We recently wrote about a new feature from Songkick, called Detour, that can be used to crowdsource a concert to guarantee for a performer that it's worth going to a show there. Songkick now has another example, which is even more interesting. This one isn't just about pre-proving a profitable demand level for a show, but about engaging with fans, finding new fans and really getting people engaged. It involved the band Hot Chip, who had an open day in their European tour, and was hoping to use it to play a "smaller" town -- one that many tours for similarly popular bands were bypassing. Songkick found 3 towns that the band hadn't headlined before -- and then let the three towns compete. What's interesting is how people in one town -- Folkestone -- went above and beyond to make it happen:

What happened next though was incredibly exciting. A bunch of superfans in Folkestone decided that they were going to make it happen. As one fan said, "Most bands don't come to this part of Kent, they tend to stop at London." They got super proactive and started to email all their friends and even petitioned the local radio station and newspaper. It exploded and went completely viral in a matter of hours through fan to fan word of mouth marketing, Hot Chip sold out. Check out the sales curve of pledges for the show, the huge viral spike is when fans started to self-organise.

Songkick has some interesting data points:

Some interesting things we learned:
- 70% of the people who pledged had never seen Hot Chip before. Detour is really creating new fan to artist connections.
- 66% of the attendees found out about the show through their friends (The rest from Songkick and Hot Chip)
- 1 (amazing) fan emailed over 2000 people they knew to try and spread the word.

In other words, such a platform isn't just about fans getting an act to show up somewhere, but also about getting fans to spread the word, to evangelize and to help build the fanbase much bigger. One thing we've definitely noticed about successful crowdsourcing campaigns is that they tend to create a sense of "ownership," which means that supporters have incentive to get their friends to support things too, which is a different form of "viral" marketing. Songkick notes, also, how far fans will go to support acts they like:

I think the thing that really blew me away was the level of self-organisation amongst fans. In a world where half the music industry is still focused on complaining about file sharing, people often forget that fan is short for fanatic. Hot Chip's fans are incredibly passionate about them and figured out a way to self-organise to make this show happen

Now, there is one caveat that Songkick doesn't mention that could be worth exploring as well. While it is great for those in and around Folkestone, does it upset those in Stoke or in York who are fans, but who didn't "win?" It seems possible, though hopefully they went into this understanding that was a possibility. Either way, we see that doing these kinds of things isn't just about pleasing existing fans, but finding more fans as well.

The brain is an incredibly mysterious organ that can create some really bizarre psychological effects. Seemingly minor alterations to brain chemistry have resulted in profound changes in human behavior. Here are just a few examples of some interesting (and thankfully rare!) psychological syndromes.

• There have been only about 100 cases of Foreign Accent Syndrome documented since its discovery in the 1940s -- people with it usually have some form of brain injury, but not always. One woman went to the dentist to have some teeth pulled and when she woke up from the anesthesia, she started talking in a strange accent. [url]
• Capgras' Syndrome is a persistent delusion that a person's closest friends and relatives have been replaced by imposters -- sometimes the person with Capgras even thinks he himself (or she herself) is some kind of duplicate. This sounds like an old Steven Wright joke, but it's probably not that funny to be inexplicably paranoid about everyone you know. [url]
• Williams Syndrome is a congenital condition in which people are ultra-friendly and empathetic -- and lack any kind of suspicion or fear. Kids without a fear of strangers can get into a lot of trouble -- if only strangers weren't so horrible people.... [url]

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

Two and a half years ago, Daily Variety, the big Hollywood trade magazine, basically ceded the entire online world to its main competitor, The Hollywood Reporter, by putting up a paywall. At the time, it bizarrely claimed that doing so would mean it wouldn't have to cover "gossip, half-truths and anonymous rants." Apparently, you have to do that sort of thing if you don't have a paywall. Who knew? Of course, the reality was that, over the past few years, The Hollywood Reporter has established itself as a massive online presence with quality reporting, while Daily Variety basically became an also-ran that no one cared about anymore... leading to its recent sale. The new owners have announced that the paywall will be coming down, and reporters there were thrilled:

Many Variety reporters and editors have been frustrated that their content is less read online than that of competitors such as the Hollywood Reporter and Penske-owned Deadline, in part because it is only available to paying subscribers.

Attendees at the meeting in Variety's mid-Wilshire Boulevard office applauded when Penske said he would remove the publication's digital paywall.

It appears the reporters there recognize that relevance is kind of important in the media business -- and charging too much for information that your competitors are delivering (often in a better format) for free just isn't a way to remain relevant.

Chevron is embroiled in a big lawsuit with some folks in Ecuador that has been going on for 19 years, and resulted in an $18.2 billion judgment against the company for environmental damage in the country. Chevron is accusing the lawyer for the Ecuadorians of racketeering. A New Yorker article from earlier this year goes into significant detail about the case, including Chevron arguing that the whole thing is "a shakedown," and questioning whether or not the lawyer went too far in the case.

We actually wrote about this case a few years ago, when Chevron sought footage that a documentary filmmaker had taken of people involved in the case, including the lawyer, Steven Donziger. While it seemed like the filmmaker should have the right to protect the work like journalists protect their sources, a court ordered it turned over to Chevron. That footage turned out to provide info that Chevron believes shows evidence of racketeering in trying to influence the court decision. Here's the New Yorker describing some of what was in the footage:

As Mastro played a series of outtakes for Judge Kaplan, Donziger’s outspokenness was on full display. He riffed, indignantly, about the inadequacies of the Ecuadoran legal system. “They’re all corrupt,” he says of Ecuadoran judges in one clip. “It’s their birthright to be corrupt.”

... In one scene, a scientific expert for the plaintiffs tells him that one measurement of groundwater contamination was not as strong as he had thought. “This is Ecuador, O.K.?” Donziger says. “At the end of the day, if there’s a thousand people around the courthouse you’re going to get what you want.” As for the scientific data, he adds, it’s “just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and bullshit.”

[...] In another scene that Mastro showed to the court, Donziger chats with associates over dinner at a restaurant. Someone at the table, referring to the popular antipathy toward Chevron in Ecuador, suggests that if the judge in Lago Agrio ruled against the plaintiffs he might be killed.

“He might not be,” Donziger replies, cradling a glass of red wine. “But he thinks he will. Which is just as good.”

All of this, plus some other evidence led Chevron to go after Donziger for racketeering. And, as part of that, it has sent a subpoena to Google, Microsoft and Yahoo seeking information on more than 70 email accounts, claiming that this info may help them show that Donziger was "falsifying evidence from the outset of the trial in Ecuador." CNET notes that Chevron believes that among other things, the lawyers for the Ecuadorians may have been involved in "blackmailing a judge, ghostwriting expert reports, and even helping to draft the court's final opinion."

It's important to note that Chevron is not (yet) seeking the contents of the email, but a variety of information about the accounts -- such as IP address info, physical address, phone numbers and billing info (if available). The idea seems to be that Chevron believes some of the addresses have been faked, and this will help to show that. However, some of the requests clearly seem to be overly broad -- including going after law professor and blogger Kevin Heller, who was not happy about this. Heller was able to have the ACLU call Chevron on his behalf about this -- getting them to drop the request for his info. Chevron claims that this helped them prove that Heller's account belonged to a real person, which is all they're seeking, but Heller is justifiably upset about all of this, sensing significant chilling effects and worrying about possible intimidation.

I will likely never know why Chevron subpoenaed me. But I do know that it is unacceptable for a party to litigation to try to obtain private information from a blogger-journalist who has criticized its tactics. This is not about my journalistic freedom; it is about the journalistic freedom of all bloggers. And it is not about Chevron; it is about any party that thinks it is acceptable to subpoena a blogger’s private information. I would be no less critical of an attempt by Greenpeace to subpoena Glenn Reynolds. Tactics like this need to be exposed and resisted, no matter who uses them or whom they target; passive acquiescence is simply an invitation to further abuses.

Heller also goes after Google, his email provider, for not more actively fighting back on his behalf:

I also think that Google needs to do far more to protect the privacy of its users.  Twitter has been very active in resisting attempts to obtain its users’ private information.  Google has also done so in the past, but it did nothing to help me, even after I informed it via email that I was a law professor and a blogger-journalist.  But again, this isn’t about me.  It’s about all the other bloggers who might find themselves facing a similar subpoena.  I’m lucky: I have friends like Glenn Greenwald to ask for help. I’m sure that the ACLU would assist anyone in my position — but not everyone knows that the ACLU is out there, much less that no case is seemingly too small or too unimportant for them to be concerned.  More importantly, the ACLU should not have to get involved in every case like this one (and again, I am but one of 44 people named in the subpoena); Google itself — and all other service providers in similar situations — need to be the first line of defense.

Google has asked the judge for more time to respond to the subpoenas, which Chevron has already agreed to. The magistrate judge is also going to hold a hearing in a few weeks to "evaluate" the subpoenas. Microsoft told Declan McCullagh at CNET that it had provided notice to the Microsoft accounts in question. Yahoo didn't respond to McCullagh's questions about the subpoenas, so it's unclear what they've done.

There may be legitimate reasons for Chevron's request, but given Heller's experience, it certainly appears that the fishing expedition is overly broad, and could have significant chilling effects in intimidating people who were legitimately helping out with the case. That should be a big concern, and the judge should be exceptionally careful in making the companies reveal info on these email accounts. We've talked in the past about things like the Dendrite rules for determining when possibly identifying info on anonymous people should be allowed, as it sets a high bar that protects a person's right to anonymity. Hopefully the court recognizes that Chevron's requests seem to go too far.

South Park is certainly no stranger to insane copyright lawsuits. Some time ago, they survived a suit over having character Butters parody Brownmark Films' "What What (In The Butt)" music video. In that case, South Park relied on a strong Fair Use claim over what was clearly a nod to the original video.

But now we learn of a new copyright lawsuit over the inclusion of a character called the Lollipop King in South Park's Imagination Land trilogy. The claim here is as bizarre as the South Park trilogy that is allegedly infringing. A guy named Exavier Wardlaw claims he created a show years ago called The Lollipop Forest in which one of the characters, Big Bad Lollipop, is the clear inspiration for the Lollipop King South Park character. His inspiration for the lawsuit is, apparently, the rather, uh, not nice things that Trey Parker and Matt Stone subject the Lollipop King to.

In his suit, Wardlaw claims "Lollipop Forest" is a wholesome family show -- and it's value was diminished when the Big Bad Lollipop ripoff was exposed to "unwholesome language and sexual innuendo."

FYI -- during the "South Park" episode ... Lollipop King gets choked out by a Storm Trooper ... witnesses the carnage of a suicide bomber ... and gets a front row seat as Kyle performs a sexual act of an oral nature on Cartman's nether region (... it was a crazy episode).

Indeed, almost as crazy as Wardlaw insisting that his character was the basis for the Lollipop King, seeing as how the two characters look nothing alike (beyond being lollipops, of course). In fact, the absurdity of this claim in an episode where the disputed character, which South Park sources indicate is an original, is shown alongside such obvious non-original characters like storm troopers and Snarf, is almost too much to handle.
South Park's Lollipop King


and... the Big Bad Lollipop. I know I can hardly tell the difference. Bizarrely, this isn't the first time that someone has suggested that South Park copied The Lollipop King. A group called TLG Media put out a satirical video with its own Lollipop King, and when South Park came out with its own, they took it (mostly) in stride, first pointing out their logical and emotional reactions: "My common sense says 'No, anybody could come up with a 'lollipop king'' but my ego says 'Those motherfuckers ripped us off! Fucking Motherfuckers!'" But then concluded that "ours is way better because he's insane." But not insane enough to actually think the South Park guys copied him.

And beyond the question of any actual copying that might have occurred (a dubious claim, at best), this is yet another case that demonstrates the overblown nature of tarnishment accusations. Can anyone with a straight face say they really think that The Lollipop Forest (whatever the hell that is; I couldn't find any IMDB credits) had its value tarnished by South Park's Imagination Land trilogy? Unless you're in the middle of one epically large stroke, the only sensible answer is "no". Hopefully, this suit gets punted out of the legal system post-haste.

In case you haven't been following last week's big controversy on Reddit, there are a number of debates going on about a variety of topics, concerning free speech, trolling, anonymity and more. The very short version is as follows: there had been some (quite reasonable and understandable) concern about the subreddit /r/CreepShots in which people (almost all of whom are likely to be guys) were posting surreptitiously shot photos of others, usually women, usually focused on sexually objectifying the subjects of the shot. The subreddit was one of a number of similarly disturbing subreddits that focus on objectifying women -- often very young women. Reddit tends to take a mostly hands off approach to this kind of thing, letting the community do what the community does. In extreme cases where the terms of service have been violated (and laws have been broken) stuff gets shut down -- but for the most part, Reddit lets the community police itself. Some Redditors figured out that the best way to deal with information they don't like is with more information and they started exposing information about the moderators of CreepShots, sometimes naming them publicly (and getting a teacher fired for posting cameraphone shots of his students -- ick).

Jezebel published an article about outing CreepShots moderators, and from that came the news that Adrian Chen at Gawker was getting set to expose one of the more well known moderators/trolls on the site, ViolentAcrez. Before this even came out, some of the moderators on one of the most popular subreddit, /r/Politics announced that they were banning links to all Gawker sites "until action is taken to correct this serious lack of ethics and integrity." Chen went on to publish the story anyway -- a well-written, thoroughly detailed story about the guy, Michael Brutsch, who admits to enjoy being a "troll" in order to get a reaction out of people. Over the weekend, Brutsch was apparently fired from his job.

There has been a lot of talk about all of this -- and about the ethics of pretty much everyone involved. Someone named Navneet Alang directly challenged us, claiming that if Facebook had "censored" an article, we'd be "raging" about it -- but that since we're somehow aligned with Reddit, that's not the case.

The truth -- as always -- is a lot more complex. First of all, let me be clear on a few things: I think that /r/CreepShots and various other subreddits like that are very troubling and ethically dubious. I equally think that the decision to ban Gawker stories from certain subreddits was stupid and really counterproductive if the intent was to draw attention away from the article. That said, the goal may have been more to create chilling effects for other journalists. And, on that front, I'm with Adrian Chen. I think he did a fantastic piece of reporting (actual journalism, yay) and should not be punished for doing so. I tend to think it makes the mods who decided to do the ban look childish and, if not directly hypocritical, very much open to charges of hypocrisy.

That said, the situation is not so simple. This is not the same thing as Facebook banning links -- because that's a company's decision that impacts its users. Reddit, on the other hand, has always been driven by its users with the mods having significant power over each subreddit they control. If they want to make a decision like banning every Gawker site -- no matter how stupid and counterproductive such a decision might be -- they have the right to do so. In some ways, the "Facebook analogy" would be more proper if the person had said that any individual had the power to block links on their own wall. Which they do -- and which no one complains about.

The different subreddits are playgrounds controlled by those mods, not by "Reddit" itself. Sometimes amazing things come out of there, and sometimes absolute crap comes out of there. This is the nature of the internet, and shutting down something or silencing one's speech doesn't change any of that. It just reshuffles the deck.

I believe quite strongly in the importance of anonymity online -- but that's mainly to the extent that the government should not be able to force anonymous speech to be connected to the speaker, except in extreme circumstances. That, however, is entirely different than an enterprising reporter discovering the details that connect someone's account to their name. The accusations by various Reddit moderators that this is somehow an unfair "doxxing" seems like an extreme overreaction. Chen put together information and reported on it. That's journalism.

But, at the same time, I think it's unfair to blame Reddit itself or its management for the (admittedly dumb) decision to block links to Gawker. Reddit is very much about what it's community decides it wants to do, and with that comes some good and bad decisions. I can (and will) criticize what I think is a bad decision by the moderators who did this, but that doesn't mean a condemning of Reddit as a whole, any more than criticizing someone who blocks others from posting to his Facebook wall or Google Groups or personal blog, automatically implicates those platform providers.

Free speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of your speech. And, in the end result, this whole situation encapsulates the power of "more speech" being the best answer to "bad speech." A giant conversation has been started and (almost) none of it has involved getting the law involved to step in and decide who is bad and who is good. Instead, in occasionally messy ways, the community is working out its own norms, and that's fascinating to watch.

As mentioned, last week, we held an all day brainstorming event, bringing together artists and entrepreneurs to talk about the challenges and opportunities that we all face, and to see if there are ways to help each other. I'll have a full writeup on that later this week, but one point that was raised by some of the musicians at the session was that "success" can mean different things to different people, and one full-time musician pointed out that just being able to afford her own health insurance was a kind of "success," in that it showed she'd been able to earn enough to cover that bare minimum of "necessities." So it's interesting to see, just days later, that Amanda Palmer is making a lot of news today with her fascinating #InsurancePoll campaign, which she started after reading Nicholas Kristof's story about his college roommate, who has prostate cancer and is in bad shape -- in large part because he put off going to the doctor since he didn't have health insurance. In response, Amanda realized that many musicians, similarly, do not have health insurance, and she tweeted about it:

most small-to-mid-level musicians i know don't have health insurance. some musicians find tricky ways, some pay, most take the risk & pray.
when i was in my early twenties, buying my own insurance would have been equal half my rent. it just didn't seem like an option. my parents had just watched the death of my step-brother (uninsured when stricken with a disease) almost destroy the family bank, and so they DEMANDED i get insurance.
we fought.
they offered to pay half.
i agreed.
i was lucky.
many aren't.

From there, lots of other people responded with stories about their own health insurance situation, and she decided to ask people more directly about their own health insurance situation with a quick poll question:

quick twitter poll. 1) COUNTRY?! 2) profession? 3) insured? 4) if not, why not, if so, at what cost per month (or covered by job)?

— Amanda Palmer (@amandapalmer) October 14, 2012

The end result was tons of people responding, most using the #InsurancePoll hashtag. That seemed quite interesting to Amanda, who got a volunteer to start tallying up all of the info. And she noticed some of the commentary, which noted that people in various countries were somewhat unaware of how things were elsewhere:

people OUTSIDE the US were looking at all the tweets from the US and feeling really, really, really bad for us. and some younger tweeters (teenagers, i can only assume) were shocked that we americans don't have what they have (the NHS was getting a lot of love and support from the brits, especially seeing as it's under threat).

people INSIDE the US couldn't believe what people OUTSIDE the US didn't KNOW. this is the amazing power of twitter sometimes. we all think we share common knowledge, and then something like this pops up and BAM – you see a whole bunch of people in different countries shocking the hell out of each other. we all know that lance armstrong doped, that lady gaga gained weight, , etc….but tons of people in the UK/Finland/Australia/etc don't know the extent to which US people FREAK OUT on a daily/monthly/yearly basis about insurance. how much it changes our lives. and how EVERYbody has a story.

No matter what your stand is on health insurance or healthcare, you can't deny that this bit of information sharing is both powerful and impressive. Amanda and the volunteer are going to tally up all the data and release it when it's ready, which should be interesting as well. While this is hardly a scientific or randomized survey, it is interesting information that is making more people aware of the situation that others are in. When you think about the power of social media to even create such a discussion (outside the normal realms of political fighting), it's really amazing.

With story upon story upon story (upon story) of how patent trolls, those non-producing entities that derive income solely through litigation and threat thereof, are enormous leeches on innovation and progress, you may have noticed something. You possibly thought to yourself, "it sure seems like we're hearing more about these vampiric bastards these days". Guess what? You are, because there's more of them. Vastly more.

According to a recent study by Robin Feldman of UC Hastings College of Law and Lex Machina, the percentage of patent cases finding their way to court jumped from 22% in 2007 to 40% in 2011. Note that the following graph is a corrected graph issued after the initial report by the authors.

The study was inspired by the America Invents Act, last year's largely toothless overhaul of the patent system. In it, Congress asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the impact of non-practicing entities—a more clinical term for patent trolls—on the economy. Because Lex Machina already had a database of patent litigation, the GAO asked it to produce a random sample of 100 patent lawsuits for each year from 2007 to 2011. In addition to supplying the GAO with the data it needed for its forthcoming study, Lex Machina decided to publish its own interpretations of the sample.

As the Ars Technica piece notes, that shocking statistic above doesn't even tell the whole story. When you consider that patent litigation as a total has jumped in volume, coupled with the number/percentage of patent troll threats settling well outside of the courtroom, experts figure that the size of the patent troll leeches are roughly double the size of your average adult kraken.

"From all appearances, lawsuits filed are only the tip of the iceberg (editors note: kraken-sized leeches often hide under iceberg tips), and a major operating company may face hundreds of invitations to license for every lawsuit," the authors write.

The America Invents Act was enacted in the final months of the study period. And there was at least one minor change designed to deter troll behavior: the law made it harder to name many defendants in a single lawsuit. But the law's main provisions, such as the switch from a "first to invent" rule to "first to file" is unlikely to affect the volume of troll litigation.

Hell, this all sounds like promoting the progress to me. That, or some flavor of patent abuse. Surely it's one of the two...

The "War on Terror" continues unabated despite a lack of results. The grand (over)reaction to the 9/11 attacks has become a multi-billion dollar industry in which civil liberties are exchanged for money to throw into a bottomless pit labeled "safety." A recent Senate report on the DHS's so-called "fusion centers" unveiled more layers of waste, fraud and abuse of civil liberties, perpetrated under the guise of "anti-terrorism."

Here's another unsurprising report detailing an anti-terrorist effort that's produced next to nothing in exchange for nearly $6 million. The oddly credulous "reporting" simply runs down the facts as presented by NJ Transit police chief Christopher Trucillo.

A $5.8 million federally funded program allowing NJ Transit commuters to "Text Against Terror" has brought 307 tips to the agency since its startup in June 2011 — ranging from some warranting further investigation to travelers testing the system.

Of those 307 text messages, 71 have "referred to something regarding homeland security," said Christopher Trucillo, chief of NJ Transit police.

In 16 months, nearly $6 million in spending has resulted in 307 tips. This may seem like a good number of tips (nearly 20 a month!), but it breaks down to about $19,544 per tip. And most of those tips weren't even useful. (Note that a percentage of this tip count includes people "testing the system" -- which sounds like something between a mic check and a prank call. Someone must be padding numbers if they're going to include varieties of "IS THIS THING ON?" in its published tip count.)

Only 71 tips actually met the criteria of the program, requiring further investigation. One would hope that each of these tips was investigated to the fullest possible extent, considering taxpayers are spending $84,507 per "useful" tip.

And what sort of things did the "see something text something" Jersey natives report?

"Someone saw something that made them uncomfortable that required us to take secondary action, like an unattended bag or someone taking pictures in a particular area," Trucillo said.

While I can see the "unattended bag" being a cause for alarm, the vague "someone taking pictures" reports are a very simple way for taxpayers to heap more chilling effects on their own shoulders. But better safe than sorry, I suppose. How many terrorists were nabbed as a result of these select texts?

The majority of subjects of those 71 texts were investigated and eliminated as a cause for concern, he said.

Trucillo's answer is purposefully vague. Is a majority 2/3rds? Is it all but a handful? There's no telling. He does state that in a "rare instance," tips have been referred to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, composed of State Police, NJ Transit and Port Authority representatives, the FBI, and the DHS. Unfortunately, no more information is being made available.

"We can't discuss those things," he said, when asked to elaborate on the nature of some of the text messages investigated by the task force. "There have been things investigated by the joint task force."

With all these parties investigating some-number-much-smaller-than-71 tips, we can at least be sure that all of the $84,500 per tip is being spent. Costs are ongoing, despite any publicly noted successes. "Text Against Terror" ads are being run on New York radio and TV stations, one of the most expensive ad markets in the country. In addition, $13,400 is needed to reserve the NJTPD domain (to receive texts) and secure unlimited texting capability. Trucillo doesn't specify the time frame for the $13,400, which could mean per month, per year or any other period in between.

All this expense and nothing to show for it. Going back through the NJ Transit's press release archives, there are only two incidents that even sound potentially threatening and in both cases, "heightened security" and DHS initiatives had nothing to do with the resolution. In 2006, a suspect wanted in an earlier subway shooting turned herself in to NJ Transit police. And in February of 2012, NJ Transit police arrested a man who had called in a fake bomb threat in December, 2011. So, we have one person surrendering and one person sort of calling in their own tip. Anyone feeling safer? SIX MILLION DOLLARS worth of safer?

One wonders why this texting initiative wasn't just piggybacked onto the existing tip line set up in 2003. It would seem that blending the two would cost far less than $6 million and wouldn't necessitate an overly expensive, brand new ad campaign. I can't imagine the blended, cheaper version would have resulted in fewer terrorists thwarted or arrested.

If there's one thing we've seen plenty of here at Techdirt, it's the damage a single DMCA takedown notice can do. From shuttering a legitimate ebook lending site to removing negative reviews to destroying a user's Flickr account to knocking a copyright attorney's site offline, the DMCA notice continues to be the go-to weapon for copyright defenders. Collateral damage is simply shrugged at and the notices continue to fly at an ever-increasing pace.

Textbook publisher Pearson set off an unfortunate chain of events with a takedown notice issued aimed at a copy of Beck's Hoplessness Scale posted by a teacher on one of Edublogs' websites (You may recall Pearson from such other related copyright nonsense as The $180 Art Book With No Pictures and No Free Textbooks Ever!). The end result? Nearly 1.5 million teacher and student blogs taken offline by Edublogs' host, ServerBeach. James Farmer at wpmu.org fills in the details.

In case you don’t already know, we’re the folks not only behind this site and WPMU DEV, but also Edublogs… the oldest and second largest WordPress Multisite setup on the web, with, as of right now 1,451,943 teacher and student blogs hosted.

And today, our hosting company, ServerBeach, to whom we pay $6,954.37 every month to host Edublogs, turned off our webservers, without notice, less than 12 hours after issuing us with a DMCA email.

Because one of our teachers, in 2007, had shared a copy of Beck’s Hopelessness Scale with his class, a 20 question list, totalling some 279 words, published in 1974, that Pearson would like you to pay $120 for.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that Pearson somehow feels that a 38-year-old questionnaire is worth $120, and the fact that the targeted post was originally published in 2007, there's still the troubling question as to why ServerBeach felt compelled to take down 1.5 million blogs over a single DMCA notice. There's nothing in the DMCA process that demands an entire "ecosystem" be killed off to eliminate a single "bad apple." This sort of egregious overcompliance gives certain copyright holders all the encouragement they need to continue to abuse the DMCA takedown system. 

Making this whole catastrophe even worse is the fact that Edublogs already has a system in place to deal with copyright-related complaints. As the frontline for 1.5 million blogs, Edublogs is constantly fighting off scrapers and spam blogs (splogs) who siphon off content. The notice sent to Edublogs had already been dealt with and the offending post removed, but these steps still weren't enough.

So, yesterday, when we got a DMCA notice from our hosts, we assumed it was probably a splog, but it turned out it wasn’t, rather just a blog from back in 2007 with a teacher sharing some materials with their students...

And the link they complained about specifically is still on Google cache, so you can review it for yourself, until Pearson’s lawyers get Google to take that down… or maybe Google will get shut down themselves ;)

So we looked at it, figured that whether or not we liked it Pearson were probably correct about it, and as it hadn’t been used in the last 5 years ’splogged’ the site so that the content was no longer available and informed ServerBeach.

Clearly though that wasn’t good enough for Serverbeach who detected that we still had the file in our Varnish cache (nevermind that it was now inaccessible to anyone) and decided to shut us down without a word of warning.

Well, there actually was a "word of warning." Farmer received the following notice that clearly states ServerBeach's DMCA policy, which, unbelievably, entails taking entire servers offline in order to "comply" with DMCA notices. For $75,000 a year, you'd think Edublogs would be entitled to a bit more nuance.


As for Pearson, it's a shame to see a zero-tolerance, all-uses-are-infringing attitude superseding any sort of educational benefit gained from being included in a teacher's class materials. Taking a look at the original post (below), it appears to be no different than a teacher photocopying course materials for attending students.

Hosting it online may make the test infinitely distributable, but there's no indication this was the teacher's intent. One of several problems in copyright law is the fact that what appears to be fair use to the layman is usually illegal. And the unintended consequences of actions taken in good faith tends to include a ton of collateral damage -- damages which usually far outweigh any perceived losses from non-commercial infringement. Because of this, hosting companies tend to prefer harming a relationship with a paying customer to finding their safe harbors under attack. For the sake of a $120 paper, ServerBeach was more than willing to drop a $75,000/year customer. Despite all the whining, copyright still has plenty of power. Too bad it's so easily abused.

One of the great things about online news sites is that they are so easy to set up: you don't need a printing press or huge numbers of journalists -- you just start posting interesting stories to the Web and you are away. That is, you do unless you happen to live in Bangladesh, where new regulations will make it much harder to set up news sites, as this story from Access Now explains:

the regulation "stipulates that a onetime payment of Bangladeshi Taka 500,000 (USD $6,100) should be deposited with the Ministry of Information to get a license for an online news portal. Each year this license should be renewed by paying 50,000 Taka (USD $610). The license fee can be revised by the government at anytime."

To put those numbers in context, the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Bangladesh, when adjusted for purchasing power parity, is roughly USD $1,700 per year. That ranks 196th in the world, right near the bottom.

Bangladesh is not only one of the poorest nations on earth, it also does pretty badly when it comes to press freedom, ranking 129 out of 179 countries listed on Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index for 2011-12. The new regulations seem likely to push it further down that list, not least thanks to rules like these:

The following program/news should not be published/broadcast: … (b) Any news/program that is violating the main principles of the state and the governance; … (e) Any indecent or provocative satire/music/advertisement/news or any program with subtitles that may pollute, corrupt or hurt peoples' feeling and morality. … (k) Any news/program that may hurt the feeling of any friendly country.

Other requirements are that the servers running the news site must be located inside Bangladesh, and that their IP addresses must be provided to the Ministry of Information. More bizarrely:

No local online portal should link to other local and international news portals.

As the Access Now piece points out, this suggests the Bangladeshi government doesn’t understand how the Internet works, since a news site without links to other online news stories is doomed to parochialism.

Or maybe that's the point. After all, it seems pretty clear that the measures are designed to stifle dissent and criticism of the government by making it very hard for independent news sites to be created except by well-funded outfits more interested in profits than protest, and hobbling them in various ways even if they do. It's particularly sad to see Bangladesh trying to restrict the use of a wonderful technology that could do so much to help lift its people from the difficult circumstances in which they live.

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

While traditional "copyright" industry maximalist players like to insist that any weakening of copyright would be disastrous for the economy, the evidence almost always shows the exact opposite. Exceptions to copyright, such as fair use, over and over seem to show that fair use has a positive economic impact. Thanks to a change in Singaporean copyright law that expanded fair use in 2005, researchers were given a chance to see if they could quantify just how much of an economic impact there was. The recently released research shows that increasing fair use likely helped grow the Singaporean economy. There was a definite correlation to start:

The counterfactual impact analysis of fair use amendments in Singapore undertaken here demonstrates that flexible fair use policy positively influences growth rates in private copying technology industries. In 2010, five years after the policy intervention, Singapore's fair use amendments are correlated with a 3.33% increase in value-added (as % of GDP) for private copying technology industries. Prior to the amendment of fair use policies, private copying technology industries experienced - 1.97% average annual growth. After the changes were introduced, the same industries enjoyed a 10.18% average annual growth rate. This resulted in a total increase of € 2.27 billion in value-added for private copying technology industries in that period. The results show that, prior to fair use amendments, the private copying industries in Singapore were in recession. After fair use amendments, this group experienced a rapid increase in growth rates and continued to exhibit strong growth over the five year period.

Yes, that part is just about correlation -- and, as we know, correlation does not necessarily show causation. However, with additional research, you can sometimes show the linkage, and thankfully, this report tries to do so -- by looking at a "control group" of companies in tech manufacturing and services, who weren't directly impacted by changes in fair use. In that case, there was basically no growth.

Finally, the report then also looked at the "copyright industry" and whether it lost significant revenue because of this change (and specifically if the increases on the "private copying technology industries" are drowned out by decreases from copyright companies). But, no such luck:

There was no significant change in growth rates for the copyright group before and after fair use amendments when measured in terms of real economic growth (value added as % of GDP).

There was some slowing of the growth rate, but not as a % of GDP (so, in real terms). The conclusion is pretty clear:

We suggest fair use amendments in Singapore did not negatively affect the copyright industries significantly because private copying technologies, which experienced high growth as an industry group after the fair use amendments, increase the value of copyrighted works to consumers. While one might expect a rise in private copying technology industries to result in a significant recession for the copyright industries, this has not been the case in Singapore since the introduction of more flexible fair use policy in 2005.

The counterfactual impact analysis results for the Singapore case study show that fair use policy is correlated with higher growth rates in private copying technology industries, while having a very limited impact on copyright industries.

This seems important, especially considering that very few countries have expansive fair use provisions in copyright law -- and when they try to implement them, they're often shot down as legacy players insist that fair use would "put a chokehold" on their industries. The evidence seems to really suggest quite the opposite. But, we're not dealing with people used to caring about evidence, when pushing anti-fair use agendas.