It appears that the plague of copyright trolls is moving down under to Australia. There's really not much of a surprise here. It's yet another example of some lawyers finding an opportunity to abuse copyright law to shake people down by offering "settlement fees" that are less than the cost of going to court. In the UK, such plans have been pretty harshly beat back, but they continue to spread elsewhere. In this case, it's an operation called Movie Rights Group, and it's planning to sue an awful lot of folks. Of course, whether or not it can actually get anyone to pay up is another story.

With so much attention paid to the new generation of music subscription offerings, Spotify, Rdio and Mog, it appears that the last generation, Napster and Rhapsody, decided the best course of action was to join forces in bitterness at the fact no one mentions either of them any more. The two companies have gone through a variety of different owners over the past decade or so, with Rhapsody being spun out from RealNetworks last year, and Napster being under the Best Buy umbrella for a while -- where almost nothing was done to build up the service. I recognize that the two companies may be annoyed that no one cares about them any more, but I really can't see either establishing enough of a presence to get back into the conversation.

Digital cameras have really made the field of photography much more approachable. Even monkeys can take some pretty decent photos. So how hard can it really be to take some nice shots? Here are just a few projects that show a bit of the spectrum of artful photography.

• If you want the subjects of your photos to look really small, take a picture of them next to a really big coin. Remember: it's not counterfeiting if you make coins the size of a coffee table... [url]
• Tilt-shift photographic effects can be created in a few different ways -- to fabricate images of a crowd of people, looking like ants. Someday this is what The Sims will look like. [url]
• If you think photography is easy, get ready to be mocked. If you like seeing photos with really bad composition and cheesy photoshop effects, youarenotaphotographer is the blog for you. [url]
• Who knew that photos of pregnant women could become an internet meme like planking? Thankfully, there don't seem to be any photos of pregnant women planking. [url]
• To discover more interesting photography-related content, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  
By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Ah, ASCAP. The music collection group that keeps getting more and more desperate, seems to have finally and completely lost its quixotic attempt to claim that a music download represented a "public performance," which required a separate license, beyond the mechanical reproduction license. The group had been in a legal fight with Yahoo and Rhapsody over whether or not those companies had to pay extra to songwriters (whom ASCAP represents) in addition to the money they were already paying to license songs from the record labels for downloads. The district court sided with ASCAP and presented a bizarre formula involving a percentage of all revenue (such that Yahoo would have to pay some of its search revenue to ASCAP for no clear reason). Thankfully, an appeals court overturned the ruling, noting that a download is not a public performance, and that the bizarre calculation rate didn't make much sense. ASCAP (of course) appealed to the Supreme Court, which has declined to hear the case, meaning that the appeals court ruling stands. This isn't a definitive rejection of "download = public performance," as technically, it's just the law in the Second Circuit. In theory, some other Circuit could rule otherwise, and create a circuit split for the Supremes to look at. But, that's probably unlikely, and it's most likely that this ruling effectively makes it clear across the country that a download is not a public performance. As it should be, because it's not.

Another day, another ridiculous story about the TSA "making us safer." This one was submitted by plenty of folks, but Guy Thomas gets credit for being first. It involves a breast cancer patient, Lori Dorn, who recently had a bilateral mastectomy, and has tissue expanders installed. She has a card that explains the details of this, and why it can set off airport security. Of course, she did set off an alarm at JFK... and then the TSA both refused to let her show the card explaining the details, but also required her to be physically groped by the TSA -- with them loudly threatening her that she wouldn't fly otherwise. They also kept her out of sight from her luggage:

I told her that I was not comfortable with having my breasts touched and that I had a card in my wallet that explains the type of expanders, serial numbers and my doctor’s information (pictured) and asked to retrieve it. This request was denied. Instead, she called over a female supervisor who told me the exam had to take place. I was again told that I could not retrieve the card and needed to submit to a physical exam in order to be cleared. She then said, “And if we don’t clear you, you don’t fly” loud enough for other passengers to hear. And they did. And they stared at the bald woman being yelled at by a TSA Supervisor.

To my further dismay, my belongings, including my computer, were completely out of sight. I had no choice but to allow an agent to touch my breasts in front of other passengers.

As Dorn explains, "I have been through emotional and physical hell this past year due to breast cancer. The way I was treated by these TSA agents added a shitload of insult to injury and caused me a great deal of humiliation." In a separate interview with the NY Times, she notes that her breasts still hurt, and she was worried about the pain of the patdown, and that she was never offered the option of a patdown in a private area (as the TSA insists they grant). That article also contains a typical PR-laden response from the TSA:

We strive to treat every passenger with dignity and respect. In this case, that may not have happened. During the screening process, if advanced imaging technology detects an anomaly that cannot be cleared, secondary screening is required to ensure the passenger does not have threat items, such as explosives concealed under clothing.

All passengers may request private secondary screening. While an initial review indicates that proper screening procedures were followed, we regret that this passenger did not have a positive experience.

Which, of course, brings to mind a simple question: does anyone actually have a positive experience dealing with the TSA patdowns?

This past weekend, as you know, Japan held a signing ceremony for ACTA. While that's already been covered, the folks at StopACTANow pointed out something really bizarre in the Japanese announcement concerning the signing ceremony. It lists out five points. The first four are all more or less understandable via paraphasing: (1) there's a signing ceremony in Japan (2) ACTA was kicked off by suggestions from Japan, and driven by the US (3) a bunch of other countries participated and (4) all of the participants will be at the signing, and those who are ready to sign, will. But the bizarre thing is the fifth point, which reads as follows:

On the preceding day, Friday, September 30, an international symposium entitled, “Global Intellectual Property Strategy and the Reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake: Eliminating Counterfeit and Pirated Products through ACTA”, will be held in Sendai as a side event of the signing ceremony.

By now this has already happened, and we haven't seen any info about it, but, seriously? What does the Great East Japan Earthquake have to do with intellectual property at all? And is Japan really suggesting that ACTA plays some sort of role in rebuilding Japan? Perhaps ACTA supporters and their efforts to keep any outside influence away from the negotiators has gone to their head, such that they think they can say any insane thing and people won't notice.

There is a very strong divergence in the games industry. On one hand we have developers and publishers who look at piracy as a cancer that needs to be cut out and on the other we have those who look at it as an opportunity. We illustrated this point recently with a mock debate between Ubisoft and Valve. Edge brings news of yet another player in the games industry who has joined with Valve in treating pirates as underserved customers rather than thieves.

John Goodale, Unity's general manager of Asia, told Edge that Unity has seen a 258.7% growth in revenue in Asia over the last year. He puts much of this growth down to piracy of the Unity3D development platform.

How can it possibly make money from people "stealing" its products? It does so by selling additional content to the users whether legit or not.

It's not talked about often, but we have a product called Asset Server that allows large teams to share assets more effectively, and according to the sales reports that I get we sell far more Asset Server in Asia than we do in the west.

As far as I can tell, Unity is looking at those who pirate its software in much the same way it looks at those who download the free version of the software, as customers. Goodale explains the flexibility he has been given in reaching out to the Asian market is the primary driver of this success:

Throughout my 25 years of doing business in Asia, I've seen very few companies be so dedicated to that region, or give me the flexibility and tools that I need to be successful. And as a result, I am just having way too much fun!

I really hope this line of thinking grows and penetrates the games industry even deeper. It is something I have argued and debated multiple times on games industry news sites and blogs. There are many people who feel the same way and many more who are dead set on treating piracy as a criminal offense. I don't blame them for the way the feel as it is their livelihood at stake. Yet, I can't understand their desire to hold onto an ideal that in the long run will fail -- especially when there are so many examples, like this one, of a company discovering it can make more money by adapting, rather than by trying to stop infringement.

Just as some in the copyright trolling business are lowering their settlement fees, but making it up in volume, it appears there's a similar effort under way on the patent trolling side of the world. The Patent Examiner blog has the incredible story of Innovatio IP, a patent troll that recently acquired a portfolio of patents that its lawyers (what, you think there are any employees?) appear to believe cover pretty much any WiFi implementation. They've been suing coffee shops, grocery stores, restaurants and hotels first -- including Caribou Coffee, Cosi, Panera Bread Co, certain Marriotts, Best Westerns, Comfort Inns and more.

There are various interesting things in the article worth commenting on. First is the smaller settlements/making it up in volume technique. While its initial lawsuits against coffee shops and restaurants did focus on the central corporations, with the hotels, Innovatio appears to be focusing on individual franchisees. Yes, the small businesses who own individual hotels and probably have no idea how to deal with a patent infringement lawsuit -- all because they dared to offer WiFi somewhere in their hotels. To make it "easy" of course, Innovatio's lawyers will let them settle for between $2,300 and $5,000. In almost every case, that's going to be cheaper than hiring a lawyer to just get started dealing with this -- which I'm sure is exactly what Innovatio intends.

The company is represented by the infamous law firm of Niro, Haller & Niro, which is the firm that originally inspired the term "patent troll." The lawyer representing the company, Matthew McAndrews, seems to imply that the company believes the patents cover everyone who has a home WiFi setup, but they don't plan to go after such folks right now, for "strategic" reasons:

"Innovatio has made a strategic and business judgment at this stage that it doesn’t intend to pursue [lawsuits on the basis of] residential use of WiFi," McAndrews said during a phone conversation last week.

And while that certainly could change, you may be relieved (or probably not) to learn that McAndrews does not "perceive" such a "strategic" decision will change. However, later in the article, he seems to indicate otherwise:

Ultimately, he said, Innovatio’s "plan is to license this portfolio to the fullest extent possible. That would include anyone who's wireless networking."

And then there's this:

"We want you to continue to use this technology, we just want our client to get his due share,” McAndrews said. “This is not a seat-of-the-pants, fly-by-night shakedown."

I guess he means this is a well-planned, well-financed shakedown that's going to stick around for a while. Lovely.

At least there is some firepower arguing against Innovatio. After its first round of lawsuits, Motorola and Cisco went to court, asking for a declaratory judgment that its WiFi products do not infringe... and that Innovatio's patents are invalid. Hopefully that comes to pass or WiFi may get a hell of a lot more expensive.

One of the most noticeable trends in copyright law around the world is the way countries tend to adopt similar approaches. So after the "three strikes" law was introduced in France, the UK followed suit, and other nations are at various stages of doing the same. A cynic might almost suggest the whole thing was coordinated somehow.

To be fair, the copying is not always exact. For example, in the US, major ISPs have agreed to a “five/six strikes” plan, depending on how you count. More recently, a German politician called Siegfried Kauder has proposed a “two-strikes” law. After just one accusation from rightsholders, there's a warning; after two accusations, you'd be disconnected from the Internet for three weeks – without any need for a court order (link to German news story).

But this being the Internet age, a supporter of the German Pirate Party, Alexander Double, decided to check out Kauder's digital presence. To his amusement, he found several pictures on Kauder's official web site that seemed to have come from somewhere else. For example, the top right-hand picture on this page uses a picture from Panoramio, but with the EXIF data of the latter stripped out in the former.

After Double raised this issue in a blog post, those pictures were no longer visible on Kauder's site (the link above goes to an archive copy on the Wayback Machine to show the original state). In explanation, Kauder tried to turn things to his advantage, telling the German magazine Der Spiegel:

"Ich bin denen dankbar, die mir Gelegenheit gegeben haben zu zeigen, dass das Warnmodell funktionieren kann. Ich wurde auf die Verwendung von zwei Lichtbildern auf meiner Homepage aufmerksam gemacht, die urheberrechtlich geschützt sind. Die Fotos sind entfernt. Also: Das Warnmodell funktioniert."

or, roughly translated:

"I'm grateful to those who have given me the opportunity to show that the warning model can work. I was made aware of two photos on my Homepage that were protected by copyright. The photos have been removed. So the warning model works."

End of the story, you might have thought: he seems to admit that he shouldn't have used them but, as he says, the notice he received ensured that they were removed from his site.

But as people continued digging into that site, they found that some of the images were still there on the server, just not visible. Moreover, there were other photos that seemed to have come from elsewhere – for example, the left-hand part of the home page's banner image looks like it was borrowed from here. As Alexander Double pointed out, that makes *two strikes* in all: if Kauder's law had been in force, his Internet connection would be cut off for three weeks, no judge required.

This entertaining saga shows a number of things. That, once more, the politicians most keen to bring in severe laws against copyright infringement – indeed, against just alleged copyright infringement – themselves often break them. And even if this happened by accident, it goes to show just how easy it is for people to break the law without realizing it; and yet that would presumably not be admitted as a defense. It also shows that Kauder's "warning" system doesn't work: he was warned, and removed some images, but left others that appear to infringe.

Even Kauder's colleagues in the pro-copyright CDU are distancing themselves from what are being called “Kauder-Strikes” (with the follow-on scandal about the unauthorized images being dubbed “Kaudergate”). Here's what the politician Peter Altmaier tweeted:

Kauder-Strikes geht gar nicht: Wer Bücher klaut ist kriminell, aber man nimmt ihm nicht die Lesebrille weg.

That is:

Kauder-Strikes are just not on. Someone who steals a book may be a criminal, but we don't take away their reading glasses.

And yet that is precisely what the “three strike” laws and their variants around the world are trying to do.

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

We've been pointing out a variety of attempts to push back on the First Amendment lately. One fertile ground for such attacks are local politicians carrying the "cyberbullying" banner, in various attempts to magically outlaw being a "jerk" online, usually by making it illegal to offend someone online. Of course, making someone's action illegal based on how someone else feels about it is all kinds of crazy. It also would seem to violate the very principles of the First Amendment, which bar Congress (and local governments) from passing any laws that take away one's right to free speech.

In the past, lawmakers pushing these laws have tended to simply ignore the First Amendment issue, and focus on screaming "protect the children!" as loudly as possible (never mind the fact that kids seem much less concerned about "bullying" than all these adults seem to think). However, it appears that some state Senators in NY are trying a new line of attack: going directly after the First Amendment and suggesting that current interpretations are way too broad, and it's not really meant to protect any sort of free speech right. In fact, it sounds as though they're trying to redefine the right to free speech into a privilege that can be taken away. Seriously:

Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.

Yes, that totally flips the First Amendment on its head. It is not a "more refined First Amendment." It's the anti-First Amendment. It suggests, by its very nature, that the government possesses the right to grant the "privilege" of free speech to citizens... and thus the right to revoke it. That's an astonishingly dangerous path, and one that should not be taken seriously. Of course, given their right to speak freely, state senators Jeff Klein, Diane Savino, David Carlucci and David Valesky have every right to put forth that argument -- but similarly, it allows others to point out their rather scary beliefs.

If you'd like to see the full report (pdf), I warn you that it is almost entirely written IN ALL CAPS (for no clear reason, there are a few chunks that revert to normal capitalization -- including a big chunk in the middle, that starts mid-section). I have no idea why so much of the paper is in ALL CAPS, but I'm kind of offended by it. Can we please remove their "privilege" to put out such things until they've learned to not maltreat capital letters?

The paper attempts to list out various examples of types of cyberstalking and cyberbullying -- some of which seem pretty ridiculous:

LEAVING IMPROPER MESSAGES ON ONLINE MESSAGE BOARDS OR SENDING HURTFUL AND DAMAGING MESSAGES TO OTHERS;

"Improper"? Seem a little broad to you? Does that mean the next person who comments here about something off-topic is a cyberbully?

“FLAMING” (HURTFUL, CRUEL, AND OFTENTIMES INTIMIDATING MESSAGES INTENDED TO INFLAME, INSIGHT, OR ENRAGE);

Whoo boy. An awful lot of you in the comments better watch out...

“HAPPY SLAPPING” (RECORDING PHYSICAL ASSAULTS ON MOBILE PHONES OR DIGITAL CAMERAS, THEN DISTRIBUTING THEM TO OTHERS);

Holy crap. 2005 wants its silly "crazy children" meme back. Yes, there were a few instances of this extremely brief "fad" that came and went in like a month half a decade ago. Then the next internet meme came along.

"TROLLING” (DELIBERATELY AND DECEITFULLY POSTING INFORMATION TO ENTICE GENUINELY HELPFUL PEOPLE TO RESPOND (OFTEN EMOTIONALLY), OFTEN DONE TO PROVOKE OTHERS);

Ooh, once again. Commenters beware.

EXCLUSION (INTENTIONALLY AND CRUELLY EXCLUDING SOMEONE FROM AN ONLINE GROUP).

Seriously? If we don't let you into the club, it's now a form of cyberbullying? It makes you wonder what happened to these particular Senators when they were kids.

The paper also attacks "anonymity," again ignoring how anonymity can often be extremely helpful to kids who wish to discuss things and ask questions without revealing who they are.

As for where they're going with this? Well, you guessed it: they're planning to introduce new laws to deal with cyberbullying (even though NY already has such a law). The plan is to extend two existing areas of law: "stalking in the third degree" will now include cyberbullying, and "manslaughter in the second degree" will be expanded to "include the emerging problem of bullycide."

This is basically a "Lori Drew" law. And it's ridiculous. If I say something to someone and they then go commit suicide, should I be guilty of manslaughter? Do the folks behind this not realize that this doesn't help prevent suicides, but it encourages them in giving people who are upset by something someone said extra incentive to kill themselves to "get back" at the person who was mean to them.

The cyberstalking part is no less ridiculous. It's ridiculously broad. It does not require that the person accused of cyberstalking initiate the activity, it does not require intent to harm or frighten, and a single message can be a cause of action. Think about that for a second. Someone could send you a message, you could do a single reply with no ill will or bad intent... and be guilty of the crime of cyberstalking. Damn. Do the folks writing this bill not realize how widely this will be abused?

Hopefully no one is so offended in reading such a dangerous proposal that they go out and commit suicide. At least be comforted in knowing that it won't allow for the authors to be accused of manslaughter until after the bill passes.

NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna remains in the news, even as the NYPD ramped up their "arrest the protesters" campaign this weekend. After all of the video evidence that he randomly pepper sprayed some women at the OccupyWallStreet protests, the NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly has said that the Internal Affair Bureau would open an investigation into the actions. But at the same time, he defended Bologna's actions. Of course, at about the same time he was doing this, a second video came out, once again showing Bologna appearing to indiscriminately pepper spray people, including a credentialed photojournalist (wearing his credentials around his neck). So how is Kelly defending this? First, he blames the protesters for "tumultuous conduct." I've already said that I don't really think much of the overall protest, but the video evidence doesn't suggest that those who were pepper sprayed were involved in any such "tumultuous conduct." Later Kelly said that the group was "disorderly" and "intent on blocking traffic," and that could justify the use of pepper spray. That seems like a huge stretch. Again, the individuals who were sprayed appear to have been chosen at random.

The NYPD Deputy Inspector Roy Richter, who is basically Bologna's "union representative" is defending Bologna's actions thusly:

“Deputy Inspector Bologna's actions that day were motivated by his concern for the safety of officers under his command and the safety of the public. The limited use of pepper spray effectively restored order without any escalation of force or serious injury to either demonstrator or police officer.”

Someone else at the police department had another cover story:

A law enforcement official familiar with Inspector Bologna’s account of what occurred, however, said he was not aiming at the four women who appeared in videos to have sustained the brunt of the spray. Rather, he was trying to spray some men who he believed were pushing up against officers and causing a confrontation that put officers at risk of injury, the official said.

"The intention was to place them under arrest, but they fled," the official said.

Given how many videos of the scene and surrounding areas have been shown, it's amazing anyone can claim that with a straight face. There was no indication of these "others." There was no indication of any attempt to arrest others near the women. If Bologna was aiming at these mythical men, he's a terrible shot, because he hit those women he wasn't aiming for point blank.

In the meantime, the folks at USLaw.com remind us that Bologna wasn't the only police officer using random "escalation" techniques. They point out this video of an NYPD officer purposely tripping a protester who already appeared to be in the control of multiple officers. Of course, the act of tripping the guy makes it look like he's trying to resist arrest. Of course, once again, all of this is caught on video. It really makes you wonder if all of this kind of video evidence is finally going to lead police to recognize that they actually have to behave and follow the law themselves.

It will come as little news to most people that, as was expected, the US signed the ACTA treaty (while pretending it was an "executive agreement") this weekend in Japan. While the EU, Mexico and Switzerland at least had the sense to wait until they had more of a chance to review the legality of the document, the US dove right in, despite huge Constitutional questions about its ability to sign the agreement -- especially as more evidence was put forth showing that (contrary to the US's claims) ACTA is inconsistent with US law.

The US, of course, was not the only one to sign -- and not the only one to recognize that ACTA is inconsistent with local laws, despite promises to the contrary. Canada signed as well, and used it to say that Canada now needs to implement more copyright reform to keep Canada in line with the treaty:

Fast’s office said the government still needs to create and pass legislation to implement the anti-counterfeiting agreement in Canada.

Funny, since all along we kept hearing how ACTA wasn't about changing laws in various countries, but just coming to agreements on how enforcement would be carried out. In fact, when criticized about ACTA, the former Canadian Minister of Industry insisted that ACTA would not require changing Canadian law. Amazing that the Canadian government admits that this was false the day they sign it.

Another signatory? Why, New Zealand, of course. Last year, New Zealand (which already recently changed its copyright laws) said that it didn't foresee any changes to copyright law because of ACTA. And yet... now the New Zealand government admits that changes will be needed to local copyright law before the treaty is ratified.

Singapore, Australia, South Korea, Japan (of course) and Morocco also all signed on. Australia's and New Zealand's signings don't mean quite as much, as their legislatures need to ratify the agreement (the part the US is trying to skip).

Not surprisingly, the RIAA put out a ridiculous statement "saluting" the "will" of ACTA negotiators to complete ACTA. Yeah. The will to continue to hide the agreement from public scrutiny until it was "done" and no changes were allowed? The "will" to pretend that it's an "executive agreement" rather than a treaty, as per the Constitution? The "will" to insist that ACTA is consistent with domestic laws when it's not? Sorry. That's not worth saluting. That's worth not being allowed to participate in these kinds of negotiations any more.

Remember when President Obama took office and one of his first moves, on his very first day in office was to put out a memo telling the federal government to be more open and transparent in response to FOIA requests? A few quotes from that memo:

A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike.

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

Seems pretty straightforward and certainly sounded like a refreshing change from the ridiculously secret previous administration who hated to share anything if it could avoid it. Unfortunately, it appears that this Day One move was nothing but smoke and mirrors. The current administration has been dreadful about responding to FOIA requests.

A new lawsuit highlights just how ridiculous things have become. The EFF has sued the government after the administration refused a FOIA request to reveal who is on the Intelligence Oversight Board, which is a "presidentially appointed, civilian panel in charge of reviewing all misconduct reports for American intelligence agencies." Only problem? In three years in office President Obama has not named a single appointment to the Board. The EFF wanted to find out who's actually handling the duties of the IOB... and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) simply failed to turn over the info.

The EFF had filed a request to expedite the FOIA request with the original request on February 15th, which was denied on February 17th. They then appealed the denial on February 28th... and have heard nothing since then concerning either the appeal or the content requested about the IOB. Remember, the standard response time for a FOIA request is 20 days, and we're talking months of nothing.

What happened to "A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency"?

We've talked about how the entertainment industry is really good at killing the golden goose every chance it gets. Any time some new online service actually gets people to move away from infringement, the industry freaks out and complains that they're not making enough money from the service and then tries to kill it. For example, the TV folks have made it clear that they'd like to kill Hulu even though they own it. They're so worried about "cannibalizing" the old revenue streams, that they're killing off the new ones as well. We predicted this would happen a few years ago, and it's amusing to see it happening in real time.

Because of the conflicts between what Hulu management (who do seem pretty clued in) and their ownership wanted to do with the company, Hulu was recently put up for sale. But, now it's coming out that the bids Hulu is receiving are much lower than the owners want -- and it's because they've made it clear they plan to cut off all free content from Hulu:

But the bidders all figured out pretty quickly that the TV companies who own Hulu now want to phase out free ad-supported content completely. So as soon as the current set of Hulu contracts expire in a couple of years, it would be back to the negotiating table.

Because of that, no one was willing to bid over $2 billion -- and the TV guys (of course) think it's worth a lot more than that, even as they're trying to kill it. Well, one exception: apparently Google was willing to pay closer to $4 billion... but it would only do that under certain conditions (which likely involve getting the TV guys to renew/guarantee future deals). So congrats, backwards looking TV guys, not only are you killing Hulu, you're killing the goodwill you build up via the company so you can't even cash out on that.