing the definition of “work for hire,” depriving artists of their rights (there’s a great article about this in the Austin Chronicle).

Now add to this that as the RIAA demands that its label members’ copyrights be respected and properly compensated, its members have knowingly taken hundreds of millions of dollars of other peoples’ songwriter royalties over the past few years. Knowingly taking money generated from the copyrights of others—aka “Black Box Money”—sounds eerily like stealing.

Furthermore, he notes that the RIAA's strategy here now puts it at odds with what's actually best for musicians. He goes on to point out that SOPA/PIPA in their original forms might have actually been the end of a service like TuneCore:

However, if the original SOPA and PIPA bills were passed years ago, TuneCore most likely would not have existed, and power would still be concentrated with the old regime; they would have found a way to slow the market shift away from them. In the guise of “protecting copyright” the original SOPA bill would have provided the RIAA unilateral and almost unchecked power to kill the new emerging industry.

All the RIAA would have had to do is claim that music distributed by TuneCore was infringing on its label members’ copyrights. With limited to no due process, TuneCore could have been shut down just like Dajaz1.

And I can assure you, from time to time TuneCore gets illegitimate and wrongful claims of infringement by the RIAA (and some of its label members).

No matter how much the legacy players in the industry want to claim that it was "just Google" that helped kill the bill, there's simply no way anyone can credibly claim that TuneCore is a Google puppet. In fact, I think it's clear that TuneCore has been one of the most useful tools out there for getting artists paid. And it's coming out strongly against the RIAA on this one, highlighting the key point that too often gets lost in this debate. The RIAA represents the gatekeepers, not the artists. This has never been about protecting content. It's always been about protecting gatekeepers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If Google Is Serious About Reforming Patent Mess, It Should Make A Bold Statement And Stop Using Motorola Patents To Demand Cash

Mike Masnick — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:35:00 PST

We've discussed in the past the fact that Google has never used patents offensively. That is, while it has many patents, it has never (that anyone can point to) used them to threaten another company to force them to pay up. Instead, it has only used them defensively. Over the summer, Google got even more aggressive, speaking out about how patents had become a tax on innovation, rather than enabling innovation. In fact, we pointed out that Google actually seemed to be a perfect example of how innovative companies didn't need to be aggressive on patents -- a feeling that is pretty strong in the Valley.

Of course, about a week later, Google bought Motorola Mobility, almost entirely for its large patent portfolio. Given Google's outspoken viewpoint on patents, the assumption was that the company would continue to use those patents defensively against the increasing number of attacks by patent holders on Google. However, as MG Siegler is reporting, it looks like Google might at least continue Motorola's patent strategy post acquisition (which is about to be approved):

Google is saying that they don’t plan on making any changes to the way Motorola was enforcing their patent pool. This presumably means, among other things, they’ll now be suing Apple and trying to block the iPhone from being sold in certain countries.

This also presumably means they’ll be suing Microsoft and trying to bring down the H.264 video codec — which, by the way, Google created a competitor to (WebM) out of fear that someone would come along one day and try to enforce patents that would kill the H.264 video codec.

How’s that for a mind fuck?

The tables have gotten so turned that it’s now Apple and Microsoft who are complaining about patent enforcement. Specifically, both want assurances that patents licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, are actually just that — fair.

In Motorola’s eyes, “fair” is Apple paying 2.25 percent on each iPhone and iPad sold. John Paczkowski of AllThingsD did the math: this would mean Apple paying about a billion dollars a year in royalty fees to Motorola.

A billion dollars. The mobile unit that Google is buying lost $285 million for the year last year. Apple would be indirectly keeping them, a competitor, afloat.

Of course, with some of these, the lawsuits are well underway, but Google could seek to dismiss some of the lawsuits if it wanted to. I think Siegler goes a bit far in claiming that Google automatically becomes "the villain" for gaining control over offensive patent moves that it's inheriting with this purchase. The bigger question will be what Google does going forward. However, if Google really does want to send a larger message around patents, it will get itself out of those efforts pretty quickly once taking over the company, reinforcing that the larger picture is more important than being able to extract a tax on competing products.

Of course, there is one other thing that makes this a bit more complicated, which I think Siegler ignores. He mentions how Google had to "make assurances that they would act fairly with patents they were acquiring." But he doesn't quite highlight the possible significance of that statement. If Google does get itself out of some of these lawsuits, and then chooses either to not enforce its patents against others or (better yet!) to freely license its patents to many other players, how long would it take Google's competitors to claim that Google was somehow "unfairly" using the patents to its advantage by giving them away for "free." Google competitors have used Google's free services as a stick against Google in the past, pretending that this meant they were abusing their position. I could definitely see some sneaky and ridiculous legal argument that if Google isn't making companies pay up for its newly acquired patents that it's unfairly abusing its position. This is, of course, a ridiculously stupid argument, but it's the nature of the world these days, where aggressive IP enforcement is seen as the norm.

Either way, I hope that Google stands by its words from last summer and is quick to extricate itself from offensive patent situations. But we'll find out soon.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DailyDirt: Edible Clothing

Michael Ho — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:00:00 PST

Generally, people try to keep food from dropping on their clothes and making a mess. But some fashion designers can't seem to keep from trying to make food items into something wearable. Here are just a few kinda nutty examples.

The fad of molecular gastronomy has been crossed with handmade fashion accessories -- creating some wearable items that aren't too far from looking like marshmallow Peeps. These creations will be excellent garnish recipes for the "To Serve Man" cookbooks. [url]
Denim isn't actually too easy to digest for most people, but scratch-and-sniff jeans could make some folks want to try a bite. The scent-filled denim could be fruit-flavored -- or possibly made to smell like Teen Spirit/bodysprays/etc. [url]
Making clothes from edible pastry wrappers isn't just for kinky lingerie. Wearing fruit roll-ups doesn't sound too appealing for many situations, though... [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

It's Time To Let Politicians Know That Using Secretive Trade Agreements To Meddle With The Internet Is Unacceptable

Mike Masnick — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:28:00 PST

Last week, we noted how the anti-SOPA protest had woken up people around the globe to one of the legacy content industry's favorite tricks: sneaking dreadful IP expansionist policies through international trade agreements. In particular, it woke people up to ACTA, an agreement that was basically a done deal, and already signed by many of the participants. But now there's a fight on in Europe over whether or not it will really get ratified -- and it all comes down to whether or not the EU Parliament moves forward. And even while some are wondering if it's dead and superpowers like Germany are appearing to at least have some level of second thoughts over the plan... it's still moving forward.

As we had mentioned, a ton of plans for in-person protests had sprung up across Europe, and most of those are happening tomorrow. Reports are coming in about how these protests are really having an impact, and many people are hoping to ramp up the pressure with the protests tomorrow.

If you want to see where the local protest are being held, the folks over at Access have a great summary page, and Fight for the Future -- who was instrumental in organizing the anti-SOPA blackouts -- has set up KillActa.org to make it easier to speak out against ACTA as well. Who knows if ACTA can really be stopped, but it's really amazing to see so many people speaking out against these agreements. International trade agreements are considered boring and rarely do people pay attention to them (outside of big "free trade" agreements that set off certain groups). But to see so many people learning about how these deals sneak in dangerous provisions, it suggests that perhaps we can finally convince politicians that mucking with the internet solely for special interests -- and doing it through totally secretive processes -- is simply not acceptable any more.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

'The Economist' And 'Financial Times' Already Writing Off ACTA As Dead

Glyn Moody — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:37:53 PST

In the last few days, we've seen an extraordinary wave of announcements by governments in Europe, particularly its eastern part, that they would not be ratifying ACTA immediately. That sequence of events, culminating in today's news that Germany, too, would be holding off, has suddenly made lots of people sit up and take notice.

But even against that tumultuous background, few of us would have expected that two of the most serious business publications in Europe, The Economist and Financial Times, would both go much further than simply noting the problems the treaty now faces, and declare that ACTA is pretty much dead.

Under the headline "ACTA up", The Economist says: "Protests across Europe may kill an anti-piracy treaty", and points out: "Internet activists used to be dismissed as a bunch of hairy mouse-clickers with little clout. Not any more."

The Financial Times' headline is "Latest pact on internet piracy set to be derailed", and the post makes an explicit connection with SOPA and PIPA:

A controversial international trade agreement, which campaigners fear would restrict internet freedom looks likely to be delayed or scrapped, the latest in a string of measures planned to combat online piracy to falter in the face of co-ordinated protests.

It also offers some interesting thoughts on why the ACTA revolt has been so strong in eastern Europe: The issue has stirred up deep passions there, where access to the internet is seen as one of the rewards of belonging to a democratic society. Illegal downloading is also popular, in part because those societies are poorer than those in western Europe, and in part because many content providers have made it difficult for central Europeans to buy music and films legally online.
Finally, it has a fascinating comment from David Martin, the new European Parliament rapporteur on ACTA, who took over after Kader Arif resigned in protest at the way ACTA had been negotiated. Martin says he wants to "canvas views broadly", and to get an opinion from the European Court of Justice on whether ACTA is compatible with the European Union's current laws. As result of this approach, he says: "Realistically, if we go down this route we are looking at a vote in the spring of 2013," he warns.
The FT quotes an unnamed diplomat who suggests that this delay may "give enough time for the post-SOPA venom to clear," so that governments can quietly ratify ACTA in their national parliaments and in Brussels next year. It sounds like a clever ploy -- let protesters tire themselves out, then push through ACTA -- but on the basis of the strength of feeling that's manifested itself in Europe recently, I wouldn't bet on it working.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Lithuanian Minister Of Justice Says ACTA Is Unnecessary, Doesn't Actually Help Creators And It's Time To Reevaluate IP

Mike Masnick — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:40:53 PST

Here's yet another example of a European official speaking out against ACTA. However, unlike in many other countries, where it appears to be politicians merely pushing back on public backlash, and urging caution and public review, the Lithuanian Justice Minister, Remigijus Simasius, has completely condemned ACTA and said that it should lead to a wholesale re-evaluation of IP rights system itself.

The essence of my comment was that certain provisions of ACTA are new to our legal system (more severe punishment, more control of internet providing services) and I do not see why those provisions are necessary.

I have also stated that our life is more and more dependent on R&D, new inventions, creativity. Existing IP protection system, however, is more about protecting the IP protection industry than a protection of inventors and authors. Current debate worldwide is a clear sign that we have to re-evaluate the existing IP rights system.

While it'll be interesting to see how far all of this goes, it's quite notable just how much backlash the SOPA overreach is suddenly creating -- where all sorts of skepticism about existing copyright law is suddenly coming out in more mainstream places.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story