It appears that Disney's Pixar division is engaged in two separate, but interesting, trademark battles (though the two are quite different). The first involves a Canadian oil company that decided to call its new division Pixar Petroleum. Turns out that Pixar isn't happy about that and is taking legal action. One of the points raised is that Pixar chief John Lasseter is a big proponent of alternative fuels and may not like any association with an oil company. Of course, that alone doesn't make for a reasonable trademark claim. In fact, I'm wondering if there is a reasonable trademark claim here at all. Trademarks cover the specific industries in which you use the mark in commerce, and despite movies like Cars, it seems like a pretty big reach to suggest that digital animation studio Pixar is in the same industry as oil producing Pixar. While it might cause a doubletake, I'm not sure that any of your traditional morons in a hurry would actually think that the characters from Toys were setting up oil refineries in Canada.

In this second dispute, Pixar finds itself on the other side of the coin. The major league baseball team, the Atlanta Braves, are apparently trying to dispute Pixar's attempt to register Brave as a trademark. Pixar wants the name because it's releasing a movie with that name. Of course, the baseball team doesn't actually hold a registered trademark on just "Brave." Instead its registered marks are on the plural version. This doesn't entirely exclude their protest, as they can argue a common law trademark or a likelihood of confusion.

Either way, I'm at a loss as to where the confusion would be here as well. I don't see anyone going to see the Pixar movie and then being disappointed that it wasn't a baseball game.

You may recall that, back in 2007, Verizon Wireless promised to be more open with its network. In 2008, it made that commitment a bit more forcefully under the law, when it won the C-block auction for 700 Mhz spectrum. Part of the rules of that auction were that if the bidding reached a certain level (a level that Google bid to exactly), then there would be openness requirements on the network. Of course, over the years, people have watched Verizon Wireless and suggested that its promises of openness have been empty promises. But are those promises violating the law?

There was some news a few weeks ago saying that Verizon Wireless was blocking Google's mobile payment offering, Google Wallet, on its Galaxy Nexus phones, and that's prompted Stanford professor Barbara van Schewick to ask the FCC to investigate if Verizon Wireless is breaking the law.

Verizon’s conduct undermines the Commission’s general approach towards mobile Internet openness by dismantling the protections for one part of the spectrum on which the FCC’s “incremental” approach to regulation in this space is built. Without enforcement, the openness conditions are effectively moot. Verizon violated these conditions earlier this year when it blocked tethering applications. Now it is blocking Google Wallet. This emerging pattern of disregard for its license conditions challenges the FCC to follow through on its pledges in the Open Internet Order to enforce the openness conditions in the 700 MHz band and to monitor the mobile Internet space for abuses by licensees.

While I agree that this is a bad move for consumers, I'm wondering if it really makes sense for the FCC to be involved here. The FCC has always been pretty weak in sanctioning telcos for doing anything wrong and I'm not sure much would really happen here either. The more effective thing is to watch what the market is already doing -- including quickly figuring out a way to hack Google Wallet back on to the phone. On top of that, this story reflects extremely poorly on Verizon Wireless and would make me question if I'd continue to use them (if I did today, which I don't). So while I agree it's a dumb move on VZW's part, I'm not sure it's dumb enough to reach the level that the FCC should be involved.

There are a lot of new toys out for this holiday season. There's still some time to shop for some cool toys, and here are just a few examples of toys that are expanding their markets into other uses and demographics.

• Lego topped $1 billion in sales in the US in 2010, but it's only now starting to seriously target girls who are 5yo and up. It won't just be pink plastic this time. [url]
• Toy helicopters are becoming pretty advanced, so it's not too surprising to see added hacks to make them more useful. Spending $15,000 to modify an RC helicopter for professional videography goes way beyond most toy budgets, though. [url]
• Normally, Nerf toys are pretty safe and squishy, but apparently, they can be used to extract teeth, too. Will it hurt? Not if used on already-loose primary teeth. [url]
• To discover more interesting business-related content, check out what the deal is on StumbleUpon. [url]  

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

If the feds thought that they could seize the Dajaz1.com blog, hold it for a year in secret, then return it and pretend nothing really happened... it appears they may be in for a bit of a surprise. Senator Ron Wyden has begun his investigation into the matter, sending detailed requests for information from Attorney General Eric Holder, ICE director John Morton and White House IP Czar Victoria Espinel. You can see the three letters embedded below. There are a lot of questions to each of them, with a big focus on who they were talking to about the seizures (e.g., the RIAA) and what they were saying. They also ask questions about the legal basis for the seizures and even the training and procedures involved. I'll certainly be interested to see the replies when they come in...

There's been a lot of talk in the past few days about the companies supporting SOPA. As we've noted, it's pretty damn difficult to find too many individuals who like SOPA (or PROTECT IP), but there are a fair number of companies who might find it advantageous to be able to cause all sorts of problems for foreign competition. There are a few lists floating around of SOPA supporters, but Andrew Couts has put together a big list of 439 organizations culled both from the Judiciary Committee's website and the letter sent by the US Chamber of Commerce in support of the law.

We'd noted that there was some backlash towards companies supporting SOPA, but as more and more people recognize how bad these laws are, it's getting more attention. Add to that the awesome power of Reddit... and the whole thing has kicked into overdrive.

Enemy number one on the list appears to be GoDaddy, with Redditor's organizing a day (Dec. 29th) for GoDaddy customers to transfer their domains away from the registrar. We've discussed GoDaddy's bizarre support for the law in the past -- including the fact that, under the original definitions of SOPA, GoDaddy itself qualified as a "rogue site" since it recommended people buy domains violating the trademarks of lots of big companies. Of course, it's also notable that GoDaddy recently hired a top lawyer... whose previous job was in "IP enforcement" for the federal government.

GoDaddy doesn't quite seem to know how to deal with the rising backlash on Reddit, and has (somewhat bizarrely) reissued two previous statements about SOPA. The first was what it wrote when the bill first came out, and the second was its filing for the original (November 15th) Judiciary Committee hearings on SOPA. Neither of these statements address the concerns of the folks on Reddit and appear to be very much a "talk to the hand!" response to the Reddit community. I would suggest that this may not have been the keenest strategic move on the part of GoDaddy. And it's not just small domain holders. Ben Huh, CEO of the infamous (and awesome) Cheezburger network of sites is promising to move all 1,000+ of his domains off of GoDaddy unless it changes its position on SOPA.

Others on the list of supporters are starting to feel the wrath of Reddit for supporting SOPA as well. 3M, who has been a strong supporter is discovering that their customers are not pleased: Others are starting to feel similar pressure. It wouldn't surprise me to see some of the companies start backing down. In fact, we're already hearing that some of the companies on the list (especially the law firms) have no idea how they got on the list in the first place. Some of the law firms may have clients who support the law, but that's a big difference from actually supporting the law themselves.

On top of that, the backlash is coming out in other ways as well. Paul Graham, the founder/head of YCombinator (where Reddit was first incubated) has announced that he will bar employees from any of those companies from attending YCombinator's famed Demo Days. For those in the Silicon Valley/entrepreneurship/startup world, you know that YCombinator Demo Days are a big deal. It's where all sorts of amazing new stuff gets launched, and big deals are made. Barring SOPA supporters from that event can really hurt those companies. Graham made himself clear:

Several of those companies send people to Demo Day, and when I saw the list I thought: we should stop inviting them. So yes, we’ll remove anyone from those companies from the Demo Day invite list.

He's apparently told the people in charge of Demo Day invites not to allow anyone from those lists. "I don’t know exactly which companies had people on the list. But I know which will now: none of them." He furthermore told TechCrunch that he'll recommend YCombinator startups not take investment money from any of those companies too: "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?"

Either way, what's becoming clear is that even if some companies support the law, it's not because it's good for their customers. It's precisely the opposite. It's because it'll be useful as a protectionist law to stomp out competition or to protect against having to adapt to innovation. In the past, consumers might not have paid attention, but thanks to efforts like what Reddit and others (Tumblr, Wikipedia, etc.) are doing, it seems like those consumers are starting to speak up and make themselves heard. And the end result is going to be bad for business for the companies supporting SOPA.

As you probably recall, comedian Louis CK kicked off a brilliant little experiment in getting people to buy his latest comedy special, by being polite, awesome and human. He offered up a direct-to-fan offering, with no DRM, from his own site for $5, and he did so while being totally open about the process and his thinking, which only endeared him to more people. After four days, he had brought in over $500k, and twelve days in, he's surpassed $1 million, and he's got the screenshot from PayPal to prove it: Once again, his writeup shows that this has been quite a success, as he admits that he's never had a million dollars suddenly dumped on him like this. Also, again, his writeup reinforces what worked about this in the first place, the fact that he's being polite, awesome and human:

So it's been about 12 days since the thing started and yesterday we hit the crazy number. One million dollars. That's a lot of money. Really too much money. I've never had a million dollars all of a sudden. and since we're all sharing this experience and since it's really your money, I wanted to let you know what I'm doing with it. People are paying attention to what's going on with this thing. So I guess I want to set an example of what you can do if you all of a sudden have a million dollars that people just gave to you directly because you told jokes.

He then explains what he's doing with the million dollars. $250,000 will go to pay off expenses related to the website. Another $250,000 is going to his staff and the people who helped work on the show. As he says "I'm giving them a big fat bonus." Then he's taking $280,000 and giving it away to a list of charities:

• The Fistula Foundation
• The Pablove Foundation
• charity: water
• Kiva
• Green Chimneys

What's interesting is he notes that he learned about some of these via recommendations people made to him via Twitter -- once again, showing that he's reaching out and connecting with fans.

Finally, he's keeping the rest for himself:

That leaves me with 220k for myself. Some of that will pay my rent and will care for my childen. The rest I will do terrible, horrible things with and none of that is any of your business. In any case, to me, 220k is enough out of a million.

I never viewed money as being "my money" I always saw it as "The money" It's a resource. if it pools up around me then it needs to be flushed back out into the system.

He also notes that he's a little uncomfortable with all the news this is making and he plans to stay quiet for a bit. Again, this highlights a few key points:

• Being polite and sounding human can be incredibly powerful. It's amazing how simple this seems, but so many things are first run through so many layers of PR people and publicists and the like that it's still pretty rare to see someone famous come across as being human. It's entirely possible that Louis is running all this through PR people and publicists before it's going live, but if so, they're doing a good job in making sure it really sounds like it's directly from Louis. If I had to guess, I'd say that's because it actually is directly from Louis. From everything I've seen, heard and read about him, this really does match his persona.
• Fans don't resent content creators for getting a ton of money. We keep hearing entertainment industry bigwigs and copyright maximalists insist that people claim that the reason they infringe is because content creators "have too much money already." But as we've seen with Louis, nearly everyone who's taken part in this is positively thrilled with his success. I haven't seen anyone complaining that he made too much money at all. Do some people complain about rich stars? Sure, but if you're polite, awesome and human, and actually connect with your fans, they want you to succeed.
• Having a charitable component is kinda cool. Yes, in this case it's after-the-fact, but it's still cool. We've shown in the past that pay-what-you-want works better with a charitable component, and I'd guess it's because it fits with the reasons that people are willing to buy in the first place.

This is a pretty huge success and shows what can be done by going direct-to-fan, while really connecting with those fans. Meanwhile, over at Step2, we're discussing why this worked, and whether or not "polite, awesome and human" are really the key three components. Feel free to weigh in...

The latest in the continuing Righthaven saga is that as part of the efforts by the court to hand over Righthaven assets to satisfy the court order for Righthaven to pay legal fees in the Hoehn case, the righthaven.com domain has been seized and will be auctioned off. While the domain is currently listed as being in the possession of Hoehn's lawyer, Marc Randazza, Randazza says that it's actually been given to the court-appointed receiver, Lara Pearson, who is planning to auction it off. According to Vegas Inc.:

Pearson added Thursday, “If all goes well, I intend to put the domain name up for auction before the holiday break begins tomorrow, though I have not yet made a firm decision as to where the domain will be auctioned.”

So, get out your checkbooks if you'd like to own a piece of copyright trolling history...

A few weeks ago, we did a step-by-step detailed debunking of the claims by the US Chamber of Commerce's Steve Tepp. He had gone on PBS News Hour to defend the illegal domain name seizures, as well as the plans for SOPA and PROTECT IP. He made claims about how "huge" a problem "rogue sites" are, and quoted some big sounding numbers in a very serious voice. We went through the details for where those numbers came from and discovered (spoilers!) that he was being extremely disingenuous in presenting the numbers. The details actually showed that he was conflating a few different issues, using ridiculously shoddy methodology, and mixing in a few dodgy assumptions on top of that. In fact, the actual numbers suggested the real problem -- that of dangerous counterfeit goods being sold, was a fairly tiny problem.

Techdirt reader Nick Dynice thought that the post would work well as a short documentary, and took it upon himself to use the post as a script to create the following video about how Steve Tepp and the US Chamber of Commerce mislead with statistics in a dishonest way to garner support for the illegal domain seizures, as well as the unconstitutional proposals for SOPA and PROTECT IP. Thanks to Nick for putting this together.

We've been pointing out that more and more people, whom the MPAA and US Chamber of Commerce pretend to be representing in their please to pass SOPA and PIPA, are actually very much against the bill. The latest is famed actor Ashton Kutcher. Kutcher, of course, isn't just an actor but has spent a fair amount of time in the entrepreneur/startup world as well, both working on startups himself and (more prominently) investing in a bunch of startups. He's also a very active user of a variety of online platforms. So he definitely has experience both with the "Hollywood" side as well as the "Silicon Valley" side -- though, he's obviously much more well known for his Hollywood success.

Either way, he's come out extremely strongly against SOPA and shows that he really gets the issues here. The key point that he makes, which we've been trying to get across for many months, is that SOPA works by putting tremendous compliance costs and liability on tech companies and startups:

Forcing social media sites and ISP's responsible for users content is amazingly burdensome and costly. SOPA will create economic problems for Internet start-ups which will be an additional negative side effect. This may cause a slow down in the Internet economic sector, which is providing real jobs and innovation for the US economy.

He points out that while the DMCA may not be perfect, it does mostly work for takedowns of infringing content, and that it doesn't make sense to add liability to service providers. Furthermore, he admits that SOPA supporters are correct that the DMCA process doesn't always work for foreign sites, "but SOPA as it is written causes more problems [than it] solves."

Separately, he recognizes how ridiculous it is to put technological choices in the hands of judges, rather than technologists:

Moreover, what is most shocking, is SOPA's idea of giving judges determination of Internet DNS. The bill suggests DNS administrators remove bad actor domains on judges orders; thus breaking the fundamentals of the Internet. It is a disastrous precedent to have Congress legislate Internet DNS control.

He points out that his colleagues supporting SOPA may be "well-meaning people," but that they "fundamentally don't understand how the internet works," and that what comes out is a "bad and confused" attempt at regulating the internet.

Finally, he points out that SOPA's actual result will be to do the exact opposite of what it claims to want to do, since its methods of enforcement will harm the economy. He closes with a call to action:

I don't support SOPA and I believe we all need to call and write our Congress to help them know we want a No vote on SOPA.

Indeed. It's fantastic to see someone like Ashton Kutcher speaking out so publicly on this issue. Yet, you can rest assured that the MPAA, US Chamber of Commerce and the politicians pushing this bill will, once again, pretend that they're supporting SOPA to help people like Ashton Kutcher. Yet, he's making it clear, this is not the kind of help that the industry wants or needs.

We've discussed many times how the censorship provisions of SOPA and PIPA require US companies to set up a system that is technically identical to internet censorship systems in countries like China and Iran. This always upsets supporters of these bills, because they prefer to focus solely on what's being censored, with the argument being that as long as the target of the censorship is infringement, rather than, say, political speech, it's okay. I've had two different arguments for why that line of thinking is ridiculous. First, while the bill may target infringing works, it will, without doubt, end up censoring tons of non-infringing works, as with the Dajaz1 seizure. The second point is that countries have a history of censoring political speech under the guise of copyright law. So, even if the intent is not to censor political speech, we have enough examples of it happening that it seems like a perfectly legitimate point to raise.

However, Julian Sanchez has taken this discussion even further, and pointed out an additional reason that we should be quite worried about the censorship portion of the bill. Even if it's only designed to be used for stopping infringement, we'll have now set up the legal framework for censorship, meaning that it will be quite easy to expand the law to cover other forms of expression:

With the legal framework in place, expanding it to cover other conduct—obscenity, defamation, “unfair competition,” patent infringement, publication of classified information, advocacy in support of terror groups--would be a matter of adding a few words to those paragraphs. One sentence slipped in as a rider on some must-pass omnibus bill would do it: “Section 102(2)(B) is amended to add ‘or civil action under 17 USC §271′.”—voila, a nuclear weapon for patent trolls.

And it's not just the legal framework and architecture he's worried about. Once DNS providers are set up to easily censor sites at the drop of a hat, does anyone honestly believe that the government and the courts won't be tempted to just use it in other cases outside of what's covered under SOPA/PIPA?

Then there’s the technological architecture. If SOPA passes, thousands of commercial ISPs, colleges, small businesses, nonprofits, and other entities that maintain domain servers are going to have to reconfigure their networks, potentially at substantial cost, in order to easily comply with the new law. There is an introductory clause in the latest version of the bill stipulating that no network operator will be required to implement a specific technology or redesign their networks in any particular manner in order to be considered in compliance. But let’s think realistically about what compliance will look like. Genuine “rogue sites” often operate via dozens of different domains, which means we’re apt to see regular updates to the government’s standing blacklist, potentially adding dozens or hundreds of domains in one go. Any sane network operator is just going to build a filter that reads off the current list of banned domains from a government feed and automatically stops resolving them. (This will, incidentally, be an enormously attractive attack surface for hackers: Spoof the SOPA feed—either at the source or to a particular provider—and you’ve got an instant bulk denial of service attack!)

Once the up-front costs of implementing that filter mechanism are paid, the marginal cost of additional censorship is effectively zero for the providers. It won’t much matter to the providers, at that point, whether the blacklist contains 10 domains or 10,000. The technology itself, needless to say, will be indifferent to the rationale for blacklisting. The filter will just automatically implement the list of domains it’s given; it won’t know or care whether they’re being blocked for hosting pirated movies, Hamas propaganda, or the Pentagon Papers.

And, as Sanchez notes, once you've got those two pieces in place, the broadening of US censorship online is almost inevitable, because the "cost" of doing so becomes so low:

Political actors—or special interest groups—who want to expand the scope of blocking will no longer have to justify putting in place a wholly new system of Internet blocking. Instead, the rhetorical question will become: Now that we’ve got this whole filter architecture in place for music and movie pirates, how can we possibly justify not using it for sites that host terrorist propaganda or classified documents, for sites that implement a patented business model without permission, for sites enabling speech some U.S. court has held libelous, and for whatever new moral panic is gracing the cover of Time in five years. Surely you’re not suggesting that illicit downloads of Norbit are a bigger problem than whatever outrage Joe Lieberman is fulminating against this week, are you?

This is a major concern with SOPA/PIPA, and one that supporters of the bill keep trying to brush off, because they have no good answer to these concerns other than "trust us, the US government doesn't want to censor." I'd like to believe that's true. In fact, it very likely is true for many people in the government. But the scenarios Sanchez predicts are not out of line with what we already see regularly today. It happens so frequently, in fact, that it's difficult to imagine how Congress won't expand the law to make use of this censorship apparatus.

Via Larry Lessig we get series of Venn diagrams showing the revolving door between big business and government. When people talk about regulatory capture, this is what they mean. When people talk about corruption and crony capitalism, this is what they mean. If you want a quick visual idea of why so few people trust this government to do the right thing for the people, rather than the big companies, this is why:

It appears that Righthaven's new legal strategy, after getting beaten down left and right by Marc Randazza, is to just stop responding to him or the court. Think of it as the "play dead" strategy. You may recall that last week, in the Hoehn case, Righthaven was ordered to turn over its own intellectual property to a receivership to settle the attorneys' fees owed to Randazza. While waiting for that to happen, there was a hearing (on Friday) in another case involving Righthaven and Randazza... and Righthaven's lawyer, Shawn Mangano, simply did not appear. On top of that, he has refused to respond to any contact from Randazza and the other lawyers in his firm:

Attorney Mangano has not replied to any of my faxed correspondence -- a manner of communication he had previously requested I use in lieu of e-mail and telephone communication -- since this Court's December 12 Order granting the receivership order.

Basically, it looks like Righthaven is trying out a different sort of response to the various cases involving Randazza: it's just ignoring them entirely. I can't see how that ends well.

In response, Randazza is now looking to go after Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson and his wife Raisha Y. Gibson, a/k/a "Drizzle." At this point, you have to get the feeling that the Righthaven crew has simply been so pummeled by Randazza that it's in a bit of shock. I wonder if Steve Gibson is still claiming that the courts know that Righthaven is "genuine" and is merely providing "guidance" to Righthaven competitors...

One of the key talking points of supporters of PIPA and SOPA is that these bills "only target foreign sites," so domestic sites and companies shouldn't be complaining. Of course, for a while SOPA's private right of action was open to domestic sites as well, but that was removed in Lamar Smith's "manager's amendment." But it remains a total myth that these bills only impact foreign sites. They may target foreign sites, but the entire setup, compliance costs, and legal liability is applied to domestic sites and companies. The blacklisting remedies all require a variety of US companies to take significant and costly actions that will burden many startups.

The recent discussion by Reddit General Manager Erik Marin about why SOPA would lead to the end of Reddit highlights the point nicely.

If SOPA passes in anything like it's current form, it would almost certainly mean the end of reddit. It may not happen overnight, but we have a very small staff (~11, mostly engineers), and even dealing with DMCA stuff is a big burden for us. SOPA would make running reddit near impossible. And we have access to great lawyers through our parent company. I can't imagine how smaller sites without those kind of resources could even attempt a go at it if SOPA passes.

We've been trying to make this point for months, and the folks in favor of these bills just keep ignoring it insisting time and time again that this is just about foreign sites. Most of those people have never been entrepreneurs. They've never worked at a company where the threat of legal action is a BIG DEAL, that can massively disrupt operations (and cash flow). They don't realize that increasing liability, compliance costs and legal risks isn't just a nuisance -- it can force an entire business to shut down. We've talked about how these bills change things so that it's not just two engineers in a garage any more, but two engineers... who need a team of a dozen lawyers.

Considering that nearly all of the net job creation in the US comes from startups (pdf), to massively burden all of these companies with ridiculous compliance and legal costs makes no sense at all. It makes even less sense when you look at the details, and realize that the entertainment industry has actually continued to grow significantly over the past decade, contrary to the gloom and doom stories you keep hearing. Yes, a few of the big companies with big lobbying budgets have struggled with their own business model, but that's no excuse for massively hindering jobs and economic growth, messing with the fundamentals of the internet, and giving foreign regimes a blueprint on how to censor the internet in a way that the US can't complain.

I spend way too much time in airplanes these days, and I'm one of those people who tends to be fairly anti-social during the flight. I generally don't talk at all to my seatmates. Most of the time, this is because I tend to view flight time as productivity time, and focus on getting work done. That said, I've found that on the rare occasions that someone else initiates conversations, I've had some pretty fascinating conversations (including a very long discussion once with the VP of a big tech company on innovation tactics that took up much of a 10 hour flight). So I'm... intrigued but skeptical of the news that KLM is trying out a system that will let passengers pick seatmates based on social media profiles. The details are still a bit slim, but it sounds like when you purchase, you can link up your social media profiles (if you choose -- opt-in only), and then as other passengers are picking seats, they can see who they might be sitting next to. My guess is that having a good seat will still significantly outweigh who you might sit next to. On top of that, you'd imagine that a lot of the really interesting people you'd want to meet might keep their info private. But, either way, even if I probably wouldn't participate, it will be an interesting program to watch.