<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;denmark&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:13:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>HBO's One Attempt At A Standalone Digital Service Sucks</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/11385121704/hbos-one-attempt-standalone-digital-service-sucks.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/11385121704/hbos-one-attempt-standalone-digital-service-sucks.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>In my recent post about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/18442221671/dear-hbo-disney-netflix-et-al-fragmenting-online-tv-lets-piracy-keep-its-biggest-advantage.shtml">fragmentation of online television</a>, there were a few aspects and details I left out because they seemed worthy of a separate, closer look. One is the oft-forgotten fact that HBO does indeed offer one lonely digital-only subscription service... to customers in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway. That program was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120902/20364620255/hbo-hooks-up-nordic-cord-cutters-offers-standalone-streaming-service.shtml">announced last year</a> and seemed like a promising step for the notoriously cable-dedicated HBO&mdash;but the customer feedback is coming in, and <a href="http://www.arcticstartup.com/2013/01/08/hbo-nordics-underwhelms-early-adopters" target="_blank">the results are not encouraging</a>:</p>
<blockquote><em>A list of complaints include HD content is (was?) only available on Samsung Smart TVs, meaning you were only given SD quality when streaming through your computer or any other device. Same goes for surround sound and 5.1, which are only available through the Samsung TV app. Other complaints I've heard includes buffering problems with the Widevine plugin (at standard definition), and lack of Apple Airplay support. The product is available as iOS and Android apps, but Xbox and Playstation apps are still said to be under development.
<br /><br />
The online UI is nice to look at but was poorly designed; initially HBO only allowed you to search for TV shows by alphabetical letter. The results were underwhelming and exaggerated how little content HBO was offering.
<br /><br />...<br /><br />
It should be noted that you're not given access to the full back catalogue, several classics are not available such as Deadwood and Oz, which apparently have some copyright restrictions.</em></blockquote>
<p>Some might claim it's still a good deal at &euro;9.95/month, considering most people can't access <em>any</em> of these shows legally without a full cable package. Of course, Netflix only costs &euro;7.99/month in the region, and has a larger selection, which makes the price a little less impressive. Then there's the fact that HBO <a href="http://www.kilkku.com/blog/2012/12/how-to-alienate-your-fan-base-hbo-nordic-launch-in-finland/">initially promised much, much more</a>:</p>
<blockquote><em><ul>
<li>Every episode of all HBO series available online</li>
<li>All new episodes available within 24 hours of the US premiere, with local subtitles (dubbing is rare in the Nordics, foreign TV shows and movies are usually subtitled in the local language)</li>
<li>Works on practically all devices: smartphones, tablets (Android, iOS), computers (Windows, Linux, Mac), video game consoles (PS3, Xbox), Samsung Smart TVs and Blu-ray players, and Sonera IPTV service</li>
<li>Full HD 1080p picture quality</li>
<li>Surround sound</li>
</ul></em></blockquote>
<p>Compare that to the list of complaints, and you realize HBO isn't doing a great job of living up to the expectations it created. Then there's the other truly insane catch: <strong>customers are locked into a 12-month contract, after which they must give 3-month notice for cancellation.</strong> Yeah. Moreover, the terms stated that simply logging into the service <em>once</em> waives your ability to cancel it because you're not satisfied (despite using the service being the only way to know if you are satisfied). After facing significant criticism for this move, HBO backtracked and offered subscribers the chance to use the service until the end of this month without a longer commitment&mdash;<a href="http://campaign.hbonordic.com/of/fi/">but only those subscribers who also signed up for the HBO Nordic newsletter</a>. Classy.</p>
<p>It's no real surprise that HBO's first attempt at a standalone online offering is a disaster. HBO approaches the internet with extreme trepidation, but revolution requires gusto. Digital distribution&mdash;especially when it comes to competing with piracy&mdash;is a go big or go home endeavor. Or... go halfway, and watch your customers go elsewhere.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/11385121704/hbos-one-attempt-standalone-digital-service-sucks.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/11385121704/hbos-one-attempt-standalone-digital-service-sucks.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/11385121704/hbos-one-attempt-standalone-digital-service-sucks.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>surprise-surprise</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130116/11385121704</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:33:43 PST</pubDate>
<title>Danish Court Orders Spanish Site Blocked Because It Uses Trademarked English Word 'Home' As Part Of Its Name</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/09275521510/danish-court-orders-spanish-site-blocked-because-it-uses-trademarked-english-word-home-as-part-its-name.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/09275521510/danish-court-orders-spanish-site-blocked-because-it-uses-trademarked-english-word-home-as-part-its-name.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Daft trademarking stories are common enough, but it's always fun to come across new variations on the theme.  Netzpolitik <a href="https://netzpolitik.org/2012/netz-sperren-danemark-zensiert-webseite-von-immobilienmakler-weil-das-wort-home-markenrechtlich-geschutzt-ist/">points us</a> to this story from Denmark, where a Spanish-owned property site called <a href="http://www.homelifespain.com/sobre_homelife.php">HomelifeSpain.com</a> ran into trouble because the word "home" was trademarked in Denmark by the Danish property site <a href="http://home.dk/">home.dk</a>.  This resulted in the rather incredible remedy of the website itself being banned entirely.   As Netzpolitik notes, this is classic function creep: such web blocks were introduced to fight -- you guessed it -- child pornography, and yet here they are being applied in the rather less serious matter of trademark infringement.  
</p><p>
Moreover, it's hard to see why such a common word as "home" was allowed as a trademark in the first place.  It's true it's in English, rather than Danish, but even so, trademark examiners would surely have known that granting one company an exclusive monopoly of the common English word "home" in Denmark for certain domains was bound to cause problems somewhere down the line, given the globalized nature of business today.  The fact that a Spanish company is now being blocked there because of a Danish trademark granted on an English word proves the point nicely.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/09275521510/danish-court-orders-spanish-site-blocked-because-it-uses-trademarked-english-word-home-as-part-its-name.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/09275521510/danish-court-orders-spanish-site-blocked-because-it-uses-trademarked-english-word-home-as-part-its-name.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/09275521510/danish-court-orders-spanish-site-blocked-because-it-uses-trademarked-english-word-home-as-part-its-name.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>global-village</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121228/09275521510</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How Extending Patent Protection For Antibiotics Creates Perverse Incentives To Render Them Useless</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120620/07513919403/how-extending-patent-protection-antibiotics-creates-perverse-incentives-to-render-them-useless.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120620/07513919403/how-extending-patent-protection-antibiotics-creates-perverse-incentives-to-render-them-useless.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>We take antibiotics and their ability to kill practically all bacteria for granted.  But scientists are increasingly warning that we may be about to leave what might come to be seen as a golden age for anti-bacterial drugs, and enter a post-antibiotic era.  As the World Health Organization&#8217;s Director-General said, <a href="http://www.citizenvox.org/2012/06/12/antibiotic-resistance-gain-ac/">quoted in an article on the  Citizen Vox site</a>:

<i><blockquote>"A post-antibiotic era means, in effect, an end to modern medicine as we know it. Things as common as strep throat or a child&#8217;s scratched knee could once again kill."</blockquote></i>

The problem arises from natural selection.  The more we use an antibiotic -- especially if we use it carelessly, failing to complete the full course -- the more we select for bacteria that are partially resistant to it. Over time, those bacteria thrive, displacing bacteria that are unable to withstand the  antibiotic.  Eventually, bacteria that are completely resistant to that particular drug are likely to evolve -- a situation that can have dire consequences.  For example, even five years ago, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) was <a href="http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/news/20071016/more-us-deaths-from-mrsa-than-aids">killing more people in the US annually than AIDS</a>.
</p><p>
The obvious way to mitigate this problem is to reduce the use of antibiotics, saving them for truly life-threatening situations, and that's what's happening to a certain extent in Europe:

<i><blockquote>To preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics for human use, Europe banned feeding antibiotics to livestock for growth promotion in 2006. In Denmark, where such use of antibiotics had been phased out more than a decade ago, drug-resistant pathogens in livestock are down while industry output is up.</blockquote></i>

As the Citizen Vox article notes, a similar proposal to restrict the use of antibiotics has not gone very far in the US, partly because an alternative approach has found far more favor, for evident reasons:

<i><blockquote>the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now, or GAIN, Act has piggybacked into the FDA bill reauthorizing user fees for drug approval. GAIN would provide five more years of monopoly protections for new antibiotics. Already receiving three to seven years of exclusivity, some antibiotics may receive up to 10 years of protection after market approval. This measure defies both the economics and biology of antibiotic resistance.</blockquote></i>

The reason for that comes down to the nature of patents.  Since they are time-limited, their owners have a natural incentive to exploit them as fully as possible during their entire term, when they can charge elevated monopoly prices.  For other kinds of patents, that might be regrettable from an economic viewpoint, but it's hardly a matter of life or death.  For antibiotics it's more problematic.
</p><p>
The more holders of patents for antibiotics seek to maximize their profits by boosting production and selling them as widely as possible, the more antibiotic resistance is likely to develop -- especially if they are given to livestock as well as humans.  That growing resistance is a classic negative externality -- it's not something the pharma company needs to worry about, since the cost will come later and be borne by the general population in the form of increased medical expenses, longer stays in hospital, more serious infections and higher mortality rates.
</p><p>
Antibiotics are perhaps the clearest example of how the interests of patent holders are not only misaligned with those of the public, but are diametrically opposed to them in some cases.  Although, in the short term, patents <em>may</em> encourage more antibiotics to be developed, in the long term they undermine their effectiveness.  Even more than for drugs in general, antibiotics are an area where we need different kinds of incentives to stimulate development of new drugs -- government-funded <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/02251016969/making-aids-drugs-affordable-with-prizes-not-patents.shtml">prizes</a>, perhaps.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120620/07513919403/how-extending-patent-protection-antibiotics-creates-perverse-incentives-to-render-them-useless.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120620/07513919403/how-extending-patent-protection-antibiotics-creates-perverse-incentives-to-render-them-useless.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120620/07513919403/how-extending-patent-protection-antibiotics-creates-perverse-incentives-to-render-them-useless.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>monopolizing-ourselves-to-death</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120620/07513919403</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:24:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Denmark Ditches Warning Letters, Launches Soft War On Piracy</title>
<dc:creator>Henrik Moltke</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120620/13183819404/denmark-ditches-warning-letters-launches-soft-war-piracy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120620/13183819404/denmark-ditches-warning-letters-launches-soft-war-piracy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Today, Danish Minister of Culture Uffe Elb&aelig;k <a href="https://pad.bitbureauet.dk/boohooAPG" target="_blank">announced the death of Scandinavian-flavored 3 strikes plans</a> that would force ISPs to issue warning letters to users suspected of copyright infringement. Instead he introduces eight new initiatives aiming at "strengthening the development of legal services" and "motivating users to go for legal solutions".</p>
 
<p>While disconnection was never part of the letter model, its passage looked like a foregone conclusion thanks to heavy lobbying efforts by IFPI and friends, the so-called <a href="http://www.rettighedsalliancen.dk/" target="_blank">RightsAlliance</a>. (Yes, the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120228/18131117905/danish-trade-minister-apologizes-using-bogus-industry-numbers-to-support-pro-acta-argument.shtml">bogus numbers</a> folks we've covered before.)</p>
 
<p>Then, governments changed, and the new Minister of Culture (who's in charge of copyright, but, curiously, has no influence over ACTA) started listening to common sense. Elb&aelig;k's eight initiatives signal a sea change and, seemingly, an end to a symbiotic relationship with the entertainment industry lobby. As an example, former Head of Copyright Office <a href="http://www.ophavsretsadvokaten.dk/da-DK/English.aspx" target="_blank">Peter Sch&ouml;nning</a> left the ministry after, conveniently, implementing an EU directive in a way that made DNS blocking of The Pirate Bay possible shortly before joining IFPI as chief prosecutor - and winning the precedence-setting case. Recently, Danish ISPs were ordered to <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/court-orders-isp-to-block-grooveshark-120221/" target="_blank">block Grooveshark</a>.</p>

<p>Instead of warning letters, a "positive" information campaign will teach the Danes about "the many good possibilities to legally access music, films and books". A task force will "proactively" inform users of illegal services about alternatives in comment fields and on social networks. An informal innovation forum for new, legal business models is also planned. </p>

<p>"I believe this is the right way to go," says Elb&aelig;k. </p>
 
<p>Interestingly, Elb&aelig;k, in an <a href="http://politiken.dk/tjek/digitalt/internet/ECE1662664/danmark-har-valgt-vaaben-i-pirat-krigen/" target="_blank">interview</a> earlier today, gave credit to the demonstrations against ACTA earlier this year, which, "created a polical context which made the letter model nearly impossible". </p>

<p>Co-founder of the Danish internet think-tank <a href="https://bitbureauet.dk/" target="_blank">Bitbureauet</a> and ACTA-critic <a href="http://frikultur.dk/">Henrik Chulu</a> says, "We're pleased about the news, but there are still problems. First of all, this cements the problematic DNS-blocking scheme already in place. Secondly, it opens up for DMCA-style notice-and-takedown procedures. As we've seen in the US this inevitably leads to abuse because it sidesteps courts and privatizes enforcement."</p>

<p><em>Here's the original <a href="http://kum.dk/nyheder-og-presse/pressemeddelelser/2012/juni/pressemeddelelse/" target="_blank">press release</a> (in Danish) and a <a href="https://pad.bitbureauet.dk/boohooAPG" target="_blank">translation</a></em></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120620/13183819404/denmark-ditches-warning-letters-launches-soft-war-piracy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120620/13183819404/denmark-ditches-warning-letters-launches-soft-war-piracy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120620/13183819404/denmark-ditches-warning-letters-launches-soft-war-piracy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>something-is-slightly-less-rotten</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120620/13183819404</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 Mar 2012 08:30:01 PST</pubDate>
<title>Danish Trade Minister Apologizes For Using Bogus Industry Numbers To Support Pro-ACTA Argument</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120228/18131117905/danish-trade-minister-apologizes-using-bogus-industry-numbers-to-support-pro-acta-argument.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120228/18131117905/danish-trade-minister-apologizes-using-bogus-industry-numbers-to-support-pro-acta-argument.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the things we've noted for years is how the debate over copyright issues is dominated by (often questionable) numbers put out by the copyright industries themselves.  They get especially questionable when it comes to talking about infringement and the impact of infringement... and apparently some folks are finally calling out those who blindly repeat questionable numbers.  Over in Denmark, where the battle over copyright and ACTA has been pretty fierce (Denmark has been one of the strongest ACTA supporters), a group of supporters have been called out for their bogus industry numbers... and (amazingly) they're now confessing that they used misleading numbers (and even admitting that this weakens their argument for ACTA).  You can see both the Danish Trade Minister and the head of a Danish music rights organization (and famous Danish musician) Ivan Pedersen appear on a TV show below (with English subtitles).  On the show, a well-informed presenter focuses on how both of these ACTA defenders claimed that 95% of music downloaded in Denmark was unauthorized, and carefully shows how that's simply false -- and then gets both of the ACTA defenders <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&#038;v=UAr6waZjvak" target="_blank">to admit that the numbers were wrong</a>.
<center>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UAr6waZjvak" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
What really appears to have happened is that the head of the rights organization used the (already questionable) IFPI report from three years ago that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0955383440.shtml">95% of all music downloads</a> were unauthorized.  That number was widely attacked at the time, but even more important, that was a global number, not a Danish specific one.  Furthermore, a lot has changed in three years.  The TV presenter highlights a variety of research reports that show that actual infringement is almost certainly <i>less than 50%</i> and potentially much lower.  And much of the reason why the number is low... is the rise of authorized services.
<br /><br />
In other words: why are these people focusing on ACTA?  What <i>works</i> is innovation and offering more legitimate services.
<br /><br />
And that's actually really important, because it wasn't stricter laws that made such things happen: it was the rise of <i>good</i>, <i>useful</i> and <i>convenient</i> authorized services that effectively competed with the infringing offerings.  If anything, those updated stats should raise even more questions about why new laws are needed.  Instead, we should be asking why the legacy entertainment industry continues to make it difficult for new authorized services to get off the ground -- holding them hostage with ridiculous licensing demands, as well as demands for huge equity chunks.  If they let innovation flow and authorized services grow, it seems like "infringement" as a problem would shrink tremendously.
<br /><br />
It's nice to see these two pro-ACTA folks admit that they were wrong -- and even admit that it weakens their arguments, but both still argue for ACTA.  They sort of brush off the wrong figure while both admitting that it was "given" to them by normally trustworthy sources.  Of course, this really raises significant questions about how much they really <i>understand</i> what's going on vs.  how much they're simply repeating the talking points handed to them by legacy entertainment industry conglomerates.
<br /><br />
But, still, they can't back down on their support of ACTA.  Pedersen says it's still needed because of "dramatic" amounts of infringement, while the Trade Minister is even more aggressive in claiming that ACTA is still needed.  She says "it's unfortunate" that she had bad information and it's "a pity" that the 95% number is <i>so wrong</i> because now it makes her argument look bad.  That it does.  But she's not willing to let go or rethink her position.  She immediately jumps into the ridiculous comparison of how it's "just like" the fact that "you may not steal an orange in the supermarket."  The second anyone (especially a politician) argues that making a copy of a file is the same thing as physically stealing an object from a store, it shows that they have no business taking part in such a debate, because they clearly don't understand the issues at play.  She then insists that no matter what the percentage of unauthorized downloads "it's still too many."  If that's the case, then why even bring up the bogus 95% issue in the first place?  And if <i>any</i> percentage is "too many" does she support shutting off the internet?  Because that's the only way you stop all unauthorized downloads (though it won't stop infringement through other means).  Bizarrely, after all this, when the TV presenter confronts her about the numbers again, she says "we need to have real numbers" in the debate, and that's "very important."  Indeed.  Kind of tragic that she didn't bother to actually bring any to the debate, isn't it?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120228/18131117905/danish-trade-minister-apologizes-using-bogus-industry-numbers-to-support-pro-acta-argument.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120228/18131117905/danish-trade-minister-apologizes-using-bogus-industry-numbers-to-support-pro-acta-argument.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120228/18131117905/danish-trade-minister-apologizes-using-bogus-industry-numbers-to-support-pro-acta-argument.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120228/18131117905</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 5 Mar 2012 07:24:18 PST</pubDate>
<title>Danish Police Accidentally Censor Over 8,000 Sites As Child Porn... Including Facebook &#038; Google</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/12215817953/danish-police-accidentally-censor-over-8000-sites-as-child-porn-including-facebook-google.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/12215817953/danish-police-accidentally-censor-over-8000-sites-as-child-porn-including-facebook-google.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reminiscent of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110220/17533013176/ice-finally-admits-it-totally-screwed-up-next-time-perhaps-itll-try-due-process.shtml">mooo.com screwup in the US</a>, where Homeland Security's ICE division "accidentally" seized 84,000 sites and plastered them over with a warning graphic about how they'd been seized by the US government for child porn, the Danish police similarly "accidentally" had <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/google-facebook-and-8000-other-sites-accidentally-dns-blocked-120302/" target="_blank">8,000 legitimate sites declared as child porn sites</a> that needed to be blocked.  Among the sites listed?  Google and Facebook.  Visitors to those sites, from ISP Siminn were greeted with the following message (translated, of course):
<blockquote><i>
The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police [NITEC], who assist in investigations into crime on the internet, has informed Siminn Denmark A/S, that the internet page which your browser has tried to get in contact with may contain material which could be regarded as child pornography...
<br /><br />
Upon the request of The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police, Siminn Denmark A/S has blocked the access to the internet page.
</i></blockquote>
And people wonder why so many people around the world were so concerned about the threat of something like SOPA -- which would make DNS blocking at the ISP level a lot more common. 
<br /><br />
So how did this "accident" happen?
<blockquote><i>
According to NITEC chief Johnny Lundberg, it began when an employee at the police center decided to move from his own computer to that of a colleague.
<br /><br />
&#8220;He sat down and was about to make an investigation, and in doing so he placed a list of legitimate sites in the wrong folder,&#8221; Lundberg explained. &#8220;Before becoming aware of the error, two ISPs retrieved the list of sites.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
It would seem that there's a problem in this process.  The fact that just one employee can change the list seems wide open to abuse.  And the fact that the list seems somewhat automated beyond that is even more problematic.  You know what would solve this problem?  A little thing called <i>due process</i>.  What a concept.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/12215817953/danish-police-accidentally-censor-over-8000-sites-as-child-porn-including-facebook-google.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/12215817953/danish-police-accidentally-censor-over-8000-sites-as-child-porn-including-facebook-google.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/12215817953/danish-police-accidentally-censor-over-8000-sites-as-child-porn-including-facebook-google.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>censorship-is-bad,-mmmkay?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120302/12215817953</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:09:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Danish Blogger Raided By The Police For Writing About File Sharing?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/03141516883/danish-blogger-raided-police-writing-about-file-sharing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/03141516883/danish-blogger-raided-police-writing-about-file-sharing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As a bunch of you have been submitting, TorrentFreak recently had the bizarre story of a Danish law school student and legal blogger who had been writing a lot about file sharing... and then was <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-blogger-law-student-raided-by-police-for-file-sharing-articles-111121/" target="_blank">raided by police who were told he ran a private BitTorrent tracker</a> by the local anti-piracy organization, RettighedsAlliancen.  While the guy admits he downloaded some unauthorized content, and is a member of the site in question, he had nothing to do with running it, and worries that this is really more about harassment for his blogging.  Rather than denying it, the anti-piracy group seems to delight in the fact the guy has a blog where he explains to people how to be anonymous online, saying "we can see that he teaches others to break the law and conceal themselves on the net."  I had no idea it was against the law to conceal yourself online...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/03141516883/danish-blogger-raided-police-writing-about-file-sharing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/03141516883/danish-blogger-raided-police-writing-about-file-sharing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/03141516883/danish-blogger-raided-police-writing-about-file-sharing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-not-cool</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111123/03141516883</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:45:43 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Future Under SOPA: Group Too Lazy To Police Own Copyrights Seeks To Block Access To Grooveshark's Legal Music Service</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/03343316761/future-under-sopa-group-too-lazy-to-police-own-copyrights-seeks-to-block-access-to-groovesharks-legal-music-service.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/03343316761/future-under-sopa-group-too-lazy-to-police-own-copyrights-seeks-to-block-access-to-groovesharks-legal-music-service.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Want just a glimpse of the future under SOPA, should that bill pass?  Over in Denmark, where the local anti-piracy agency Antipiratgruppen has been successful in getting courts to order ISPs to block access to sites like The Pirate Bay, it appears the group <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-group-asks-court-to-order-grooveshark-dns-block-111114/" target="_blank">is now targeting Grooveshark for a similar blockade</a>.  Of course, Grooveshark functions no different than YouTube functions.  It obeys the DMCA and takes down content when requested.  Users do upload their own music, just as they do on YouTube, and Grooveshark has done some additional licensing deals -- such as with EMI.  But apparently, rather than deal with the actual law, the group in Denmark just wants Grooveshark added to the country's blacklist.  Apparently, the fact that there's tons of legal music on the site is meaningless, just so long as one group <i>declares</i> that the site is dedicated to infringement.  That, of course, is exactly what SOPA will allow as well.  Make an accusation and you can totally shut down a competitive startup.  In fact, some have responded to this lawsuit by noting that it came after competitor Spotify (which is owned, in part, by the labels) entered the market, suggesting that the timing of the attempted blockade is no surprise, and that's it's really more about clearing the decks for the RIAA's own offering.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/03343316761/future-under-sopa-group-too-lazy-to-police-own-copyrights-seeks-to-block-access-to-groovesharks-legal-music-service.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/03343316761/future-under-sopa-group-too-lazy-to-police-own-copyrights-seeks-to-block-access-to-groovesharks-legal-music-service.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/03343316761/future-under-sopa-group-too-lazy-to-police-own-copyrights-seeks-to-block-access-to-groovesharks-legal-music-service.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-censorship-works</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111114/03343316761</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:06:55 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Insanity: Judge Rules That Copyright Holder Of 10-Second Sample Deserves 84% Of The Royalties</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111011/17322016310/insanity-judge-rules-that-copyright-holder-10-second-sample-deserves-84-royalties.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111011/17322016310/insanity-judge-rules-that-copyright-holder-10-second-sample-deserves-84-royalties.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ More insanity in the world of copyright, this time coming out of Denmark, where a judge has ordered the musicians behind a song to <a href="http://www.cphpost.dk/culture/culture/122-culture/52282-massive-fine-in-denmarks-first-ever-sampling-copyright-case.html" target="_blank">pay massive royalties to the copyright holder</a> of a song from which they sampled a mere 10 seconds.  Despite the fact that the musicians worked hard to find the copyright holder and to work out a deal, and despite the fact that it was just 10 seconds of music, and one of about 50 different elements in the song, the (apparently musically illiterate) judge decided that this sample was the major part of the song, and deserved <b>84% of the royalties</b>.  The article details how the musicians went to great lengths to work out a deal with the copyright holder, but ran into some problem as they dealt with one person who later turned out not to be the actual copyright holder.  When they did discover the real copyright holder, again, they worked hard to come to an agreement.  And, again, this is a 10-second sample, and one of dozens of elements in the song.
<blockquote><i>
The major issue of the case concerned the definition of a sample is and whether the judge understood the nature of modern music. While Djuma Soundsystem argued &ndash; with support from Koda &ndash; that the sample was 10 seconds long, Meistrup argued in the court documents that &ldquo;all of [Engin&rsquo;s] original composition is used, up to three minutes play time.&rdquo;
<br /><br />

Ralf Christensen in newspaper Information criticised the judge&rsquo;s lack of understanding after the verdict.
<br /><br />

&ldquo;It&rsquo;s a harsh verdict not only because of its economic burden, which may affect Danish music in a way similar to what we&rsquo;ve seen happen with American hip hop. It is also an expression of the court&rsquo;s lack of understanding for the development of modern music.&rdquo;
</i></blockquote>
The article notes that part of the issue may be that the musicians being sued represented themselves and were "under prepared" for dealing with the court.  But the real problem is that this ruling will act as a precedent and apparently it's the first of its kind in Denmark dealing with samples, and may effectively wipe out the ability to create music based on samples in Denmark.  The band, Djuma Soundsystem, claims that it's now hired a lawyer to handle an appeal, so one hopes that a higher court recognizes the insanity of it all.  In the meantime, however, the band owes approximately $200,000 (over 1 million Danish kroner) on a song which they say made them about $25,000 (or 140,000 Danish kroner).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111011/17322016310/insanity-judge-rules-that-copyright-holder-10-second-sample-deserves-84-royalties.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111011/17322016310/insanity-judge-rules-that-copyright-holder-10-second-sample-deserves-84-royalties.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111011/17322016310/insanity-judge-rules-that-copyright-holder-10-second-sample-deserves-84-royalties.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>clueless-judges</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111011/17322016310</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Danish Law Enforcement Would Like To Outlaw Anonymous Use Of The Internet</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110629/01455714898/danish-law-enforcement-would-like-to-outlaw-anonymous-use-internet.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110629/01455714898/danish-law-enforcement-would-like-to-outlaw-anonymous-use-internet.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Danish Ministry of Justice has put forth a proposal that would effectively make it much more difficult for anyone to use the internet anonymously.  Specifically, if adopted, the plan would <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/231249/danish_police_aim_to_end_anonymity_on_the_internet.html#tk.nl_dnx_h_crawl" target="_blank">require that anyone offering open internet access to users</a> would first have to confirm each user's identity, and then (of course!) record all sorts of info such as IP addresses, browser histories and records of who the user interacted with.  That data then gets sent to the government... "to combat terrorism."  Of course, what this means is that there's almost no way to be anonymous online.  While it may be true that anonymity can (and at times, is) abused, it's going really far to suggest that there shouldn't be any anonymity.  And giving the government that much info just screams out for it to be abused.  We're definitely seeing more proposals like this... and, amusingly, any time we mention them, it seems that the "anonymous" commenters here are the ones who insist that such policies make sense...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110629/01455714898/danish-law-enforcement-would-like-to-outlaw-anonymous-use-internet.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110629/01455714898/danish-law-enforcement-would-like-to-outlaw-anonymous-use-internet.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110629/01455714898/danish-law-enforcement-would-like-to-outlaw-anonymous-use-internet.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-must-be-tracked</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110629/01455714898</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:22:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>EU Getting Ready To Vote On Unnecessary Copyright Extension</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/04271413851/eu-getting-ready-to-vote-unnecessary-copyright-extension.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/04271413851/eu-getting-ready-to-vote-unnecessary-copyright-extension.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Whenever we talk about things like retroactive copyright term extension, we frequently see comments from even the regular copyright system supporters among the readership here insisting that they, too, feel copyright is too long and extending it further makes little sense.  In fact, it often seems difficult to find anyone willing to publicly support copyright term extension... and yet, it seems to keep happening.  We were just discussing how Denmark had suddenly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/03061013821/denmark-reverses-position-copyright-extension-may-impact-all-europe.shtml">changed its position on copyright extension</a> on the issue of neighboring rights, which are a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091101/1359556748.shtml">particularly pernicious</a> interpretation of copyright law.
<br><br>
Either way, it looks like Denmark's sudden caving (after quite a bit of lobbying from the entertainment industry) is quickly snowballing into the EU Commission <a href="http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/copyright-term-extension-will-be-voted-this-week/" target="_blank">moving forward with copyright term extension across Europe</a>.  Multiple economic studies have shown that such extensions do not benefit society.  In fact, they rarely benefit the content creators who are paraded out as the reason for such extensions.  Instead, the majority of the money goes to a few gatekeeper companies who hold a bunch of old copyrights.  It's pretty sad that the EU would so blatantly take content out of the public domain and give it to a few legacy companies.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/04271413851/eu-getting-ready-to-vote-unnecessary-copyright-extension.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/04271413851/eu-getting-ready-to-vote-unnecessary-copyright-extension.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/04271413851/eu-getting-ready-to-vote-unnecessary-copyright-extension.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110411/04271413851</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:48:53 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Denmark Reverses Position On Copyright Extension, May Impact All Of Europe</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/03061013821/denmark-reverses-position-copyright-extension-may-impact-all-europe.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/03061013821/denmark-reverses-position-copyright-extension-may-impact-all-europe.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There is no ethically honest argument in favor of retroactive copyright extension.  The point of copyright is to present incentives for the creation of new works.  It's a form of an agreement with the public: the public grants the content creator a limited monopoly for a certain period of years, and in exchange, the public gets the work which will then fall into the public domain once that monopoly expires.  Extending copyright retroactively makes no sense unless you are distorting the purpose of copyright law.  After all, the "deal" was clearly enough at the time of creation to incent the creator to create.  Changing the terms of the deal retroactively later is a way to unilaterally change the deal with the opposing party: the public.
<br /><br />
Now, the argument most commonly used in favor of retroactive copyright extension is an argument of welfare: that poor starving musicians need this money to survive.  Of course, there are two key problems with this.  The first is that copyright is not a welfare program.  If we want to create a welfare program for musicians, then let the government be upfront and create a specifically funded welfare program for old musicians.  But, it would need to defend why it's doing that for old musicians as opposed to old "everyone else."
<br /><br />
The bigger problem, however, is that copyright extension almost never actually helps those poor starving old musicians.  Anyone who's actually looked into this has seen that the vast majority of that cash goes directly to the major record labels.  And if you think they're going to start writing checks to those poor old musicians, you haven't paid much attention to how those record labels handle their accounting.
<br /><br />
Either way, this fight comes up every time copyrights are about to expire, and there's been a big push across Europe to extend certain copyrights that are starting to expire.  The EU Parliament apparently pushed for extending sound recording rights from 50 years to 70 years, but thanks to significant protests and complaints against this, the EU Commission hadn't moved forward on it.  One of the countries holding out was Denmark.  However, <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/04/07/1823245/Denmark-Now-Supports-EU-Copyright-Term-Extension?utm_source=slashdot&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">Slashdot</a> points us to the news that Denmark has had a sudden and unexplained change of heart... and is <a href="http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2011/04/06/o-no-not-again-term-extension/" target="_blank">now happy to support retroactive copyright extension</a>.  Not surprisingly, the <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&#038;prev=_t&#038;hl=en&#038;ie=UTF-8&#038;layout=2&#038;eotf=1&#038;sl=auto&#038;tl=en&#038;u=http://kum.dk/nyheder-og-presse/pressemeddelelser/2011/februar/langere-beskyttelse-af-musikeres-ophavsrettigheder/&#038;act=url" target="_blank">reasons being given</a> by the Danish culture minister are the classic welfare ones.
<blockquote><i>
"I attach great importance to the musicians have strong rights. In government, we have carefully considered the matter and finds that a term of 70 years would be a sensible approach.  Musicians should not experience losing rights to their recordings, while they are still active.  We will therefore work towards an extension of protection that will strengthen the musicians and record companies' rights. "
</i></blockquote>
"Carefully considered the matter"?  Yeah, right.  Notice that no actual justification is given for this other than the idea that musicians should never lose their rights.  So, does that mean Denmark now supports permanent copyright?  Why "70 years"?  Where's the evidence that's the proper number?  Don't expect answers, you won't find them.  Economists who have studied the matter come up with optimal lengths much shorter than even the current 50 years that was perfectly acceptable for those musicians originally.
<br /><br />
Of course, with Denmark switching sides, there are concerns that the current folks in power will quickly push through the proposal across Europe, and without any reasoned debate or considerations of the economic and cultural costs of retroactive extension, it will have happened yet again.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/03061013821/denmark-reverses-position-copyright-extension-may-impact-all-europe.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/03061013821/denmark-reverses-position-copyright-extension-may-impact-all-europe.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/03061013821/denmark-reverses-position-copyright-extension-may-impact-all-europe.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-tax-on-the-public</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110408/03061013821</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:29:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Danish Supreme Court Sets High Bar For Evidence In File Sharing Cases</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/00515413645/danish-supreme-court-sets-high-bar-evidence-file-sharing-cases.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/00515413645/danish-supreme-court-sets-high-bar-evidence-file-sharing-cases.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the complaints that many have made concerning various file sharing lawsuits is how rightsholders too often rely on highly questionable or weak evidence.  Over in Denmark, where efforts against file sharing by record labels and the IFPI have been aggressive, the Supreme Court has now <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/supreme-court-ruling-makes-chasing-file-sharers-hugely-expensive-110325/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed: Torrentfreak (Torrentfreak)&#038;utm_content=Google Reader" target="_blank">deemed weak evidence insufficient for such cases</a>.  The case involved a guy who was accused of sharing 13,000 tracks.  The court eventually decided he should pay $1,900 -- significantly less than what the record labels requested.  The main reason for the lower dollar amount was the limited quality of the evidence by the "anti-piracy" group Antipiratgruppen:
<blockquote><i>
APG used techniques which scraped the index of the files said to be being made available by the defendant and then linked them back to his IP address, a method which has been acceptable in the past. But while the Court accepted that some sharing had occurred due to the defendant&rsquo;s confession, it wasn&rsquo;t satisfied that the index was an accurate representation of the files physically present on the defendant&rsquo;s computer.
</i></blockquote>
Nice to see some courts recognizing that just having an IP address is not enough evidence on its own.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/00515413645/danish-supreme-court-sets-high-bar-evidence-file-sharing-cases.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/00515413645/danish-supreme-court-sets-high-bar-evidence-file-sharing-cases.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/00515413645/danish-supreme-court-sets-high-bar-evidence-file-sharing-cases.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110328/00515413645</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 06:43:59 PST</pubDate>
<title>'Spinning' Trademarked; Gyms Being Threatened For Holding Spinning Classes Sans License</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101227/17284312425/spinning-trademarked-gyms-being-threatened-holding-spinning-classes-sans-license.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101227/17284312425/spinning-trademarked-gyms-being-threatened-holding-spinning-classes-sans-license.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you've been to a gym lately, you've probably seen how "spinning" classes have become quite popular these days.  When I first heard of them, I couldn't figure out why they called them "spinning," rather than just "stationary bike" classes, but now I know: apparently "spinning" is a trademarked term, held by a company called Mad Dogg Athletics, and the company is gaining a reputation for trying to enforce that trademark around the globe.  If you look at the USPTO, the company appears to have a ton of different trademarks on "spinning," covering not just exercise classes, but also sports drinks, lotions and creams, nutritional supplements and computer software.  It looks like the original spinning trademark was filed for back in 1992 -- so it's entirely possible that this company really did come up with the term and popularize it.
<br /><br />
However, it seems that many people now feel that the term really has become generic, and I'd have to agree.  I've known about "spinning classes" for ages, but never had any idea it was associated with any particular company -- until now.  And that's only because an anonymous reader sent in this story of how Mad Dogg has had lawyers <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&#038;prev=_t&#038;hl=en&#038;ie=UTF-8&#038;layout=2&#038;eotf=1&#038;sl=auto&#038;tl=en&#038;u=http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-36044359:spinning-forbudt-i-danske-fitnesscentre.html%3Frss" target="_blank">threatening gyms in Denmark</a> (Google translation of the <a href="http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-36044359:spinning-forbudt-i-danske-fitnesscentre.html?rss" target="_blank">original Danish</a>).  The Danish gyms seem pretty upset by this, arguing that "spinning" has become a common generic word, and no one associates it with Mad Dogg at all.  It also appears that nearly all of the gyms contacted have simply decided to call their stationary bike classes something else, rather than give in and pay a licensing fee just to call a spinning class a spinning class.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101227/17284312425/spinning-trademarked-gyms-being-threatened-holding-spinning-classes-sans-license.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101227/17284312425/spinning-trademarked-gyms-being-threatened-holding-spinning-classes-sans-license.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101227/17284312425/spinning-trademarked-gyms-being-threatened-holding-spinning-classes-sans-license.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ride-that-bike</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101227/17284312425</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 06:07:44 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Danish Discussion On 3 Strikes Plan Done In Secret, Leaving Consumers Out Of The Mix Again</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101025/17533911582/danish-discussion-on-3-strikes-plan-done-in-secret-leaving-consumers-out-of-the-mix-again.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101025/17533911582/danish-discussion-on-3-strikes-plan-done-in-secret-leaving-consumers-out-of-the-mix-again.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Now that most of the ACTA negotiations are complete, you would think that governments would recognize the problems of trying to negotiate big deals that impact internet users in secret without involving the users themselves.  No such luck.  Apparently, over in Denmark, the government, the entertainment industry and ISPs have been <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/secret-anti-piracy-negotiations-3-strikes-and-a-taxpayer-funded-campaign-101025/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A Torrentfreak %28Torrentfreak%29" target="_blank">secretly negotiating a 3-strikes plan for Danes</a>, with an agreed upon press blackout, where none of the participants will speak to the press.  They're pretty upfront as to why not:
<blockquote><i>
After experiencing difficulty, Comon was told by Committee members that they had "promised to keep working secretly in order not to create too much fuss" and "could never agree on some recommendations if there was too much public debate about its work."
</i></blockquote>
Yes, you see, we couldn't actually come to agreement if the people this will actually impact the most are allowed to chime in and point out why they don't like their rights being taken away.  It's probably worth reminding folks at this point that Denmark was one of the players in the ACTA negotiations who was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/0114318381.shtml">vehemently against transparency</a>.  Apparently, that's carried over into domestic discussions as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101025/17533911582/danish-discussion-on-3-strikes-plan-done-in-secret-leaving-consumers-out-of-the-mix-again.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101025/17533911582/danish-discussion-on-3-strikes-plan-done-in-secret-leaving-consumers-out-of-the-mix-again.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101025/17533911582/danish-discussion-on-3-strikes-plan-done-in-secret-leaving-consumers-out-of-the-mix-again.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nobody-cares-about-the-consumer</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101025/17533911582</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:33:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Beer Pong Players Upset Their Beer Commercial Has Gone Viral... Sue Over Inclusion In World's Funniest Commercials</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100715/15575410233.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100715/15575410233.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Oh boy!  Where to start on this one.  <i>Normally</i>, when you have a commercial on TV, you <i>would like</i> it to go viral so more people see it.  We've certainly seen some companies use this to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/02461010208.shtml">their advantage</a>.  But what if the actors in those commercials don't want it to go viral?  What if they happen to be (or hope to be) upstanding professionals, and the commercial involves them participating in frat-boyish fun, such as playing beer pong, which they hoped would only be seen in a tiny country on the other side of the globe?  Well, that seems to be exactly what happened to a pair of unfortunate (but quite talented) beer pong players, who have <a href="http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/beer-pong-lawsuit.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">now sued the producers of "The World's Funniest Commercials," TBS and Carlsberg beer</a>.
<br /><br />
You see, Scott Tipton and Christopher Kolb are <i>really good</i> at beer pong.  So good, that Carlsberg hired them (and a few others) to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akmj5cU-cEY&#038;feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">perform in this commercial</a>:
<center>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Akmj5cU-cEY&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Akmj5cU-cEY&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
</center>
However, one of the guys was in law school at the time, and didn't want his future career prospects diminished by his beer pong prowess.  Why?  Because, as the complaint explains, "the plaintiffs' difficult trick-shots indicate substantial experience playing Beer-Pong, i.e., <i>substantial experience drinking substantial quantities of beer</i> -- a less than desirable image...." (emphasis in the original).  He also did not want his (apparently beer pong ignorant) parents and grandparents to know of his amazing skills at the "<i>most remarkable</i> trick-shot, ricocheting the ping-pong ball <i>four times</i> off of uneven, angled surfaces, and into the beer cup with back-spin, after which both Tipton and Kolb celebrate exuberantly" (emphasis in the original).  Because of this, he made sure that the agreement had geographic restrictions, such that it only showed in Denmark.  The other guy was an actor, who claims he agreed to a "below standard" rate, knowing that the commercial was only for the Danish market.
<br /><br />
But, of course, the video got some attention, and the producers of The World's Funniest Commercials decided to include it in their show (with Carlsberg's blessing) which aired in the US on TBS.  Even worse, the producers used a clip from the commercial in their own commercial for the show.  The guys then try to make the case that the TBS promo was the key reason why people watched the show, and their clip in the promo was the key part, and thus, they deserve 50% of all of TBS's advertising from the show.  Good luck with that.
<br /><br />
The lawsuit itself involves California's popular publicity rights law (that we've been talking about a lot lately) as well as a variety of other claims. However, in an age when we're already pointing out that geographic restrictions are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/18280610140.shtml">obsolete</a>, does it seem even remotely reasonable that the commercial would never be seen outside of Denmark?
<br /><br />
And yes, the legal complaint makes sure to explain just what beer pong is, in case the court is unfamiliar with the... um... sport:
<center>
<object id="_ds_47104519" name="_ds_47104519" width="560" height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=47104519&#038;mem_id=715794&#038;doc_type=pdf&#038;fullscreen=0&#038;allowdownload=1&#038;showrelated=0&#038;showotherdocs=0" /><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100715/15575410233.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100715/15575410233.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100715/15575410233.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>geographic-restricted-virality</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100715/15575410233</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 23:09:38 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Danish Supreme Court Upholds Required Blocking Of The Pirate Bay; Says ISPs Liable For Content</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100527/1637339608.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100527/1637339608.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While courts in nearby Norway <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100210/1135248111.shtml">rejected</a> attempts to force ISP Telenor to block The Pirate Bay, the story appears to be quite different in Denmark.  There, Telenor (which had been Tele2) was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080204/213143171.shtml">ordered</a> to block The Pirate Bay, followed by a higher court <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081126/0909552961.shtml">upholding the block</a>.  Now, the Danish Supreme Court has weighed in and <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/supreme-court-rules-pirate-bay-must-stay-blocked-100527/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A Torrentfreak %28Torrentfreak%29" target="_blank">again insists that it's perfectly fine for courts to demand an ISP totally block a website</a>. 
<br /><br />
Apparently the ruling hinged on a questionable bit of Danish copyright law that makes an ISP liable for the content sent by users, because "the ISP makes temporary copies of small fragments of the copyrighted work as IP packets pass their routers."  Of course, if you read the law that way, that puts <i>tremendous</i> liability on any ISP.  It seems wholly unreasonable to interpret the law that way -- and, in fact, some point out that this appears to go against EU law.  The article also notes that the questionable clause in Danish copyright law that puts this burden on ISPs was written by a guy who (you guessed it) now works for the recording industry.  Funny how that works.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100527/1637339608.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100527/1637339608.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100527/1637339608.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>something-rotten?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100527/1637339608</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 01:45:06 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Failed Filmmakers Pretend Piracy Group 'Stole' Film To Try To Get Publicity</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1807308709.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1807308709.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked about smart filmmakers learning to embrace file sharing to enlarge their audience and to improve their business model, but it appears that some filmmakers are getting the wrong kind of message.  TorrentFreak has the story of how some filmmakers in Denmark, who had a total flop on their hands, pretended that the local Piratgruppen organization literally broke into the studio, stole (used correctly, for once) the film, and were threatening to put it online.  Of course, the whole thing was <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/filmmakers-fake-piracy-threat-to-boost-sales-100324/" target="_blank">completely made up in a weak attempt to get publicity</a>.  Little actually came of it until it was exposed as totally made up -- but it's a pretty serious issue.  The studio was blatantly lying and accusing people of out-and-out criminal behavior, knowing that it was false.  And this is in Denmark, where the local anti-piracy group has been quite aggressive in going after anyone for copyright infringement.  Shameful.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1807308709.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1807308709.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1807308709.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>super-weak</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100324/1807308709</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:12:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Danish Politicians Questioning Why Denmark Is So Against ACTA Transparency</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/0114318381.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/0114318381.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the really amazing things in witnessing the reactions among various politicians to the ACTA negotiations is realizing how out of the loop <i>they</i> are as well.  They're often just as angry that things are being done in the name of their country that they have no visibility into.  Of course, this adds to the impression that this whole process is not about figuring out what's best for the people of each country, but an end run around the democratic lawmaking process, pushed mainly by big industries (led by the entertainment and pharmaceutical industries).
<br /><br />
So, with last week's leak showing that Denmark was one of the countries <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/1139448309.shtml">that was most against transparency</a> for ACTA negotiations, Danish free culture activists like Henrik Moltke have been speaking up, <a href="http://dotsub.com/view/1d17caf0-d147-4827-8d9c-dcffcf124f58" target="_blank">going on TV</a> and questioning why Denmark is being the transparency roadblock.  And it appears to be working.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&#038;prev=_t&#038;hl=en&#038;ie=UTF-8&#038;layout=1&#038;eotf=1&#038;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerworld.dk%2Fart%2F55259%2Feu-politikere-vil-have-aabne-antipirat-forhandlinger%3Fa%3Dblock%26i%3D188%26pos%3D5&#038;sl=da&#038;tl=en" target="_blank">Danish politicians are questioning why Denmark is so against ACTA transparency</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"It is news to me that Denmark is so close to the negotiations. And it's pretty shocking that Denmark should have taken the position that you actually want to give priority to secrecy," said Morten Messerschmidt, a member of the European Parliament
</i></blockquote>
Messerschmidt has gone on to say that he's going to demand that Denmark support a more transparent ACTA process, and it appears that some other Danish politicians are agreeing as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/0114318381.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/0114318381.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/0114318381.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>where-are-the-politicians</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100303/0114318381</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:39:49 PST</pubDate>
<title>U.S., Korea, Singapore, Denmark, Germany, Belgium And Portugal: Against ACTA Transparency</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/1139448309.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/1139448309.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the biggest issues in discussing ACTA is the rampant secrecy behind the negotiations.  We've heard <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1800557607.shtml">calls</a> from many different politicians to get rid of the secrecy and be more transparent, but we hadn't heard who was against the transparency (other than some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100110/2302157699.shtml">industry lobbyists</a> who, in theory, shouldn't have much say in this).  The only statement came from the USTR, who claimed that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1626497186.shtml">countries would leave the negotiating table</a> if the text were made public -- but wouldn't say who or why.
<br><br>
Well, now we know who.  A <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4819/125/" target="_blank">leaked document highlights which countries are against transparency</a> and the list includes Belgium, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, South Korea and Singapore.  Many other countries -- headed by the UK -- have been in support of opening up the process and being more transarent.  Among those in favor of transparency are the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Austria, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  And then there's the US, who simply <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/2358088061.shtml">claims</a> it's being transparent, but apparently refuses to take a stand on transparency in the negotiations (why should it -- when those negotiations themselves are secret).  Apparently the real stickler for secrecy is Denmark, which perhaps isn't that surprising.  While there are many Danish people who are fighting the copyfight, Denmark's "anti-piracy" organization has been among the most aggressive in suing pretty much anyone, and demanding all sorts of sites be shut down or blocked.  Unfortunately, it sounds like they're now the main blockers in keeping the ACTA process secret.
<br><Br>
But, of course, for all that attempted secrecy, the documents keep <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100222/0215038248.shtml">leaking</a>, and they're <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100111/2149377710.shtml">definitely problematic</a>.  It seems like it's time for the supporters of transparency to stand up to Denmark and the others and tell them that if they don't want the process to be transparent, then they should walk away from the agreement.  And, in the meantime, it's time for the USTR to stop pretending it's being transparent and to actually support real transparency in these negotiations.
<br><br>
<b>Update</b>: And another report points out that <a href="http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=05CD8788-1A64-6A71-CE97003E8DC06B00" target="_blank">"Italy and France fear retaliation"</a> from the US if they vote for transparency...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/1139448309.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/1139448309.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/1139448309.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-why?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100225/1139448309</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Dec 2009 15:15:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Danish Anti-Piracy Group Tells DVD Ripper Who Turned Himself In That It Won't Sue Him</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1304057183.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1304057183.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A bunch of folks have submitted the story of Henrik Anderson, a Danish man who ripped a bunch of DVDs for personal storage, and then <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-group-refuses-bait-drm-breaker-goes-to-the-police-091201/" target="_blank">turned himself in</a>, noting that even though Danish law says it's okay to make a backup copy of content for private purposes, it also forbids circumvention of DRM, such as the DRM found on DVDs.  We had avoided posting anything on the story until the Danish group responded, and while it missed the original deadline, it has now stated that <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/o-break-the-law-091203/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A Torrentfreak %28Torrentfreak%29" target="_blank">it will not go after Anderson, so long as he's only using the content for private use</a>:
<blockquote><i>
The main purpose of the rule is to ensure against abuse of films and music being illegally copied and distributed further. The Association of Danish Videodistributors certainly have no interest in suing consumers who like you have purchased legitimate products -- quite the contrary.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, if that were true, then wouldn't the Danish Antipiratgruppen push to change the anti-circumvention law that makes this particular process illegal?  After all, shouldn't they stand behind what they claim?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1304057183.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1304057183.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1304057183.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-nice</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091203/1304057183</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:16:43 PST</pubDate>
<title>IFPI: If Lawsuits Aren't Working In Denmark, We'll Seize Computers To Get Evidence</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091109/0932206853.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091109/0932206853.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We just wrote about how the Danish anti-piracy group was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091106/1523206840.shtml">dropping its lawsuits</a> against individual file sharers after realizing that Danish law made it almost impossible for the industry to win those cases.  However, as pointed out by <a href="http://twitter.com/brokep/statuses/5560757777" target="_blank">brokep</a>, the international wing of the recording industry, the IFPI, wasted little time in <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&#038;hl=en&#038;js=y&#038;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comon.dk%2Fnyheder%2FIFPI-Danske-pirater-bliver-fortsat-jagtet-1.246456.html&#038;sl=da&#038;tl=en&#038;history_state0=" target="_blank">trying to spin the news in its favor</a> (Google translation of the <a href="http://www.comon.dk/nyheder/IFPI-Danske-pirater-bliver-fortsat-jagtet-1.246456.html" target="_blank">original</a>).  The IFPI insists that the lawsuits won't stop, but just that the anti-piracy organization was realizing it needed more detailed evidence -- and this means that it will now start <b>seizing computers</b> to get evidence.  Now, the Google translation trips up over the word "beslagslaeggelse," but multiple Danish speakers have confirmed that the word means "seize" or "confiscate."  Of course, that raises some questions about why a private organization representing record labels has any right to seize computers of individuals.  I think they were better off when they just admitted they were going to give up on the counterproductive legal strategy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091109/0932206853.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091109/0932206853.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091109/0932206853.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>um,-wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091109/0932206853</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:29:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Danish Anti-Piracy Group Withdraws All Its Lawsuits Against Individuals (After Losing Most Anyway)</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091106/1523206840.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091106/1523206840.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While the RIAA has backed down (but not stopped) lawsuits against those accused of file sharing in the US, it looks like the Danish anti-piracy bureau has decided to <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&#038;sl=auto&#038;tl=en&#038;u=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitiken.dk%2Fkultur%2Farticle828707.ece" target="_blank">drop all of its lawsuits after it became clear that individuals were basically winning them all</a> (Google translation of <a href="http://politiken.dk/kultur/article828707.ece" target="_blank">the original</a>, found via <a href="http://twitter.com/brokep/statuses/5491884990" target="_blank">brokep</a>).  Basically, the courts acquitted most of the individuals accused of private file sharing, with the one exception being the case where the guy confessed.  And, the nature of the rulings in the acquittals made it clear that it was virtually impossible to win a lawsuit against individuals for file sharing.  Of course, we have no doubt that the industry will continue to use <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090120/1919463467.shtml">other means</a>, such as via regulatory capture, to continue to look for ways not to give consumers what they want.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091106/1523206840.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091106/1523206840.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091106/1523206840.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nice-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091106/1523206840</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Aug 2009 00:57:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Little Mermaid Statue Free To Be After Artist's Estate Didn't Expect Negative Publicity</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0146585745.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0146585745.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ On Friday, we wrote about how an artist's estate was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml">going after</a> a small town in Michigan, for daring to have a "Little Mermaid" statue to play up many of the town's Danish ancestors.  There's a famous Little Mermaid statue in Denmark, and the artist's estate (the artist died fifty years ago) apparently thinks all such statues infringe on its copyright (even though this statue was very different).  However, in our comments over the weekend <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20090731/0337175728#c159">Christopher</a> alerted us to the news that the estate had <a href="http://www.thedailynews.cc/Main.asp?SectionID=2&#038;SubSectionID=11&#038;ArticleID=29001" target="_new">withdrawn the copyright infringement claim</a>, apparently citing the publicity as the reason.  Apparently, being a copyright bully can have a bit of a backlash...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0146585745.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0146585745.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0146585745.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>funny-how-that-works</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090803/0146585745</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:26:11 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Copyright Cops Go After Town For Creating Little Mermaid Statue</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Dan sends in yet another story about copyright gone wrong.  Apparently the small town of Greenville Michigan has a strong Danish heritage, and wanted to show that off with some artifact representing Denmark.  It chose the iconic Little Mermaid statue, based on Hans Christian Andersen's story, and a similar iconic statue in Denmark.  Apparently, however, the family of the artist who created the statue in Denmark is trying to clamp down and <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124865622123982685.html" target="_new">is demanding a lump sum payment or that the statue be taken down</a>.  The actual artist died in 1959... but thanks to recent extensions in copyright (yippee), copyright now lasts life plus <i>seventy</i> years.
<br /><br />
Of course, I'm wondering if the statue even violates the copyright at all.  While the town says it was inspired by the one in Denmark, the actual statue is different:
<blockquote><i>
At about 30 inches high, it's half the size of the original and has a different face and other distinct features, including larger breasts. "We've gotten a lot of heat about that too," he says
</i></blockquote>
Considering that so much of the statue is different, is it even a copyright violation at all?  Apparently, this isn't the only town that's faced problems over such statues.  The article notes, amusingly, that Vancouver, British Columbia -- after failing to get permission from the artist's estate -- instead put up a statue entitled "Girl in a Wetsuit" and even added swimming fins and goggles to get the point across.  It's hard to believe that this one artist, whose been dead for fifty years, should have total control over statues of mermaids, but that's what today's copyright law gives us.  Isn't it great?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>cultural-artifacts</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090731/0337175728</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>