A few years ago, we wrote about the ridiculous hoops filmmaker Brett Gaylor had to jump through in making his film, RiP: A remix manifesto. If you haven't seen it, you should. As you might imagine, it's a movie all about culture and remixing, focusing quite a bit on the artist Girl Talk, but also featuring a number of other folks you probably know, including Cory Doctorow and Larry Lessig. Here's the trailer: It's absolutely worth watching. Hell, if you've got an hour and a half to kill, you can watch it right here (via Vimeo): The full video is also available on Hulu and a number of other places -- including off of Brett Gaylor's own website, where you can pay what you want for it.

However, as I just discovered, if you head over to YouTube, you can find the movie in pieces... but apparently part I has been disappeared down the copyright hole thanks to a copyright claim by eOne, an "independent music company." Perhaps this isn't a surprise. Hell, in the very section that is not viewable, the voiceover by Gaylor says, quite clearly:

Whether or not you think this music is original isn't the point. Because the rules of this game don't depend on who made the songs. They depend on who owns the copyright. And according to the people who do, sampling even a single note is grounds for a lawsuit. That means these kids should not be dancing. And you shouldn't be watching, because using these songs in my movie is against the rules too. And the fact that there are people out there calling my favorite artist a criminal, is exactly why I need to make this film.

To be honest, I have no clue how long that clip has been down, but it does strike me as quite ironic. As far as I know neither Gaylor nor Gregg Gillis (who is Girl Talk) has been sued for infringement. And even though the movie (and Girl Talk's music) are widely available all over the place...apparently eOne decided that it couldn't have that on YouTube.

Digital photography has created a massive amount of incredible images. Although professional photography has and always will require quite a bit of skill, the rise of amateur photographers is unmistakable. We've pointed out some cool photography before, and here are just a few more examples.

• Family portraits aren't usually made from collages, but when family members are spread out all over the globe, combining Skype video stills will have to suffice. Rear projectors would be a bit better for this.... [url]
• People riding bikes without bikes are just floating above the street. It's just so easy to photoshop things out of a picture nowadays. [url]
• New moms often enjoy taking a lot of photos of their babies, but some moms also like to see their kid fly. Maybe in a few years, these "floating people" pictures will look like a dated image filter. [url]
• Let sleeping babies sleep.. and then take pictures of them in creative ways. Try this at home. [url]
• What can you do with a leaf blower and some good indoor lighting? Take some cool pictures or insert joke here. [url]

If you have some more free time, check out this unrelated, non-random Techdirt post.

There have been a few unique ideas lately about ways for tech companies to try to "deal" with the explosion of innovation-hindering patent lawsuits against any company that's been marginally successful. For innovators, it's become something of a pandemic, so it's no surprise to see some experiments come about. A few months back, for example, Twitter got a lot of attention for its Innovator's Patent Agreement, which guarantees that any patent assigned by an employee to the company allows the original inventor an effective veto its offensive use. That is, an engineer (even after they leave Twitter, or even after a patent may have changed hands) can, independently of the patent holder, issue a no-fee license for the patent -- so the inventor can grant a license that gets others out of any patent dispute.

And while some other companies are considering using Twitter's IPA -- which it's released publicly for others to use -- it's still a single-company solution. One alternative that focused on a bunch of companies working together was Paul Graham's Patent Pledge which lets companies pledge that they won't use software patents against companies with less than 25 people. A bunch of startups have signed on. It's a nice idea, but the wrong target. The companies willing to sign such a pledge tend to be the ones who wouldn't use their patents offensively anyway.

This week, another potential option was announced too: the Defensive Patent Licence (DPL), which basically requires those who sign up to pledge all of their patents to be covered by the DPL. The way it works is any company that signs on to the DPL cannot assert its patents against any other DPL member. In some ways, it seems like the "L" in DPL would be better as "league" rather than license, since the key aspect is that anyone who does this is effectively in agreement with everyone else in the DPL.

Of course, there's a bit of game theory at work here. You might think that bigger companies would never join the DPL -- and to some extent that's clearly an issue. However, remember, that the big guys may want to avoid lawsuits from patents under the DPL too... but the only way to do so would be to join, at which point they'd have to effectively license all their patents to all other members.

Jason Schultz and Jennifer Urban, the professors responsible for putting this together, have an interesting research paper on the concept that's worth reading.

In many ways, this is an attempt to use the "benefits" of a system like, for example, Intellectual Ventures, without the soul-sucking evilness part. How well it works will very much depend on who takes part. Though, a big issue is that trolls will clearly stay out of it, and they remain one of the central problems with the patent system.

In the end, it seems like all these different ideas are really mostly useful for one key thing: highlighting the many, many, many ways in which current patent system is totally screwed up.

The whole ICANN process for creating generic top level domains (gTLDs) has clearly been designed to allow certain groups to make a ton of money by basically pressuring individuals and companies to snap up more domains they don't need. The whole thing has appeared impossibly corrupt from the very beginning. However, with ICANN finally releasing the full list of gTLDs that have been applied for (using the obnoxious title "reveal day" -- as if the world was really waiting impatiently for this crap), there are at least some bizarre or interesting factoids as we skim through the list. Here are a few:

• Lots of companies applied for their own name or an acronym of their name. This is one area where I could see some benefit in potentially stopping certain phishing scams... But it seems unfortunate that only super rich companies should be able to do that. A few companies sought gTLDs on related terms -- like Nationwide Insurance seeking .onyourside to match with its slogan. Ralph Lauren just wants .polo. Chrysler wants .ram. Travelers Insurance wants .redumbrella (really?!?).


• Google's bids are slightly (just slightly) obfuscated by the use of "Charleston Road Registry Inc." as their applicant. But as the company had suggested last month, it was pretty active, going after some clearly Google related names, including .google, .goog, .gmail, .android, .gbiz and .goo. But it also has a few more broadly worded ones, including .ads (which no one else sought), .car (for their autonomous vehicles?), .dad (just in time for father's day?), .mom, .dog, .family, .fyi, .plus, .tour, .prod, .here, .prof, .phd, meme., .lol, .day, .love (which has a lot of competition), .rsvp, .mba, .vip, .web, .eat, .soy and (believe it or not) .and. There are some strange ones too, like .zip, .boo (did Google scare you?) and .foo. They also want .page (is Larry getting his own TLD?).


• Thirteen applications were made for .app -- including from Google and Amazon, but also a whole bunch of companies that were clearly set up just to seek .app and all of which have similar names: Dot App LLC, .APP REGISTRY Inc., DotApp Inc., and dot App Limited. Not confusing at all.


• Both Amazon and Google would like .book (where they have competition from seven others) and .search (where they have competition from two others).


• Amazon and Google actually come up against each other an awful lot, including for .buy, .shop, .store, .free, .game, .play, .movie, .show, .mail, .map, .spot, .talk, .wow, .you and .cloud -- all of which have a bunch of other suitors as well. They also go head to head (with no other competitors) for .drive. They just missed each other in going after children. Google wants .kid, while Amazon wants .kids. Think these two companies are competing in a lot of areas?


• Amazon would also like both .safe and .room, but not .saferoom (no one went for that one). Amazon has no competition for either of those.


• Amazon would like you to .smile. Somewhat surprised no one else sought that one.


• For .docs, Google's competition is... Microsoft. No surprise there. Those two companies also face off (with one other applicant) for .live.


• Six different companies are seeking .baby, including Johnson and Johnson... and Google? Not sure I get that one.


• Surprised that there are only two applications for .money -- since that's what this whole thing is all about anyway.


• Nine companies want .blog. I really have no desire to pay anyone for techdirt.blog.


• Slightly surprised that only American Express wants .open.


• Hasbro wants .transformers. Seriously.


• TJX (owners of stores like Marshall's and TJ Maxx) wants .winners. No one went for .winning. Apparently Charlie Sheen has fallen off the face of the earth.


• Six different applications for .cpa (including one from Google). Apparently some people expect that CPAs have money to blow on new domains...


• Two different companies want .dot (which actually is kind of creative): Google and Dish. Not sure I understand either one.


• McDonalds wants .mcd (and .mcdonalds).


• Three different companies want .rip. I'm assuming these are for "memorial" sites.


• AOL wants .patch. Meanwhile plenty of people expect that Patch will soon need .rip.


• Many regional ones are unopposed, but .osaka has two proposals.


• Notorious hater of anyone who uses the word "Monster," Monster Cable is seeking .monster, but has to compete with the jobs site Monster.com. Those two companies already have an agreement about the use of the term, but you have to imagine they're not happy to see each other here.


• Eleven companies want .home, once again including a bunch with similar names. DotHome Inc., Dot Home LLC, .HOME Registry Inc., DotHome/CGR E-Commerce Ltd. Oh yeah, and GoDaddy and Google are both there as well.


• The MPAA cannot be happy that Google is also seeking .film, where it's competing against two others, including the "Motion Picture Domain Registry". According to the website for that group, they have a strong association with the MPAA. Both those companies (and a bunch of others, including Amazon as mentioned above) are also competing for .movie.


• As expected, there's also a big fight to be had over .music -- including (once again) Google and Amazon, but also a bunch of operations set up just for this purpose: dot Music Limited, DotMusic, DotMusic Inc., and .music LLC. For what it's worth, the RIAA has endorsed the proposal from .music LLC, because it only would allow "accredited" musicians to use it, and the RIAA loves nothing more than the chance to be a gatekeeper.


• Starbucks (Starbucks?!) would like .now, but it has steep competition from five other companies, including its neighbor, Amazon.


• Seven applications were made for .news (including one from Amazon). I also do not want to buy techdirt.news.


• Three different applications for .sucks. Perhaps I'd buy techdirt.sucks.


• Yes, someone did apply for .wtf.


• .ninja actually is a cool idea for a TLD. I might want one of those.


• There are two competing applications for .sex, because we didn't already have enough of a battle over the sex.com domain name years ago.


• This is slightly outside the list, but related to it. After the list came out, I received a press release from some silly grandstanding "morality" group insisting that .porn, .sex and .adult need to be opposed because "more porn domains means more porn on the internet." I don't think that requires any response other than laughter at the basic cluelessness.

There's plenty more to dig into, but those were the ones that caught my eye. It seems like the key story is just how often Amazon and Google come up against each other...

MIT's Tech Review had a fascinating article yesterday about a couple of "artist-coders" who had automated a system to turn YouTube comments into ebooks for sale on Amazon with somewhat (unintentionally) brilliant results, such as "Alot was been hard" by Janetlw Bauie:


The team who created this has put out an entertaining press release as well. In it, they point out how they're demonstrating some big questions about publishing in the digital age:

The GHOST WRITERS project's aim is to address and identify pertinent questions concerning the digital publishing industry's business models, as well as to draw the lines of new trends for a possible new kind of digital literature, after the web.

The project wants to raise questions like: who do YouTube videos/comments belong to? Where does authorship start and end? To what extent does the e-book format have to be reconsidered with regard to the traditional book form, and what are its most innovative opportunities? How could we act and work on it?

Indeed. When I first read the TechReview about this, my first thought was about how long it would be until they were sued for copyright infringement. Still, I was intrigued by this so I went to check out some of "Janetlw Bauie's" works... only to discover they're all gone. No one seemed to mention this anywhere, but the creators just noted that Amazon pulled them because "they could lead to a poor customer experience." Not sure that's really true, but... Either way, it seems unfortunate to have them just "disappear" (poof!) like that. Were these books really so problematic that they had to be deleted entirely?

Early last week, we wrote about the oddity of how the White House didn't seem to much mind "leaks" that made the President look good in terms of being "tough" on our enemies, such as in the NY Times story confirming that the US was behind the Stuxnet malware, and that the President himself was very familiar with the program. This came at the same time as the White House continuing to vindictively prosecute people responsible for even very minor leaks, such as the Thomas Drake affair, in which some whistleblowing about out-of-control spending at the NSA tuned into a malicious prosecution.

Soon after that story came out, the issue of "good leaks" and "bad leaks" became a huge political football, as it gave the President's opponents an angle to attack him for leaking classified info. The President himself had to shoot back and insist that there were no such leaks happening from the White House -- which is clearly not true. Some of the information could have only come from administration officials.

And, of course, it wasn't just limited to Stuxnet, but other "leaks" of classified info, such as stories around the unmanned drone strike program, which lots of people have reported on, but which is still "classified." Of course, we've now seen grandstanding on both sides of the aisle decrying these leaks -- but not the actions that were exposed by them!

Instead, they all seem to be upset about the leaks themselves, rather than the fact that these questionable activities were secret in the first place. As John Cook recently wrote, these kinds of "leaks" are important because they let us know what our government is doing in our name. That's why these aren't leaks, so much as whistleblowing. And that's an important distinction. That's doubly true as we see to what ridiculous lengths the very same administration goes to in order to attack anyone who reveals information that makes it look bad.

One person's leak is another person's whistleblowing. To treat them all as "leaks" that must be punished (often severely) creates a significant chilling effect on reporting on key issues -- and (worse) gives the government a bubble in which it gets to abuse its power. Rather than condemning all these "leaks," we should be trying to (a) celebrate those who blew the whistle and (b) understand the details behind why such things were secret in the first place.

A few months ago, we noted how in certain cases Flickr would completely delete images (and comments) when it received a DMCA takedown notice. That meant that even if the takedown was bogus -- as so many are -- after you contested the takedown and could put back the image, you probably lost everything else on that page. That's kind of ridiculous. As Jake Rome alerts us, Yahoo (owner of Flickr) finally realized that perhaps it should change its policy and, instead, put the targeted image in limbo to allow the uploader to contest the takedown:

We want to let you know that we have implemented a global change in the standard takedown process that will benefit the whole Flickr community going forward.

When a photo is removed from the site based on a notice of alleged copyright infringement, we will temporarily show a placeholder and the member will have an opportunity to respond before the image is made unavailable.

If the alleged copyright infringement is found to be fraudulent, the image in question will be restored, and the photopage will look like before.

It's really quite amazing that it took this long for Flickr to realize this was needed.

We've been talking for a few months about the nefarious plan by the UN's ITU (International Telecommunications Union) to try to begin regulating the internet, and just how dangerous that would be. This is especially true as totalitarian countries have pretty clear plans to use this process to come up with ways to lock down the internet -- and potentially balkanize it. In the last few weeks the issue has been getting a lot more attention, especially in the US, where there's widespread agreement that this is not something for the UN or ITU to be involved in.

Of course, a big part of the problem is just how secretive the entire process is. Not only does it lack transparency, it entirely lacks accountability. It's a system that is ripe for abuse -- and a combination of either gullible or crafty officials seem to have no problem helping enable that kind of abuse.

As we noted in that last post, some of the first proposals had started leaking, and the deeper people dig into them, the worse they look. The basic proposal that is making the rounds is the one submitted by ETNO -- the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association. What they're proposing is a system that effectively puts in place a massive tax system for the internet. Basically, they're taking a long-standing setup concerning how much it costs for telephone calls, in which the calling party pays a ton of money to "connect" to an international phone system. Ever wondered why phone calls to foreign countries can be so crazy expensive?

That's why.

And now the plan is to basically pretend that the internet is just like the phone system, so they can extend this "calling party pays" plan to one where the "sending party" pays. The reasoning here is more or less twofold: (1) lots of these countries still have (either fully or partially) nationally owned telcos (or at least telco monopolies), whose business models have been completely undercut by the internet. Since these firms have been monopolists from the very beginning, they've never been very good at innovating or adapting to the times. The idea of shifting what had been a key money maker -- collecting tolls for international phone calls -- and then applying it to the internet sounds really attractive to lazy national telco folks who would love a system that just starts printing money for them. (2) While they don't like to admit it, plenty of other countries remain quite jealous of the of large massively successful internet companies which are mostly based in the US. By placing a "sending party pays" tax, it's a way for European (and other) countries to more or less put up toll booths on the internet for these companies, forcing Google, Facebook, Twitter and others to "pay" to reach people in their countries. Oh, and on top of that, it's a chance for them to make plans to drop net neutrality and the basic end-to-end principle that defines the internet.

In fact, the head of the ITU, in a series of speeches in which he insists he wants to cut short these rumors of a "UN takeover" of the internet, makes it abundantly clear that a big part of this plan is to simply funnel cash to national telcos, which he assumes (with no proof) will automatically go towards funding new infrastructure. Take for example, one of his recent speeches in Canada, in which he repeatedly talks up how we need to get money to telcos so they'll invest in infrastructure:

Ladies and gentlemen,

Everyone wants mobile broadband and the benefits it will bring. But few seem willing to pay for it – including both the over-the-top players, who are generating vast new demand through their applications, and consumers, who have become accustomed to unlimited packages.

This is putting tremendous pressure on mobile operators, who need to invest in high-capacity broadband networks in order to maintain quality of service as demand rises.

At the same time, as broadband becomes increasingly viewed as basic infrastructure for social and economic development, operators are being asked to extend the reach of their networks to under-served populations.

These are strategic, bottom-line issues, and we need to be talking about them.

The argument he makes is that if we don't somehow subsidize and funnel excess cash to the telcos, they might not be able to survive or invest in additional core internet infrastructure. Of course, all of that ignores the customer, and assumes a primary position for telcos who'd love to bring in this cash (though they appear to severely underestimate both the collateral damage and the lasting impact of such agreements). All of this ignores the fact that there's so much demand for true broadband internet access that more and more private solutions are appearing, none of which require putting a massive tax on the internet. Furthermore, it seems to assume no one will invest in broadband without government help. This, of course, ignores the fact that the effective monopolies of many national telcos has made those companies fat, lazy and slothful when it comes to actual innovation. There are all sorts of reasons to invest in broadband projects that don't require "taxation" every time internet packets cross national boundaries. Furthermore, if these telcos not only have a national monopoly, but are also getting free money from the outside world, what incentive do they really have to actually invest in improving the network?

If you think that roaming charges and international phone calls are crazy in Europe, you haven't seen anything until this ITU proposal moves forward.

And, of course, there's an even more nefarious and mostly unspoken aspect to all of this. While so much of the focus has been on money (and a little bit on technology), there's a bigger issue: destroying privacy online. No one will say that out loud, of course, but taxing the internet as it crosses borders opens up the door to tracking internet usage. Because you can't tax something that you can't track. So all of these proposals have the implicit problem that they open the door for countries who don't truly believe in privacy for their citizens, to also track how they use the internet, and defending it as required to remain in compliance. Anyone believe that won't be abused by corrupt and authoritarian governments?

In the end, this leads to an inevitable balkanization of the internet -- in which internet traffic crossing borders is taxed and tracked as it wasn't before (where the peering system has been mostly effective with just a few minor hiccups). Once you have such taxation it becomes cost prohibitive for some countries to even offer full internet access to its citizens, and that can get worse over time. Add to that the ability to widely track what people do online (and the ability to ditch the end-to-end principle of the internet) and -- especially for more authoritarian governments -- you open a huge can of worms to let officials spy on all sorts of internet activity in the name of supporting a "international relations."

This is why people should be speaking out loudly against these proposals. So far, it's basically the US against everyone else -- and the US only has one vote.

We've covered plenty of stories concerning Apple's ridiculously arbitrary nature as the gatekeeper for iOS apps, approving or pulling them with little reason. And, of course, we've discussed a variety of ridiculous patent lawsuits -- including one we wrote about back in March, concerning a fight over an iPad app for "augmentative and alternative communications." This was the case of the mother of a 4-year-old girl, whose daughter Maya was unable to speak, but had finally found an iPad app, called Speak for Yourself (SfY) which actually helped her communicate with her parents. There were alternative products on the market, but most did not work for Maya -- and were many time as expensive (one is described as running $7,000 -- which the family appeared to be willing to pay, but not after they realized it wouldn't work for her). And, of course, a patent dispute threatened all of this. Two companies who make some of the expensive offerings, Prentke Romich Company and Semantic Compaction Systems (PRC/SCS) have sued SfY for patent infringement, over a patent (5,920,303) on a dynamic keyboard (held by SCS, but licensed by PRC), which they claim SfY violates.

When we wrote the original blog post about it, we noted that even if PRC/SCS had a strong legal position, if PRC truly stood behind its own mission statement that "We Believe Everyone Deserves A Voice," it would drop the lawsuit. Unfortunately it appears to have gone in the other direction, and enlisted Apple's help, which Apple gave despite no legal basis for doing so. Maya's mother, Dana, recently wrote an update, which starts out by explaining just how much the SfY app has changed their lives in an amazing way:

Maya’s progress in using the app to communicate has been staggering. In my original post I imagined a future in which I could hear Maya “speak” in phrases and share her thoughts . . . now, only weeks later, we are living that future. She politely makes requests, tapping out “I want cookie please.” She makes jokes, like looking out the window at the bright sunshine and tapping “today rain” and laughing (what can I say, 4 year olds don’t tell the best jokes). And two days ago she looked at my husband as he walked by and tapped “Daddy, I love you.”

Life-changing. Seriously.

Maya can speak to us, clearly, for the first time in her life. We are hanging on her every word. We’ve learned that she loves talking about the days of the week, is weirdly interested in the weather, and likes to pretend that her toy princesses are driving the bus to school (sometimes) and to work (other times). This app has not only allowed her to communicate her needs, but her thoughts as well. It’s given us the gift of getting to know our child on a totally different level. I’ve been so busy embracing this new reality and celebrating that I kind of forgot that there was an ongoing lawsuit.

But, some have snapped the lawsuit right back into focus. Despite the fact that PRC/SCS has not asked the court for an injunction barring the sale of SfY, the companies instead went to Apple and simply asked it to pull the app from the app store, claiming infringement. Apple, at least, first contact SfY, whose lawyer explained the situation, said that the infringement claims were unfounded, and pointed them to the ongoing court case. Apple seemed to accept this for a little while... but for reasons that no one but Apple can understand, it decided on June 4th that since the lawsuit hadn't been settled or ruled upon yet, the app should be pulled.

As Dana notes, the app they still have on the iPad works... for now. But it's clearly at risk:

At the moment, we still have the app, securely loaded into her iPad and present in my iTunes account, and Maya remains blissfully unaware that anything has changed. Dave and I, however, know better. We are now shadowed by a huge, impending threat. With the removal of Speak for Yourself from the iTunes store, the SfY team has lost the ability to send out updates or repairs to the people who are currently using the app. At this point, an update from Apple to the iPad's operating system (which gets updated semi-regularly) could render SfY useless (because if the new operating system was to be incompatible with the code for SfY, there would be no way for the team to reconfigure the app to make it compatible with the new OS and send out the updated version). Our app could stop working, and Maya would be left unable to speak, and no one would be able to help us.

And there’s another threat, too, perhaps a more sinister one. What would happen if PRC/SCS contacted Apple and asked them to remotely delete the copies of Speak for Yourself that were already purchased, citing that the app was (allegedly) illegally infringing upon their patents, and stating that they wanted it entirely removed from existence? Prior to last week, I would have (naively) thought that such an aggressive move, harmful to hundreds of innocent nonverbal children, would have been unfathomable. Now, it appears to be a real concern. Prior to last week I would have (naively) thought that even if such a request was made, Apple would never comply without a court injunction forcing them to do so. Now, it appears that they very well might.

Dana questions two things: why would PRC/SCS go to Apple, even though there's the entirely separate court case happening? And why would Apple remove the app? Both moves are pretty shameful, though not too surprising if you follow these kinds of cases. PRC/SCS is using all the tools in the toolbox to put pressure on SfY to fold. Going directly to Apple is much cheaper and much more likely to be effective than asking the judge for an injunction. As for Apple? Well, as we've said, the company is notoriously arbitrary in removing apps. That it may take away a little girl's voice is apparently of little or no concern to the company.

SfY has put out a statement and is seeking a temporary restraining order (embedded below) to try to get the app back into the App Store. Facing a ton of criticism, PRC put out a substance-free statement on its Facebook page with the usual "lots of hard work" language about their product and how they have to stop this "flagrant infringement." The comments on that statement are not particularly kind to PRC. As many people have stated, it's positively ridiculous to force the app out of the store prior to a court actually reviewing whether or not there's infringement here. But beyond just the legal issues, there are quite reasonable questions about PRC/SCS's strategy from a business standpoint. Why would anyone want to do business with those companies going forward? Could you trust a company that sees this kind of strategy as reasonable?

As the famous saying goes, when you are in a hole, stop digging. Someone might want to send that message to lawyer Charles Carreon, who has (legitimately) worked on some good cases in the past. However, for reasons that are confusing even his friends, he seems to be trying to respond to a big mistake by hinting at an even bigger one. As you have probably heard -- since it's all over the freaking internet -- there's a little fight going on between funny webcomic site The Oatmeal (and its creator Matthew Inman) and the not very funny aggregator of things that people claim are funny site, Funnyjunk. You can read our take on the mess, if you'd like.

The summary version is that Inman got annoyed at people posting his comics on Funnyjunk and spoke out publicly about it (to be honest, his statements seemed to be an overreaction and include lots of silly statements about "stealing" that aren't particularly accurate). However, he was clear that he had no interest in suing or using the law at all. He just wanted to speak his mind and shame the site. Funnyjunk overreacted back... and then waited a while before doubling (or perhaps tripling) down on its overreaction by hiring Carreon to send Inman a letter threatening a lawsuit on a bunch of claims, nearly all of which appear to be totally bogus (the defamation claim is the main one, which is simply ridiculous, but there's also an absolutely crazy trademark claim that seems to suggest that Inman's opinion of Funnyjunk is "false advertising"), as well as demanding $20,000. Inman then responded in true internet fashion, by posting the letter with his thoughts interspersed and (most importantly) setting up a fundraiser at IndieGogo to try to raise $20,000, not to pay off Funnyjunk, but to donate to charity. And it came included with a marginally NSFW drawing involving a mother (apparently "Funnyjunk's") and a bear. You've probably seen it by now.

Anyway, somewhere along the way the Streisand Effect took over, and the whole thing went viral. Now, as we've learned in previous Streisand Effect situations, this is the point at which the person who overreacted begins to recognize how badly they screwed up and how they've made things a lot worse. And then they apologize and grovel or something along those lines -- and we chalk up another hash mark on the big scoreboard on the internet showing how social pressure and the court of public opinion can keep excessive legal threats in check.

But, of course, there are always some people who can't stop digging. In fact, I would guess that the people who often find themselves on the wrong end of the Streisand Effect are probably slightly more prone to excessive-digging in response to said Effect, because the type of person who doesn't really know the Streisand Effect is about to hit them is likely the kind of person who doesn't realize that continuing to dig doesn't get one out of a hole.

And, here, it appears that Carreon has failed to stop digging. He spoke to MSNBC and said a few things so stupid that he might want to have someone who is more internet native act as a filter prior to talking to the press in the future about these sorts of things. Here's the big one:

He also explains that he believes Inman's fundraiser to be a violation of the terms of service of IndieGoGo, the website being used to collect donations, and has sent a request to disable the fundraising campaign. (The fundraising website has only responded with an automated message so far.)

"I don't think that what I did was unreasonable," Carreon says while discussing the initial demands sent to Inman. He tells me that while this situation is unique, he is typically open to negotiation. He ended the conversation with a promise to keep me updated on how things are resolved and on whether he takes any legal action against the folks who have been harassing him since Inman's "BearLove Good Cancer Bad" fundraising campaign started.

Yes. A large portion of the internet hates you... and your response is to threaten to shut down a massively successful fundraiser for the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society? Really? Is that really the smartest response to the situation?

Then there's this:

"I'm completely unfamiliar really with this style of responding to a legal threat -- I've never really seen it before," Carreon explains.

Indeed, I don't think anyone is quite familiar with the full extent of Inman's response, but for a lawyer who plays up his connections to various internet-related lawsuits, you would think Carreon would have, perhaps, spent some time on the internet. And the internet, in general, is not a fan of bogus legal threats. There's a pretty long history of that, and it shouldn't have been that hard to predict that this threat would backfire.

Either way, as another day goes by, one hopes that Carreon's more level-headed friends will suggest that it may be time to ditch the shovel.

There have been questions about what documents the CIA chooses to declassify, and so Kel McClanahan of National Security Counselors filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out what procedures the CIA must follow in response to requests to declassify information. McClanahan appeared to know exactly what he was looking for, but... was told that the CIA simply could not find any such documents.
I especially like this part: "our searches were thorough and diligent, and it is highly unlikely that repeating those searches would change the result." This certainly reminds me of the news that came out last year about how the administration wanted permission to lie in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, such that if it doesn't want to release a document, it can just say that no such documents exist, rather than admit it does exist but can't be revealed. No, that's not wide open to abuse at all...

The Belgian EU Commissioner Karel De Gucht is the driving force behind ACTA, and is apparently really keen to combat crimes like counterfeiting and piracy. It also seems he has a slight problem with the tax authorities:

Belgium’s Tax Inspection Service has accused European Commissioner Karel De Gucht of tax fraud. The service says that Mr De Gucht and his wife failed to declare the profit that they made on the sale of shares of the Vista group on which tax was due.

"Politician accused of tax fraud" is hardly news; but what is more interesting is the European Commission's reaction. Here's what it said according to the Dutch language version of the story on the site quoted above:

The Commission adds to this that De Gucht "not guilty until proven to the contrary."

Of course, you might say; after all, surely everyone is innocent until proven guilty? In fact, no:

A Party may provide, in accordance with its laws and regulations, its competent authorities with the authority to order an online service provider to disclose expeditiously to a right holder information sufficient to identify a subscriber whose account was allegedly used for infringement

Note the word "allegedly" -- not much presumption of innocence there when your details must be disclosed "expeditiously." That comes from Article 27 of ACTA, currently being pushed by the European Commission with all its might in a desperate attempt to get it ratified by the European Parliament next month.

So on the one hand, we have someone who allegedly failed to declare profits of 1.2 million euros (about $1.5 million), and who must be assumed innocent; while on the other, we have someone who allegedly infringes on someone's copyright -- perhaps by sharing a single mp3 file -- and who, by contrast, is assumed guilty. Double standards much, European Commission?

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