We last wrote about the Russian social network site VKontakte, often called "The Facebook of Russia," a year ago. Since then, lots of bad stuff has been happening in Russia as a part of clampdown on online activity there, and now VKontakte is back in the news, with a pair of rather contradictory stories.

On the one hand, East-West Digital News is reporting that VKontakte has been cooperating with the Russian secret service FSB (successor to the KGB):

Directly implicated is Vkontakte co-founder and CEO Pavel Durov. In what [the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta] alleged was a message from Durov to Vladislav Surkov, a notorious hardliner who was, at that time, the deputy head of then President Medvedev's administration, Durov mentioned that his site "[has] been cooperating with the FSB and Department K [a section of the Interior Ministry responsible for preventing cybercrime] for several years, promptly disclosing information about thousands of our users in the form of IP addresses, phone numbers, and other data required to pin them down."

That sounds like a pretty bad betrayal of trust. But in the light of a story published recently in the Guardian, you have to wonder whether false documents are being circulated to blacken VKontakte's name:

The Russian version of Facebook has had its offices searched and its ownership structure shaken amid fears the Kremlin is looking to tighten its grip on the internet.

...

A source inside VKontakte said that pressure against the site began after Durov refused to co-operate with the Federal Security Service (FSB) when Moscow erupted in protest.

"A year ago, when the protests started, Durov showed he wasn't ready to close protest pages," the source said. "That's when his problems started." VKontakte said at the time it had denied an FSB request to shut several pages devoted to opposition groups.

That hardly sounds like a company that is secretly cooperating with the authorities to spy on its users, but does sound more like one that is paying the price for defending them. So until more details emerge, it's really hard to know what to think here. Probably the most that can be said is that the online world in Russia remains in turmoil, as Vladimir Putin seeks to assert control over any possible channels of dissent.

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

Google's latest "Transparency Report" shows that governments appear to be ramping up their efforts to have Google takedown content. It probably won't come as much surprise that many of the new requests appear to be political in nature, rather than truly "illegal" content.

• There was a sharp increase in requests from Brazil, where we received 697 requests to remove content from our platforms (of which 640 were court orders—meaning we received an average of 3.5 court orders per day during this time period), up from 191 during the first half of the year. The big reason for the spike was the municipal elections, which took place last fall. Nearly half of the total requests—316 to be exact—called for the removal of 756 pieces of content related to alleged violations of the Brazilian Electoral Code, which forbids defamation and commentary that offends candidates. We’re appealing many of these cases, on the basis that the content is protected by freedom of expression under the Brazilian Constitution.
  
• Another place where we saw an increase was from Russia, where a new law took effect last fall. In the first half of 2012, we received six requests, the most we had ever received in any given six-month period from Russia. But in the second half of the year, we received 114 requests to remove content—107 of them citing this new law.

As you look at some of the other notes on the requests, you see an awful lot of people in power with thin skins, demanding content they don't like be removed because it reflects negatively on them. In most of those cases, thankfully, it appears that Google has refused to take down that content.

Also highlighted quite a bit in the report are requests from various countries -- including officials in the US -- for Google to either review or to takedown the infamous "Innocence of Muslims" video. Google basically tried to follow local laws on those and took it down in some countries, but not others.

It's good to see this kind of transparency, even if it's distressing just how often we see governments trying to censor information.

You might have heard about last week's Russian meteor strike. The news, which broke quickly and was so odd that many initially suspected a hoax or even a viral marketing campaign, was rapidly realized as legitimate. Part of what helped the news spread so quickly was a ton of videos uploaded to YouTube very quickly, the vast majority of which came from dashcams in cars -- showing the fiery trail through the sky from a variety of different angles and distances. A bunch of publications covered the fact that having a dashcam has become almost a necessity in Russia to use as evidence concerning accidents and to prevent scams, which are unfortunately common.

But, of course, when people drive, they're often listening to music. And so many of the dashcam videos of the meteor include music playing from car radios. And, as we've discussed many times, in Germany, most popular music is blocked from any YouTube video due to a longstanding (and ridiculous) legal fight between YouTube and GEMA, the German music collection society. GEMA wants rates that are simply laughable, so throughout Germany, most videos that contain music get blocked.

And yes, this means that a large number of these videos are being blocked in Germany, as noted by Cyrus Farivar over at Ars Technica. The text there says:

Sorry, this video, which includes music from SME [Sony Music Entertainment], is not available in Germany because GEMA has not granted the publishing rights thereto.

Amusingly, when Farivar asked GEMA for its response to all of this, it answered (via Twitter):

YouTube blocks apparently randomly.

Which is an... interesting interpretation of that ongoing fight. And by "interesting," I mean completely wacko. Another part of that conversation included GEMA trying to blame YouTube further for this, and then defending this whole thing by saying:

GEMA is obliged to all users who give of their perceived rights for a reasonable allowance d copyright.

And, apparently, that includes incidentally overheard radio music in videos which have tremendous importance in news coverage.

Last summer, Russia passed an internet blacklist bill which required ISPs to censor certain sites. At the time, of course, Russian officials insisted it would be used to "protect the children" from "harmful information," including child porn, suicide instructions, and pro-drug propaganda. They insisted it would not go beyond that. Of course, within weeks, a popular blogging site, LiveJournal, was censored, followed by the Russian equivalent of Wikipedia.

And now they're targeting journalists as well. Access is reporting that added to the blacklist has been a site used by prominent free speech / civil liberties reporters in Russia who have been critical of the government. The government claims (of course) that they put the site on the blacklist due to "child pornography elements," but Access points out that rather than just removing such content, they've blocked access to the entire site, which is notable given the usage by critical reporters.

At least two prominent journalists host their blogs on LJRossia.org: Andrei Malgin, a journalist who has been very critical of the government and hosts a mirror site at LJR, and Vladimir Pribylovsky, who has been targeted for publishing a large database of government misdeeds and for disclosing official documents that expose corruption.

Once you've set up tools that enable censorship, you know they'll eventually be used for censorship.

Techdirt has been reporting on a steady stream of bad tech ideas coming out of Russia, including content monitoring, banning children from using WiFi, anti-piracy laws requiring takedowns in 24 hours and -- of course -- site blocking. But such blacklists are too permissive for some Russians: over on Google+, Peter Lemenkov pointed out that one region is now introducing whitelists (original in Russian):

In February the Safe Internet League is starting an experimental access to the "clean Internet" in one of Russia's regions. Users in the test region will only be able to access pages and sites that have been checked by the League's experts.

It's hard to know what's worst about this approach. Maybe the idea that there is such a thing as a "clean Internet", or that self-appointed experts have the right to decide what is clean and what isn't. Or perhaps just the belief that it is possible to create a whitelist that isn't utterly useless. According to the report above, the League hopes to have a million "resources" available to users at launch; meanwhile, in the real world, Google says it indexes 30 trillion Web pages....

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

Presumably as part of the overall agreement for Russia to be allowed to join the WTO, the Ministry of Culture there has published a draft of its anti-piracy law (via @PostActa). Here's the google translation of a story on the roem.ru site:

The Ministry of Culture has published the text of the draft law "On amendments to some legislative acts of the Russian Federation in order to stop the violations of intellectual property rights in the information and telecommunications networks, including the" Internet "," designed to combat Internet piracy - the amendments proposed to the Federal Law "On Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information" and the Code of Administrative Offences.

According to the text of amendments, site owners and hosting providers will have to remove content that violates the copyright, or block access to it within a day after treatment the original.

As can be seen, the key element is a 24-hour takedown requirement. There's a range of fines for non-compliance, increasing rapidly according to the size of the business involved. What's not clear is how "violations" are to be established or how access is to be blocked if sites are outside Russia. The rapid take-down requirement would imply this is the usual "guilty until proven innocent" approach. That's also suggested by the following comments from leading Russian Internet companies, who are plainly unhappy with the proposal:

Representatives of Internet companies (Yandex and Mail.Ru) responded with disapproval of the draft law in the comments to "Kommersant". The head of the legal service of Anton Malginova Mail.ru Group, the project was prepared without the involvement of industry experts, and existing legislation fully protects the rights holders.

This indicates that the draft law was drawn up without any input from people who actually understand the Internet. Given that extraordinary fact, it seems unlikely that groups representing the public were asked, either. We'll have to wait for more details to emerge to see how exactly things will work in practice, but it certainly looks like Russia is adopting the worst ideas from the West in its headlong rush to "respectability".

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

Every time the major players in the copyright industries kick off another push for more legislation, enforcement or protection, they make grandiose claims about how much IP-intensive industries contribute to the economy. "Millions of jobs generating billions in revenue, a small portion of it taxable!" they shout proudly in the direction of the nearest legislator or ICE agent. If IP protection was weakened in the slightest, the nation's entire economy would likely collapse.

IP is innovation, according to these industries. Weak IP laws lead to weak economies. This entertainment industry trope, filled with questionable numbers, is used to justify the endless push for draconian IP enforcement and stiff legal and civil penalties for infringement. But evidence to the contrary continues to mount, punching holes in the IP industries' favorite narrative.

Kevin Smith, Duke University's Scholarly Communications Officer, came across two recent articles which, when combined, seem to draw exactly the opposite conclusion: strong IP laws may very well be detrimental to economic growth. (via The Digital Reader)

Yesterday, Reuters news service ran an article about a rating of eleven countries based on their enforcement of intellectual property rights. The index was prepared at the behest of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by a group called The Global Intellectual Property Center, and it ranks the U.S. at the top of the list in terms of strong IP protection (23.73 points on a scale from 0 – 25). But what is interesting is who scored lowest (out of the eleven countries that were ranked). The four “worst” countries for providing the strong IP protection important to the Chamber of Commerce were the four countries known as BRIC — Brazil, India, Russia and China.

So what else do we know about these four nations? In fact, why were they originally grouped together under the acronym BRIC? The answer is that the term was coined because these four countries were the fastest growing emerging economies, showing growth rates between 5 and 9 percent in their gross domestic products (compared with US growth averaging 3.2 over the past 65 years). The source of these averages for the BRIC nations is this report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers, dated February 2012, which contains this conclusion: “We expect the BRIC economies to continue to drive world economic growth in 2012.”

So the four countries driving economic growth are also the four countries with the weakest IP protection regimes, amongst those 11 rated by the Chamber of Commerce report. Doesn’t the conclusion seem simple, that weaker IP enforcement is part of the picture for economic growth?

Now, Smith points out that this connection is nothing more than correlation, but a few conclusions can be drawn. A lack of solid IP protection does not necessarily doom economies to subpar performance and increasing IP protection does not necessarily lead to a robust economic future. IP industries have relied on the credulity of legislators to pass off the "stronger IP enforcement results in more innovation, jobs, etc." argument, usually packaged with the "no copyright protection means no incentive to create" lie that conveniently ignores years and years of creation pre-copyright and thousands of new artists surfacing at a time when piracy is "rampant."

There's tons of evidence that contradicts the rationale driving the "need" for more IP enforcement. Smith goes on to list a few examples of artists thriving with little or no protection, including "Nollywood," Nigeria's film industry, which has exploded over the last 20 years despite truly rampant infringement, and K-pop star Psy, who's looking at $8 million earned without having to rely on the protections of copyright. So, as has been suggested here time and time again, the real "enemy" of innovation and creativity ISN'T piracy, it's the industries themselves.

[I]P protection is, at least a double edged sword. Piracy can reduce revenues, but it also helps to create distribution channels and grow markets. So creative industries seeking to grow in the digital economy need to do more than try, futilely, to eradicate piracy, they need to seek ways to shape their markets and their marketing to exploit the audiences that it can create.

"New business model," anyone? This has been pointed out again and again. Attempting to defeat something that it at least partially beneficial is, at the very least, short-sighted. On a larger scale, battling piracy with enforcement and legislation rather than by increasing options and providing better services is more than short-sighted -- it's dangerously self-destructive. There's very little evidence that enforcement efforts are making any real dent in file sharing -- certainly nothing that would justify the time, money and effort expended.

Smith concludes his post with these thoughts:

So, slippery as such conclusions can be, I feel comfortable with these two assertions. First, creative people and creative industries can thrive without strong IP protections. In fact, if you are continually looking to the government to increase IP enforcement on your behalf, your industry is probably already in bad trouble. Second, it is perfectly possible to over-enforce IP rights to the point where creativity and economic growth are stifled. There is good evidence that the US has passed that point, and the example of the BRIC nations should suggest to us that we need to reverse our course.

At this point, the legacy industries are too firmly entrenched to expect any sort of nimble maneuvering or backtracking on existing IP laws. A suggestion for just such a reversal, briefly posted by the Republican Study Committee, met a swift, ignoble death at the hands of Hollywood's lobbyists, who also pressured its author, Derek Khanna, out of a job. No matter how much evidence contrary to the copyright industries' talking points is presented, the response is always the same: more enforcement, legislation and protection. It will take a severely weakened entertainment industry to give any quarter, but as long as its aims remain self-destructive, that day seems inevitable.

We've been covering Russia's moves towards increasing censorship of the internet over the past few months, including passing a dangerous new law that appears to be focused on being able to directly censor sites that the government doesn't like.

Now the Russian Supreme Court may have just made it even easier for Russia to stifle speech online. A new ruling has said that ISPs need to proactively block access to "illegal content" or they could "lose their license" to operate. Specifically, the court found that there is no difference between allowing access to illegal information and disseminating it yourself. The law firm Baker & McKenzie summarized the findings which had to do with whether or not it was illegal for an ISP to allow access to an online gambling site, despite gambling being illegal:

The Supreme Court ruled that is it unlawful to disseminate information that is restricted in accordance with Russian law, including, but not limited to, on gambling. The court further concluded that provision of access to restricted information is equal to dissemination of this information. The court thus found that a telecoms company de-facto disseminates restricted information by providing access to websites containing this information.

The court concluded that Rostelecom must take measures to technically block its clients’ access to restricted information. Following the Supreme Court’s rationale this requirement applies irrespective of the location of the servers containing such websites.

That's a startling and dangerous finding. Basic common sense would suggest that there's a world of difference between merely being the conduit to information and actually putting forth that information yourself. In the US, this is why we have various safe harbors, to avoid ridiculous situations where the platform/service provider is blamed for the actions of users. But, apparently, the Russian Supreme Court has no concept of secondary liability and has squashed it all down into primary liability. If you're a Russian service provider, you should be afraid. Very afraid.

A ruling like this could quite easily stifle Russia's internet industry, as it will make it prohibitive for most companies to operate, given the potential liability -- especially given the new rules about what might be considered illegal online.

As for why it will likely increase censorship, beyond the obvious, you need look no further than China, where the famed "Great Firewall" tends not to be based on a blacklist of "illegal" sites, but by a similar belief that an ISP is liable for any "bad" content that users are able to access. As such, the default is to overblock. Basically block anything that the government might deem to be illegal, just to avoid legal liability. Given Russia's recent crackdowns, it seems quite likely that ISPs will take a similar "block first, deal with any questions later" approach, rather than risk liability.

Quite a week for random governmental retractions. Back in February, when we first warned about the upcoming "World Conference on International Telecommunications" (WCIT) meeting of the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU), we noted that the thing to be most afraid of was countries like Russia and China using the process to take over control of aspects of the internet, in part to allow greater control for the sake of censorship, but also to set up questionable "tariffs" on internet traffic, designed to basically divert money to state owned or "closely associated" telcos. While much of the focus over the past few months was on the EU telcos proposal, you had to know that even worse was coming.

Last week, the Russians released their proposal, first in Russian and a few days later with an English translation to the ITU -- and both versions quickly leaked. You can download it from the Internet Archive or view the embed below. It is a pretty blatantly bad document. Larry Downes, over at News.com, has a pretty thorough analysis of the document and why it's troubling. Here's a snippet:

The leaked proposal would strongly endorse national control over those parts of the Internet that reside within a country's borders, including ISPs, traffic, and engineering. One suggested change to the treaty, for example, declares that "Member States shall have the sovereign right to manage the Internet within their national territory, as well as to manage national Internet domain names."

Russia is also calling for a major revision to the multi-stakeholder governance process that has long-presided over domain names and Internet addressing, which it calls a "critical transnational resource." Under a proposed revision, the treaty would be amended to make clear that "Member States shall have equal rights in the international allocation of Internet addressing and identification resources."

Today, oversight of domain names and IP addresses is delegated to ICANN, a nongovernmental organization, which manages key Internet resources through a complex mechanism. According to ICANN, its model is "bottom up" and includes "registries, registrars, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), intellectual property advocates, commercial and business interests, noncommercial and nonprofit interests, representation from more than 100 governments, and a global array of individual Internet users."

The ITU, by contrast, allows only its member nations to vote. Private organizations can participate in its proceedings by paying a large annual fee but cannot propose amendments or vote.

This isn't a surprise... but it is a clear problem:

Curbing the Internet is a priority for these countries that goes well beyond the WCIT process. China, for example, recently hosted its first annual "Internet Roundtable for Emerging Countries," attended by Russia, Brazil, India, and South Africa. According to observers of the meeting, the participants agreed that "The Internet must be managed by governments, with a particular focus on the influence of social networks on society."

The Russian proposal, however, is the most audacious power grab to date. And it comes as little surprise to observers of the ITU, which has deepened ties to Russia in a bid to demonstrate its relevance in cybersecurity. Last year, during a meeting between Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Toure, Putin bluntly told Toure that Russia was keen on the idea of "establishing international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capability of the International Telecommunications Union."

Of course, a funny thing happened over the weekend... In talking to people familiar with the matter, we found out that days after the Russian proposal went live, they pulled it and submitted a "revised" version. Right now it's Russian only, so people are waiting for the ITU's translators to dig in, but we're hearing from people who understand Russian that the new version is slightly better than the original, but still has significant problems.

Meanwhile, Downes piece also has two ridiculous tidbits about just how out of touch and clueless the ITU is. Earlier this month, we wrote about an editorial in Wired by ITU boss Hamadoun Toure in which he explained why the UN should regulate the internet. Downes points out that the title of that article was changed from "UN Must Regulate the Internet" to "UN: We Seek to Bring Internet to All." Quite different, though it's unclear who came up with the headline. The bigger issue, however, is that part of Toure's insistence that the ITU process is an "open" one relies on the existence of the WCIT Public Views and Opinions page, where people could submit their opinions -- and he encouraged people to do so. Only problem? At the time Toure's piece was published, the ITU had already turned off the ability to add new comments.

A link directed readers to the WCIT 12 "Public Views and Opinions" page, which, since it was created in July, has received only 15 posts.

But perhaps that's because the ITU required commenters to first register, provide extensive identifying information, and agree to a lengthy terms of service agreement before they could "express their views" on the contents of a single, and highly redacted, early draft of the proposals the ITU decided to release. (The complete document, as well as many more recent versions, are available on WCITLeaks.)

Or perhaps that's because, as one of Wired's reader's pointed out, the "Public Views and Opinions" page had actually been shut down before Toure's editorial was even published.

Weeks ahead of the conference, and just as some of the worst proposals are leaking out of the ITU's information fortress, the public comment page now reads solemnly: "We inform you that the WCIT-12 Open Consultation process is now closed."

That statement captures, in a nutshell, everything that's wrong with the WCIT, and the ITU's pathetic effort to spin it.

Why is it even a discussion for the ITU to try to take more control over the internet when they clearly have no clue?

Techdirt has been following the worsening censorship situation in Russia for some time. Back in July, the country's parliament passed a new law ostensibly designed to "protect the children". It took only a couple of weeks before it was used to shut down the whole of LiveJournal for part of the country. That was apparently because a neo-Nazi blog had been found among the thousands of others hosted there -- an indication of just how blunt this new instrument of censorship is.

Now another popular site in Russia has been taken down, as Rick Falkvinge reports:

This Monday, the Russian Government placed a Russian Wikipedia clone on a censorship blacklist. The Russian Government maintains such a kill switch for "harmful sites" – motivated with protecting children from drug use, child porn, or suicide methods. In reality, as usual, give anybody such a switch and they’ll shut off things they plain don’t like.

The Russian Wikipedia clone Lurkomore has long been a Wikipedia-on-steroids in Russia. With the notability requirement for articles relaxed, Lurkomore had become an "encyclopedia of contemporary culture, folklore, and subcultures, as well as everything else".

Presumably there is something among the thousands of articles there that someone, somewhere has taken a dislike to, causing the entire site to be blocked. However, an article on the site Lenta.ru (original in Russian) says that the people behind Lurkomore still don't know what that was, and intend to appeal against being placed on the censorship blacklist in this way. In the meantime, they have moved the site to a different IP address, at lurkmore.to, where it can presumably be accessed even by Russian children -- thus neatly demonstrating the futility of this kind of hamfisted censorship.

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