Blaming The Flickr API For Copyright Infringement?

from the APIs-don't-infringe-copyright,-people-do dept

The Fourth of July is over, but for some Flickr users the holiday's revolutionary spirit is still running strong. Apparently over the weekend a company called MyxerTones made Flickr's entire photographic catalog available for sale as cellphone wallpaper -- regardless of the license selected by each photo's owner.

For Jim Goldstein, a photographer affected by the violation, this was the last straw. He's posted a lengthy discussion of the issue in which he details other instances where his Flickr photos have been used without permission. Goldstein lays the blame at Flickr's feet, saying that their API and RSS systems suffer from "security holes" and don't properly protect users' copyrights. His post has attracted over 100 comments and nearly as many inbound links.

So what's the problem, exactly? In an early email to Flickr, Goldstein put it this way:

I want to be clear RSS feeds are not a problem for people to receive updates to view photos either in their RSS reader or through a web browser on their computer [...] Personally I like that Flickr provides tags as a means of searching and organizing. I have no problem with using this functionality for all uses other than the unauthorized publication of my work.

In other words, use of his work by RSS is fine, except when it isn't. How is Flickr supposed to know the difference? Well, it just is. And not by requiring Goldstein to mark his photos "friends only," mind you -- Goldstein doesn't want to lose the promotional value of Flickr's tag searches and RSS feeds. Flickr should know, somehow, that he doesn't mind users viewing his photos in their RSS readers, but does mind when they view them, via RSS, on Mac Mini connected to a TV that uses FlickrFan. Photos should be public, but not, you know, really public.

Needless to say, this is incoherent. If your work can be viewed on a computer it can also be copied -- and, in fact, already has been. And, if the copier so desires, they can then reuse it. It's sweet of Flickr to implement tricks like their one pixel overlays, but only a fool would think they stop any but the laziest and most insignificant pirates.

Does Flickr's API make unauthorized use of copyrighted material easier? Sure. But it doesn't fundamentally change any of the operations that can be performed on photos through the website -- it just simplifies a bit of the rigamarole associated with automating the process. In this respect it serves as a device that abets infringement. But that can't reasonably be considered a flaw or mistake, for reasons we should all be familiar with by now.

The Flickr API can be used to violate photograph owners' rights. But the fault lies with those who misuse the tool, not with the tool itself. Goldstein doesn't seem content with going after infringers, and I suppose that's understandable -- it's a neverending battle, and an unsatisfying one. But what he's asking from Flickr is both wrongheaded and technically impossible. He, and copyright owners everywhere, can choose to adapt to the rules of the digital age or to retreat from them entirely -- but rewriting them is not an option.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Crosbie Fitch (profile), Jul 9th, 2008 @ 9:59am

    What rights are violated?

    Copyright isn't a right, but a privilege.

    This privilege violates the public's natural right to share and build upon cultural works precisely in order to create the privilege of copyright. So let's get it straight whose rights are being violated and whose privileges are being infringed.

    Copyright legislates recipients of published works against making copies or derivatives they'd otherwise naturally be able to manufacture - without the copyright holder's permission.

    Which part of the Flickr API manufactures such a copy or derivative? It's no doubt very careful not to do so.

    I suggest any infringements are performed by recipients of authorised copies, subsequent to their use of Flickr.

    A photographer who publishes their work and wishes to constrain the public's use of the work they have received is a Canute against the tide. It doesn't matter what the legislature says. If the people are reclaiming their natural rights, contrary to their suspension by copyright, then there's not much those entitled to copyright can do about it.

    Let's keep this in perspective. It's not a matter of the public stealing a photographer's property, but a matter of the public enjoying the natural rights to their own property (the artworks in their legitimate possession) and ignoring the photographer's grant of a monopoly over the reproduction of their published works.

    What's the solution? Sell your art, not copies - given the public is quite happy and able to make copies. Making art is the tricky part, whereas making copies is a doddle. So sell your art. The market for copies has ended.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nancy Pelosi, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 10:12am

    Ummm...

    So if there is misuse of a tool wouldn't you want to regulate that? So he has to adapt, but the "digital age" should not have to adapt? Isn't that exactly what the entertainment industry is doing according to techdirt?

    Your article makes no sense. Flickr is good, but it is bad. You are basically doing exactly what you claim Mr. Goldstein is doing. So you just want us to accept your good/bad "digital age" developments.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jim Goldstein, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 10:25am

    Hardly an accurate representation of my points

    My examples of RSS being misused centered around the stripping of "secure" content via RSS feeds. Viewing photographs through a feed is a well accepted means of consuming information photograph or otherwise. Intentionally pulling down high resolution photographs that are supposed to be restricted is not. Flickr claims to secure photographers images yet often turns a blind eye to developers that misuse their RSS feeds or API to disregard the privacy & security settings they make available to photographers.

    If a photographer does something in conflict with Flickr Terms of Use they are held accountable. I don't see what the problem is in holding Flickr accountable to when they are not meeting their end of the bargain. Hiding behind the arguments that something is technically difficult or that "you put photos online accept the fact that things are going to be stolen" is unacceptable. It's not acceptable to Flickr or any other online service to let their intellectual property be misused why should that be acceptable to individual photographers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 10:38am

      Re: Hardly an accurate representation of my points

      I'm not taking sides here, but you just said that it's "developers that misuse their RSS feeds or API to disregard the privacy & security settings." How is that Flikr's fault?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Crosbie Fitch (profile), Jul 9th, 2008 @ 10:43am

      Re: Hardly an accurate representation of my points

      The difference between mortal individuals and immortal corporations is as to the difference between Ancient Greeks and their gods.

      Copyright is a weapon designed for, and only able to be wielded by, publishing corporations. The fact that it has been so cruelly used against individual citizens should not mislead you into believing that it can be used by individuals, whether against corporations or other individuals.

      The only thing an individual self-publishing citizen can do is to neutralise copyright in their works by using a copyleft license such as the GPL.

      It is extremely unfortunate that Lawrence Lessig via Creative Commons created a variety of licenses instead of simply sticking to a single copyleft license, but there you go. We now have his legacy where people who use any license apart from CC-SA will eventually discover they aren't worth the digital bits they're represented with.

      Copyright or copyleft. Ineffective, anachronistic privilege for publishing corporations, or natural rights for individual human beings. There is no middle ground, no means of privileging one man above another.

      You may well not want to confront this, but it should help you understand why what's happening is happening and why there's not much you can do about it. :-/

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 10th, 2008 @ 3:34am

        Re: GPL

        Crosbie Fitch wrote:

        The only thing an individual self-publishing citizen can do is to neutralise copyright in their works by using a copyleft license such as the GPL.

        Strange. Didn't you spend a lot of effort not too long ago trying to argue that the GPL didn't apply to people who didn't agree to it?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Crosbie Fitch (profile), Jul 10th, 2008 @ 8:40am

          Re: Re: GPL

          No, I argued that the GPL doesn't apply to those who don't recognise copyright. Those who don't recognise copyright, consequently don't recognise the GPL. Not quite the same as your contraction.

          The GPL is designed precisely to thwart those who, believing in copyright, would use it to suspend the liberty of the public.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      jonnyq, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 11:01am

      Re: Hardly an accurate representation of my points

      Jim, nothing you just said demonstrates that you understand that "viewing" = "downloading = "copying". If you do understand that, you need to shorten you two paragraphs down to something sensible that states your point.

      For example, does Flickr have options to freely display thumbnails, but put full-size images behind a restriction wall (pay wall, be on the friends list, etc)? If so, is Flickr's API making it possible to circumvent the wall for full-size images?

      Or is there no such wall, and available means available - thumbnails are as available as hi-res images? What Tom quoted makes it sound like you don't mind someone viewing an image in an RSS feed, but you do ming someone taking that same image and viewing it in something else. That is an absurd notion. If that's not what you're saying, you need to describe the situation a bit better.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        jonnyq, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 11:09am

        Re: Re: Hardly an accurate representation of my points

        After reading the rest of the comments, it sounds like a misunderstanding...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Krista Neher, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 3:25pm

      Re: Hardly an accurate representation of my points

      I think that this post kind of missed the mark on the issue.

      When you upload your photos to Flickr (and keep them public) you give Flickr the rights to display your image on their website.

      Flickr, created an API, so that others can use Flickr images and create all sorts of wonderful and useful applications for Flickr photos.

      Flickr, does not monitor the use of the API or the compliance of API uses with the terms of service. One important thing to note in this case is that it was Myxer who took down the application (Flickr did nothing).

      In terms of the copyright discussion, there is definitely a lack of public awareness and copyright around photos. Downloading copyrighted photography (even for personal consumption) is illegal - and you should compensate or ask permission from the photographer (much like how you pay for personal consumption of music and movies, or pay to have art on your wall).

      I understand that there is a lot of photo theft online, and I work for a photo site that is trying to give photographers the tools to share their photos safely. The reality is that the world is increasingly online, and the photography industry needs to be able to participate online without having copyrights trampled.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Nasch, Jul 11th, 2008 @ 10:22pm

        Re: Re: Hardly an accurate representation of my points

        Downloading copyrighted photography (even for personal consumption) is illegal

        I'm not sure you're right about that. The RIAA for example has only been able to sue people who distributed (uploaded) copyrighted material, not those who only downloaded it, because it's distribution that is restricted by copyright, not consumption.

        I understand that there is a lot of photo theft online

        There is no photo theft online. At all. I have no doubt there's plenty of copyright infringement of photos online, but that is not theft. Theft is when someone takes something away from someone else illegally, for example if I go into your house and take your physical photo album. That doesn't happen if I download and redistribute your photo, because you still have the photo too. I didn't take anything away from you. What we're talking about may be illegal and it may be unethical (we could argue about either one in any particular case), but it is not stealing or theft.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Laith, Oct 15th, 2008 @ 4:27pm

        Re: Re: Hardly an accurate representation of my points

        May I ask which photo site you work for? I'd be interested in signing up.

        Thanks

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Joel Coehoorn, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 10:32am

    Worth repeating

    This statment is significant, and the concept not well enough understood by too many people:

    > "If your work can be viewed on a computer it can also
    > be copied -- and, in fact, already has been. And, if
    > the copier so desires, they can then reuse it. "

    I would change "can" to "will be able to", since there is a definition for "can" that implies permission and legality, which is a separate thing from technical ability.

    -------------
    In this case, though, I think Mr. Goldstein has a valid complaint. The public RSS feeds are supposed to only show smaller sizes of the photos. The feeds that showed the full-res images are _supposed_ to be secured and not publicly available.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 10:44am

      Re: Worth repeating

      The feeds that showed the full-res images are _supposed_ to be secured and not publicly available.

      Well, how do you mean that? Or, how is it that Flickr is not fascilitating this? If the complaint is that an authorized viewer is taking the 'restricted' feed and then republishing it, how is that Flickr's fault?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Eliot, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 10:50am

    Total Misread...

    In other words, use of his work by RSS is fine, except when it isn't. How is Flickr supposed to know the difference?

    Wow, Tom, I think you totally misread the article. As I read it, I think that Jim is trying to say that Flickr should provide some sort of check to the license before it gives out any Flickr photo in an API, or at the very least, include the license in the feed.

    This information is already marked in Flickr, so it's available, but the API/RSS doesn't seem to authenticate against that nor does it include the information in the API/RSS as far as I can tell.

    Flickr should definetely do this, there is no reason not to include/authenticate the information.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 11:02am

    Hardly an accurate representation of my points by Jim Goldstein

    Then your points are misleading, either through ignorance or outright deception. If someone *misuses* a service, or is able to hack/alter/get around security systems, how is that the fault of the service? Because they didnt build a system capable of never being misused or hacked? "They didnt build it foolproof and someone misused it!" Yeah that will go far in a court of law. FAIL.

    But what can you expect from the whining, over-entitled "get mine! get mine! get mine!" culture that exists today. Zero personal responsibility or accountability, it is ALWAYS someone else's fault. Blame the wrong party, but whoever has the most money, and try to cash out. Way to be a complete tool. Welcome to the digital age.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Eliot, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 11:30am

      Re: Hardly an accurate representation of my points by Jim Goldstein

      Good reactionary response, RD, I'm glad you took the time to examine Jim's original post instead of attack him for what someone suggested he said.

      If someone *misuses* a service, or is able to hack/alter/get around security systems, how is that the fault of the service?

      It would be great if Flickr took the time to respect the person's wishes, when it came to their images in this regard, but it simply doesn't seem to be happening. I'm sure Jim is willing to accept that Flickr isn't perfect, and that tools created aren't perfect, but I think his point is that Flickr should take responsibility for what they can do and fix that. Instead they're ignoring the issue.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 11:45am

    Re: Hardly an accurate representation of my points by Jim Goldstein

    It would be great if Flickr took the time to respect the person's wishes, when it came to their images in this regard, but it simply doesn't seem to be happening. I'm sure Jim is willing to accept that Flickr isn't perfect, and that tools created aren't perfect, but I think his point is that Flickr should take responsibility for what they can do and fix that. Instead they're ignoring the issue.

    Sure, if it's a case of Flickr leaving the door open. If thats how it turns out, then yes, they need to fix it. But just because someone can get around security and misappropriate content isnt the fault of the service. Do you blame GM when someone picks the lock on your car? No, you go after the person who did it. Thats the distinction I was trying to make. Mind you, if Flickr built a lock that only works some of the time, then yes, thats their fault. Otherwise I'd suggest maybe dont use Flickr. No one is forcing you to. If it's inadequate, then you have to decide to either not use it at all, or if you really feel you "need" all the other features it offers, then you will just have to live with the drawbacks. Photographers got along just fine before services like Flickr. Adapt, deal, or die.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    jb, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 11:53am

    All this copyright BS

    It's so funny how out of touch people are. Anything on the net is up for grabs, that's reality. All of this wasted dissection of the legal system and copyright holder's rights is nonsensical bullshit. There is absolutely nothing sacred or no way possible to stop people from sharing, downloading or copying anything digital. People can sue all they want, but nobody or no law is going to stop or even slow down the pace.

    So quit crying and do not put anything online that you want control over.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tom Lee, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 12:02pm

    Jim, you're eliding the difference between something being "technically difficult" and "technically impossible". If a given resolution of a photo is available to the public *anywhere* on Flickr's site, then it can be retrieved programmatically -- and there's no point in crippling the API or RSS feeds in an attempt to obscure that fact.

    Contrary to what you seem to be claiming, Flickr does not seem to be providing higher-resolution versions of your images through its system. For instance, this photo's URL (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3090/2645537024_3429dd9e13.jpg) can be easily retrieved from the page HTML -- this is an unavoidable feature of HTML -- and alternate sizes can be viewed by adding _s, _t or _m to the filename (prior to .jpg). This is standard behavior for Flickr. However, the _b and _o versions for larger sizes don't work -- just as one would expect. Flickr allows the size publicly available on the photo's page, because if it's available there, it may as well be available everywhere: there's no stopping the downloading.

    Those claiming that the API doesn't deal with privacy or licensing settings are incorrect. An authentication token is required to access any photos marked as private -- this token provides the same security as the Flickr website's login system. Similarly, the Flickr API explicitly provides methods for getting and setting photos' license information. These settings do not affect whether the photo appears in RSS feeds or API queries because, again, if the photo is publicly available it's nonsensical to exclude it from such searches. Doing so would simply foster confusion in an attempt to provide the illusion that the assets were secured. You are still perfectly able to control whether a photo shows up in RSS and API queries -- that's what the privacy setting is for.

    Making your photos viewable on the internet is an all-or-nothing proposition (yes, even with Flash). Your options are to make your photos private or upload only lower-resolution, watermarked or otherwise degraded shots. I'm not saying this because I'm unsympathetic to your wishes or the right of photographers to control the use of their work; I'm saying it because it's simply a fact of how the technologies powering the web work.

    I appreciate that the logic underlying this system may not be intuitively obvious to everyone. As someone who's both written numerous apps utilizing the Flickr API and RSS system and as someone who's familiar with the technical limits of DRM, I hope you will believe me when I say that the Flickr API has been designed intelligently and, from a security standpoint, handles licenses and privacy in the only coherent manner possible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rick, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 12:09pm

    Dear Mr. Goldstein

    If you don't like the way Flickr operates then you should probably not use Flickr.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    tedivm, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 12:37pm

    From what I've read, this started because someone used the Flickr API to create a larger composite picture which they in turn sold, ignoring the license of the author.

    Instead of arguing over who is at fault, I Flickr- as a service provider attempting to improve their service, not necessarily as someone trying to correct a wrong- should just build better licensing mechanics into their API. If the person who built this portrait was able to pull only pictures where permission was given for reuse then this issue would have been avoided completely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Eliot, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 1:37pm

    Not an issue of copyright!!!

    There is absolutely nothing sacred or no way possible to stop people from sharing, downloading or copying anything digital.

    This is not an issue of people hacking Flickr, and this is not a copyright issue, at least not at the core.

    Sure, if it's a case of Flickr leaving the door open. If thats how it turns out, then yes, they need to fix it.

    That's exactly what I see the issue to be. Flickr has created a tool and given the impression of security but then doesn't meet it's end of the bargain.

    Flickr is telling people that the door is locked, but this only applies to the front door, meanwhile, the backdoor is wide open.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bobbknight, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 1:42pm

    Today If

    If you make an Item of content and then say it's copyrighted.
    Under today's current law here in the USA it is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 1:51pm

    I've used photos off of flickr before. Never for any other reason than a wonderful image for my personal desktop. Never at work, never for 'copying' (you know what I mean....), and never sor sharing. Sometimes I have gotten the spaceball, only to realize that I wasn't paying attention and I was on someone's copyrighted image. I just went on. I could have gotten around flickr easily. Did I? No, but I could have. So it's not flickr's fault. The RSS feed issue is something that needs to be address from multiple angles, not just a copyright angle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 1:53pm

      Re:

      *for* --Sorry. And another thing.... all typed text from this post and my original post are © 2008.


      © is Alt+0169 for anyone that wants to use it. It's fun. ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© ©

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Myk, Jul 9th, 2008 @ 2:03pm

    Quick note from Myxer

    Hey, all. These discussions are really interesting to me, and not just because I'm the CEO of the company that prompted Jim's post in the first place! I'm also a huge Flickr fan, an avid follower of CC and Lawrence Lessig, a believer in web services, a member of the EFF, and in general someone who is really fascinated by the way the zero distribution costs of the internet are having such a profound impact on so many people.

    One minor correction I'd like to point out is that Myxer never attempted to sell any photos from Flickr; we facilitated the distribution of publicly-visible photos hosted on Flickr to mobile phones.

    In any case, I've made a post on my blog at http://mykwillis.wordpress.com that goes into a bit more detail about exactly what our 2-3 day integration did (and was supposed to do), and what we plan to do going forward. I'd be happy to discuss the matter with anyone who would care to contact me.

    Best,
    Myk Willis
    Founder & CEO, Myxer

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DavidM (profile), Jul 9th, 2008 @ 2:46pm

    It's not that hard to figure out

    One puts their photos on flickr so that people will see them, not so that someone may resell them and make some cash.

    If you want to make money using something I've created, then I'm due a cut, unless I give you explicit permission other wise; and the type of copyright I assign to my work is indicative of whether or not I expect remuneration.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mildred Dunham, Aug 26th, 2008 @ 1:50pm

    Copyright infringement

    I agree with your opinion about Jim goldstein's photos, but I have a somewhat different problem and hope that you can advise me. I have just become aware that if I "share" a photo image in an email sent through MSN mail; it is subject to being sold as a print by Msn/Fuji Processing without my knowledge or consent and none of the proceeds from these sales are reported to or sent to me. How can I stop them from selling prints of my photos? Is anyone else aware of this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    at, Aug 23rd, 2011 @ 5:40pm

    Crosbie, I take issue with your broad illusions of copyright that have no basis in reality. Just because photography is displayed on a website does not mean that it is fair game, ie "the public's natural right to share and build upon cultural work". Are you insane? hmmmm, that would translate to "gee, I see Ansel Adam's work on a gallery wall, I'm entitled to do whatever I want with it - just because I saw it in a public place" or "I see Patrick Demarchelier's image on TimeSquare - I'm entitled to do whatever I want with it - just because I saw it in a public place". The photographer is the OWNER of the image. PERIOD. They and they alone have the right to determine how, when, where, etc. it is viewed, displayed, used, promoted, etc, etc. The second the image is snapped - it's copyrighted. Displaying it on a website does NOT remove the copyright. The photographer has every right to ADVERTISE his work, and by extension his expertise and right to make a living even and especially in a public place. I'm pretty sure that if you pulled an Ansel Adam's image off a website and used it on your website, or any other venue for any purpose, that you'd be hearing from his estate's attorney. Obviously you don't make your living as a photographer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This