The case of Paul Ceglia, the guy who claimed that Mark Zuckerberg signed a contract giving him at least half (and maybe up to 84%) of Facebook, keeps getting more ridiculous. As more and more details came out there was considerable evidence supporting Facebook's claim that the whole thing was attempted fraud. Ceglia, whose case got a big boost when legal giant DLA Piper decided to take it on... lost much of that credibility when they quickly dropped him. Since then, he's had difficulty keeping lawyers.

And, now, he's being accused of defying court orders and refusing to hand over the details of an email account he had with the username "GetZuck," which raises just a few credibility questions.

Ceglia's ongoing obstruction--in the face of repeated motions to compel--has prejudiced Defendants by denying them access to time-sensitive electronic material that this Court ordered Ceglia to disclose more than six months ago. Ceglia's attorney Dean Boland appears to have recognized as much. After learning that his client had failed to identify webmail accounts in yet another violation of this Court's Orders, he sent an email to Defendants' attorneys offering to provide signed consent forms for two of the four undisclosed accounts: landlubber39@yahoo.com and paulc@hush.com. He did not, however, mention or offer Ceglia's consent to the inspection of the alleganypellets@gmail.com or getzuck@gmail.com accounts.

The judge in the case has already ordered Ceglia to pay $76,000 in Facebook's legal fees, as well as sanctioned him to the tune of $5,000 for delays in making his emails available. I'm guessing even those who originally thought Ceglia had strong evidence to support his case have probably long since changed their minds...

Back in October, you may recall that software company Astrolabe claimed copyright over the time zone database and sued the volunteer maintainers of the public time zone database that is used by basically everyone to properly set the time. ICANN took over the database, and EFF took on the case of the two volunteers who were sued. Today EFF announced that Astrolabe has dropped the case and promised not to sue going forward.

In a statement, Astrolabe said, "Astrolabe's lawsuit against Mr. Olson and Mr. Eggert was based on a flawed understanding of the law. We now recognize that historical facts are no one's property and, accordingly, are withdrawing our Complaint. We deeply regret the disruption that our lawsuit caused for the volunteers who maintain the TZ database, and for Internet users."

In other words, the EFF did a typically excellent job explaining the basics of copyright law to Astrolabe, and/or its own lawyers realized that this case was a complete loser that was going to fail badly.

The days of barbers applying leeches as a healthy regime for bloodletting is long gone (thankfully). But there are still a lot of medical practices that haven't changed that much over time. The history of bandages stretches back thousands of years, so it's not too surprising that some improvements could be added to them. Here are just a few somewhat recent inventions for helping wounds heal.

• Negative-pressure devices speed up the healing process for bandaged wounds by up to 300%. How it works isn't exactly known, but cheap and portable versions are being created and have been used on earthquake victims. [url]
• 3M has created a silicone-based adhesive for bandages that could hopefully eliminate the question of whether to rip bandages off quickly or to pull them off slowly. And in some 3M employee's 15% dream time, post-it notes for skin are being developed to replace tattoos. [url]
• A fluffy cottonball-like material made of glass fibers could help heal wounds faster. The glassy fibers actually dissolve into open wounds and provide medicines to stimulate healing, but this stuff has only been tried on a dozen people so far. [url]
• To discover more interesting science-related stuff, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

I've been debating whether or not it's worth doing this post for a few weeks now, but with so much sudden interest in Pinterest and how it fits in the copyright scheme of things, people keep asking "when," not "if," we were going to write about it, so we might as well tackle it. If you don't know, Pinterest is an insanely popular social network of sorts, built around the concept of "pinning" images you like, creating collections of such images and sharing them with your friends. It's been the buzz of Silicon Valley for quite some time, and hit the mainstream in a big way a few weeks ago. Lots of commentators like to point out that it's widely used by women -- because that's apparently noteworthy in contrast to the typical internet buzzy services that get the usual "early adopters" who tend to be more of the male persuasion. Either way, it's crazy popular. I first heard about it in the context of teenagers sharing "looks" -- creating effective collages of images of clothing/style/accessories and sharing them with friends in a "wouldn't this look nice" kind of way.

But, as Pinterest hit some sort of inflection point right around the Super Bowl (with the help of Facebook integration), a bunch of people started noticing that there were some significant copyright questions involved. After all, the basic way it works is you make use of images you find online and "pin" them into a collection. But if you don't have the rights to use those images, is it infringement? Some are pretty sure that it violates the law in that it wasn't clear it would really qualify for fair use -- and there were also some questions about how thoroughly it complied with DMCA takedown requests. Either way, the issue began to explode with a ton of articles all discussing the copyright questions.

As this suddenly got so much more attention, Pinterest just rolled out a "nopin" meta tag, which allows website owners to basically block images from a site from being easily "pinned" to a Pinterest collection. Depending on who you listen to, this either answered all the copyright questions or merely represented a "small step" towards dealing with them. For angry photographers, I'd bet they're going to claim the latter is more accurate, if they'll even grant that much.

There's also a separate, but related, issue concerning Pinterest's terms of service that includes some boilerplate language that pretty much every online service includes and when someone reads them for the first time, they freak out about how Pinterest is claiming too many rights over the uploaded works. This is an exaggeration -- and we've seen the same thing happen with TwitPic and others, where the terms are there to make sure you're granting the site an effective license to display the works, and not as some nefarious plan to claim ownership of the works.

Either way, the community that's been most vocal about Pinterest and how it's something evil are photographers. While there are plenty of photographers who are quite reasonable on copyright issues, for some reason, it seems like photographers often can be the most extreme on copyright issues, and it's no different here.

However, it seems like (as the music industry did with Napster, and now the movie industry has done with cyberlockers), they're getting the wrong message out of what's happening online: these services are opportunities, not threats. If you want to understand why, I recommend reading (thoroughly) a recent blog post by photographer Trey Ratcliff, who goes into great detail not just about how Pinterest has been really useful for him (including in driving revenue), but that photographers need to stop treating everything as a threat, and start looking at these things as opportunities. Again, you should read the whole thing, but here are a few useful snippets. Ratcliff points out that treating everything as a threat means that you spend all your time trying to angrily shut stuff down, rather than getting your work out there. But there are real advantages to getting your work out there (and he explains why it should be high res, and without watermarks, contrary to the standard way that many photographers do thumbnails with annoying watermarks):

Most people in the world are good people. If they find digital art they want to buy for a print or use in a commercial campaign, they will figure out a way to get you money. 99% of your traffic is truly “window-shoppers.” They will look at your goods, take note, enjoy them and move on. But 1% will want to make a personal or business transaction with you....

[....]

StuckInCustoms.com has healthy traffic that grows every year thanks to good old-fashioned word-of-mouth. We don’t advertise or buy links or any of that stuff. So I depend on the Internet and nice people like you to link back to the site and tell your friends that you find something unique and cool.

Last month, we had 714,143 Pageviews and 234,107 unique visitors. 15% of this traffic came from Pinterest. Amazing! If Pinterest didn’t exist (a reality some photographers would prefer), then our traffic would be 15% less. Choosing to switch-off innovation is a fool’s errand, especially in today’s world. It reminds me of the scene in Anthem where the council of candle-makers becomes rather upset at the invention of the light bulb.

[....]

Someone on Pinterest can make a board called “Feeling a bit blue,” and they can fill it with cool-colored melancholy photos. Isn’t this just another way of making a poem? If I built up this pinboard and sent it to a friend, it’s nothing but a visual poem in a new medium. It’s just as powerful, and, in many ways, more accessible.

Pinterest is simply another way (a newer, evolving way, mind you) for humans to communicate with one another. It is increasingly the job of digital artists to inspire, share and bring more beauty and communication into the world.

There really is a lot more there, and it's worth reading the whole thing. Also, Ratcliff appears to be an absolutely awesome photographer, so I recommend checking out his work too.

Either way, his point is a strong one, and it's really no different than what many people have made to reactionary folks in other parts of the content industry. You can spend all your time trying to kill innovation or stop people from doing what they want to do... or you can bask in the wonderment that people want to do stuff, encourage them to do so, and make it easier for them to help spread your works... all the while making it easy for them to support you. Ratcliff seems to be a perfect example of our discussion on the benefits of being open, human and awesome.

And, in the end, that's the key point. Whether or not Pinterest is a copyright landmine is kind of besides the point. It's a really fascinating innovation that is having massive (unprecedented) success in terms of users. Clearly, it's tapped into a market by providing something that a very large number of people absolutely love. When that happens, there are always opportunities, and smart photographers should be focused on finding and embracing those opportunities.

A few weeks ago, we noted that Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk had agreed to suspend attempts to ratify ACTA while he explored the details -- completely flip-flopping on his earlier adamant support for the agreement. However, late last week he went even further. Rather than just putting off the issue, he's now actively campaigning against ACTA throughout Europe. While some are accusing him of bowing to public pressure and the protests throughout Poland (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing -- listening to the public and all), he insists that it had more to do with learning more details about the likely impact of ACTA.

And here's the thing: unlike most other politicians out there, Tusk actually set up a real and open interaction with people online. This happened a few weeks ago, but Wired has the details:

On Feb. 6, all this activity culminated in an unprecedented conversation between Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and — for want of a better word — the internet, that lasted the better part of seven hours.

People used social media to lob questions and comments, but when the anti-ACTA NGOs involved said Twitter and Facebook were not sufficiently open and transparent platforms for voicing public opinions and suggested IRC (Internet Relay Chat) the government agreed. #debataACTA and #debataACTA-pytania were set up on the IRC server of the political hacker group Telecomix, where a geekier set came to participate. The discussions were projected for the PM who answer questions and points for hours while the event was livestreamed and broadcasted over Polish TV and Radio.

What strikes me as most interesting about all of this is that we've been suggesting a truly open and online meeting concerning what the legacy entertainment industry players feel they need and how they want the internet to change. And people keep insisting that using an open platform like IRC would never work... and yet here's an example where it clearly did. It's really pretty amazing to see a head of state spend nearly seven hours discussing internet regulation/copyright issues with regular internet users via IRC... and having that have a real impact. Impressive.

One of the things I've never liked about copyright is its potential to be the functional equivalent of censorship. Sometimes this censorship comes about because an author didn't get permission to create his work in the first place (see: Richard Prince, JD California). While this unfortunately turns judges into cultural gatekeepers, it's been deemed a necessary balance between copyright law and the First Amendment, and harm to the public is arguably lessened by the fact that we don't know what we're missing; because the censored work is never able to reach and impact us, we've only lost the potential of its cultural contribution.

However, other times a work is created with the initial blessing of copyright, makes its mark on the public, then becomes effectively censored down the line due to licensing restrictions (see: The Wonder Years, Werewolf). This is much more culturally pernicious because it deprives the public of a work already in its lexicon, and the sense of loss is far more palpable as a result. Often, the only way to get the work back in the public's hands is to perform triage, excise the no-longer-licensed content, and try to be happy with a bastardized version of the work (see: WKRP in Cincinnati, The State).

What's interesting, however, is how we've seen the Internet step up to effectuate cultural preservation, when copyright law stands in the way. I recently picked up a DVD collection of Daria, one of the last good things MTV ever produced. The show had an immense impact on my childhood, in no small part because of how it helped frame pop culture for me with its liberal use of MTV-placed contemporary music, and I was incredibly excited to relive that experience. When I opened up the DVD case, however, I was greeted with the following message: For those who can't see the note, it says in the pertinent part:

"So let's answer the big question right away: 99 percent of the music has been changed, because the cost of licensing the many music bites we used would have made it impossible to release the collection (and for many years did). So no, these aren't the shows as aired, but more like one of those astronauts in a TWILIGHT ZONE episode who returns from space and his wife can't figure out what's changed about him, until it slowly dawns on her that instead of a cool song from 1997 playing when he walks into the room, it's some tune she's never heard. Yeah, it's just like that."

Needless to say, I was disappointed. As I Googled around for more information, I could see many other fans of the series felt the same, opining that, "when I watch the show without proper music it feels as though one of the main characters is missing," and "even to those who say they didn't pay much attention to the music, I think you'll still sense an absence." Then I stumbled across something else entirely. Something called "The Daria Restoration Project." Essentially, certain Daria fans had taken to combining the high-quality video and spoken audio of the official DVDs with the music that accompanied the original broadcasts, either sourced from old television recordings or by manually inserting the pertinent songs. They're doing their best to preserve the fidelity of a major piece of culture that is currently only legally available to the public in crippled form.

And of course, their curating efforts are 100% illegal, punishable by hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars in fines.

To be sure, copyright owners are supposed to be able to control how their works are used to create new works outside the bounds of ideas and fair use (though we don't always get that right). However, allowing copyright licensing to prevent the public from accessing the proper versions of culturally-significant media, after their creation and initial publication has already been sanctioned, almost smacks of a marketplace parallel to the European "right of withdrawal." It not only presents a huge hurdle to the preservation of certain works, but robs the public of the value they placed in that media while it was available to them.

While the Internet is not nearly as "lawless" as many would like us to believe, there are certainly pockets of it where the traditional rule of law is less readily applied. And though this poses a challenge to society in some aspects, there is also undoubted utility in having these pockets able to function in the interest of the public, the proper beneficiaries of copyright law, when the legal state of play so radically conflicts with that interest. As a law student, I'm not happy when I see pirates doing a better job than copyright owners at preserving and spreading culture; after all, the Supreme Court recently noted in its Golan decision that copyright law can serve its core purpose not only by incentivizing the creation of works, but the dissemination of them as well. Yet here we see copyright hurdles completely inhibiting the proper dissemination of legally-created works through economic censorship.

Well, as John Gilmore once said, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." So until copyright law manages to untangle itself and properly serve its own fundamental purpose, I'm glad we can rely on pirates to do its job for it.

Late last week, the Washington Post reported that The Smithsonian had acquired "tapes, documentation, copyrights, and over 50,000 lines of code from V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, who both the Smithsonian and the Washington Post insisted was the "inventor of e-mail." There's just one problem with this: It's not actually true. Lots of internet old-timers quickly started to speak out against this, especially on Dave Farber's Interesting People email list, where they highlighted how it's just not true. As is nicely summarized on Wikipedia's talk page about Ayyadurai, he was responsible for "merely inventing an email management system that he named EMAIL," which came long after email itself. The Washington Post eventually offered the following "clarification":

Clarification: A number of readers have accurately pointed out that electronic messaging predates V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai’s work in 1978. However, Ayyadurai holds the copyright to the computer program called "email," establishing him as the creator of the “computer program for [an] electronic mail system” with that name, according to the U.S. Copyright Office.

Except... that "clarification" seems to confuse copyright with patents. Copyright is only over the specific copyrightable work created -- which would be the specific code he used. It does not, in any way, establish him as "the creator" of "the" electronic mail system -- merely an electronic mail system -- and hardly the first one. I could write some sort of email management software tomorrow and copyright that... and it would no more make me an "inventor" of email than Ayyadurai.

There's a detailed history of email over at the NetHistory site, and you'll note that Ayyadurai doesn't warrant a mention -- which isn't surprising since his work comes way after most of the important stuff was done. Thomas Haigh sent a detailed email to the SIGCIS list, breaking down what happened. Apparently, Time Magazine ran a profile of Ayyadurai a few months back, calling him "the man who invented email," which resulted in the Smithsonian's interest. But even that article notes at the beginning that Ayyadurai actually just holds a copyright on EMAIL, rather than email itself. It even asks about the fact that Ray Tomlinson is often credited as being the inventor of email -- and his efforts came much earlier.

Either way, it appears that Ayyadurai has played up this idea that he's the inventor of email, despite little to back that up (apparently frustrating many people who actually know the history). Yes, he copyrighted a particular bit of code, but there's little to support the idea that he had very much to do with "the invention of email" in any way. But, that's not what the Washington Post (or, apparently, the Smithsonian) will tell you...

It appears that ACTA's main political backers, the EU Commission, have finally realized that they were increasingly in trouble in terms of actually getting ACTA ratified. The EU's main negotiator on ACTA, Karel De Gucht has now said that the Commission is going to ask the EU Court of Justice to weigh in on ACTA:

In recent weeks, the ratification process of ACTA has triggered a Europe-wide debate on ACTA, the freedom of the internet and the importance of protecting Europe’s Intellectual Property for our economies.

But let me be very clear: I share people’s concern for these fundamental freedoms. I welcome that people have voiced their concerns so actively – especially over the freedom of the internet. And I also understand that there is uncertainty on what ACTA will really mean for these key issues at the end of the day.

So I believe that putting ACTA before the European Court of Justice is a needed step. This debate must be based upon facts and not upon the misinformation or rumour that has dominated social media sites and blogs in recent weeks.

This could get interesting. As we've noted in recent weeks, the EU Court of Justice has actually been pretty good lately in expressing concerns about overbroad copyright enforcement.

Of course, other parts of De Gucht's statement are pretty questionable. He talks about how the EU Council "adopted ACTA unanimously" leaving out that they did so by hiding it in an agriculture and fisheries meeting. He talks about how ACTA "will not change anything in the European Union" but is merely about "getting other countries to adopt" stricter laws. However, some EU countries have already noted that they would have to change their laws to comply with ACTA.

Either way, it will be worth following the specifics of exactly what the EU Court of Justice is asked to review and how the process works.

The fight to ramp up the fear mongering over cybersecurity has reached new and even more ridiculous levels -- in which an "anonymous" government source claims (without quotations) that the head of the NSA, Gen. Keith Alexander, recently briefed the White House claiming that the non-group Anonymous might be able to mount a cyberattack to take down parts of the power grid. The dubious sourcing already makes the story suspect, and without more context, the whole thing seems silly -- especially given that anyone who actually has any inkling of how Anonymous actually functions would question why it would ever seek to shut down a power grid. Anonymous tends to do things either for fun (i.e., for "the lulz") or (more frequently) out of a more vigilante sense of justice (sometimes misguided, but usually well meaning). The attacks are pretty carefully focused on causing temporary inconveniences, rather than lasting damage, as a sign of protest, or on revealing secret info that it feels deserves a wider airing. Attacking the power grid fits with exactly none of that -- a point that Anonymous itself made in response to this claim:

Why would Anons shut off a power grid? There are ppl on life support / other vital services that rely on it. Try again NSA. #FearMongering

But, even more to the point, the WSJ piece is so ridiculous that it's hard not to laugh when you read the following part:

A stateless group like Anonymous doesn’t yet have that capability, officials say. But if the group’s members around the world developed or acquired it, an attack on the power grid would become far more likely, according to cybersecurity experts.

I think Jerry Brito summed this up perfectly by saying:

Shorter version: Anonymous doesn’t have the power to attack the grid, but if they were able to get it someday, then they would have it. Got it.

You could go even further. I mean, why not just start listing out other hypotheticals using those ridiculous two sentences as a basis. I'll start:

• That baseball player doesn't yet have the capability to hit a baseball thrown by a pitcher, officials say. But, if he somehow developed or acquired it, his likelihood of being able to play baseball effectively would become far more likely, according to sports experts.
• An infant doesn't yet have the capability to drive, officials say. But, if toddlers around the world develop or acquire it, automobile accidents would become far more likely, according to automotive experts.
• Prisoners don't yet have the capability to shoot each other, officials say. But, if inmates around the world developed or acquired it, gunfights in prison would become far more likely, according to anger management experts.
• Techdirt readers don't yet have the capability to make clueless government officials get transferred to jobs washing toilets, officials say. But, if the community there develops or acquires it, dumb politicians being out of work would become far more likely, according to political pundits.

In what journalistic world is it okay to write something where the entire point of the article is to fear monger about a group having a certain power, and then brush aside the fact that it doesn't have that power... and appears to have no interest or possibility of obtaining that power... but then saying, "boy, if it did have that power, that would be dangerous!" None of the hypotheticals make any sense if there's no info on the interest or likelihood of the group in acquiring or using such capabilities. There is some speculation, based solely on Anonymous' (kinda stupid) idea to try to take down the entire internet to make a statement next month, that the group is moving in "this direction," but it still seems pretty silly.

Furthermore, you have to get 10 whole paragraphs down in the article, before it's mentioned that there really isn't any real "cyberthreat" to the power grid. It seems like that sort of information belongs at the top of the article, along with a message about how the rest of the article is fear mongering about stuff that really isn't likely to happen.

Hanno alerts us to the news that Techdirt has apparently been deemed harmful to minors in Germany. The German Media Control Authority has apparently been pushing internet "youth filters" to protect kids from dangerous things online. So far, it has officially approved two internet filters. Hanno got his hands on one and discovered that Techdirt was one of many blocked sites (Google translation from the original German) -- as the filter declares that Techdirt has pornographic images and depictions of violence. We do?

Hanno reached out to a spokesperson for the JusProg filter, and got the usual runaround. "We do not want to censor political opinions." The spokesperson claims that the system is automated and looks at links. When asked why Techdirt was blocked, it was explained that since we use certain words "perhaps twenty times" in discussions about pornography and censorship, the system deemed us clearly a danger. Apparently, we can appeal to JusProg, but it appears that might require some familiarity with German... So, in the meantime, let's just hope that we haven't already damaged the youth of Germany too much.

Who says the entertainment industry can't embrace new business models? From their ham-fisted attempts to make digital movie distribution less convenient than driving to the store and purchasing a DVD to their recent "collateral revamping" of various cloud services, the entertainment industry has never been more flexible.

Plagiarism Today points us to the bold new direction the entertainment industry will be heading in the future. More specifically, a bold new direction the entertainment industry's lawyers will be headed.

[A]t a charity luncheon for the Entertainment Law Initiative, which was raising money for the Grammy Foundation, there was a thunderous applause from the audience, mostly comprised of attorneys, over a paper regarding Android applications the promote piracy wondering why no lawsuits had been filed against Google for secondary liability. Though most of the other papers admitted only received scattered applause, that one seemed to whip the crowd into a frenzy, indicating the possibility that industry lawyers are considering such a tactic in the near future.

It's not an entirely new direction. Google is still the entertainment industry's favorite punching bag. But, hey, billable hours! New billable hours! Surely that's reason for a standing ovation! And a platform switch! Exciting!

A few more details emerged at the Wall Street Journal:

[T]he room went nuts during videotaped remarks by Ryanne E. Perio, a student at Columbia Law School, who wrote about Android smartphone apps that facilitate piracy.

During remarks describing her paper, Perio wondered aloud why offering those apps hadn't generated lawsuits against Android parent Google, for "secondary copyright infringement" - i.e. facilitating piracy.

There seems to be no link to Perio's actual paper, entitled, "Policing The Android Market: Why The Expanding DMCA May Harbor Google From Liability For Illegal File-Sharing Apps Available On Android," so it's unclear whether Perio is referencing the official Android app store or simply broadbrushing (+4 troll points) Google as co-conspirators on any piece of software compatible with the Android platform.

If it's the App Store angle, it's a bit like claiming Walmart is responsible for secondary infringement because they sell copies of Nero (not to mention computers, blank discs, cable modems and other tools of the pirate trade). If it's just because it's Google's platform, then it's about as meritous as suing Microsoft because Limewire Frostwire runs on Windows.

Of course, a lack of merit has never stopped a lawsuit. And it certainly has never stopped lawyers from racking up expensive hours constructing a variety of legal Spruce Gooses. Sadder still, it has never stopped a court from rendering a ridiculous decision in favor of the even more ridiculous plaintiffs.

If you're unfamiliar with EPIC, it's an extremist "privacy" rights group. We've called the group out in the past for its rather ridiculous position on privacy issues. EPIC has particularly had it in for Google, which it appears to think is the evilest of evil sites and the government has to step in and stop it from collecting information to make your search experience better (even if users can block such data collection themselves). What I hadn't realized was that EPIC has such an infatuation with Google that it actually sued the FTC (pdf) to try to force it to investigate Google for its recent privacy policy change. No matter what you think of Google's privacy policy issues, it's ridiculous for EPIC to go that far, and the FTC is making that clear to the overzealous organization, pointing out that it has absolutely no standing whatsoever in terms of making the FTC do anything at all. The FTC may still investigate, but EPIC should have no part of that.

Last week, we had a story about the IFPI (the international equivalent of the RIAA) saying that the ACTA protests were trying to "silence the democratic process". You might have thought that was bad enough, but here's worse.

Netzpolitik.org points us to leaked internal minutes of a meeting of the European Commission the day before the massive Europe-wide demonstrations against ACTA. They reveal the EU's top politicians taken aback by the scale of the planned demonstrations, but dismissing them with almost the same words as the IFPI (German original):

ultimately it will be hard to convince civil society organizations [about the benefits of ACTA]. Represented among them are interests that do not reflect the wider community. Specific activities were observed that do not always live up to the supposedly democratic intentions.

The minutes went on to detail some of the things people are up to:

ACTA's opponents are trying to mobilize people against the agreement, in order to influence the remaining MS [Member States that have not yet signed] and EP [Parliament].

So the European Commission thinks that tens of thousands of people on the streets somehow don't reflect the wider community -- presumably unlike the small band of negotiators and lobbyists behind closed doors that drew up ACTA in secrecy for years, who do represent the European Union's 500 million people.

And the Commissioners are just shocked that the opponents of ACTA, who have been denied any meaningful transparency about what was being agreed to in their name during those now-concluded negotiations, are desperately trying to make their voices heard by the only institutions left that can listen: the EU nations that haven't signed ACTA, and the European Parliament that must still ratify it.

This suggests that the European Commission is completely out of touch with the people it supposedly serves, and still doesn't understand the growing anger that its arrogant approach and condescending tone continues to generate on the streets.

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

Remember Righthaven? No, not that Righthaven who sued tons of people and companies on questionable claims in order to get them to cough up settlements. We're talking about the other Righthaven... the Swiss company that bought the Righthaven.com domain that was auctioned off after the old Righthaven failed to pay the attorneys' fees it owed. The new Righthaven is all about being the anti-Righthaven in many ways: it's about setting up an ISP that provides "spineful" hosting, that will stand up to questionable takedown attempts. This does not mean that they're offering "no questions asked" type hosting that spammers and malware providers love. Quite different. They're simply looking to host those who often have their free speech rights challenged, and who won't fold under questionable pressure without a valid legal basis. As the company explains:

There are many hosting providers who maintain a "no questions asked" policy with respect to their clients and use this approach and lax, evasive or non-existent abuse handling infrastructure to effectively provide a safe-harbor for bad actors. That is not our business model.

Instead, we focus on hosting expression that has traditionally been subjected to frivolous legal threats based on its content. Our approach focuses on our team's wealth of expertise in dealing with high tech abuse and legal issues and our willingness to zealously defend our clients from frivolous, manipulative, abusive or outright fraudulent litigation. Our experience and expertise in issues ranging from fair-use to libel and whistle-blowing protections means we can often gently (and sometimes firmly) remind third parties about the many protections afforded legitimate publishers in these areas.

Often a proactive, responsive and competent abuse management team engaging in an open dialogue and discussion with copyright holders or their legal counsel is all it takes to close what might otherwise escalate into a frivolous suit.

But dialogue isn't always enough. Against this unfortunate possibility we have a second level of defense: In cooperation with our upstream providers in Switzerland we have some of the best free speech counsel in the world on retainer.

The folks behind the company, which is based in Switzerland, admit that they're a bit more expensive than other hosting companies, but that's to cover the cost of actually having people who will take the time to understand legal threats made against you.

Either way, the kind folks over at this new Righthaven are offering a 15% discount to Techdirt readers on everything except their bandwidth upgrades as a "thank you" for speaking out on various issues lately:

Remember us? The upstarts over at Righthaven.com? Providers of "spineful" shared, virtual private server and dedicated server hosting services from the copyright-sane environs of Switzerland?

We've enjoyed your coverage of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA (and us) and since we're launching this coming week, we'd like to give your readers the first bite at the jellyfish (so to speak).

So for the next 14 days new accounts opened by Techdirt readers get 15% off of everything except bandwidth upgrades. Readers who sign up for 3 or 6 months can lock that discount in for the duration.

Just browse on over to our order page at https://plutus.righthaven.com/ and type "dirtlaunch" when prompted for a promotion code.

Just our way of saying "Thank you" for increasing digital rights awareness.

We certainly cannot vouch for these guys, but we absolutely appreciate the need for more ISPs that have a spine in protecting their customers' free speech rights. Hopefully more ISPs will realize that that's a good selling point to potential customers.

Whatever you might think of Kim Dotcom (originally Schmitz), the founder of Megaupload, he at least deserves a fair trial. US officials had worked hard to keep him locked up without bail, but a New Zealand court has finally granted him bail after no one could show him having access to vast funds elsewhere that he could use to make a run for it. Apparently, US officials insisted that he must have those funds, but couldn't produce any evidence, and the court realized that's not a particularly good reason to keep him locked up:

In the North Shore District Court this morning, Justice Nevin Dawson said that after a long time where officials could investigate the Dotcom's potential access to funds - none of significance had been found. Justice Dawson said it was "highly unlikely" that he had other financial resources available to him that had not already been seized.

Prosecution acting for the United States Government had said that because Dotcom was "very wealthy" it was probably he had more bank accounts.

However, Justice Dawson said that put Dotcom in the position of having to "prove a negative" and that assertion was not enough to imply his flight risk.

Four new bank accounts were discovered in the Philippines, but they were empty, he said.

"The suspicion that Mr. Dotcom is very wealthy is not evidence of further assets and cannot be used against him."

I've certainly noticed attempts by many to try Dotcom based on his outward appearance or the fact that he clearly was a show off who flung money around. And I can understand that desire. But, any trial should be based on the actual facts against him, not the fact that he was apparently tacky and a showoff when he spent money. If that, alone, was a crime, then tons of famous musicians, movie stars and athletes deserve the same treatment.

That said, the conditions of bail include no internet usage, which (as we've noted in the past) is pretty ridiculous, since nearly everything touches the internet these days, including popular phone systems. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that he can't have anything to do with cyberlockers or Megaupload or such, but a complete internet ban seems extreme.