Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos

from the not-understanding-the-technology dept

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. A few weeks back, we noted that Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons had proposed a new bill that was designed to make "streaming" infringing material a felony. At the time, the actual text of the bill wasn't available, but we assumed, naturally, that it would just extend "public performance" rights to section 506a of the Copyright Act.

Supporters of this bill claim that all it's really doing is harmonizing US copyright law's civil and criminal sections. After all, the rights afforded under copyright law in civil cases cover a list of rights: reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works or perform the work. The rules for criminal infringement only cover reproducing and distributing -- but not performing. So, supporters claim, all this does is "harmonize" copyright law and bring the criminal side into line with the civil side by adding "performance rights" to the list of things.

If only it were that simple. But, of course, it's not. First of all, despite claims to the contrary, there's a damn good reason why Congress did not include performance rights as a criminal/felony issue: because who would have thought that it would be a criminal act to perform a work without permission? It could be infringing, but that can be covered by a fine. When we suddenly criminalize a performance, that raises all sorts of questionable issues.

Furthermore, as we suspected, in the full text of the bill, "performance" is not clearly defined. This is the really troubling part. Everyone keeps insisting that this is targeted towards "streaming" websites, but is streaming a "performance"? If so, how does embedding play into this? Is the site that hosts the content guilty of performing? What about the site that merely linked to and/or embedded the video (linking and embedding are technically effectively the same thing). Without clear definitions, we run into problems pretty quickly.

And it gets worse. Because rather than just (pointlessly) adding "performance" to the list, the bill tries to also define what constitutes a potential felony crime in these circumstances:

the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works
So yeah. If you embed a YouTube video that turns out to be infringing, and more than 10 people view it because of your link... you could be facing five years in jail. This is, of course, ridiculous, and suggests (yet again) politicians who are regulating a technology they simply do not understand. Should it really be a criminal act to embed a YouTube video, even if you don't know it was infringing...? This could create a massive chilling effect to the very useful service YouTube provides in letting people embed videos.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
 

Culture

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
bob dylan, culture, ownership

Companies:


Dylan: What's Yours Is Mine, And What's Mine Is Mine, Too

from the privatizing-the-commons dept

We've pointed out many times before the absolute hypocrisy of those who constantly build on the works of others, but go ballistic should anyone seek to build on their works. Where it gets really ridiculous is when people insist that, if you don't like things like this, you should "create your own." Often they'll point to the works of famous musicians as examples of people who "made their own." For example, a year ago, we wrote about a music industry lawyer who insisted that folks like Bob Dylan would avoid the music industry altogether, if it weren't for the protections afforded under the old system. So, it's quite interesting to see this piece in the Irish Times that points out that Bob Dylan had a nasty habit of copying from everyone else, but threatening anyone who tried to build on his own works:

This was very much the state of folk song when Dylan came on the scene. It occupied an ambivalent terrain between originality (and therefore private ownership) and collective tradition (and thus common possession). Dylan ruthlessly exploited this ambiguity. He treated everybody else's folk songs as a common storehouse he could raid at will. He didn't just filch songs from other people's repertoires; he stole their arrangements. (As late as 1992, he lifted Nic Jones's arrangement of Canadee-I-O, wholesale and without acknowledgment.) He did this on both sides of the Atlantic. The great Martin Carthy, who has also just turned 70, taught him Scarborough Fair, which Dylan then recycled as Girl from the North Country.

But he treated his own songs as private property: what's yours is mine and what's mine is my own. The assertion of his individualism involved in "going electric" was in part a way of defining Dylan entirely as an individual artist and therefore as the sole owner of his own songs.

We can say now that Dylan's ruthlessness was that of any genius and that his exploitation of these ambiguities was justified by what he produced from them. But it's hard to blame people for not seeing it quite that way at the time. Dylan was doing something significant in the history not just of modern culture but of modern capitalism. He was fencing in what had been common land, establishing property rights over a collective heritage. He wasn't alone in this and it was part of a much bigger process. But those who yelped in pain were not entirely contemptible.
While I have issues with the use of "stole" to describe Dylan's actions, this sort of story is pretty common. Artists who are often held up as being "original" have frequently copied from those who came before, quite freely. And that's a good thing. I'm wondering if those who run to our comments to declare "make your own!" will also complain about Dylan "profiting off the works of others," or if they'll be blinded by the (worthwhile) cultural establishment of Dylan, and come up with excuses for why his use of others' works was okay...

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
 

(Mis)Uses of Technology

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
dns, internet, paul vixie, protect ip

Companies:


Why PROTECT IP Breaks The Internet

from the collateral-damage dept

Last year, after the entertainment foisted COICA on an unsuspecting public, Paul Vixie -- a guy you should listen to when he's concerned about the technical impact of something on the internet -- explained why COICA's reliance on DNS block was incredibly stupid. Not only would it not work, but it would fundamentally fracture the way the internet works, creating massive collateral damage. Last week, when the Senate Judiciary Committee pushed forward with PROTECT IP, we mentioned in passing a new report from Vixie and other internet technology gurus explaining why PROTECT IP's focus on the DNS system would cause tremendous damage. While we had mentioned it, lots of folks keep submitting it, and judging from the ridiculous claims of those in favor of PROTECT IP, the folks in DC pushing for this bill are apparently still ignorant of what the report says -- so we're posting about it again. The report, titled Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill (pdf) is worth a read. The five authors are incredibly well respected, and the entertainment industry folks who are trying to claim this paper can be ignored are going to come out of this looking quite silly.

These are concerns that shouldn't be taken lightly. The paper's authors also make it clear that they're not in favor of infringement, and in fact support enforcement of IP laws. They just recognize that this particular solution is dumb and counterproductive:

Two likely situations ways can be identified in which DNS filtering could lead to non-targeted and perfectly innocent domains being filtered. The likelihood of such collateral damage means that mandatory DNS filtering could have far more than the desired effects, affecting the stability of large portions of the DNS.

First, it is common for different services offered by a domain to themselves have names in some other domain, so that example.com’s DNS service might be provided by isp.net and its e-mail service might be provided by asp.info. This means that variation in the meaning or accessibility of asp.info or isp.net could indirectly but quite powerfully affect the usefulness of example.com. If a legitimate site points to a filtered domain for its authoritative DNS server, lookups from filtering nameservers for the legitimate domain will also fail. These dependencies are unpredictable and fluid, and extremely difficult to enumerate. When evaluating a targeted domain, it will not be apparent what other domains might point to it in their DNS records.

In addition, one IP address may support multiple domain names and websites; this practice is called “virtual hosting” and is very common. Under PROTECT IP, implementation choices are (properly) left up to DNS server operators, but unintended consequences will inevitably result. If an operator or filters the DNS traffic to and from one IP address or host, it will bring down all of the websites supported by that IP number or host. The bottom line is that the filtering of one domain name or hostname can pull down unrelated sites down across the globe.

Second, some domain names use “subdomains” to identify specific customers. For example, blogspot.com uses subdomains to support its thousands of users; blogspot.com may have customers named Larry and Sergey whose blog services are at larry.blogspot.com and sergey.blogspot.com. If Larry is an e-criminal and the subject of an action under PROTECT IP, it is possible that blogspot.com could be filtered, in which case Sergey would also be affected, although he may well have had no knowledge of Larry’s misdealings. This type of collateral damage was demonstrated vividly by the ICE seizure of mooo.com, in which over 84,000 subdomains were mistakenly filtered.
The defenders of propping up the business models of dying industries will brush these unintended consequences as no big deal or a "small issue" at the expense of "saving" the entertainment industry. This is because they don't understand the technology at play, the First Amendment or the nature of collateral damage. It's pretty ridiculous in this day and age that we still have to deal with technically illiterate "policy people" and politicians trying to regulate technology they clearly have little knowledge about. Only those who don't understand the technology think the collateral damage described above is minimal.

43 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Copyright

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
copyright, dmitry medvedev, g8

Companies:


Russian President Skeptical Of Today's Copyright Laws

from the outdated-and-obsolete dept

Here's a story from the G8 Summit that apparently didn't get very much attention in the mainstream press. It seems that, while most of the countries' leaders expressed support for greater internet regulations when it came to copyright issues, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev questioned the validity and necessity of such laws. Part of the G8 event was an attempt to put together specific recommendations on "internet governance" with the suggested text concerning intellectual property reading:

"With regard to the protection of intellectual property, in particular copyright, trademarks, trade secrets and patents, we recognize the need to have national laws and frameworks for improved enforcement. We are thus renewing our commitment to ensuring effective action against violations of intellectual property rights in the digital arena, including action that addresses present and future infringements."
Straight out of the RIAA/MPAA playbook, of course.

And the only one willing to point out that this made little sense, apparently, was Dmitry Medvedev, who pushed back:
"The declaration reflects an absolutely conservative position that intellectual property rights should be protected according to the existing conventions," said Medvedev. "No one questions that, but I have repeatedly stated that, unfortunately, those conventions were written 50 or almost 100 years ago, and they are unable to regulate the whole complex of relations between the copyright owner and users."

Characteristically unafraid to ruffle his fellow leaders' feathers, Medvedev continued "Unfortunately, this was not included in the declaration because, in my opinion, my colleagues have a more conservative opinion than is necessary at the moment. Or maybe they just don't use the Internet and have little understanding of it."
I think the final sentence may be accurate, though, I'm sure that heavy lobbying from the entertainment industry impacts their views as well...

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Too Much Free Time

by Tim Cushing


Filed Under:
history, mobile phones, streaming

Companies:


Streaming Music To Phones Is Officially The Oldest Trick In The Book

from the remind-me-again-what's-so-"smart"-about-your-smartphone? dept

Everyone has a friend who's seen everything, done everything and grown bored of everything. They're everywhere. And if you don't have a friend like this, a quick visit to any forum or comment thread will provide you with one of these "friends," whether you wanted one or not.

You know the type:

1989

[Show friend your brand-new copy of "President Yo La Tengo."] "Have you heard these guys? They're out of New Jersey, I think. They just kicked out this album.

Friend: [Underenthusiastic shrug] "Yeah. They used to be pretty good until they sold out and released their debut. I used to design guitar picks for them until they went mainstream. Pffft."

You: [Disappointed sigh]: "Well, it's an awesome album. But it may be their last great one, I guess... I'm starting to like it less already... thanks."

1999

"Whoa. Have you seen this? Just caught a few minutes of a working print for something called 'The Matrix'. Mindblowing!

Friend: [Noncomittal headnod] "This thing's been circulating the web since it appeared untitled on a Geocities page. It looks alright but I'm wondering why they didn't go with Nick Cage like the original production notes stated. I worked with Lana for a couple of years as a scriptrunner. Maybe I'll watch it when it comes to Blu-ray. "

You: [Frustrated and confused glare]: "Blu-ray?" "Lana?"

2009

"I just got a leaked beta of "Civilization V"!

Friend: "Well, I hope they fix the siege AI. Everything I see on the alpha build of 'VII' is still in need of nerfing."

You: [Unitelligble growl that rises quickly to a full roar as you strangle your 'friend' with his own tongue while screaming] "YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT ONE COMING, DID YOU!! THIS IS MY CLOSED-BETA [kidney punch] PRE-RELEASE [rib kick] LIMITED 7-INCH [eye gouge] BEATDOWN!!! [sleeper hold]
So, it is in the spirit of vindictive upmanship that I bring you this handy bit of pre-knowledge from Scientific American, via Rock, Paper, Shotgun.

The next time your friend mentions some brand new streaming service that brings music to whatever shiny piece of early-adoption he's currently using as a cellphone, sniff haughtily and backhand him (or her, although this really seems to be a "him" quality) verbally with this:

"Streaming music to a phone? Yeah, that's alright if that's the sort of thing that still impresses you. I've been streaming music to my phone for 120 years."

[Note: you do not need to be over the age of 120 to make this statement. It would be much more awesome if you were, but it shouldn't make your bombshell any less devastating.]

The July 2, 1892, Scientific American Supplement reported on the use of a device called the theatrophone that had been in use for two years already in Paris. The basic idea was to be able to call into a theater and hear live music being played. One could either subscribe to receive the service in home or utilize one of the theatrophones set up in various locales such as hotels, restaurants, vestibules, and cafes throughout the city.
While said friend is still trying to wrap his "been-there-done-that" mind around a concept that includes places he's never been and things he's never done, add insult to injury by pointing out how advanced this system was:
The theatrophone had 3 cables, 2 used for the transmission of music and the other for an alarm set for 5 minutes, keeping track of the listener's time and changing theaters at each interval. If a listener happened to catch the live performance as it was ending or during an intermission, he would be wired into a different location for the remainder of time paid for. If all theaters were in an intermission, then the listener would be treated to recorded piano music so his money was not wasted.
As your friend devolves into a blind panic as he searches for a pre-19th century rebuttal, drop this final piece of science onto his trend-setting ass:
At the time of the article, there were 100 theatrophones installed in Paris running on 11 different lines, as well as a number of private subscribers who paid a fixed amount for a certain number of listenings in the home.
Subscription service? Streaming? Multiple users? Home version? Been there. [BAM!] Done that. [BOO-YAH!]

[Make some sort of victorious karate chop/touchdown/"suck it loser" motion and stroll away from the blubbering wreck of a human being you've left behind. Casually toss a $180 faux-vintage Pong shirt at him to dry his eyes on and head to the nearest forum/comment thread to gloat.]

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Overhype

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
copyright, photographs, space shuttle

Companies:


So Much Fuss Over A Photo That The Photographer Has No Problem With People Copying

from the so-why-the-attention? dept

Over the years we've seen various legal battles surrounding news organizations using amateur photographs that were posted to social networking or photo hosting sites. However, MSNBC has a long and detailed story about the legal issues surrounding news organizations using a photo that Stefanie Gordon shot from an airplane with her iPhone of the space shuttle Endeavor's launch:

Gordon took the shot, and upon landing, uploaded it to Twitpic, tweeted it and promptly went away from computers and technology for the day. The photo caught on and a bunch of news organizations used it -- some licensing it, some not. Here's how MSNBC describes her situation:
It also landed her smack in the middle of an ethical and legal debate that may be as important as the future of the Internet itself.
Except that's wrong. It didn't land her in the middle of that debate at all, because Gordon makes it clear she didn't care how it was used or if anyone paid her for it:
To be sure, Stefanie did not seek this fight, and doesn't feel too compelled to be its poster child, either.

"I never even thought about what could happen,” she said. “To me, it's just a picture. I tweeted and put my phone away. ... I had four hours of sleep and wasn't thinking. I was trying to spend time with my dad. I've never been a person who feels like I need to make money off of everything. I just put it out there for people to see."
And yet, Bob Sullivan from MSNBC seems to want to keep forcing this issue back on her as if she should care. It's really kind of disgusting. Gordon was happy to share the work, like plenty of other people who create and share content. It shouldn't be about copyright. It needn't be about copyright. And yet, MSNBC feels the need to make it about copyright. Why?

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Copyright

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
copyright, poland, public domain

Companies:


Polish Prime Minister Says Things Funded With Public Money Should Be In The Public Domain

from the wow dept

Slashdot points us to a report that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has declared that anything funded with public money will be in the public domain (Google translation from the original Polish). It sounds like there was some hedging on this, as he perhaps suggests that they still need to classify what exactly will be public, but it's encouraging. It's also not entirely clear from the report if this just refers to state documents, or also the output of research funded by the state. Hopefully we'll get some clarification soon.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

(Mis)Uses of Technology

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
democracy, egypt, hacking

Companies:


Hacking Egypt For Better Democracy

from the not-just-the-outsiders dept

Having already covered how hackers from Anonymous have been taking part from afar in various middle east uprisings, it's probably worth noting that some other folks are doing some cool hacking projects as well, including a Hackathon for Egypt effort, that brought together hackers and activists to see if new technologies could be built that might be useful to implementing a more democratic system in Egypt. For example, some folks put together a platform for crowdsourcing the creation of a Constitution:

The conference's most intriguing result was a platform for crowdsourcing the new Egyptian constitution. The platform, which appears to have drawn inspiration from a similar project in Tunisia, allows users to simultaneously browse constitutional texts from multiple countries, propose articles and ideas online and to collaborate on compiling the ideas into a workable text. Owing to Egypt's special circumstances, the platform also contains extensive provisions for off-computer use--many Egyptians simply don't have regular access to either a computer or the Internet.
Who knows how effective these efforts will be (my guess is that, initially, they won't get much use), but it's still nice to see, and hopefully as we see projects like this grow, they'll become more effective and useful.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

(Mis)Uses of Technology

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
ipads, iphones, patents

Companies:
apple, samsung


Two Can Play At This Game: Samsung Wants To See Apple's Next Gen iPhones & iPads

from the patent-disputes dept

Last week, we noted that Apple had successfully convinced a court that Samsung should be forced to hand over unreleased prototypes of its new phones and tablet computers as part of its patent dispute with Samsung. In response, Samsung (which filed countersuits over other patents) is demanding Apple hand over its next generation iPhones and iPads to Samsung. The whole thing is getting pretty childish, which is basically what happens in patent disputes of this nature. Why can't these two companies just focus on competing in the marketplace, and letting the best company win based on who's buying what?

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Economics

by Michael Ho


Filed Under:
bitcoin, cruzeiro, money, second life, urv, yap

Companies:
linden labs


DailyDirt: In Money We Trust

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Fiat money only has value because governments have established its value by decree. And the value of currencies can be reset -- such as Brazil's cruzeiro currency when it was replaced by the Unit of Real Value (URV). Here are just a few quick links on other somewhat "temporary" currencies.

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

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Culture

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
elway, john elway, music, names

Companies:


John Elway No Fan Of Punk Band Elway; Asks It To Change Name

from the perhaps-annoying-ex-football-qb-is-a-better-name? dept

A few weeks ago we wrote about how actor Kevin Spacey had his lawyers get threatening over an album from the band Cassettes Won't Listen, because the album was called "Kevinspacey." To deal with this, the band changed the album name to Evinspacey. Now Capitalist Lion Tamer points us to a similar story, in which former Denver Bronco's star quarterback John Elway has had his lawyers send a letter to the punk band Elway, demanding that the band change its name (though, the band claims that it wasn't a "cease and desist" letter). The band, apparently, isn't giving in that easily:

Of course, any Coloradoan worth their salt might point out the absurdity of Mr. Elway's insistence on legally strongarming a virtually unknown punk band rather than focusing his attention on mending the badly broken Denver Broncos, but that's a whole different issue.

We have no intention of changing the name again. We love the name, regardless of what connotations are inferred by the listener. Surely, if the Dead Kennedys could become one of punk's most popular bands without incurring litigation, Elway can keep their moniker and continue making so-so music for our dozens of fans to enjoy
Your move, John.

Of course, this trend kind of makes you wonder if more and more bands are naming themselves or their albums after celebrities in an attempt to get a publicity boost from any potential legal shenanigans.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Trademark

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
cease & desist, eric rice, spin, spin magazine, trademark

Companies:
spin


Spin Magazine Sends Cease & Desist To Twitter User @Spin

from the how-not-to-win-friends dept

Two and a half years ago, we wrote about the question of Twitter squatters and other likely fights about who gets to own what Twitter names, and pointed to a suggestion from lawyer Erik Heels that there needed to be a clear Twitter user name dispute resolution policy, similar to UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) for domain names. To date, there still isn't anything quite like that, though Twitter often seems to take matters into its own hands if someone complains. However, apparently, Spin Magazine decided to bypass contacting Twitter directly and instead sent a cease & desist letter to the guy who had the @spin user name on Twitter, relegating Spin Magazine to using the dreaded @SpinMagazine (you can see the full cease & desist letter at ChillingEffects).

Spin Magazine tried to claim that there was "confusion" with Eric Rice's @spin account by pointing to tweets that were meant for the magazine, but were directed to Rice instead. Of course, I don't see how Spin Magazine would have any legal claim here, since Eric Rice is an individual and is unlikely to be using the Twitter account for commercial purposes. Honestly, Spin Magazine comes off looking pretty silly here, and could have just tried a friendly approach, rather than running to the lawyers. However, Rice claims that until the C&D; showed up, he'd never heard from Spin Magazine, despite his using Twitter for years with the name. We see this kind of thing all the time with lawyers and clients who think breaking out the legal nastygrams is a good way to get people to cooperate. Perhaps the scare tactics work some of the time, but they have a high likelihood of backfiring badly, as well.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
fei lam, lawsuits, white iphones

Companies:
apple


Apple Sues Teen Who Sold Repair Parts To Make Your iPhone Into A Mythical White iPhone

from the oh-come-on dept

People have been talking about a "white iPhone" for ages, expecting that Apple would eventually reintroduce a model with a white back, which it had on an older model. However, one enterprising teen started offing a conversion kit last fall that would let people "repair" their own iPhones and replace the back with a white back that he sourced from China, where they were apparently labeled as "repair parts." All of that sounds like something that should be perfectly legal. After all, you bought your phone, you should be able to modify it, and the kid selling the parts should be able to sell you those parts. But, instead, Apple sued NYC-based teenager Fei Lam last week, and he's apparently taking on the company without a lawyer. It's too bad, but he's expected to settle the case rather than fight Apple. I can totally understand why he'd settle, but it's really quite ridiculous that Apple would sue over this.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

(Mis)Uses of Technology

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
austria, exit node, tor

Companies:


Austrian Police Seize Computers From Tor Exit Node

from the how-long-will-this-take-to-explain dept

Javier points us to the news that the police in Austria have seized a bunch of computer equipment from the home of someone running a tor exit node. The email is not entirely clear, but it sounds like someone used tor -- via that exit node -- to access a porn site. Seeing as the equipment was seized, I'm assuming that this wasn't just a standard porn site. It seems like this is a risk that many people running tor exit nodes may face -- but the big question is how difficult is it to explain to the police what tor is, what an exit node is, why such things are perfectly legal, and why this means they're looking in the wrong place? Or will law enforcement just avoid all these details and assume that running a tor exit node is proof of guilt?

225 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Overhype

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
domain seizures, propaganda

Companies:
nbc universal


NBC News Produces Propaganda Video Highlighting NBC's Views On Domain Seizures

from the fair-and-balanced dept

Can you trust one of the biggest companies supporting greater government domain seizures to fairly report on those government domain seizures and their impacts? Well, NBC Nightly News recently ran a report about the government's domain seizures, which you can watch below. To be honest, I had to check a few times to see if this was really done by NBC, since the production quality is awful and really amateurish, the sound mix is dreadful and the background music is too loud and out of place -- something way below the standard that I've seen done by NBC in the past:

Not surprisingly, the report does not seek out truth at all. It mostly just presents the government's point of view -- even when it's totally laughable, and then very very briefly quotes Waleed Gadelkareem, the guy behind Torrent-Finder -- who had his search engine domain seized by the government -- and Gadelkareem's lawyer, who points out, quite accurately, that it's bizarre that the US government appears to be protecting a single business against innovation.

But the really bizarre parts are the quotes from the main ICE investigator, William Ross, on these seizures. It becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that the man has no business running such operations as he doesn't know what he's talking about:
"We try to protect the economic interests of US industries and manufacturers. People are taking their work product and selling it for free!"
Neither of those sentences makes any sense. Protecting the "economic interests" of US industries is way too broad. I mean, based on that, should the US government have blocked the creation of the automobile industry, because it would negatively impact "the economic interests" of the US horse & buggy industry? The economic interests of US industries are often put at risk through disruptive technology... but what comes out of it are new industries. The US government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers of disruptive technologies, yet that's what Ross just admitted he's doing here. Scary.

And the second sentence... um what? How do you sell something for free? Furthermore how do you "take" something if the original is still there? This is the guy we have making the call on whether or not to seize domain names? Yikes! He goes on:
We're protecting them against other people taking their ideas and selling them.
Um. Shouldn't Ross know that "ideas" are not protectable under US intellectual property law? Patents cover inventions. Copyright covers expression. Trademarks cover trademarks. Ideas are not covered. In fact, they're explicitly not covered. So, again, I have to ask, how is it that this is the guy who gets to decide what domains are seized when he doesn't appear to know the law? The report also makes bogus claims, such as seizing domain names effectively shuts down the websites.

It goes on along these lines, basically repeating all of NBCUniversal Corporate's talking points as fact. It's hard to see how you can expect any reasonable reporting on this topic from a company that is heavily involved in lobbying for laws like PROTECT IP which will expand these sorts of things even further, and allow folks like Ross, who clearly has no business deciding the legality of websites, to continue censorsing websites in the name of the US government, but which is clearly just to protect some businesses who don't know how to adapt.

43 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Predictions

by Tim Cushing


Filed Under:
lawsuits, predictions

Companies:


The Maximalist Future: Be Sure To Pay Off Your Lawsuits Before Heading For The School Bus

from the it's-a-stretch-to-call-this-fiction dept

There's a movement underway to remove all control from your life and turn it over to others. It's not an organized movement. There's no figurehead leading the way, but between the government, the legal system, various rights holders and their offshoots and professional patent thugs, a steady removal of individual rights and personal ownership is taking place.

With rare exception, it's being done on an incremental level. The government has been increasing its control over all aspects of life, whether it's what your children eat or which products and services you can use. Various agencies called into existence by an unprecedented terrorist attack nearly a decade ago have broadened their areas of control, without fear of oversight or reprisal. The legal system is no better, endlessly entertaining frivolous lawsuits and vindictive show trials, when not playing "Home Field" for various industries and special interest groups.

Various industry groups have done the same, aided by this same government and indulged by the legal system. Between the RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, BMI and others in the royalty-collecting field, an earnest (and dishonest) ongoing effort is being made to extract money from every single interaction with a copyrighted work, whether it's a stream, a download, an upload or simply a backup. Having discovered that suing your way to profitability is nearly impossible, these groups instead hope to bleed every service dry, drip by incremental drip.

Aggressive patent holders are doing the same thing. While there are still a number of high-dollar lawsuits filed (usually in hope of a much smaller settlement), patent litigators like Lodsys are aiming lower in hopes of a small, but perpetual income stream. All of these groups hope that the dollar amount is small enough that only a slim minority will complain or withhold payments. They make it sound so reasonable. "It's only .575%. It's so small and hardly noticeable!"

But "small" becomes a killer when everybody wants a piece of the action. Those increments all add up to real money sooner or later. But even worse, the chilling effect of overreaching legislation and thousands of litigious actions takes an incredible toll.

An amazing/terrifying piece of "speculative fiction" has surfaced over at Ftrain, although after reading this, you'd be hard pressed to agree with either of those two words in quotes. Paul Ford's piece, "Nanolaw with Daughter" (subtitled "Why Privacy Mattered") paints an eerily prescient picture of where we're likely headed. It starts with this gut-punch of a sentence:

"On a Sunday morning before her soccer practice, not long after my daughter's tenth birthday, she and I sat down on the couch with our tablets and I taught her to respond to lawsuits on her own."


Ford's world is filled with lawsuits upon lawsuits. Everyone is on the receiving end of one settlement notice or another, all piling endlessly into their inboxes. Most can easily be settled for under a dime, but like any other small thing, it adds up to real money. Even worse than the dollar amount is living your entire life as a constant target. Or in his daughter's case, even longer:

"My daughter was first sued in the womb. It was all very new then. I'd posted ultrasound scans online for friends and family. I didn't know the scans had steganographic thumbprints. A giant electronics company that made ultrasound machines acquired a speculative law firm for many tens of millions of dollars. The new legal division cut a deal with all five Big Socials to dig out contact information for anyone who'd posted pictures of their babies in-utero. It turns out the ultrasounds had no clear rights story; I didn't actually own mine. It sounds stupid now but we didn't know. The first backsuits named millions of people, and the Big Socials just caved, ripped up their privacy policies in exchange for a cut. So five months after I posted the ultrasounds, one month before my daughter was born, we received a letter (back then a paper letter) naming myself, my wife, and one or more unidentified fetal defendants in a suit. We faced, I learned, unspecified penalties for copyright violation and theft of trade secrets, and risked, it was implied, that my daughter would be born bankrupt.

But for $50.00 and processing fees the ultrasound shots I'd posted (copies attached) were mine forever, as long as I didn't republish without permission."


Ford is dead on. There is nothing about that scenario that sounds far-fetched. The only thing holding some companies back from litigious action this insane is the lack of audacity to follow through on their lawyers' fever dreams. The precedent can always be found. All that's really needed is some sympathetic court to shove the case through. Like say, I don't know, the judicial farce known commonly as "East Texas"?

It gets worse. And by "worse," I mean more and more believable.

“How many are left?” I asked.

She looked at her tablet and said: “Fifty-seven.”

“We can handle that,” I said. I walked her through the rest: Get rid of the ones without flags. Pay those a dime or less by hitting the dime button. How many now? (Only six.) We went through the six: Four copyright claims, all sub-dollar and quickly paid.

She opened the penultimate message and smiled. “Dad,” she said, “look.”

We had gone to a baseball game at the beginning of the season. They had played a song on the public address system, and she sang along without permission. They used to factor that into ticket price—they still do if you pay extra or have a season pass—but now other companies handled the followup. And here was the video from that day, one of many tens of thousands simultaneously recorded from gun scanners on the stadium roof. In the video my daughter wore a cap and a blue T-shirt. I sat beside her, my arm over her shoulder, grinning. Her voice was clear and high; the ambient roar of the audience beyond us filtered down to static."


ASCAP. BMI. RIAA. SESAC. Et al. This is what they really want. Music that is paid for multiple times with individual fees just small enough to be unoffensive.

I won't give away any more of the story but every single chilling word is worth reading, especially if you're on the other side of Techdirt's fence. If you think the laws currently in place don't cover enough ground and aren't doing enough to protect your content/product, just take a look at what can happen if you push hard enough for long enough. Everything in here isn't just easily imaginable, it's also highly possible.

And brace yourself for the last couple of sentences. They sum up the attitude of Big Content maximalists and overreaching government entities perfectly. Everything is actionable. Everything can be taken. Everything can be used against you.

78 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Music Industry

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
licenses, music lockers, streaming

Companies:
google


With A Choice Between $100 Million In Cash & Fantasyland, The Labels Choose Fantasyland

from the revenue-vs.-piracy dept

I keep having the same conversation over and over again with people in the recording industry. A few days ago, I met with the head of a record label that is doing all sorts of cool and innovative experiments (both on the business model and with technology) and he still kept saying "but we gotta stop people from stealing." The problem, as always, is that they seem so focused on infringement that they miss the bigger picture: What does it actually mean for revenue? These are two separate questions, and the labels seem to prioritize the wrong one. They want to stomp out infringement at any cost, even if the net benefit is minimal.

If record labels were given a choice whereby they could support a new revenue stream that would bring in, say, $100 million without them having to do anything... vs. getting no such revenue and playing whac-a-mole with a few more "pirate sites," just making them move elsewhere and not actually get anyone to buy anything, they'd have to be crazy to not go with the $100 million option.

It appears they're crazy.

Google was clear, when it launched its Google Music, that it wanted to do much, much more, but that the things it wanted to do required licenses from the labels. However, the terms the labels offered were completely unacceptable. Now it's being reported that Google offered $100 million to the labels, and a key sticking point was that the labels wanted Google to wave a magic wand, figure out who was "pirating" music, and stop it. In other words, $100 million vs. Fantasyland. And the labels went with Fantasyland.

71 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Music Industry

by Tim Geigner


Filed Under:
children, music, propaganda, uk

Companies:


British Labels Propagandizing To Children

from the not-so-much-teaching-as-preaching dept

While the practice of the entertainment industry issuing propaganda to school children is certainly nothing new, every time I see it in practice I shiver involuntairly.  But when I came across a story from the BBC regarding a British label actually coming in to talk directly with high school kids about the many evils of piracy, a couple of questions leapt to mind.

But give the label credit for bringing along toys for the kids to play with this time.  They showed up with a bunch of their music-making equipment to let the kids have a go at producing their own tracks.  But even in this there was an ulterior motive.  They were hoping to show kids (KIDS!) how hard it is to actually make the music they listen to, which would then demonstrate all the many people that are involved in the process.  Why?

"Paul Shedden, Head of Label at Shed Records, explained the project is about raising awareness of the 'unseen' faces in the industry who rely on music sales for their livelihoods.  He said: 'A whole army of people work behind the scenes to bring you new, fresh music.  Everything from the songwriters through to production, artists, engineers, radio pluggers, PR companies all those people need to get paid.  Otherwise they can't continue doing the jobs they love and the music you love will stop coming out.'"

Okay, the first question here is the obvious one: how can the threat of disappearing music production be used when we see more music coming out than ever before?  Want to guess whether the label reps bothered to mention that to the kids?  In addition to that question, I wonder if they brought amongst their toys some of the amazing new technology that's come out which allows artists to do more of this work themselves, rather than rely on an "army" of other folks who "need" to get paid. 

But beyond that is the real question which is at the heart of why I have a problem with this kind of thing.  Why do we let corporate interests speak directly to our children about industry needs and policy?  And why aren't there representatives from opposite sides of the debate alongside them?

Would we let McDonalds come in to speak directly to our children about how they consume food?  Would we allow gun manufacturers to hold audience in the school auditorium for a quick Q&A on gun control laws without representatives from the opposite side of the debate?  Maybe we could get Larry Flynt to come in and hold court at a Saint Mary's School For Girls assembly on what types of jobs are best suited for women?

Or maybe schools should educate and leave industry out of the process entirely.  If I were a parent (which I'm not), I'd be more than a little itchy at the prospect of my kid's school bringing in corporations to teach our children. 

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Music Industry

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
jeff thistle, licenses, music, music lockers, streaming

Companies:
emi


EMI Exec Thinks You Shouldn't Be Able To Listen To Your Own Music Without Paying Again

from the no-wonder-they're-confused dept

Via Glyn Moody, we get this bizarre story, which demonstrates how some "new media" execs at the major labels don't seem to understand "new media." A few weeks back, Michael Robertson had revealed the ridiculous demands that the major labels were making on anyone who wanted to license content for a cloud music player. Most of the demands made absolutely no sense and represented an ignorance of the technology involved. Remember, these services are about people uploading music they already have so that they can listen to it elsewhere. It's not about sharing music at all. Yet the labels, in their ultimate paranoia, continue to insist it is. Wayne Borean posted a link to Robertson's story on the astroturfing "Balanced Copyright" page, that is a front for the major record labels. Jeff Thistle, who is the "Director of New Media" for EMI Canada responded (also mirrored here), saying that these demands were "all reasonable." When Borean challenged him on this, Thistle replied:

What measures do you propose be put in place to prevent the uploading of major label owned content? I can't speak to the mechanism to determine what an annual fee would be (presumably it would be by percentage of catalogue * number of lockers that the content resides in), but asking that controls be put in place to prevent the service from becoming another illegal sharing vehicle is *very* reasonable.
How does that make any sense at all? Why should anyone, who has a legal and authorized copy of major label content, be prevented from storing it online to listen to it remotely? And most of these digital lockers don't allow downloads and are only for the one user who uploaded their own music. The claim that these will become "another illegal sharing vehicle" is a total red herring. So they make up a red herring and pretend they're doing this to "protect" that which doesn't need protecting... when the reality is that they're just trying to force people to pay over and over and over again for music they already paid for.

69 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Too Much Free Time

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
china, gold farming, prisons, wow

Companies:


Chinese Prisoners Forced To Farm Gold?

from the forced-virtual-labor dept

There have been many, many reports over the years about just how much "gold farming" in online games comes from China, but a new report in the Guardian is getting plenty of attention for claiming that real world inmates are being used for gold farming in prisons, where the prisons or their bosses end up with the "spoils." A whole bunch of folks have been submitting the story, and it certainly could be happening, but it does seem pretty weakly sourced. It quotes one guy who was in prison half a decade ago and did the gold farming then. Is there any more contemporary evidence that this is happening?

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

More Stories >>

Follow Techdirt
rss

Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter
And now, a word from our Sponsors..


From the Techdirt Archive...
And now, a word from our Sponsors..
Older Stuff

Tuesday

3:36am: Courtney Love Sued Yet Again For Twitter-Based Defamation (13)

Sunday

12:00pm: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (29)

Saturday

12:00pm: Ima Fish's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week (72)

Friday

7:39pm: Waiting 100+ Years For Version 2.0 (280)
6:23pm: Can We Kill Off This Myth That The Internet Is A Wild West That Needs To Be Tamed? (197)
5:23pm: Think Tank Says DHS Should Stop Laptop Border Searches (33)
5:00pm: DailyDirt: Making Popcorn In Modern Times (4)
4:21pm: PayPal Sues Google Over Mobile Payment Execs; Where's The Line Between Non-Competes & Trade Secrets (8)
3:24pm: Doctors Who Ask Patients To Sign Over Copyright On Any Online Reviews Are Only Harming Themselves (14)
2:18pm: Recent Law School Grad Gets Berated By Judge, Then Sues Nearly Everyone Who Discussed The Case (15)
1:20pm: 'New' ACTA Version Published, EC Pushes For Signing (3)
12:23pm: Academic Publishers Attempting To Eliminate Fair Use At Universities [Updated] (44)
11:16am: Al Franken Grandstands Over Meaningless Privacy Policies (15)
10:13am: Microsoft Blaming 'Piracy' Rather Than Basic Economics For Its Struggles In China (56)
9:14am: Dow Jones Sues Texas; Says Taxing The Wall Street Journal Is A First Amendment Violation (22)
8:13am: NY Stock Exchange Claims Trademark On Any Depiction Of Trading Floor, Threatens TPM (50)
7:15am: Did Less Than 10% Of Access Copyright's Income Go To Authors Last Year? (19)
6:00am: International Lulz: Anonymous Aids Rebellions in Tunisia, Algeria and Libya (25)
4:02am: Facebook, Once Again, Says That Ceglia's Claim To Own 84% Of Facebook Is A Fraud (11)
1:01am: Smartphones Make People Ignore Commercials Way More Than DVRs (51)

Thursday

9:56pm: New Report: IP Laws Are Crippling The EU Economy (36)
6:59pm: Congress Folds: Extends Controversial & Likely Abused PATRIOT Act Provisions For 4 More Years (49)
5:00pm: DailyDirt: Some Inspiring Graduation Speeches... (1)
4:10pm: Disney Withdraws Trademark App On Seal Team 6 (23)
3:13pm: Texas Politicians Back Off Anti-TSA Bill After Being Warned Of Potential Flight Loss (23)
2:13pm: Can We Just Admit That The Idea Of A 'Privacy Policy' Is A Failed Idea? (18)
1:06pm: Sony's Insane Fear Of 'Piracy' Means Many Movies Now Suck In Digital Theaters (69)
12:01pm: Seismologists Tried For Manslaughter Due To Earthquake (40)
11:00am: Ron Wyden: Puts Hold On PROTECT IP, Temporarily Withdraws Amendment On The PATRIOT Act (56)
10:22am: The 18 Senators Who Approve Breaking The Internet To Protect Hollywood (66)
More arrow
Quick Links
Close

Email This