Having just seen how the US was putting pressure on Costa Rica to modify its copyright laws for the purposes of a "free trade" agreement, Dylan F sends in the news of how the international community seems to be putting pressure on Israel to change a few things in order to join the OECD. There are three issues discussed, and you can see how the first two are at least worth discussing: corruption/bribery in weapons trade and its ongoing dispute with Arab territories within the country. But it's difficult to see how the third issue, generic patents, could possibly be seen on the same level as the first two. But, there it is:

The second concern, regarding intellectual property rights, involves the Israeli company Teva Pharmaceuticals, one of the world’s largest producers of generic drugs. Major American and Swiss companies have long accused Israel of insufficient regulation of the way Teva markets its products in the face of patent regulations in other countries.

So, because some big pharma companies can't compete well with Israeli generics, Israel should be barred from joining the OECD?

theodp writes "A few days ago, the Toronto Star reported that security experts point to 'Israelification' as a possible cure for what ails North America's security-paralyzed airports. That is, how can we make our airports more like Israel's, which deal with far greater terror threat with far less inconvenience. 'It is mindboggling for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago,' said Rafi Sela, president of a transportation security consultancy. Unless a more sensible approach to security is adopted, Sela warned that North American airports could be crippled by needless airport evacuations. As if to prove his point, Newark Liberty International Airport -- which is planning to unleash $160,000 high-tech full-body scanners on travelers to improve security -- had to be evacuated Sunday night and flights were grounded after a man walked the wrong way through a screening checkpoint exit to enter the secured side of a terminal. Looks like we may owe Mr. Sela an I-told-you-so on this one."

I had seen the Toronto Star article when it came out, and it's definitely worth reading. It does appear that the Israelis are a lot more focused on security that works, rather than security theater -- though I don't think any security system is foolproof. I do think that there's a lot to what Sela says at the end of the article as to why the TSA hasn't followed Israel's lead:

"We have a saying in Hebrew that it's much easier to look for a lost key under the light, than to look for the key where you actually lost it, because it's dark over there. That's exactly how (North American airport security officials) act," Sela said. "You can easily do what we do. You don't have to replace anything. You have to add just a little bit -- technology, training. But you have to completely change the way you go about doing airport security. And that is something that the bureaucrats have a problem with. They are very well enclosed in their own concept."

As for the question on "full body scans," while not mentioned in the article, it's worth noting that Israeli airport security apparently doesn't use such machines either. I saw an interview recently with an Israeli security expert, who said that using such machines (the ones that allow screeners to effectively see travelers naked) would create a much bigger mess, as traditional and religious men would become incredibly offended at screeners seeing their wives naked.

The key difference in the two systems is that the US (and most others) seem intent on scanning what you're bringing on the plane. The Israelis are a lot more interested in who you are and how you act.

For many years, in the US, there were claims that Comcast was doing traffic shaping on its network, slowing down or even blocking certain types of traffic. Despite increasingly sophisticated evidence, Comcast always denied it, until the Associated Press finally presented proof. Comcast still tried to dance around on definitions, but finally came clean. In response it got a wrist slap from the FCC (which it's fighting in court), but it has become a lot more transparent in its traffic shaping/filtering practices. There just isn't any logical reason why any ISP should be less than forthcoming about these issues.

Slashdot points us to the news that a new study of Israeli ISPs shows that, despite denying it, many are traffic shaping P2P traffic, often using deep packet inspection. Apparently, Israel's Communications Ministry is already looking into this and determining if it requires any action on its part. It makes you wonder why ISPs think it makes sense not to explain what they're doing to customers.

You would think that the various entertainment industry rights organizations around the world would recognize how badly attacking consumers has failed and wouldn't continue to do it in every other country, but apparently common sense travels a lot slower than unauthorized content these days. Roni Evron alerts us to how a bunch of Israeli YouTube users are pissed off after rights holder Unicell convinced YouTube to pull down a bunch of content and close user accounts, even for content that just isn't available anywhere else:

One of the more prominent Israeli users of YouTube is 40-year-old Guy, who has been operating his own homepage there for three years. Guy says that he spends about two hours every day uploading content. He focuses on old archival material: Israeli music which is now considered classic.

"I do it out of love and I have no commercial interests," he says. "The idea behind this is ideological, romantic, to expose older cultural material, to make it accessible to as many people as possible. In most cases it is not readily available anywhere else."

For example, he has uploaded the contents of singer-songwriter Matti Caspi's first album from 1974, and material from the "Siba L'mesiba" ("Excuse for a Party") television program, which aired on the Channel One from 1984-1990.

Most of the responses he gets, according to Guy, are from former Israelis who live abroad; they are enthusiastic and ask him to add more material.

He admits that he is not current on copyright law, but believes removal of the content from the Internet is proof of narrow-mindedness.

"Perhaps exposure to this material in fact increases demand," he says. "YouTube is no substitute for purchasing music in higher quality formats; it simply provokes nostalgia. This work is a community service."

You have to wonder if the recent Israeli ruling that found that the rights of users should be respected, and that copyright claims should only be dealt with if they were "especially severe, wrongs committed in aggravated circumstances," will come into play in these sorts of situations.

The entertainment industry has, in the past, accused Israel of not properly respecting copyright, but Israeli officials, rather than bending to the will of Hollywood lobbyists hit back with a long and detailed response, noting that its copyright law has already been influenced too much by American-style copyright law -- and just because they didn't go completely draconian and implement a version of the DMCA, it doesn't mean they don't have strong copyright laws. You have to imagine, however, that Hollywood's lobbying community is about to go ballistic after reading a recent decision (sent in by a ton of people -- including one of the lawyers involved in the case!) concerning an attempt by the Premier League to unveil the owner of a website, LiveFooty, that allowed people to watch streaming football (soccer for folks on this side of the Atlantic) matches.

Now, we've already covered incredibly aggressive legal strategy of suing any site that lets people stream its matches. Quite often, it goes after service providers rather than the actual users, and also goes after services in places where the games aren't viewable anyway (so it's not even taking away any real revenue). Either way, the judge in an Israeli district court was not impressed and tore apart the Premier League's arguments:

the Tel Aviv District Court ruled that it was a case of "fair use" since no profit was made from the broadcasts and that, in Israeli law, breach of "broadcasting" copyright only referred to cable or wireless transmission and not streaming over the internet.

The judge, Michal Agmon-Gonen, furthermore ruled that the site had important social aims -- "watching sports events is socially important and should remain in the realm of mass entertainment, and not just be for those who can afford it" -- and argued that those who view online were not damaging the revenues of broadcasters. She said they were mainly "those of small means or who are not sufficiently interested in sport to pay".

That's the report from the Guardian, but the full ruling from the judge gets a lot more interesting. In refusing to reveal the name of the owner of the site, she talked about the importance of not giving in to the chilling effects of copyright infringement claims, and the importance of setting a very high bar on such things:

"Someone who claims breach of copyright must meet two conditions. The first is to present prima facie evidence of a breach, that will lead with a high degree of probability to proof of it. Secondly, the breaches claimed must be especially severe, wrongs committed in aggravated circumstances," the judge said. This is because "unintentionally, millions of people infringe copyright every day; there are no grounds for disclosing their identities in such cases, but only when it is a matter of blatant and severe infringement."

As far as I know, this is the first time I've seen a judge highlight unintentional infringement, and the chilling effects of making it such that anyone needs to constantly look over their shoulder and be afraid that almost anything they do may be judged to be a violation of copyright laws.

The Premier League will certainly appeal, and you can bet that Hollywood lobbyists will soon come out with yet another report claiming that Israel is a "haven for pirates" or some ridiculous claptrap along those lines. One hopes that this thoughtful ruling that focuses on the public's rights will stand up and get recognized for recognizing that copyright isn't just about the rights of the copyright holders, but about the rights of the public too. However, given the history of the entertainment industry lobby, it seems unlikely.

Reader Ido alerts us to the news coming out of Israel, that the Senate there has moved forward on a bill that would create a huge biometric database including data on all Israelis, and refusing to provide such data could land anyone a year in jail. As the article notes, there's a rather loud uproar about this, as many Israelis fear not only for their own privacy and civil liberties, but wonder just how such a database will be abused -- either by gov't officials or by hackers. It sounds like the bill still has a ways to go before becoming law, but this appears to be yet another move by a government to mistakenly assert that taking away people's privacy somehow makes them more secure.

People who have grown up with social networking type sites and applications have become used to the idea of really documenting their lives with them: providing detailed updates and regularly uploading photos of their activities. That's great for most folks -- but if you're in an elite military unit in a war zone, that might present a problem. An Israeli soldier has been sentenced to 19 days in jail after the military noticed that he'd been posting photos of the base where he was stationed to Facebook where anyone could see them. You would think that it would be common sense not to do such a thing... but common sense sometimes isn't so common.

Every February, a US lobbying group called the International Intellectual Property Alliance comes out with a "report" to the US Trade Representative, supposedly highlighting which countries aren't living up to their obligations with regards to "piracy" and copyright law. The hope is to get the USTR to put that country on a special watch list. In recent years, much of the focus has been on blaming countries that don't implement draconian copyright laws (even more draconian than those in place in the US), claiming incorrectly that failing to create DMCA-like laws is a failure to live up to international treaties. That's simply not true. Michael Geist is now pointing out that Israel, who was highlighted in this year's report, has responded to the "inaccuracies and hyperbole" in the report. The Israeli response includes a rather lengthy discussion of all the things the country has already done to put in place more American-style copyright and patent laws, but does push back on a couple of important points. Specifically, in discussing the fact that it hasn't put in place DMCA-style anti-circumvention laws for DRM (which is referred to as "Technology Protection Measures" or TPM):

Internal discussions on whether to implement TPM continue and in this respect the GOI [Government of Israel] notes that the experience with TPM around the world has not been uniform, nor has it achieved the results that many of its early promoters thought it would. Additionally, comments received by the Ministry of Justice following a "request" for comments on the subject of TPM, indicate that many several large authors' groups vehemently oppose TPM, while other right holders categories favor TPM. The critiques and criticism of TPM both from business model perspectives and from copyright perspectives are almost endless. Indeed, some content providers are already experimenting with non-encrypted access to content. Hence, the question of whether and in what manner to implement TPM is not straightforward and politically volatile.

Given that so many in the entertainment industry are (belatedly) realizing the pointlessness of DRM, the above paragraph is rather restrained. The response then pushes back on complaints that the safe harbors for ISPs and notice-and-takedown provisions it has for infringing content online are too lenient. In the US system, an ISP is supposed to just take the content down when informed of infringement. Israel decided on a much more balanced system that gives the other side at least a chance to respond. This seems reasonable, but it doesn't make the content industry happy. The explanation from the Israeli government is worth reading:

The notice and takedown provisions are balanced and reasonable as between the rights of persons claiming injury (copyright or libel for example) and the rights of free expression. Where allegedly infringing material is notified to the ISP or host and the uploader fails to refute the charges within three days, the offending material will be removed. The IIPA, it appears, prefers a system wherein ISPs and hosts would have to take down material as soon as there is an allegation of infringement, without need for due process or rebuttal. A "takedown" system which operates on the basis of a mere allegation of infringement would be an invitation to censorship and abuse of process. To require "take down" on the basis of "constructive notice" alone, as desired by the IIPA, would require the ISP or Host to make rulings of law as to whether certain content infringes copyright or is libelous or otherwise actionable, something that only courts have competency to do. Again to require takedown on the basis of "constructive notice" (i.e. the allegation of an interested party) alone would be an invitation to censorship, abuse and restraints on free speech. It is not the role of the ISP or Host to become a policeman of content. Requiring such would effectively bring the internet to a halt. Similarly, protecting the anonymity, to a reasonable extent, of uploaders of content is essential to the promotion of free speech and discourse on the internet, provided that a court has not ruled differently.

There's also a nice bit in the response to the claim that Israel's latest copyright law does not implement a "fair use" policy exactly the way the IIPA would like it. The Israeli government's basic response notes that even the US's own definition of fair use doesn't match what the IIPA is asking Israel to implement, pointing out that its own fair use rules are almost identical to the US's. It's nice to see at least some people pointing out the ridiculous claims made by lobbyists trying to push for even more draconian and limiting copyright laws outside the US.

The entertainment industry really has a way about convincing judges and politicians that something really awful is going on with bittorrent search engines -- despite the fact that they have yet to present any evidence that any of them are illegal. Since they're search engines, they are not hosting any infringing content, and there are plenty of legitimate uses of these systems, as can be seen by the fact that Trent Reznor just used various torrent sites to help promote his latest album (which appears to be doing quite well). If there are problems with particular content, the answer isn't to blame the site, but to go after those responsible for offering up the infringing content itself. Yet, through various scare tactics, the entertainment industry convinces judges and politicians that it's the search engines' fault. The latest is in Israel, where the IFPI has convinced a judge to order the country's largest ISPs to block a torrent site named Httpshare. This doesn't appear to fit with the laws in Israel at all, which has some wondering why the judge would make such an order. Of course, the end result will likely backfire on the IFPI. Remember, it was just a few weeks ago that a Danish court similarly ordered ISPs to block Pirate Bay. The end result was just to generate a lot more attention for Pirate Bay increasing traffic greatly from Denmark. The same thing is likely to now happen in Israel with Httpshare, a site I'd never heard about. There will be rather easy workarounds for users who want to get there, and thanks to the IFPI putting it in the headlines, chances are many more people will go check it out.

A few years back, there was a bit of a controversy after Taiwanese officials got upset with Google for including Taiwan as a part of China in its Google Maps offering. When it comes to disputed maps and sovereignty, it's no surprise that the map makers are drawn into regional conflicts on which they wish they could remain neutral. Now that Google is increasingly allowing user generated content to appear on Google Earth and Google Maps, things get even more confusing. In fact, reader Jason writes in to let us know of a brewing controversy, where a town in Israel is suing Google over a note placed on Google Earth by a user, suggesting that the town itself was built on the ruins of a Palestinian town, whose residents were forced out. The people in the town deny this, and say that the land was barren and uninhabited when they arrived and built the town following World War II.

No matter what your opinion on the history of the land, it's difficult to see how Google is liable. The person who created the note is easily identified. In fact, the AP reporter spoke to him, and he noted that he would gladly change the note on Google Earth if presented with more evidence that the Palestinian town was actually located elsewhere. Either way, it's hard to see how anyone really benefits from this particular argument or lawsuit. Google merely provided the platform, and arguing (and suing) about what town existed where at what point hardly seems like a productive path for anyone. Still, don't be surprised to see other complaints lodged against Google for content found on Google Earth. People tend to take things like maps pretty seriously, which is why there are occasional wars over how those lines are drawn. By opening up the possibility of "virtually" drawing lines however people want, Google is opening the door to quite a bit of animosity within certain disputed regions. One would hope that people would recognize there are more productive issues to focus on -- but that seems unlikely.