As Expected, Social Networking Generation Running For Office Face Their Permanent Record Online

from the it-ain't-going-away dept

It's been almost four years since we wondered what would happen when the social networking generation started running for office, since there would almost certainly be a digital record of activities that historically would have been buried and/or lost to history for most candidates. It seems that we're already starting to see what happens with some younger candidates. Earlier this year, we mentioned one candidate who dropped out of a race after "racy" Facebook photos popped up. MediaShift is now taking a look at the issue and finding that more and more candidates are dealing with this issue, though often in different ways. One embraced it, saying that the photos showed he was a real person and approachable. Others try (usually unsuccessfully) to scrub their digital histories. As this becomes more common, though, it seems likely that even as opponents try to exploit these sorts of things, most people will put the photos in context and not be all that concerned about them.

1 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IMAX Sues Cinemark For Building Competing System... While Being An IMAX Customer

from the can't-take-the-competition? dept

IMAX theaters have become an increasingly important part of the movie business's continuing success over the past few years, as theaters have realized that (1) you can't "pirate" the IMAX experience and (2) people are often willing to pay more for it. But, it appears that at least one theater began to wonder why it had to pay IMAX so much for such an offering, and decided to set out on its own to build a competitor. The only problem is that this theater, Cinemark, has been a customer of IMAX, so now IMAX is suing Cinemark for trade secret violations and breach of contract (sent in by Eric Goldman).

The details of the case certainly look like a business deal gone bad, and also involve Cinemark preemptively going to Texas (of course) to file a patent action against IMAX, asking the court to make clear that it does not infringe on IMAX's patents. There may very well be breach of contract issues involved here, so IMAX may have a decent case on that front. But what's more interesting is the question of whether or not there are trade secret violations here. We don't talk about trade secret protections as much around here, because they really don't come up that often. But IMAX is claiming that it shared proprietary trade secret info with Cinemark as part of their relationship, and that info was used by Cinemark to build its competing service.

Perhaps much more interesting, however, is the fact that, at least according to the IMAX lawsuit, the Cinemark XD quality has been reviewed poorly compared to IMAX (I looked around and actually found the reviews to be mixed, with many saying that the two are comparable in terms of experience). Cinemark is a much bigger company than IMAX, and had direct access to all of their technology -- and, even so, at least some are saying that the end result doesn't measure up. I'm reminded again of how silly it is to claim that big companies can always "steal" good ideas from smaller ones. It's simply not that easy. Beyond just the basic quality issues, IMAX really has built up a great brand name, and many people do think specifically about going to see "IMAX films." Cinemark can chip into that, but it's going to take a lot of marketing effort. And, really, what's wrong with a bit of competition? IMAX has had the market to itself for years, and some competition between two different methods of "immersive" movie-going experiences seems like it should only create a better situation for consumers.

1 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Filmmaker Allowed To Use The Name Rin Tin Tin To Describe Rin Tin Tin

from the only-after-a-fight dept

Looks like the courts got one right concerning a trademark claim involving famed movie dog Rin Tin Tin. It seems that some movie makers wanted to make a movie about Rin Tin Tin, which seemed reasonable enough. However, Rin Tin Tin Inc., a company that continues to breed "Rin Tin Tin dogs" for movies objected to the use of the name, saying that since they held the trademark on Rin Tin Tin, the movie was infringing. Thankfully, the judge disagreed, noting that the movie is about Rin Tin Tin, and thus was descriptive and a perfectly reasonable use of the name.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Senators Begin Questioning ACTA Secrecy

from the this-ain't-the-transparency-we-were-promised dept

Despite some sweet talk from Hollywood about how important ACTA and its secret negotiations are to America (and, once again, no, the secrecy is not at all "normal," as some industry lawyers would have you believe), it looks like some Senators are finally beginning to question how ACTA is being handled. Senators Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown have sent a letter to US Trade Rep Ron Kirk asking for ACTA documents to be made public. The letter points out that "the public has a right to monitor and express informed views on proposals of such magnitude" especially considering that "there are concerns about the impact of ACTA on the privacy and civil rights of individuals, on the supply of products under the first sale doctrine, on the markets for legitimate generic medicines, and on consumers and innovation in general." The letter also takes on the bogus claims of state secrets in protecting ACTA documents:

We are surprised and unpersuaded by assertions that disclosures of basic information about the negotiation would present a risk to the national security of the United States, particularly as regards documents that are shared with all countries in the negotiations, and with dozens of representatives of large corporations. We are concerned that the secrecy of such information reflects a desire to avoid potential criticism of substantive provisions in ACTA by the public, the group who will be most affected by the agreement. Such secrecy has already undermined public confidence in the ACTA process.... We firmly believe that the public has a right to know the contents of the proposals being considered under ACTA, just as they have the right to read the text of bills pending before Congress."

Unfortunately, these are just two Senators. Supporters of ACTA likely have many more who will blindly fight to keep ACTA secret and get it approved with little or no substantive input from those it will impact most.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Brazil E-Voting Machines Not Hacked... But Van Eck Phreaking Allowed Hacker To Record Votes

from the there's-an-issue-there dept

Last week, we noted that an attempt to let hackers crack e-voting machines in Brazil failed, but Slashdot points out that someone did use some Van Eck phreaking to figure out who people voted for. While that's not quite the same as hacking the results of an election, it could lead to questions about privacy and how anonymous voting really is. Of course, to some extent, this has always been a risk with e-voting systems, but it hasn't received that much attention.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Doesn't Think The Lack Of Competition Is A Major Barrier To Broadband?

from the are-they-not-paying-attention? dept

Reader Kasey Krehbiel alerts us to some news coverage of the FCC's recently released list of seven "critical gaps" in reaching universal broadband (pdf) and is rightfully surprised to note that a lack of competition in the marketplace is not on the list. Such an absence makes you wonder if the FCC is really paying attention. Most of the other "gaps" would quickly disappear if there were meaningful competition in the market -- but we've never had a real policy of encouraging broadband competition in the US. Instead, policy has mostly been driven by incumbents who have lobbied hard for exactly the opposite.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Heads Of Major Movies Studios Claiming They Just Want To Help Poor Indie Films Harmed By Piracy

from the must-be-the-new-talking-point dept

I'm beginning to sense a trend. Just last month, we talked about a top exec at Paramount claiming that his "real worry" about movie piracy online was how it was going to harm indie films, since, as a big company, Paramount could take it. Then, just a week or so later, Sony Pictures' boss, Michael Lynton, also started talking about how fewer movies were being made due to piracy. Unfortunately, he was wrong. In the past five years the number of films being released has more than doubled and the major studios are making more money than ever at the box office. And yet... they keep trying. Dark Helmet points us to the news that the CEO of Fox Films, Jim Gianopulos, is the latest to claim that movie "piracy" is harming independent films the most (while saying it's harming everyone in the movie business, despite no evidence to support that claim). He made this statement while suggesting that the US needs to follow France in kicking people off the internet for file sharing accusations (not convictions).

It looks like the heads of the studios have all received their talking points from the same source (MPAA?) on this one. They're going to talk up the supposed harm to indie films, even as the indie film market appears to be figuring stuff out on its own (in part due to smart indie film producers embracing file sharing as a better means of distribution and promotion). My guess is that the strategy is a response to the realization that those massive box office returns don't look good when the major studios argue for more draconian copyright laws, so just as the RIAA makes up stories about "protecting the up-and-coming artist," the major studios and the MPAA are now using a bogus PR strategy of "protecting the indie filmmaker," when all they really want are more laws to offer additional protectionist policies for the next blockbuster.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

USPTO Convinced By Amazon That Online Gift Giving Patent Is Legit

from the how-amazon-stole-christmas dept

Amazon continues to aggressively pursue variations on its "one-click" patent, even as it is repeatedly held up as an example of how screwed up the patent system has become. In the latest story, found on Slashdot, a patent application for method of buying gifts online was originally rejected under the CAFC's recent Bilski rules because the invention "may be performed largely within the human mind." But the wonders of some sophisticated wordsmithing have apparently won over some at the USPTO. Good thing Santa doesn't have a website, or he might infringe.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Tiburon Approves Recording Every Car That Enters/Leaves... Despite More Evidence Of Traffic Camera Abuse In UK

from the feeling-safer-yet? dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about plans in the wealthy coastal town of Tiburon here in northern California to photograph and record the license plate info of every car entering or leaving the town. It kicked off quite a debate in the comments, and now comes the news that the town is moving forward with the plan, despite complaints about civil liberties and privacy violations. Of course, it's worth noting that just as this plan is moving forward, reports out of the UK are indicating that law enforcement there has been abusing traffic cameras for purposes well beyond traffic monitoring. They're using traffic camera images of traffic around political protests to note cars that appear at multiple such events, and placing them on some sort of terrorist "watch lists." Police are apparently going through the database of images and "marking" certain cars, which then allow them to be searched in the fight against terrorism. Not that there's a big protest culture in Tiburon, but this certainly shows how a simple traffic camera effort can escalate into something that is much more questionable from a civil rights standpoint.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Label Exec Arrested For Not Using Twitter To Disperse Crowd At Mall To See Singer

from the what's-the-charge-there? dept

Peter Kafka has an odd story about an executive at Island Def Jam Recods, James Roppo, who was supposedly arrested for not using Twitter to get crowds to disperse at a Long Island mall, after they had gathered to see singer Justin Bieber:

Police arrested a senior vice president from Bieber's label, Island Def Jam Records, James A. Roppo, 44, of Hoboken, N.J., saying he hindered their crowd-control efforts by not cooperating.

He was in custody Friday night, pending charges that could include criminal nuisance, endangering the welfare of a minor and obstructing government administration, Smith said.

"We asked for his help in getting the crowd to go away by sending out a Twitter message," Smith said. "By not cooperating with us we feel he put lives in danger and the public at risk."

Now, that's quite a charge to make: that by not following police orders to send out Twitter messages you were "obstructing government administration" or involved in "criminal nuisance." Of course, the case may be made even more difficult because, as Kafka notes, Bieber's Twitter account actually did warn people to leave. Still, it makes you wonder how they get "not Twittering on command" to stick as a crime.

51 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Spanish Court Dismisses Complaint From Nintendo Against Counterfiet DS Cartridges, Since They Add Functionality

from the getting-it-right dept

It seems that Spain is a country that is pretty consistently figuring out that we shouldn't just throw out all other rights the second "piracy" is shouted by the entertainment industry. We've noted recently that the country hasn't just rejected three strikes and declared broadband a basic right, but has also ruled, repeatedly, that personal file sharing is legal. And now, it even has judges who realize that "anti-circumvention" laws should have limits as well.

As you probably know, one of the key things that the entertainment industry has pushed for throughout the world is "anti-circumvention" clauses in copyright law. In the US we have this in the DMCA and it's a total mess. The law basically says that any attempt to circumvent (or to make or sell a tool to circumvent) DRM on a digital work is a violation of the copyright law -- even if making a copy of the content in question wouldn't violate copyright law.

Spanish copyright law includes an anti-circumvention clause, but as Leo Martins alerts us, a judge in Salamanca, Spain has taken a much more nuanced view of it in a case pitting Nintendo against Grupo Movilquick, who produced alternative cartridges for Nintendo DS devices. The judge's ruling (translated from the original) appears to find that the alternative cartridges do, in fact, circumvent Nintendo's DRM and can be used for "pirating" games, but also extend the utility of the devices for perfectly legal purposes. For that reason, the judge dismissed the lawsuit (translation from the original) noting that it doesn't make sense that the law would be intended to say that only Nintendo can expand the functionality of its devices, and the fact that Nintendo doesn't offer similar functionality shouldn't preclude others from doing so. There are areas where Nintendo can still bring a lawsuit, such as for patent and trademark issues, but the judge notes those should be dealt with in a civil court.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Dear PR People: If Your Exec Has A Comment, Our Comments Are Open

from the so-please-use-them dept

One of the points we've tried to make around here regularly is that this blog is not a traditional journalism effort. I am not a "reporter." I do not go out seeking stories to report on. I write about what I find interesting and I give my opinion on it -- and I do so in a way where I expect a discussion to happen in our comments from which we can all learn. I find that to be a lot better of an experience for everyone involved than to go out talking to a bunch of people behind closed doors and then writing up a "one true report" on the matter that probably leaves out half of the interesting stuff. Instead, I post what seems interesting and the comments are then very much a part of the story.

I've written many times before that we get more than enough stories sent to us by readers -- and I find plenty of interesting stories myself. I can't think of a single case where a PR person has turned me onto a PR story that I've cared about and hadn't already seen elsewhere. But PR people still fill my inbox daily with stories about all sorts of stuff we'd never write about, because they clearly don't read the site. They assume that any tech story is automatically relevant, so they spam me and probably 100 other sites. Perhaps some of them care and find the emails useful, though I doubt it.

In the last year or two, there's been a growing number of PR people who have moved on to a new tactic. Since actually getting press to cover the company you're representing is difficult, they now send around emails to writers about certain news stories, saying that so-and-so exec at such-and-such company, which has absolutely nothing to do with the story at hand, is "available for comment" on this story. So, for example, if two big companies announce a partnership, a PR person will send an email saying that some startup CEO in a market impacted by that partnership (barely), is "available for comment" about that partnership. It's basically a desperate PR person's attempt to get some press for a client where none is warranted.

Except, of course, we never quote people for posts here. We're not reporters. We're not looking for sources. We write about our opinions on stories and that's it. We'll quote another article, in order to comment on it, but we're not looking for sources at all. If you read Techdirt, you'd know that.

I recently put a message on Twitter about this, saying that, for all the PR people who had someone "available for comment" on stories, the comments on Techdirt are enabled and open for them to comment on any story they feel is relevant. It got a really good response on Twitter, so I figured I'd expand on it into a post. If you are a PR person, and you represent someone who has "a comment" on a particular story, please point them to the site where they are free to comment away, along with everyone else, as a part of a conversation, not some PR effort. And, please don't be offended if I just emailed you a link to this post in response to your offer to have some random exec "comment" on some unrelated story.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What Kind Of Mickey Mouse (And Donald Duck) Lawsuits Are These?

from the what's-going-on-now? dept

Donald Duck is apparently pretty busy on the trademark law front. On the same day, I heard about two separate legal incidents involving Donald Duck, which is just the sort of coincidence that can't be ignored. The first story, admittedly, is more bizarre than the second. It involves Mickey Mouse suing Donald Duck. Literally. It's got to be some sort of prank, but the lawsuit has actually been filed. The complaint is rather basic, with Mickey Mouse's lawyer Juan Abogado ("Abagado" apparently is the word for "lawyer" in Spanish.) stating simply:

COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and states:
1. This is an action arising under the Trademark Protection Act, 15 USC 78.
2. The Plaintiff is the owner of the trademark no. 0134148349208, (Walt Disney World patent).
3. The Defendant is a duck.

Donald Duck, represented by his lawyer, Pluto the Dog, Esq., quickly shot back:

1. Admitted.
2. Denied.
3. Admitted.

A quick search fails to turn up the trademark in question, though, I'll admit to not putting much effort into it.

The other case involving the same Donald Duck is a bit more bizarre. Reader Kevin Brody lets us know that the University Oregon has a stylized version of Donald Duck as its mascot, on license from Disney. Some students and fans of the University football team put together a song about how much they love the team. Great, right? Well, except that in the video they made, the Donald Duck-alike mascot makes a few appearances, and the school's marketing director flipped out and ordered them to edit out the duck, supposedly because Disney either was, or could get, upset about the usage. As the author of the column notes, this is ridiculous. It's just a few guys having fun and does no damage to the trademark at all. It's unclear if Disney actually got involved here, and my guess is that this is more the university stepping up before Disney said anything to protect itself. Given Disney's aggressive enforcement of its copyrights and trademarks in the past, perhaps this isn't a huge surprise.

Still, with Donald Duck being summoned by court clerk "Goofy" to the Florida courtroom where Mickey is suing, you have to wonder if he'll be able to make it back in time for the the Oregon Ducks game...

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Prosecutors Ending Lawsuit Against Lori Drew

from the good-news dept

While there was some concern that prosecutors would push forward with an appeal of a judge's decision to toss out the ridiculous ruling against Lori Drew, federal prosecutors have now said that they're dropping the case and will not pursue it further. Drew may still face a civil lawsuit, but it's a good thing that the government is out of this. No matter what you think of Drew's behavior in dealing with her daughter's friend, Megan Meier, it was never a good idea to twist computer hacking laws to try to convict her.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Dear Rupert: You Don't Succeed By Making Life More Difficult For Users

from the this-will-not-work dept

Well, look at that. Last week it was just a silly suggestion from some netheads, and now come reports that Rupert Murdoch is at least in the early stages of considering opting out of Google, with Microsoft paying it to be "exclusive" on Bing. Apparently, Microsoft has actually approached a few publications about doing similar deals. It's no surprise that Microsoft and Murdoch would explore this. Microsoft has experimented for years with programs to bribe people to use its search engine over Google's -- but it hasn't done much to help. Meanwhile, Murdoch continues to not actually understand how the internet or copyright law works, and has some oddly misplaced dislike for Google (despite the fact that Google alone is pretty much what kept Murdoch-owned MySpace alive for years, and Murdoch owns a bunch of sites that aggregate info just like Google).

Still, if this does go forward, it will signal incredibly short-sighted thinking on the parts of everyone who participates. The initial reaction would be significantly less traffic to any site that agrees to participate, considering that Google still drives a ton of traffic to most major sites. Simply giving that up for a chunk of cash is a very risky proposition. Second, in factionalizing the web, it harms everyone. No one wants to have to think about which sites are included in which search engine, and if the battle begins in earnest, then you have a situation where you end up in an inevitable stalemate, with certain sites in Google's search engine, but not in Microsoft's, and others in just Microsoft's but not Google's -- and no one wins. Third, the cost of this program to a company like Microsoft to make it meaningful is huge. It's much bigger than the numbers that were being tossed out before. Finally, all this would really do is open up new opportunities for one of three things (or a combination) to happen (1) a new meta search engine shows up that aggregates both Microsoft and Google results (2) technology hacks that will allow you to combine the two results in one or (3) Google realizes that it has copyright law fair use on its site and keeps indexing sites anyways. I'm not sure Google would take that last step, but if things go nuclear, it might make the most sense.

But the key thing is that none of this does anything to help users. And that's the problem. It's not adding even the tiniest sliver of additional benefit to users. And these days, that's a strategic error. If your business is focused on making life more difficult for a competitor, rather than adding more value to users, you're doing the wrong thing. Microsoft and News Corp. should be trying to provide more value to users, and instead, they seem to be plotting ways to make consumers' lives more annoying and more difficult. They may think that's smart, but in the long term, such strategies always backfire.

69 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter

from the careful-what-you-tweet dept

Earlier this year, we noted that ESPN had come out with rules on how its staff could (and could not) use Twitter. Apparently, Bill Simmons broke those rules, and has been suspended from Twitter for two weeks. His crime? Apparently calling radio station WEEI, a partner of ESPN, deceitful scumbags. That does seem a bit over the top, but why should ESPN have a say in how Simmons uses a totally unrelated service in which he speaks his mind? If he's going to say something dumb, isn't that his decision?

55 Comments | Leave a Comment..

School Can't Handle Critical Community Message Board; Sends Legal Nastygram

from the and-the-message-board-folded dept

PopeHilarius writes in to alert us to an unfortunate situation. Apparently the private school Adelphi in Bay Ridge, New York, couldn't handle the fact that there was a Bay Ridge messageboard that had a critical thread about the school, including links to some news articles that were highly critical of the school.

Rather than respond to those claims, the school sent the messageboard owner a cease and desist letter, demanding the entire thread be removed. Tragically, the message board owner apparently was unfamiliar with Section 230 of the CDA and the rights of a service provider to resist such efforts, and just took down the whole thread. This is unfortunate, though, commenters on the thread appear to be reposting the same articles (and explaining section 230 to the board operator).

But, really, this is why lawyers still send bogus cease-and-desist letters: all too often they work. Having been on the receiving end of a few such letters, it's pretty damn scary to know you might get sued, and even if you know you're right, the whole concept of having to fight it can be scary (and expensive) unless you can find a good lawyer to represent you pro bono -- which isn't easy for many to do. It's legal bullying at its finest, but it works way too often. This is one reason, by the way, that we really could use a strong, federal, anti-SLAPP law, that would help sites understand that they can't be silenced just because someone doesn't like what they say, and gives those sites an easy, clear and inexpensive way to get any such cases dismissed quickly.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Liberian Laws Are A Secret Due To Copyright; Even The Gov't Doesn't Have Them

from the you-can't-have-them dept

We've seen a few ridiculous cases whereby local governments claim copyright on a law, but it's still stunning to see what's going on in Liberia. Tom sends in the news that no one knows what the law covers in Liberia, because one man, leading a small group of lawyers, claims to hold the copyright on the laws of the country and won't share them unless people (or, rather, the government of Liberia) is willing to pay. Oh, and did we mention that the US government paid for some of this?

The story is a bit convoluted, but apparently, Liberia hasn't really had a full copy of its laws, as they were mixed and matched in "incomplete sets" throughout different libraries. A professor at Cornell had begun a (free) project to compile the country's laws, but after he died, a group of lawyers in Liberia took over the project -- and were given $400,000 by the US Justice Department. The lawyers then "numbered, bound, and indexed" all of the recent laws, and claim that because of that, they now own the copyright on it.

While perhaps copyright law is different in Liberia, most places have rejected "sweat of the brow" arguments for copyright. If you didn't create the actual content, you're not supposed to get the copyright. You don't get a copyright just for compiling the work of others without adding anything new. If this lawyer wanted to get paid for the work, he should have negotiated that upfront. Instead, he's holding the country's laws hostage, and asking for $150,000 to $360,000 to turn them over to the government.

What's really amazing is that this guy is currently serving as Liberia's justice minister. The work he did on the laws happened before that, and he claims that he'd give up the laws for free, but that the other lawyers he worked with will not.

Perhaps Liberia should just start from scratch and create all new laws, wiping out the value of these particular locked up laws.

43 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lily Allen: It's Ok To Sell My Counterfeit CDs, Just Don't Give My Music For Free

from the confusion dept

Dark Helmet alerts us to the news that our good friend Lily Allen is back in the news discussing file sharing again. Tragically, it does not appear that she's used her "time off" to better understand copyright issues very much. Unlike nearly everyone else who complains about copyright infringement, she's apparently "all for" infringing on her copyrights, just so long as you pay someone -- even if it's the guy on the street selling the counterfeit CDs. Seriously:

"If someone comes up with a burnt copy of my CD and offers it to you for £4 I haven't a problem with that as long as the person buying it places some kind of value on my music."

Yes, so while some musicians have said they're fine with non-commercial file sharing, but are against anyone selling their unauthorized works, Ms. Allen seems to have taken the opposite approach. Counterfeit all you want, just as long as you profit from it. Yeah. Someone should explain to her the difference between price and value, and also the benefits of word of mouth marketing. But, it doesn't seem like she's much interested in actually understanding this stuff, so if you want to help her understand, maybe go set up a shop selling burned copies of her CDs, and see what happens.

Of course, if we take this seriously, it shows how little she's thought this through. Her earlier complaint was that when people file share, they don't provide money back to the artists and the labels. Of course, when counterfeiters are selling on the street, the same thing is true, but suddenly it's okay? At what point does the world realize that Ms. Allen doesn't know what she's talking about?

97 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EFF Looks To Bust Bogus Podcasting Patent; Needs Prior Art

from the help-'em-out dept

Back in July, we wrote about how a company named Volomedia had gleefully announced that it had patented podcasting. The patent itself (7,568,213) seemed ridiculously broad, obvious and covered by prior art. On top of that, it was difficult to see how it passed the current (though, perhaps not for long) "Bilski" test for what can be patented.

It looks like the EFF has decided to be proactive about this and is looking for prior art with which to bust this particular patent. In the comments on our original post about this, reader Marcel de Jong, noted that Dave Winer described audio enclosures for RSS in a blog post in January of 2001 -- nearly three years before this patent was filed. Hopefully that is rather compelling prior art, but if anyone has any more info, please send it over to the EFF.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..