As we reported a few months back, Keir Starmer, the UK's Director of Public Prosecutions, made the remarkable suggestion that "the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media." That debate has now arrived in the form of a UK consultation on "prosecutions involving social media communications," which takes as its starting point a series of interim guidelines for UK prosecutors when they are grappling with the freedom of speech issues raised by such cases. Here's how Starmer describes the initiative:

These interim guidelines are intended to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the need to uphold the criminal law.

They make a clear distinction between communications which amount to credible threats of violence, a targeted campaign of harassment against an individual or which breach court orders on the one hand, and other communications sent by social media, e.g. those that are grossly offensive, on the other.

The first group will be prosecuted robustly whereas the second group will only be prosecuted if they cross a high threshold; a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest if the communication is swiftly removed, blocked, not intended for a wide audience or not obviously beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in a diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression.

The interim guidelines thus protect the individual from threats or targeted harassment while protecting the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it.

Well, that remains to be seen. Drawing the line between distasteful banter and true harassment is bound to be a tricky exercise, but it's good that the UK Director of Public Prosecutions at least recognises that they are different, and that prosecutors must strive to distinguish between them when deciding whether to bring cases to court. The interim guidelines are available, and comments can be submitted until 13 March 2013.

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

If I can count on any two things in this world, it's that salsa will always taste good, no matter what kind it is, and everyone will freak out at some point about privacy settings via Facebook. I mean, if Mark Zuckerberg's sister can't figure it out, what hope is there for my 91 year old Grandmother? That said, if you think it's fun to watch confused fellow humans try to figure out simple pictures privacy and whatnot on Facebook, wait until the next generation of advertising techniques hits. That's really been the problem when we've talked in the past about the "uncanny valley" and how these techniques will impact their markets: implementation is everything. Too creepy and the ads will be universally despised. Too optional and you risk a lack of adoption. Not tailored enough in an attempt to be less "creepy" and the ads aren't effective.

Those are the thoughts in my mind when I see reports of emerging ads/deals technology like Facedeals.

Facial recognition cameras are installed at local businesses. These cameras recognize your face when you pass by, then check you in at the location. Simultaneously, your smartphone notifies you of a customized deal based on your Like history.

Find out which of your friends is willing to deal in illicit eyeballs, folks, because we've just gone Minority Report. Before your creepy-siren goes ballistic, keep in mind that this is strictly an opt-in service that users would have to allow on Facebook. On the other hand, the privacy settings for Facebook were supposed to be transparent as well and we've already discussed how well that's working out. There's an extremely fine line to walk here, and I don't want to come off as a luddite, but I'm afraid that not enough users of Facebook will want to opt in to something like this unless they're really shown some value in it which they can't refuse.

Unless that happens, the above description is probably going to scare people. I don't think the other details on their site help much, either.

The check-in app must be authorized via your Facebook account. With your help, the app verifies your most recent photo tags, using those to map the physical appearance of your face. Our custom-developed cameras then simply use this existing data to identify you in the real world. Personalized deals can now be delivered to your smartphone from all participating locations — all you have to do is show your face.

Sure, all I have to do is show my face and any place with one of these cameras (which I may not know when I enter the store) will check me in on Facebook. This is in stark contrast to the manual check-in on apps like Foursquare. It's all I need to be minding my own business, doing some shopping, and have my friends see Facebook checking me in to "Dirty Randy's Video Store". Nah, I think I'd opt out.

Apollo 17 launched in December 1972, and it was the last time a human being went to the moon -- or even traveled beyond low Earth orbit. Since then, there have been several plans to return to the moon (or to skip it and go straight to Mars). Plenty of other countries (and even corporations) are now looking to land spacecraft on the moon again, and here are just a few of these competitors in the post-Apollo space race.

• Speculation on China's rocket technology suggests the country's Long March 9 rocket will be more than capable for sending astronauts to the moon, Mars, and perhaps other distant destinations within our solar system. The Long March 9 is expected to be in service around 2020-2025. [url]
• Google's Lunar X Prize is closed to new participants, but there are about 25 teams still competing for rewards totaling $30 million -- for these privately funded teams to send robots to the moon. The deadline for these teams is the end of 2015. Hopefully at least one team will succeed in its mission, and we'll have mini moon bases sending back all kinds of data before the end of the decade. [url]
• The Soyuz spacecraft has been a workhorse for decades, but Russia has recently announced plans for its next generation spaceship design that could be used for manned missions to the moon (or possibly Mars). Test flights are scheduled to begin in 2017, and this Prospective Piloted Transport System (PPTS) could also service the International Space Station (creating another backup solution to supply the ISS). [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

The stories of how YouTube has lowered the barrier for entry into the entertainment business are becoming common enough that they're no longer the shock they once were. Justin Bieber got himself noticed on YouTube, of course. Add to his story that of Rebecca Black and Gangnam Style and we begin to see YouTube as a steady platform for musical stardom. While there are certainly examples of movie magic happening on YouTube as well, this has long been the realm of music and weird memes.

That's what makes the story of Norwegian futbol player Havard Rugland so much fun, now that his YouTube kicking video has gone viral and led to a tryout with the New York Jets football squad. The video itself is insane, nearly as insane as Rugland potentially becoming an NFL kicker when he doesn't know a thing about the game.

The events leading to an NFL tryout from that video began when Rugland's futbol team disbanded. He had a booming leg, but now he had to figure out what to do with it. Apparently the Rockettes weren't hiring, because Rugland turned instead to videos of NFL kickers, studying how they performed their craft.

Using tools not typically associated with athletic prowess — YouTube, Facebook, Skype and Gmail — Rugland parlayed a homemade video that went viral into a tryout as a kicker with the Jets last week. He might be the first professional prospect to replace college football experience with social media savvy. In the four-minute video, posted on YouTube in mid-September under the title “Kickalicious,” the left-footed Rugland pulls off some of the most amusing tricks with a football since Lucy began duping Charlie Brown. It has been viewed more than 1.5 million times.

If you took the time to watch the video above and have managed to put your jaw back in place, all you really need to know about it is that the video has been independently verified as real and un-doctored. After the video went viral, a former NFL kicker in the States found it and connected with Rugland via Facebook. From there it was a simple matter of networking before Rugland was working out with American coaches. Soon after, the New York Jets came calling.

[Jets Assistant General Manager Scott] Cohen was reluctant to give details about last week’s workout but said the Jets saw enough to conclude that Rugland had a chance to play in the N.F.L. Rugland said the Jets wanted him to return for a workout in March. He added that he planned to spend the next few months in Norway practicing field goals and kickoffs (he is leaving the trick shots behind).

Rugland has also hired an agent, Jill McBride Baxter. After Rugland’s tryout with the Jets, Baxter said, the Oakland Raiders, the Green Bay Packers and the Philadelphia Eagles expressed interest in him.

He'll have to impress in March, but Rugland looks to have a good shot at becoming the first NFL football player resulting from a viral YouTube video.

The battle over the privacy of gun owners continues in New York. Last week, the Lower Hudson Valley Journal News secured the names and addresses of gun owners in two New York counties, publishing the information as an interactive map and framing the "story" as a public service -- information people would "want" to have following the Connecticut school shooting.

Needless to say, this drew the ire of gun owners, along with others who felt the Journal News had crossed a line by publishing this personal information. In response, the names and addresses of various Journal News personnel were posted and the paper found itself dealing with angry phone calls and comments, along with anonymous threats and mail coated with a mysterious (but apparently, non-toxic) white powder.

Somewhat ironically, the Journal News has now hired armed security guards to protect its business and employees.

The Journal News of West Nyack, N.Y., has hired armed security guards to defend its offices after receiving a torrent of phone calls and emails responding to the paper's publication of the names and addresses of area residents with pistol permits.

RGA Investigations, a private security company, "is doing private security at on location at the Journal News as a result of the negative response to the article," according to a police report first obtained by the Rockland County Times (Nanuet, N.Y.) and shared with POLITICO. The guards "are armed and will be on site during business hours through at least January 2, 2013."

Now, the paper is finding itself stymied by public officials in its search for more gun owner data. Putnam County officials have announced that they will refuse the Journal News' FOIA request, which it had begun compiling before the backlash began. After receiving an "onslaught" of calls demanding that the county not release the data, Putnam County Executive, MaryEllen Odell, has decided to withhold the requested information, earning an ally in State Senator Greg Ball.

"I'm proud to stand with Putnam County and proud that Putnam won't be releasing its pistol permit records," [Ball] said in a statement. "The asinine editors at the Journal News have gone out of their way to place a virtual scarlet letter on law abiding firearm owners throughout the region and I thank God that Putnam County has a clerk with the guts to stand up and draw the line here."

[Putnam County Clerk Dennis] Sant said he was happy to protect law-abiding gun owners in his county.

"There is the rule of law, and there is right and wrong, and The Journal News is clearly wrong," he said in a statement. "I could not live with myself if one Putnam pistol permit holder was put in harm's way, for the sole purpose of selling newspapers."

Ball has also stated that he will introduce legislation to restrict gun permit information to prosecutors and police. A public press conference is scheduled to announce this refusal, but there's a good chance this move won't stand up in court, should the battle head in that direction.

Putnam County officials, who say they will refuse a newspaper's request to release the names and addresses of residents with pistol permits, would break state law by withholding the data, a state official said.

The opinion, of state Committee on Open Government Executive Director Robert Freeman, came after an announcement Tuesday by state Sen. Greg Ball and two Putnam officials that they would refuse to release the data requested by The Journal News of White Plains, which sought the records under the state Freedom of Information Law

Freeman said, the law is clear. "The name and address of any gun licensee are public," he said.

The Journal News will likely appeal the denial, which would then be heard by the Putnam County government. A second denial would route it to a judge for a formal decision. In the meantime, the Journal News is sticking to its proverbial guns, claiming the info dump was in the public interest.

In other bad news for the paper, it has just been named in a defamation lawsuit filed by a local business, which claims that the Journal News piece which named it as a gun owner caused "customers and clients of First Impression LLC to cease doing business, causing damages in amount to be determined."

The filing runs only two pages but is loaded with adjectives.

The two-page, bare-bones Summons With Notice accuses the newspaper of "falsely, maliciously, recklessly, slanderously, libelously and irresponsibly publicly stating in the interactive website www.lohud.com that plaintiff First Impression LLC is a licensed handgun owner."

So, it looks as if the future holds quite a bit of court time for the Journal News. It also looks like this fight over gun owner data isn't going to end anytime soon.

The thorny question still remains: did the Journal News have the right to publish gun ownership? Certainly, the First Amendment grants it the freedom and the fact that the information was gained through legal channels seems to make that "right" argument unassailable. The Journal News was well within its rights to post the information, no matter how irresponsible its use of the information was.

Unfortunately, the many people who opposed the Journal News' actions (which includes people on both sides of the gun control debate) have been vocal enough that government agencies are beginning to arbitrarily withhold requested information, stating a sudden (and unlikely) concern for protecting the privacy of gun owners -- whose permits are a matter of public record. Allowing government agencies to reject FOIA requests because they don't like how the information is being used or are worried about public response is a big step in a very wrong direction. Even worse, grandstanders like Sen. Ball are looking to further restrict the dissemination of information by limiting access to gun ownership data to prosecutors and police. Even if this particular restriction seems logical, the simple fact is once this protection is granted for certain data, the system is opened to abuse by other entities and agencies looking to keep as much info as possible under wraps. This will result in more restrictions and limitations and less actual freedom of information.

With the FTC closing its antitrust case against Google, the group of Google's competitors who were the main instigators behind the effort aren't giving up easily. Gary Reback, the lawyer whose entire persona is wrapped up in being "the lawyer who gets the FTC to attack big companies" (he also led the charge against Microsoft a decade and a half ago) issued an incredibly combative statement:

“I've been doing this almost 40 years, and I've done dozens if not scores of government investigations on both sides, and I have never seen a more unprofessional, incomplete, incompetent investigation,” said Gary Reback, a Silicon Valley lawyer who represented some of Google's complainants before the FTC.

Really, now? In the briefing the FTC gave about the situation, FTC boss, Jon Liebowitz, indicated that the Google competitors' strategy of attacking the FTC when it was suggested that there might not be enough evidence for antitrust didn't help convince the FTC to suddenly create evidence out of thin air. Apparently, Reback would prefer that the FTC do stuff just because he says so, even as the evidence for Reback's claims are completely lacking.

Meanwhile, the laughably named "FairSearch" group -- a collection of Google competitors, who teamed up to create a publicity campaign solely with the goal of attacking Google over antitrust claims, came out with its own hilarious statement, which could be summarized as "it's not over yet! There's still Europe! And Texas!"

“The FTC's decision to close its investigation with only voluntary commitments from Google is disappointing and premature, coming just weeks before the company is expected to make a formal and detailed proposal to resolve the four abuses of dominance identified by the European Commission, first among them biased display of its own properties in search results.

The FTC’s settlement is by no means the last word in this case, leaving the FTC without a major role in the final resolution to the investigations of Google's anti-competitive practices by state attorneys general and the European Commission. The FTC’s inaction on the core question of search bias will only embolden Google to act more aggressively to misuse its monopoly power to harm other innovators.

State attorneys general who reportedly disagreed with today's announcement by the FTC have an important role to play in ensuring both that Google is not allowed to continue practices that hurt every American business through artificially high advertising costs, and to demand that whatever changes Google is forced to make in Europe also apply for U.S. consumers who risk losing innovation because of Google's aggressive abuse of its dominance.

It is true that the EU Commission is still doing its own investigation, and given the EU's general feelings that "big" (and "American") must somehow be "bad," it's likely that they'll come down a bit more harshly on Google, as they did on Microsoft. Similarly, some state Attorneys General (mainly Texas) who have been grandstanding against Google and other tech companies for years will likely grouse about this -- but their ability to do anything about it may be fairly limited, given the lack of any actual evidence of harm.

In the end, this is coming off as even more sour grapes from companies who chose to focus on whining to government, rather than competing in the marketplace. In the future, instead of spending so much on lobbyists and lawyers, perhaps they could focus on building better products that the market wants.

It's not just Kim Dotcom that's tiring of the endless procedural delays in the US's prosecution of him and his service. Other plaintiffs who are looking to legally pursue Dotcom for infringement are getting fed up with the length of the process, which still has no end in sight.

Microhits, one of two copyright holders who filed civil suits against Megaupload two months after after the FBI raid on Dotcom's home, has just requested it be allowed to move forward on its civil lawsuit as it feels the DOJ's case is taking too long to proceed.

Microhits has asked the United States courts to stop delaying its case against Megaupload until the extradition issue is resolved - because it might never happen.

New papers filed with the US district court in Virginia say the extradition is "a mere possible future event but indeed an event which may in fact never occur."

Microhits, whose catalog includes Christina Aguilera, Rod Stewart, Marvin Gaye and Dr. Dre, had its original filing put on hold for six months to allow the US to proceed with its case, something the DOJ doesn't seem to be in any hurry to do. Megaupload's legal defense requested these two civil suits be put on hold for a number of reasons, while mentioning the close resemblance between Microhit's filing and the US government's indictment.

In its motion, Megaupload said the civil suit allegations "appear to be copied verbatim" from the indictment filed in January. If the civil suit progressed in parallel with the criminal case, Megaupload's defendants may be forced to assert their Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination but then waive it as part of the civil case, the motion said.

"This would be an unfair burden on their constitutional rights," the document contends.

Further, Megaupload argued it is broke, as its assets were frozen in January. The company has been asking the U.S. government to unfreeze some funds in order to pay for the preservation of upwards of 28 petabytes of data stored on the service and needed for the legal cases.

As it stands now, extradition hearings won't begin for another 8 months, and Microhit is worried it may never get to directly pursue Megaupload -- and that Megaupload may have its money safely out of reach by the time it gets the green light.

Microhits also pointed to the potential loss of any damages. They said Mr Dotcom had posted messages on his Twitter account in which he wrote about his new Mega business. In the posts, Microhits said he had "openly avowed to move their assets and operations out of reach of the United States".

Megaupload's lawyers fired back, stating that its assets weren't even under Dotcom's control at this point.

They said the US Government had seized the assets and were "doling out limited amounts for living expenses and foreign counsel".

"Defendants' assets are still sequestered and no amount of tweets and blog-posts will 'un-freeze them' - that requires a court order."

Mr Dotcom's team said facing the civil action would be difficult because of no access to seized funds, seizure of books and records and no access to the former Megaupload servers. The FBI has copied parts of the servers and wanted to delete the rest.

So, even if Microhits receives the go-ahead, its options are greatly restricted by the DOJ's previous actions against Megaupload. Microhits does have a point, though -- this case has dragged on far too long with very little progress being made by the prosecution. At this point, it almost looks as though the DOJ has settled in for a war of attrition -- one that will slowly bleed Dotcom, keeping his assets frozen, his business closed and any evidence contained on Megaupload's servers in the control of people who can't seem to decide whether to keep it or destroy it.

The longer this drags on, the less likely it seems that the DOJ has a strong case. But, as has been demonstrated by other site seizures, it really doesn't seem to matter whether there's a winnable case behind the shutdowns. Entities like the DOJ and FBI that are more than willing to seize first and ask questions later are probably not the kind that will step aside and let a civil suit take precedence. Microhits is going to find itself empathizing with Megaupload, as delay after delay push any sort of resolution back across the horizon.

By now, everyone should be familiar with the crazy story of the Winklevoss twins, who claimed Mark Zuckerberg "stole" their idea to create Facebook. Over time, other companies have seen similar claims of "copying," usually after someone who was a total flop in the market gets jealous of someone who built a real company. The latest example is Pinterest, which has now been accused of "stealing" the idea through a path so convoluted it may take a map to work out the details.

Here's the short version, as far as I can tell, and unless there are more details, it seems likely that this is going to get laughed out of court (hopefully with sanctions for filing an obviously bogus lawsuit). Basically, a guy (Theodore Schroeder) started a site you never heard of (called RendezVoo) in which people could "share their locations" (sounds like they should be suing FourSquare, not Pinterest). That site wasn't getting much traction, but they planned a version two, where people could "share opinions, views, items and tastes on a variety of subjects" like, well, pretty much any other site on the internet. This site included "boards" that people could post stuff too and also had "infinite scrolling" when an alpha was released in August of 2006.

Months later, Schroeder met Ben Cohen, an investor in startups in NYC, who apparently told them he didn't understand what they were trying to do with RendezVoo, but brainstormed up a totally unrelated and different concept, whereby startups could "launch" new products via a sort of wire service. Schroeder and his other partners (who continued to work day jobs) completely dumped their RendezVoo plans and worked out something new, called Skoopwire (originally Scoopwire, until they realized someone else had the domain). With this plan in hand, they signed up Cohen to be a partner, taking on the role of Chairman (and promising to put in a little bit of money). Over the course of a few months, not much appeared to happen, and after Cohen (quite reasonably) pointed out that it was silly for the other partners in the project to still be working day jobs rather than focusing on the project, it went dormant.

Months later, Cohen apparently met the founders of Pinterest and became their first investor. At the time, they were still figuring out what their product would be. This is where Schroeder and his lawyers take a massive logic leap in claiming that Cohen "stole" all of Schroeder's ideas and gave them to Pinterest's founders. This is based on... almost nothing of substance. The claims are basically that Pinterest has "infinite scrolling," that it has "boards" and that they used a "pink and purple color scheme to attract female users." Of course, none of that is even remotely "protectable." Those are basic ideas that are found all over the place.

Hell, a quick Google search shows that "infinite scroll" first showed up well over a year earlier, and at nearly the same exact time as Schroeder launched the new version of RendezVoo with infinite scroll, Microsoft's Live.com image search had the feature. In other words, "infinite scroll" -- especially for images -- was already popping up in a variety of places. It's ridiculous to think that Cohen -- who, again, insisted he didn't understand RendezVoo and told the team to build an entirely different product -- "stole" the idea and sat on it for a year and a half to give to some other entrepreneurs who somehow failed to see a ton of other sites using infinite scroll by that point. Similarly the idea of organizing a web page as a "board" was hardly new at this time, and let's not even bother discussing the idea of making a site "pink and purple."

Also, like pretty much every similar claim we've seen in the past, it involves someone completely overvaluing the idea and ignoring that it's the execution, not the idea, that matters in innovation. Pinterest isn't a success because of "boards" or "infinite scrolling" or "purple and pink" but because it built a great service that people like -- something Schroeder didn't do. Also, note that tons of Pinterest clones have popped up in the wake of Pinterest's success, but you don't see Pinterest suing, rather continuing to build out their product.

The whole thing seems like sour grapes from a failed entrepreneur because someone else succeeded with a totally different idea, and he saw a weak connection to use as the basis of a lawsuit.

Randomly, the AllThingsD article above notes one other oddity: Schroeder's lawyers insist that he's a "self-taught computer genius," but there aren't any records of him online. ATD's Liz Gannes couldn't find any trace of him on the web, which seems odd for someone who claims to be an internet entrepreneur and knowledgeable about what's new in social networking.

As you may or may not know, Warner Chappell has claimed that the "most famous song in the world," Happy Birthday To You, is covered by a copyright held by itself (which it purchased years back). The song generates a ridiculous amount of money per year (estimates say around $2 million) in licensing fees. Back in 2008, we pointed to a detailed academic paper that argues persuasively that the song is not subject to copyright, and should be in the public domain. A few years later, even more evidence was added, showing that the song is firmly in the public domain (and probably has been for over a century). The problem, of course, is that no one is willing to go up against a giant company like Warner to challenge the copyright.

So, perhaps there's another solution? The folks at the Free Music Archive and WFMU are teaming up to host a "New Happy Birthday Song" contest, asking people to write their own song which they hope to use to replace the more controversial one. They've got a fantastic slate of judges including Jonathan Coulton, Ira Kaplan (from Yo La Tengo) and Larry Lessig among others. Also, they've put together this fun video of TV shows and movies trying to sing alternate songs to avoid being handed a bill: Of course, if I had one complaint about the contest, it's the choice of licenses they're requiring for entries. They've picked Attribution 2.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0), which is a good and very permissive license -- but I could see how even the attribution part becomes awkward here in some cases. If ever there were a case to support CC 0 licenses this seems like a good one. Yes, I could see how the "attribution" requirement might help make the concept slightly more viral, but I'm not sure if that's enough of a benefit here.

Also, of course, this is definitely a cultural longshot. Convincing the world to switch Happy Birthday songs is, perhaps, the ultimate in quixotic goals. But that doesn't mean that it isn't worth a shot. So, if you ever wanted a chance to create a song that might, possibly replace the most popular song on the planet, now's your chance.

It appears that the rumors from last month were entirely accurate. The FTC more or less has admitted that it can't find any real antitrust problems with Google, but did get Google to agree to a few minor tweaks in how it operates -- which lets the FTC declare victory. On the big question of antitrust, however, which Microsoft and other sites led the charge on, the FTC came up completely empty, noting that the goal Google's practices was, in fact, to offer a better consumer experience, rather than to be anti-competitive.

The biggest "change" to Google's business practices is really from an issue they inherited: the handling of Motorola's standards essential patents. We were among those confused by Google's decision a year ago to continue Motorola's more aggressive practices with its standards essential patents, basically trying to get injunctions to block competitors who don't license at the (way too high) rates that Motorola was offering. This made no sense to us at the time, given Google's previous statements about the problems of the patent system. Here was a case where they had a chance to put their words into further action, and they didn't. And that became the biggest part of the FTC settlement. Seems like Google could have avoided a headache just by backing down initially. Either way, even the "settlement" aspect here is really small. Google has agreed that before seeking an injunction, it'll go to arbitration to determine what is a "fair and reasonable" royalty on those patents. To be honest, this seems like the kind of thing that Google was probably perfectly happy to "cave" on -- and it almost makes you wonder if they kept up Motorola's practices just to give the FTC some "red meat" to make FTC boss Jon Liebowitz happy.

There were a few other small changes, such as allowing sites to opt out of just Google News if they don't like traffic. In the past, sites had to opt out of all Google search if they didn't want to appear in Google News -- and some incredibly shortsighted news publications didn't like that. So, basically, now Google is giving them the ability to hurt their own traffic from Google News if they so choose. Also, Google will allow companies to more easily manage ad campaigns across multiple platforms, rather than effectively making them repeat the process for multiple platforms.

The end result here, even as the FTC declares victory, has to be seen as a big victory for Google. It made a few tweaks to its business practices -- most of which it probably should have done anyway (and some of which I think it should go even further on). And on the big question of "antitrust" and "search bias" the FTC came up totally empty -- even as FTC boss Liebowitz made it clear that he would have loved it if breaking up Google's monopoly was his legacy. As the FTC announcement notes, try as hard as they could, they just couldn't make the claim stick. I love the begrudging language they use here:

The FTC conducted an extensive investigation into allegations that Google had manipulated its search algorithms to harm vertical websites and unfairly promote its own competing vertical properties, a practice commonly known as “search bias.” In particular, the FTC evaluated Google’s introduction of “Universal Search” – a product that prominently displays targeted Google properties in response to specific categories of searches, such as shopping and local – to determine whether Google used that product to reduce or eliminate a nascent competitive threat. Similarly, the investigation focused on the allegation that Google altered its search algorithms to demote certain vertical websites in an effort to reduce or eliminate a nascent competitive threat. According to the Commission statement, however, the FTC concluded that the introduction of Universal Search, as well as additional changes made to Google’s search algorithms – even those that may have had the effect of harming individual competitors – could be plausibly justified as innovations that improved Google’s product and the experience of its users. It therefore has chosen to close the investigation.

In the end, this seems like a massive waste of taxpayer money and the FTC's time and resources. While the announcement claims they got Google to agree to "significant" changes in its business practices, that's a laughable claim when you look at the details.

Way back in March, the FAA stated that it was taking a "fresh look" at Kindles and tablet computers, possibly moving towards approving these devices for use during takeoff and landing. Nine months later, perhaps feeling the "fresh look" was now a bit past "stale," FCC chief Julius Genachowski politely but pointedly asked the FAA to just get on with it already.

Now, the FAA has been threatened with being cut out of the device rules loop, thanks to Sen. Claire McCaskill, who has warned the FAA to act fast or face being legislated at.

It is my hope that the FAA will work, with the FCC and other federal agencies where appropriate, as expeditiously as possible to implement common sense changes to today's restrictive regulations on in-flight use of PEDs that better reflect new technologies and the changing role these devices play in Americans' daily lives. While the agency can and should use existing authorities to allow for the broader use of PEDs, I am prepared to pursue legislative solutions should progress be made too slowly.

In a blog post for the New York Times, Nick Bilton explores some of the FAA's stalling tactics and dubious claims behind its refusal to allow certain electronic devices to be used during takeoff and landing. Legislative pressure or no, it looks like the FAA isn't going to be moving any faster than is bureaucratically necessary.

In October, after months of pressure from the public and the news media, the F.A.A. finally said it would begin a review of its policies on electronic devices in all phases of flight, including takeoff and landing. But the agency does not have a set time frame for announcing its findings.

An F.A.A. spokeswoman told me last week that the agency was preparing to move to the next phase of its work in this area, and would appoint members to a rule-making committee that will begin meeting in January.

So, it's a start. Nearly a year past the day it promised to "rethink" the personal electronic device issue, the FAA's finally going to begin selecting candidates for its rule-making committee. Presumably, the committee will be finalized at some point within the next six months, at which point the rule-making can actually begin. Judging by the past year's "effort," I would imagine we'll be writing 2014 on our checks before any proposed changes are given a timescale for potential rollout.

In the process of fending off a growing army of irritated fliers, FCC chairmen and legislators, the FAA has conjured up every bit of electro-hysteria in its arsenal to keep fliers sitting upright and at full attention any time the plane goes below the magical 10,000-ft. cutoff.

As Bilton states, arguing with the FAA is like arguing with a stubborn teenager. Despite its inability to provide any evidence to back up its stance on electronic devices, the FAA continues to stick to its increasingly dubious talking points.

A year ago, when I first asked Les Dorr, a spokesman for the F.A.A., why the rule existed, he said the agency was being cautious because there was no proof that device use was completely safe. He also said it was because passengers needed to pay attention during takeoff.

This last statement is odd. I understand that safety instructions are being handed out during the "takeoff experience," but once that's over (or you've seen it more than a couple of times), it would seem passengers should be able to return to whatever they were doing before the hand signals began. Furthermore, no other form of mass transportation demands that its passengers "pay attention" during departure. And, as Bilton points out, people without electronic devices aren't being forced to "pay attention."

When I asked why I can read a printed book but not a digital one, the agency changed its reasoning. I was told by another F.A.A. representative that it was because an iPad or Kindle could put out enough electromagnetic emissions to disrupt the flight.

Which is ridiculous, considering...

Yet a few weeks later, the F.A.A. proudly announced that pilots could now use iPads in the cockpit instead of paper flight manuals.

So, iPads in the cockpit: OK. iPads in the fuselage: Verboten. There's an excuse behind that "reasoning" as well.

The F.A.A. then told me that “two iPads are very different than 200.”

But they're not. EMT Lab's testing manager, Kevin Bothmann, whom Bilton had test a variety of ereaders and tablets for electromagnetic interference, points out that emitted energy doesn't stack.

“Electromagnetic energy doesn’t add up like that. Five Kindles will not put off five times the energy that one Kindle would,” explained Kevin Bothmann, EMT Labs testing manager. “If it added up like that, people wouldn’t be able to go into offices, where there are dozens of computers, without wearing protective gear.”

Bill Ruck, principal engineer at CSI Telecommunications, a firm that does radio communications engineering, added: “Saying that 100 devices is 100 times worse is factually incorrect. Noise from these devices increases less and less as you add more.”

EMT Labs found that a Kindle puts out less than 30 microvolts per meter in use (0.00003 volts), while any airliner that is approved for flight must be able to withstand up to 100 volts per meter. So, the FAA is concerned that a device that puts out emissions at a level that could be generously termed a rounding error will brick the plane during takeoffs and landing.

Then there's the ever-popular "iPad becomes deadly projectile" argument, which finds that airborne rounded corners are more dangerous than hardcover books moving at the same speed. This argument is so weak it's a wonder the sentence didn't collapse on itself the moment it was first uttered.

But the most interesting point of Bilton's piece is the fact that these rules, backed by little more than "because we said so" rationalization, generate the irrational fear that a single person's electronic device could bring the whole plane down. This often results in overreaction.

In September, a passenger was arrested in El Paso after refusing to turn off his cellphone as the plane was landing. In October, a man in Chicago was arrested because he used his iPad during takeoff. In November, half a dozen police cars raced across the tarmac at La Guardia Airport in New York, surrounding a plane as if there were a terrorist on board. They arrested a 30-year-old man who had also refused to turn off his phone while on the runway.

Basing a zero-tolerance policy on irrational fear leads to other problems as well, especially if those involved have "bought in" to the FAA party line.

In 2010, a 68-year-old man punched a teenager because he didn’t turn off his phone. Lt. Kent Lipple of the Boise Police Department in Idaho, who arrested the puncher, said the man “felt he was protecting the entire plane and its occupants.”

These sorts of incidents are bound to become more common the longer the FAA stalls on adjusting its personal electronic device rules. Device usage is growing, and evidence is mounting that the FAA's claims don't hold water. More and more passengers will test the limits of these rules because they find them ridiculous.

Underneath it all, it seems the only thing holding back the FAA's clearance of these devices is its own fear. Since it will never be 100% sure that these devices won't interfere with critical systems, it's going to continue to play it super-safe, since the last thing it wants on its hands is a plane crash occurring shortly after loosening these restrictions. It's the same fear that keeps the TSA from scaling back its efforts. If something bad happens, the rules shouldn't have been changed. If nothing bad happens, it's because the rules are in place. It's fear-based inertia and if any movement occurs, it's usually in the harsher, stricter direction. 

Okay, this one is incredible. As you may recall, back in September of 2011, the "America Invents Act" became law. This was a "patent reform" proposal that had been debated and changed and debated some more for about seven years before finally getting approved in a greatly watered down fashion. We criticized the bill for doing almost nothing to deal with the real problems of the patent system, but there were some incredible, fundamental, blatant mistakes in the final bill. You'd think that with seven years of debate and tweaking that such mistakes would have been whittled away. The first clue to some serious problems was in an analysis by Mark Lemley soon after the bill was approved in which some drafting errors were apparent just in looking at the "effective dates" of various parts of the bill.

Over time, it became clear that Congress had left significant errors in. Recently some of the key people behind the bill admitted that there were errors in the bill, with Eli Lilly's General Counsel, Bob Armitage, stating: "There are a few minor errors in the bill and one major error in the bill." What's the "maajor error"? It's the part on "estoppel" in "post grant review." Basically, there's a provision in the bill which encourages people to seek "post grant review" of questionable patents in the first nine months after they've been approved. In talking about this, Congress was clear that it wanted to encourage more people to use this, and so it wanted to remove barriers. One of those was to make it clear that failing to raise issues during the post grant review shouldn't prevent those issues from being raised later. However, the actual language of the bill says that any issue that "could have been raised" can't be raised later.

As law professors Eric Goldman and Colleen Chien note, it's clear that Congress didn't mean to include this language. The committee report on the bill and direct quotes from both House and Senate sponsors of the bill (Lamar Smith and Patrick Leahy) admitted that this was a mistake:

By all accounts, in the AIA, Congress intended to remove the "could have been raised" language and provide a narrower estoppel for PGR proceedings. As the Congressional committee report explains, the PGR was designed to "remove current disincentives to current administrative processes." But something funny happened on the way to the Congressional floor, and the problematic "could have been raised" language was inadvertently inserted into the bill.

We're not the only ones to recognize the error. House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith referred to the AIA's PGR estoppel standard as "an inadvertent scrivener's error." Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, in advocating that the Senate adopt the technical corrections bill, said the PGR estoppel standard in AIA was "unintentional," and it was "regrettable" the technical corrections bill doesn't address the issue. Sen. Leahy expressed "hope we will soon address this issue so that the law accurately reflects Congress's intent." The PTO also thinks Congress made a mistake, saying "Clarity is needed to ensure that the [PGR] provision functions as Congress intended."

To fix some of the errors in the AIA, Congress rushed through a "technical corrections" bill, intended to fix some of the problems with the bill. During all the fiscal cliff mess, with some back and forth between the House and Senate, they approved this bill which will be signed any moment, if it hasn't been already.

Just one problem. For a bill about technical fixes, it didn't actually address this one *admitted* major error in the original bill. Yeah, they left that one out.

Let's recap, because this is quite incredible:

1. Congress spends seven years debating patent reform.
2. It finally approves patent reform in late 2011, and despite seven years of debate, had a ton of clear errors in the drafting of the bill.
3. The official sponsors of the bill flat out admit that there's a major error in a part of the bill that they did not intend to be in there.
4. A year plus later, Congress finally introduces a bill to "fix problems" in the original bill.
5. This "technical corrections" bill does not fix the one major problem that all admit was a flat out mistake in the original bill.

And people wonder why Congress' approval rating is so low.

Another battle between artists' representatives and an outlet for these same artists to be heard has resulted in... one less place for these artists to be heard. Radio Cymru, the Welsh arm of BBC Radio, has cut its broadcast day by two hours and drastically altered its playlist after losing its right to use a catalog of 30,000 Welsh songs.

Classical music and hymns are replacing rock and pop on BBC Radio Cymru as the deadline for a rights deal with leading Welsh-language musicians passes.

The right to broadcast the songs of 331 Welsh-language musicians and music publishers rests with Eos - the Welsh word for nightingale - from today.

The BBC said Eos had rejected a substantial offer to settle the dispute shortly before Christmas. As no agreement was reached, Radio Cymru has implemented changes to its broadcasting hours and programme content.

BBC Cymru Wales said in a statement on Monday it was "very disappointed" an agreement had not been reached and confirmed Radio Cymru programmes would be affected.

"Radio Cymru's commitment to support and develop Welsh music is a longstanding one - and we have listened carefully to the concerns of Welsh-language composers and artists during this dispute," the statement said.

Once again, the desire to make a cash grab has overwhelmed the desire to be heard. And it always seems to be "representatives" of the artists that keep cutting ahead in line to get their hands out first, often at the expense of the very artists they "serve."

Unsurprisingly, the pernicious acts of another performance rights group is behind Eos' search for a "fair price." Having been screwed by an old Techdirt favorite, Eos is now attempting to force the BBC make up for PRS' actions.

The musicians broke away from the Performing Rights Society (PRS) to join a new agency, claiming they were being short-changed for their work. The dispute arose from a change by the PRS in 2007 which many Welsh language artists claim cut their royalty payments by as much as 85%.

Rather than attempt to get PRS to pay this "fair share," Eos has decided to go after the broadcasters who had nothing to do with the severe slashing of royalty payments, which fell from £1.6m in 2007 to £260,000 in 2009. Eos is acting on the recommendation of research paper published in 2009 that presented a way to generate (or at least ask for) nearly 10 times the going rate per minute of broadcast time.

The report says artists who broadcast on BBC Radio Cymru receive 49p for every minute of airtime, collected by PRS. However, it says Radio Cymru is treated like an English local radio station, rather than a national broadcaster

The report argues that if the station was available on the UK DAB network of digital stations, artists would earn £4.71 per minute, nearly ten times as much. It said a Welsh-based royalties agency would be aiming to bring back in something more like the larger DAB royalties fees.

"Welsh language repertoire - Radio Cymru relies on that for its broadcasting," pointed out the report's joint author, Deian ap Rhisiart. "If the whole composers and publishers en block declare they are terminating their membership with the PRS, then the BBC haven't got any choice but to deal with them - that's the scenario."

At that point, a spokesman for BBC Wales (quite logically) claimed that this was a dispute between PRS and its Welsh members, and that these two entities should attempt to solve it on their own. Unfortunately, Welsh artists decided it would be better to set up their own organization and tangle with the BBC directly. The end result? An outcome that overreaching rights organizations all over the world are familiar with: no additional income and the loss of an outlet.

So, in a quest for "more," Welsh artists have ended up with less (at least temporarily) exposure and the very real potential of finding themselves vilified by the same listeners who used to consider themselves fans. Rather than go after PRS for screwing Welsh artists, Eos decided to pass the screwing along to Radio Cymru, pricing itself out of the market and depriving itself of a useful promotional tool.

Lawyers for Megaupload have filed a motion with the court handling the US side of the prosecution against the company, arguing that the original warrants were defective due to blatant misrepresentations by the government. As you may recall, in the case involving Kyle Goodwin, a Megaupload user who is trying to get his data back, he had to ask the court to unseal the warrant the DOJ used to seize Megaupload because the government had kept it secret. While the Justice Department went ballistic trying to prevent this unsealing, the judge allowed it to happen. And it didn't take long to figure out why the DOJ preferred to keep it private because among a bunch of problems, was the big one: a key bit of evidence that the DOJ used against Megaupload to prove that it had "knowledge" of illegal activity on its servers existed because the government -- via service provider Carpathia -- had explicitly told Megaupload to hold onto certain data since it was a part of a criminal investigation.

As Megaupload points out in this filing, it's particularly ridiculous that Megaupload was told to hold onto certain information as part of a criminal investigation -- to which it complied -- and then that very fact is being used against it, because it didn't delete the info. And, of course, the DOJ didn't explain the context in getting the warrant.

This Court recently ordered the unsealing of the documents previously submitted by the United States to support taking down the Megaupload cloud storage site by seizing the domain name(s) --- such unsealing lays bare a crucial omission the Government made to the Court in the secret process.  Specifically, the Government’s affidavits underpinning the warrants omitted critical, exculpatory information regarding whether, why and how Megaupload knew it was hosting criminally infringing files.  The Government represented that, “[o]n or about June 24, 2010, members of the Mega Conspiracy were informed, pursuant to a criminal search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that thirty-nine infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures were present on their leased servers at Carpathia Hosting, a hosting company headquartered in the Eastern District of Virginia,” and that, “[a]s of November 18, 2011, thirty-six of the thirty-nine infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures were still being stored on servers controlled by the Mega Conspiracy,” after it was informed of the infringing content.... This snippet—which appears in each relevant affidavit and is the only direct, corroborated evidence the Government purports to offer as proof that Megaupload had requisite knowledge—suggests that Megaupload was warned of its potentially criminal complicity yet persisted in hosting the files without concern for their illegal content.  The affidavits, in short, paint Megaupload as a brazen scofflaw. 

The truth, as the Government well knows, is quite different.  Megaupload had every reason to retain those files in good faith because the Government had sought and obtained Megaupload’s cooperation in retrieving the files and warned that alerting users to the existence of the warrant and the Government’s interest in the files could compromise the investigation.  Carpathia informed Megaupload that the warrant was sealed, and that only Carpathia and Megaupload, not the users of the infringing files, were to know of its existence, and at the Government’s request provided Megaupload a copy of the sealing order. The Government selectively parsed its account so as to exclude critical facts that negate any notion that Megaupload had criminal mens rea to retain the infringing files.  The Government deliberately neglected to apprise the Court that:

•       Megaupload received the June 24, 2010 warrant in the course of cooperating with a Government investigation; 
•       Megaupload was informed of the June 24, 2010 warrant by its vendor, Carpathia Hosting (“Carpathia”), with the Government’s consent and for the express purpose of obtaining Megaupload’s voluntary assistance with executing the warrant;
•       The Government declined to communicate directly with Megaupload about the warrant, instead deputizing Carpathia to communicate on its behalf;
• Carpathia directed Megaupload not to open “EM7 tickets” on the infringing files—which would have alerted a larger number of people to the existence of the warrant and jeopardized the secrecy of the investigation—“[b]ecause of the Government’s seal on the warrant,” asking that Megaupload instead deal directly with a single person at Carpathia;
• Megaupload’s preservation of the status quo, particularly by not taking down or otherwise disturbing the files identified in the June 24, 2010 warrant, was faithful to the Government’s express desire, reflected by the Magistrate Judge’s order sealing the warrant (provided to Megaupload by Carpathia at the Government’s request) and by Carpathia’s instructions on the Government’s behalf, for Megaupload to ensure that evidence would remain preserved and that the target users would remain unaware of the investigation; and
• Consistent with its stated desire that the warrant and investigation remain confidential so as not to tip off the target users, the Government—neither directly nor through Carpathia—ever requested that Megaupload take down the files identified in the June 24, 2010 warrant.

Megaupload is now arguing that the warrant and the seizure itself were defective and need to be overturned based on the fact that they were completely misleading on this bit evidence. In fact, the government specifically appears to have instructed Carpathia to tell Megaupload (1) to retain the files in question and (2) that Megaupload was not the subject of the investigation:

Nowhere did the Government tell this Court that its June 24, 2010 warrant had been calculated to enlist good-faith cooperation with a criminal investigation, while preserving the secrecy thereof. Nowhere did the Government tell this Court that the Government had sought Megaupload's voluntary assistance in executing the warrant. Nowhere did the Government tell this Court that Carpathia had assured Megaupload, in the interests of its requested cooperation, that there was no basis to believe that Megaupload was a target. Nowhere did the Government tell this Court that Megaupload had in fact cooperated precisely as requested. Most importantly and most troublingly, nowhere did the Government tell this Court that Megaupload had been informed by Carpathia, acting on behalf of the Government and heeding the Government's insistence upon sealing, that the secrecy of the warrant and the Government's investigation must be preserved to avoid destruction of evidence and notification of the targeted users. Nor did the Government inform this Court that the sealing order it had obtained and furnished Carpathia to provide to Megaupload likewise required secrecy and expressly specified that [redacted ]. In sum, nowhere did the Government tell this Court that Megaupload had done exactly what the Government had asked it to do--execute a search warrant without alerting the ostensible targets to the existence of an investigation. The Government's contention to this Court that Megaupload's preservation of the status quo was evidence of criminal intent is false, and deliberately so.

Attached is an exhibit in which Carpathia explicitly says it told the DOJ that Megaupload was happy to cooperate with the US government on such investigations.

Given its responses so far, I fully expect the government to go ballistic over this filing as well, but with each filing, their case looks weaker and weaker. As we've said in the past, it really does seem like DOJ agents were taken in by Hollywood's story about how Megaupload was pure evil and that was obvious to anyone -- and, as such, the DOJ could take various shortcuts in bringing the site and Kim Dotcom down. To be honest, what's still incredible to me about all of this is that, prior to the takedown, I probably would have agreed that Megaupload was likely a "bad player" in the space and that Dotcom had a reputation of thumbing his nose at the law. But as more and more details have become clear, it's looking more and more like the DOJ cut corners so badly that it's entire case may be at risk. If true, this will be a massive embarrassment for anyone at the DOJ associated with the case.

A couple of months ago, we brought you the unlikely story of a mouse that required an internet connection to fully function. Razer, for whatever reason, had sold itself on the idea that cloud-based storage was preferable for configuration setups and user profiles, rather than simply storing these settings locally in the mouse itself, as it had done in the past.

It cited a variety of reasons for this move, including the laughable suggestion that physical memory was too expensive, but when all the rationalizing was done, the mouse still required an internet connection to utilize all the extra functions customers had paid a premium price for. The "offline mode" still required an internet connection, as users would be left with running $80 mice on standard drivers if they attempted to forgo the registration process and the downloading of additional Razer Synapse software.

Nathan F sends in the (somewhat) good news that Razer has issued an update to its Synapse 2.0 software, adding an improved Offline Mode that can be used to avoid depending on its still rather iffy cloud service. This would be great news, except for the fact that Razer still requires online activation and installation of its Synapse software, whether you plan to use it or not. Rather than allow users to opt out of the cloud before registration, Razer is still requiring all of its proprietary hoops be jumped through before cutting its customers loose.

In other bad news, those using the cloud service are still reporting issues with Razer's software, including the failure to recognize installed devices and lag when switching settings on the fly, the latter of which wasn't an issue with local storage. The release notes (which are far from thorough) also point out that purchasers of certain peripherals will no longer be able to use legacy drivers if they've installed and used the Synapse 2.0 software. In other words, if you purchased certain mice and followed the setup instructions, you're cut off from rolling back your drivers -- something that's a bit underhanded when delivered via mandatory installation.

Then there's the ongoing issues arising from Razer's decision to ditch physical memory in favor of the cloud. This installation process will need to be repeated for each computer the peripheral is attached to. Offline mode improvements are useless if all your settings and profiles are stored on your "home" computer. There's nothing people love more than installing software, especially repeatedly. (This repeated process seems to be an issue even if you never change computers, as connection glitches can cause profile information to become corrupted -- or vanish completely.)

So, while improving the Offline Mode and giving users the option to ditch the cloud altogether is a step in the right direction, Razer seriously needs to consider making the entire process optional. It also should reconsider its cloud-based storage push, seeing as the potential for problems is nearly unlimited. Update or no, Razer is still pushing hardware that won't function without connecting to the internet at least once. It also should reconsider physical storage. If this storage is really as expensive as Razer's talking points insist it is, it could always charge a bit more for a truly portable mouse/keyboard that isn't reliant on an internet connection to unlock its functions.

Although there has been some sniping about the quality of Wikipedia's entries from time to time, we generally take it for granted that when key articles are missing they will get written, and that if they are unbalanced, they will gradually get better -- all thanks to the open, collaborative editing process that sorts out such problems. But an interesting post on registan.net notes that these dynamics may not apply to some versions of Wikipedia -- for example, the one written in the Kazakh language:

I also find the idea that thousands of diligent volunteer Kazakh Wikipedians are hard at work writing up an unbiased encyclopedia of the world and of their country [hard to believe]. The incentives for it are all wrong. The rewards for glowing diatribes on [Kazakhstan's President] Nazarbayev's Kazakhstan are clear, but the risks involved in challenging that narrative are equally so.

It's an important point. Wikipedia may request a "neutral point of view" from all its contributors, but when the consequences of telling the unvarnished truth are rather less pleasant than embellishing the facts a little, we can hardly blame people in countries like Kazakhstan for straying from the Wikipedian ideal.

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