Aaron DeOliveira points us to an interesting documentary (and related series of articles) about a hospital in Bangalore, India called Narayana Hrudayalaya, which is providing top notch medical services to all comers and still making a profit in doing so. The trick appears to be a variation on the basic concepts of the "freemium" model (where you pay for higher levels of value) along with a price differentiation mechanism within the hospital. That is, the hospital puts people into different payment buckets based on their ability to pay -- such that it refuses no one, even if they can't pay at all. But, it also makes some of its profits by offering extra amenities at a premium. The medical care is the same for all, but other things cost extra:

At the Narayana, approximately 40 per cent of patients pay a reasonable price for their treatment, a small percentage - those who "want the frills of executive rooms" - pay a premium, a majority pays less than the market rate and 10 to 20 per cent pay virtually nothing. For the latter category, the hospital's charitable wing raises money to help compensate for the material costs of their treatment.

In any other hospital, those who could not afford to pay their medical bills would simply be sent away until they came up with the cash, but at the Narayana the hospital's charity wing helps them to find the money.

So, again, it appears that it's a "small" number who are paying those extras, but those really do help make the hospital profitable and allow it to continue on its overall mission.

Of course, the cynical might suggest that the hospital could be even more profitable if it only catered to those super wealthy who want the extras. But that's not necessarily the case. From the description in the article, the scale of the hospital operation here actually helps to keep costs low. So they actually get benefits of the economies of scale by running a large hospital which treats all-comers. That allows them to keep their actual marginal expenses lower than others, and then by offering premiums for those who can afford it, they're able to produce a profit. Interesting stuff...

We've discussed in the past just how dangerous our reliance on Certificate Authorities "signing" security certificates has become. This is a key part of the way we handle security online, and yet it's clearly subject to abuse. The latest such example: the now infamous Flame malware that targeted computer systems in the Middle East was signed by a "rogue" Microsoft certificate -- one which was supposed to be used for allowing employees to log into a remote system. Microsoft rushed out a security update over the weekend, but that doesn't change the core problem: the whole setup of relying so heavily on secure certificates seems to be increasingly dangerous.

Medical technology is making progress all the time, and with that progress comes new ethical questions. One of the big issues that we may need to deal with soon is determining who is really dead (or when to stop resuscitating). Growing new organs isn't quite a reliable technology, so until we can re-grow our own organs, we're not immortals. But we're not dead yet....

• An adapted excerpt from "The Undead" by Dick Teresi discusses how the definition of death has evolved with medical technology. People used to call it death when the heart stopped beating... but they don't do that anymore. [url]
• Brain dead people are being harvested for their organs, but these folks might not be as dead as you'd think. Billy Crystal might call these patients "mostly dead" -- and revive them for true love.... [url]
• Facebook encouraged over 100,000 users to register as organ donors recently. However, there's still a large unfilled need for more donors -- would getting more Facebook "likes" be a good incentive for live donors? [url]
• To discover other biological curiosities, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

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

With all the attention on the Flame malware, there's a great post over at Wired by F-Secure's Chief Research Officer, Mikko Hypponen, explaining why various security firms totally missed Flame (and Stuxnet and DuQu) for quite some time -- despite samples having been sent all the way back to 2010. What's refreshing (even as it's surprising) is to see someone so forthright about this being a failure on his part:

What this means is that all of us had missed detecting this malware for two years, or more. That’s a spectacular failure for our company, and for the antivirus industry in general.

It's so rare to see someone admit to a mistake -- especially one that seems so big (even if it doesn't really impact most people outside of the Middle East. Part of the problem, he notes, is that spotting this kind of thing is just beyond what companies like his can do:

The truth is, consumer-grade antivirus products can’t protect against targeted malware created by well-resourced nation-states with bulging budgets. They can protect you against run-of-the-mill malware: banking trojans, keystroke loggers and e-mail worms. But targeted attacks like these go to great lengths to avoid antivirus products on purpose. And the zero-day exploits used in these attacks are unknown to antivirus companies by definition. As far as we can tell, before releasing their malicious codes to attack victims, the attackers tested them against all of the relevant antivirus products on the market to make sure that the malware wouldn’t be detected. They have unlimited time to perfect their attacks. It’s not a fair war between the attackers and the defenders when the attackers have access to our weapons.

Antivirus systems need to strike a balance between detecting all possible attacks without causing any false alarms. And while we try to improve on this all the time, there will never be a solution that is 100 percent perfect. The best available protection against serious targeted attacks requires a layered defense, with network intrusion detection systems, whitelisting against known malware and active monitoring of inbound and outbound traffic of an organization’s network.

He later concludes: "We were out of our league, in our own game."

Of course, this is the nature of a security system that is based on reacting to threats, rather than preventing security holes and risks, as he more or less explains. In the end, there's a bit of a cat and mouse game going on here, and no one's going to be able to catch all malware. But as even Hypponen admits, the best solution is to rely on more than one method for trying to keep systems secure, rather than believing that there is a single bullet.

While the Dutch courts forced local ISPs to block The Pirate Bay, kicking off a hilariously pointless and never-ending game of whac-a-mole, it's still never been fully explained why TPB -- as an intermediary -- should be liable for the infringement done by its users. In fact, a new ruling in a Dutch appeals court seems to suggest that neutral intermediaries deserve full protection from liability for infringement by their users. The ruling seems to focus more on trademark, but also appears to reference copyright as well. It involves an eBay subsidiary, Markplaats, and Stokke, makers of a high chair, who felt there was infringement on Markplaats. The case seems similar, in many ways, to a number of trademark cases filed around the globe against eBay.

Here, the court said that a neutral intermediary is not responsible for infringement done by users, and cited last summer's European Court of Justice ruling in the eBay/L'Oreal case. We found that ruling to leave open way too many loopholes that would make intermediaries liable, but thankfully, the appeals court in the Netherlands recognized the key issues, and insisted that Marplaats retains its status as a neutral platform even though it provides many more functions beyond just hosting. The court found that since the functions it performs don't favor either buyers or sellers, it still is considered a "neutral" intermediary.

The court also looked at whether or not certain remedies that Stokke was pushing for made sense, and noted that injunctions that required pro-active monitoring to prevent infringement did not make sense, in part because they seemed disproportionate and expensive. It similarly rejects a "notice and stay-down" provision (like a notice and take-down, but which also requires proactive blocking of any future attempts to post something infringing), noting that such a system would be costly and provide little real benefit.

Overall, this latest ruling seems to make sense, and properly focuses the liability question away from the intermediary tool provider. However, I do wonder how the court rulings against The Pirate Bay (and against neutral proxy services) make sense under a similar light.

A few weeks back, we wrote about the rather crazy exaggeration and attack from the UK Publisher's Association on groups -- including the British Library -- who were seeking common sense changes to copyright law. After that post went up, I was asked to participate in a podcast debate with Mollett, chief executive of the UK Publisher's Assocation, along with the head of the UK Pirate Party, Loz Kaye (also a composer/musician) for The Naked Book. You can now listen to the episode here:

Via Radio Litopia

It goes on for about an hour. The debate got a bit heated at times, but honestly I thought it was something of a joke. First, you have one of the biggest abusers of hyperbole and exaggeration -- Richard Mollet -- and any time Loz or I made any points against him, his response was to just accuse us of hyperbole. For example, he keeps setting up a ridiculous strawman, claiming that people like myself have claimed that everyone should just get everything for free and no one will ever pay for anything. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

For a good summary of the conversation, you could read this blogpost from Cheapass Fiction which covers the high (and low) points:

Throughout the hour-long show, he repeatedly attacked pirates as though they were some monolithic mob, rather than readers, librarians, professors, students, and even creators. (Maybe someone should have told him that Loz was a composer & musician.)

Richard Mollet bypassed the victims copyright. He went for the jugular, ignoring his opponents’ points – libraries being crippled, and culture stagnating without copyright reform. Every time – every time! – one of these points was brought up he got defensive, shifting the focus away from the issue, saying things like “this is classic Pirate Party tactics!” as in the quote above. The irony was palpable, for as a great defender of victim-authors, one would expect him to at least show compassion to the victims he himself has helped to create. But there was not even a charade of sympathy.

One final point: towards the end, we got into a bit of a debate about differences between the basics of UK copyright law and the US (since everyone else on the episode were UK-based). I pointed out the value of fair use, which Richard seems to think would be too difficult to implement in the UK now because it would create massive uncertainty. I don't see why that should be, since a UK implementation could easily learn from what's happened in the US and establish the rules accordingly.

However, I also brought up the importance of separating out the "moral rights" argument from the "economics rights" argument, and Richard seemed to react as if this was an impossibility. It is not. In the US, we've survived (and thrived) without a standard "moral right" as a part of copyright law (except for a very, very small category of visual artists, which is a relatively recent change anyway). If you are going to look at the actual economic harms done by copyright law, it's a cheap and weak response to revert over to moral arguments the second anyone calls you on it. If we want to have an honest debate about preventing the economic harms, we have to separate out the moral rights. And as the US has shown, there is absolutely nothing crazy at all about that, contrary to Richard's mocking claims or his insistence that I live on a "different planet" than he does. The planet he and I both live on confirms that what I said was true.

There's been plenty of buzz about the EU Commission basically admitting that it's going to go after Google on antitrust grounds if Google doesn't change certain practices. However, as we've seen with past claims of antitrust issues with Google, when you begin to unpack the complaints, they don't seem to hold up to much scrutiny. There is no argument that Google is a big player, and could be abusive -- but there is little, if any, evidence of actual abuse. And, most of all, there seems to be no evidence that Google's actions harm consumers.

With perfect timing, the Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog held a blog symposium concerning antitrust issues related to Google and there are a bunch of worthwhile reads in there. Much of the focus of the discussion (and some of the EU's complaints) have to do with the nonsensical concept of "search neutrality" -- a made up concept that was designed originally to mock Google for supporting "net neutrality." But just because you add "neutrality" to the end of each phrase doesn't mean that the two have anything in common. Most people supporting the concept of "search neutrality" talk about how it's somehow "unfair" if Google pushes down a website. In fact, that's been the crux of most of the complaints from companies -- that Google doesn't rank them high enough, or somehow favors its own services above their own. But if their services suck and consumers find them annoying or spammy, shouldn't we want Google to demote them? And so far no one has explained why Google should support other search engines.

In that online symposium, Frank Pasquale makes the case for why Google should be subject to having others review its algorithmic choices to keep such searches "neutral." But, in one of the more compelling statements, law professor James Grimmelman points out that for all this talk of "search neutrality," no one can explain how it makes any sense:

The problem is that one cannot define "manipulation" without some principled conception of the baseline from which it is a deviation. To punish Google for being non-neutral, one must first define "neutral," and this is a surprisingly difficult task.

In the first place, search engines exist to make distinctions among websites, so equality of outcome is the wrong goal. Nor is it possible to say, except in extremely rare cases (such as, perhaps, "4263 feet in meters") what the objectively correct best search results are. The entire basis of search is that different users have different goals, and the entire basis of competition in search is that different search engines have different ways of identifying relevant content. Courts and regulators who attempt to substitute their own judgments of quality for a search engine's are likely to do worse by its users.

Neutrality, then, must be a process value: even-handed treatment of all websites, whether they be the search engine's friends or foes. Call this idea "impartiality." Tarleton Gillespie suggested the term to me in conversation.) The challenge for impartiality is that search engines are in the business of making distinctions among websites (Google alone makes hundreds of changes a year).

You can't just say that you're going to force Google to be "neutral," because there is nothing neutral about what a search engine does. By definition it's picking winners and losers. If it does a bad job of it, people switch to other search engines (and, for what it's worth, a lot of people have been complaining about search quality lately -- and I've certainly found myself using DuckDuckGo and Blekko more frequently as Google doesn't find stuff it should be able to find).

But, as Grimmelman notes, even if you can argue that Google shouldn't be allowed to favor its own offerings, that leads to a difficult question: is the purpose of anti-trust law to benefit consumers or to benefit competitors? Some may argue that with greater competition, consumers are automatically better off, but that's slightly misleading. That's true of greater competition in the overall world (and it's why I can choose those competing search engines). But does it make sense to have that same sort of competition within Google by forcing it to change its algorithms? That's a much, much harder case. Again, Grimmelman highlights the problems:

Here, however, it confronts one of the most difficult problems of high-technology antitrust: weighing pro-competitive justifications and anti-competitive harms in the design of complicated and rapidly changing products. Many self-serving innovations in search also have obvious user benefits.

One example is Google's treatment of product-search sites like Foundem and Ciao. Google has admitted that it applies algorithmic penalties to price-comparison sites. This may sound like naked retaliation against competitors, but the sad truth is that most of these "competitors" are threats only to Google's users, not to Google itself. There are some high-quality product-search sites, but also hundreds of me-too sites with interchangeable functionality and questionable graphic design. When users search for a product by its name, these me-too sites are trying to reintermediate a transaction that has very little need of them. Ranking penalties directed at this category share some of the pro-consumer justification of Google's recent moves against webspam.

In other words, it seems pretty clear that some of the sites complaining loudest for antitrust action against Google were crappy sites that users didn't want cluttering up their Google search results. Why should Google be punished just because those sites couldn't compete and offer a good service? That seems backwards.

There is no doubt that we should be cautious around companies that get to be "too big," to make sure they're not doing things that hurt the public. But, so much of the focus on Google is about (a) just how big Google is and (b) how it harms some competitors within Google. Of course, plenty of Google competitors thrive within (and outside) Google as well. It really only seems to be the flailing ones who are complaining the loudest (with the possible exception of Yelp, whose complaints still don't make any sense to me).

If there are legitimate antitrust concerns, they should be discussed, but so far, all of the concerns raised seem to be because some companies just don't like how they rank in Google. And it's not at all clear we need a massive antitrust lawsuit to deal with that issue. It's not at all clear it's an issue to begin with.

Rob Reid, who recently got a ton of well deserved attention for his hilarious TED talk on copyright math, has a WSJ op-ed piece, in which he tries to explain why there's so little ebook infringement, compared to music infringement. The crux of his argument? Even though the big publishers aren't really great about this stuff, rather than fight the technology, they were actually quick to embrace the technology and make authorized works available for purchase. Contrast that to the music industry, which sued every advancement in technology, including the first MP3 player, and didn't actually license an MP3 download store until many, many years after MP3 players were widely available.

Compare this to the situation in books. Although it had some small-time forerunners, the Kindle, like the Rio MP3 player, brought portability to a mass market. But the Kindle launched with licenses rather than lawsuits from the key rights-holders in its domain, and offered more than 90% of the day's best sellers when it shipped.

This meant that consumers discovered digital books through a licensed experience that delighted them. Exciting hardware, a critical mass of titles and Amazon's retail sensibilities were all integrated into a single elegant package that piracy has never matched.

Of course, piracy emerged anyway. Countless unlicensed e-books can be found online, and millions of people use them. But sales figures suggest that relatively few of these downloads represent foregone purchases. Most Kindle, iPad and Nook owners seem to view piracy as a low-rent and time-consuming experience compared with the sanctioned alternatives. They probably wouldn't if the publishers had kicked things off with a five-year content boycott.

This highlights a key point that many of us have been trying to make for a long, long time. The "answer" to the "piracy question" is not greater enforcement or more draconian laws, as the entertainment industry keeps telling us, but rather more legitimate services that can provide good value to consumers. The music industry failed at that for so long, that it really helped drive the culture of infringing music.

For years, we've pointed out that of course you can compete with free. But what Rob's article is highlighting is even more fundamental. Not only can you compete with free, you must compete with free or you're going to lose out. If you don't offer a legitimate alternative, people will flock to the illegitimate ones. Yes, some people will always infringe, but over and over again we see how legitimate services pull people away from file sharing and towards paying -- if they provide enough value at a reasonable price.

Now, I know that some will quibble with one other major difference between books and music that Rob sort of leaps over in his piece: it was much easier to create digital music than ebooks. You could just take CDs and drop it into your computer and there you go. There really wasn't a simple equivalent for books. Sure, lots of people have scanners, but that's a laborious process. Still, I'm not convinced that was really as big a deal as I'm sure some will make of it. That's because once a single copy of a book is digitized, it's very quickly available all over the place. And there were plenty of people working to digitize books long before the Kindle came along. It might have been a limiting factor, but certainly not a complete hindrance to ebook infringement.

Either way, the key takeaway can hardly be challenged: the way to deal with piracy is to offer good legitimate services, and preferably more than just one, so they can compete on adding value. Unfortunately, many in the industry like to just dip their toes in the water with a few services -- and as soon as they become successful, seek to raise prices. That's no way to encourage a long term market success.

Last week, we wrote about Hollywood super agent Ari Emanuel first demanding a magic stop piracy button from Google, followed by his request to sit down and meet with "the government" and representatives of "Silicon Valley" in a room. As we responded, that meeting is going on already, and it's happening online with the public -- the more important stakeholder, whom Emanuel has totally left out of the equation.

Ali Sternburg points us to a tweet from Nate Otto, in which he basically makes the same point, but much more concisely:

I'm tired of Hollywooders thinking IP policy "stakeholders" fit in a room & don't include the public.

It's such a simple and important point that I wanted to repost it here. It needs to be repeated over and over again.

Ever since Hollywood lost the SOPA/PIPA fight, they keep claiming, over and over again, that Silicon Valley needs to get in a room with them. Chris Dodd has done it a bunch of times -- and each time we've asked why he doesn't actually go online and talk to the public. Now Ari Emanuel has done it too, and we need to repeat a paraphrase on Nate's tweet above.

Copyright's stakeholders don't fit in a room and must include the public, by definition

Any time we hear a demand for a company to do some sort of backroom deal on copyright, we need to remember and remind people:

Copyright's stakeholders don't fit in a room and must include the public, by definition

I doubt it will sink it, but perhaps if we remind them enough, they'll finally start to realize it.

Earlier this year, we wrote about two different petitions on the White House's official petition platform concerning ACTA. We noted that one of the petitions was very oddly worded, talking about getting the US to "end ACTA." It's description was a bit confused, and didn't seem to understand the process or history behind ACTA. There was a second one that was focused more accurately on asking the White House to submit ACTA to the Senate for ratification, as required by the Constitution. Unfortunately, only the first, oddly worded, petition reached the official vote threshold to require a response from the White House. The other petition has since been disappeared from the site.

However, while it took a while, the White House has finally responded, in the form of Miriam Sapiro, who is the deputy US Trade Rep -- i.e., second in command to USTR Ron Kirk. So, it's no surprise that her response is the usual mix of misleading to downright questionable statements:

As you may know, the proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods poses considerable challenges for legitimate trade and economic development. Protecting intellectual property rights helps to further public policies that are designed to protect the public. ACTA will help authorities, for example, protect against the threat posed by potentially unsafe counterfeit goods that can pose a significant risk to public health, such as toothpaste with dangerous amounts of diethylene glycol (a chemical used in brake fluid), auto parts of unknown quality or suspect semiconductors used in life-saving defibrillators.

Yup. Start out with the usual misleading crap of focusing solely on "health" risks from physical counterfeiting... totally ignoring that physical counterfeiting is an entirely different issue than copyright infringement of digital goods. But never bother to separate out or differentiate, even though the bulk of ACTA is targeted at dealing with digital infringement. As ACTA supporters have done since day one, they figure that if they just keep talking about counterfeit physical goods causing harm enough, perhaps they can avoid addressing the real issues -- which is exactly what Sapiro does here. Weak.

ACTA specifically recognizes the importance of free expression, due process, and privacy. It is the first -- and only -- international intellectual property rights agreement to provide explicitly that enforcement of intellectual property rights in the context of the Internet "shall be implemented in a manner that … preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy." No provision in ACTA requires parties to disclose information "contrary to … laws protecting privacy rights." This includes the protections already in place in U.S. law.

This, unfortunately, is because of the oddly worded original petition, that focused on "privacy," rather than the many other more serious problems with ACTA. It gave Sapiro an out by pretending that ACTA deals with the "problems" people are raising, while avoiding addressing any of the real problems, which aren't really about privacy.

In addition to the United States, approximately thirty countries have signed the Agreement, including Australia, Canada, Korea, Japan, New Zealand, Morocco, Singapore, and a majority of European Union member states, as well as the EU itself.

This is a nice bit of trickery. While many countries did "sign" the agreement, signing and ratifying are completely different issues, and as we've seen, the EU Parliament is hopefully very, very close to rejecting ACTA. That Sapiro doesn't even acknowledge this true state of things is really rather incredible. As with her boss, she seems to be actively insulting the intelligence of people who are concerned about ACTA, by pretending (completely falsely) that there is worldwide acceptance of ACTA already.

We believe that ACTA will help protect the intellectual property that is essential to American jobs in innovative and creative industries. At the same time, ACTA recognizes the importance of online privacy, freedom of expression and due process, and calls on signatories to protect these values in the course of complying with the Agreement.

[citation needed]

This whole response is pretty insulting. Yes, part of the problem was the poorly worded original petition, but the fact that Sapiro doesn't address any of the actual concerns of ACTA, and then pretends everything's just peachy with the agreement (and totally ignores the major constitutional question about how the Executive Branch can sign a treaty covering powers only granted to the Congress without Congressional approval), suggests a White House and USTR that still thinks it's pulling a fast one over on the American public.

It's no secret that Google has a troubled relationship with China: at one point leaving the market entirely, and later going back but with significant limitations, though where Google tried to be as transparent as possible about when information was being censored on behalf of the Chinese government. Last week, Google took another step, which was explained, somewhat cryptically, in a blog post about better search in mainland China. The company never comes out and says it, but it's basically hinting strongly at the fact that the Chinese government is censoring certain searches... and doing so in a way that basically blocks access to Google for a certain amount of time, if they catch you doing a "questionable" search. The way Google explains it:

Over the past couple years, we’ve had a lot of feedback that Google Search from mainland China can be inconsistent and unreliable. It depends on the search query and browser, but users are regularly getting error messages like “This webpage is not available” or “The connection was reset.” And when that happens, people typically cannot use Google again for a minute or more....

We’ve taken a long, hard look at our systems and have not found any problems. However, after digging into user reports, we’ve noticed that these interruptions are closely correlated with searches for a particular subset of queries.

Of course, they never say what that "subset of queries" might be, but you can take a guess.

The "solution" is that, similar (though slightly different) to Google's "autocomplete," Google, when accessed by Chinese mainlanders, will make suggestions on alternative searches that won't cause the user to be blocked from accessing Google: It's a smart move by Google, but it does make you wonder if even having that trigger will now lead to being cut off. It's going to be a back and forth, cat and mouse game for a long, long time...

We've noted the unfortunate trend of the Obama administration vindictively going after any whistleblowers (despite one of Obama's first moves in office being to encourage whistleblowing). To date, the Obama administration has been involved in six prosecutions of whistleblowers using the Espionage Act... twice as many such uses of all other Presidents combined. But, here's the thing. We just wrote about the NYTimes reporting that the US was behind Stuxnet, and that President Obama himself was deeply engaged in the project.

As people have noted, that level of "leak" seems to go way beyond what many of those charged under the Espionage Act did (including other leaks to the NY Times). And yet, as Gawker discovered, unlike with some of those other stories, the White House did not try to prevent the publication of this info, and almost certainly gave its tacit approval to the publication.

So, what's the difference? Well, the prosecutions against whistleblowers, and the attempts to stifle the reports based on them, all seem to focus on cases where the White House looks bad -- domestic spying, torture, etc. The Stuxnet story was a success story. Even though the malware eventually leaked out into the world and was exposed, the "damage" was already done. This leak actually lets the White House claim credit and look good.

A year and a half ago, we wrote about Daniel Ellsberg (the guy who leaked The Pentagon Papers to the NY Times a few decades back) talking about his personal theory as to why Obama was so vindictive against leaks, despite an outward persona (and specific statements) that totally contradicted the position. His belief was that Obama was so vindictive about whistleblowing, because all of those whistleblowing cases revealed things that were embarrassing to the President. The fact that the White House doesn't seem to have a problem with this particular leak of classified info -- one that more or less makes them look good -- certainly adds significant weight to that theory.

There have been plenty of accusations made against AOL's the Huffington Post concerning its habit of "over aggregating" content from other sites. While, personally, I think people who accuse HuffPo of being just an aggregator are overreacting on two separate issues (one: HuffPo does a ton of actual reporting also and two: HuffPo's aggregating adds value in its own way), it would be pretty damn hypocritical for AOL to then threaten another blogger for doing exactly the same thing that HuffPo does, wouldn't it?

Enter, Maryland Juice. A local Maryland blog, which recently had a post about some happenings in Montgomery County, which included relatively large excerpts of parts of an article from Patch, another property owned by AOL. It also included an image from the article. The Maryland Juice article included a significant amount of commentary about the article and, in particular, the photo, which was used to illustrate the point (that it was not a representative sample of county residents at the local meeting). And, yet... AOL lawyers sent a cease and desist letter:

As owner of the Content, AOL has the obligation to prevent the improper use of its proprietary material. Before pursuing any additional avenues to remove the Infringing Content, we are demanding that MarylandJuice.com take immediate steps to remove Patch’s image and either 1) display no more than a 1-2 sentence snippet of this Content, with credit explicitly given as well as a link back to the full article available at http://wheatonmd. patch.com/articles/proposed-rule-change-for-accessory-apartments-meets-opposition ; or 2) remove and disable access to all Infringing Content, and agree to never repost or use the Infringing Content or any other AOL Content, absent compliance with the third-party use guidelines identified above.

David, the Maryland Juice blogger, explains how excerpting, discussing and linking is all part of being neighborly online, and tells AOL to shove off, claiming fair use. Of course, you know who should know an awful lot about this kind of thing? Yeah, AOL and HuffPo. You see, a few years ago, when HuffPo tried to do its own "hyper local site," it was accused of doing more or less the exact same thing (but with less commentary, and more copying):

And seeding HuffPo Chicago is a scheme whereby the publication takes some — in many cases all — of the content from another site, with a link back to the original.

The result is quick and easy traffic for the new Chicago edition, since the publication ends up catching some Google searches for keywords contained in the (Chicago-related) articles it takes. HuffPo already has good Google PageRank, so its own version of the content floats to the top of the results, even though it was not the original source.

HuffPo's justification, at least when the publication was pulling this crap with us, taking the entirety of our RSS feeds, was that the reprinted posts were good promotion, since they included (a totally buried) backlink to the original content on our site.

But, apparently, when someone does it to AOL, it's no longer okay? Now that's hypocritical.

Over the past few years, as competition in the DVR market has become tougher, TiVo has become more and more reliant on using its patents to stop competition and innovation, rather than focusing on competing in the marketplace. its most famous case was the one against EchoStar, which even included TiVo buying a bull (literally) in Eastern Texas, where the district court case was heard. While it won at the district court level, during the appeals process, the Patent Office suddenly indicated that the patents might not be so solid. Not long after that, TiVo and EchoStar worked out a settlement.

TiVo found the process so enjoyable that it apparently started thinking about a second career as a patent troll -- and has already sued Verizon and Motorola. Not surprisingly, it's been pushing some others to license some patents... and at least one large player has had enough. Cisco, owners of Scientific Atlanta, a maker of settop boxes and DVRs, has filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate four TiVo patents -- or, if the patents are found valid, a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe.

Of course, by filing first, Cisco was also able to file the case in San Jose, rather than letting TiVo try to get the case into Texas (despite the fact that both Cisco and Tivo are located not far from each other in Northern California). As far as I know, TiVo has not purchased a bull in San Jose.

We've all seen tons of reports on how bad people are at choosing secure passwords, but it's not too surprising to find out that different demographic segments are better or worse than others at having secure passwords. Though, it may be a bit surprising to find out that a new study suggests that those over 55 pick passwords that are twice as secure as teenagers:

This was based on research on the hashed versions of 70 million Yahoo users, in which a Cambridge research tried to determine the strength of all of the passwords, and see how different groups did. Some of the other findings:

People with a credit card stored on their account do little to increase their security other than avoiding very weak passwords such as "123456". Unsurprisingly, people who change their password from time to time tend to select the strongest ones.

In terms of more specifics:

Password strength is measured in bits, where cracking one bit is equivalent to the chance of correctly calling a fair coin toss, and each additional bit doubles the password's strength. On average, Bonneau found that user-chosen passwords offer less than 10 bits of security against online attacks, meaning it would only take around 1000 attempts to try every possible password, and around 20 bits of security against offline attacks.

That's surprising, because even a randomly chosen six-character password composed of digits and upper and lower case letters should offer 32 bits of security. Bonneau says the discrepancy is due to people picking much easier passwords than those theoretically allowed. He suggests assigning people randomly chosen nine-digit numbers instead, which would offer 30 bits of security against every type of attack – a 1000-fold increase in security on average. "I think it's reasonable to expect people to have the capacity to remember that, because they do it for phone numbers," he says.

Of course, this reminds me (like so much does) of an xkcd comic on how we've all been trained into selecting weak passwords that are hard to remember, on the false belief that they're strong.