Techdirt. Stories filed under "impact"

China's Censorship Hits Internet Users In Other Countries

Glyn Moody — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:48:35 PST

It's hardly a surprise these days that Chinese Internet companies routinely self-censor what appears on their services: the world knows there's not much it can do about what happens within China's borders. But here's a disturbing story about how that censorship has started spreading further afield.

It concerns the WeChat app from the Chinese company Tencent, which has started to gain users in countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. But as Tech In Asia now reports:

the Chinese name of the outspoken magazine caught up in a tense struggle of wills with the government -- Southern Weekend in English, nan fang zhou mo in Chinese -- is censored in Chinese on WeChat. But it's not just restricted to users in China (where the app is called Weixin), and typing that name in the Chinese language is now blocked globally.

Sending a message with "Southern Weekend" in Chinese produced the warning that it contained "restricted words": We've tested it out going from users in China to Thailand (blocked), Thailand to China (blocked), and even Thailand to Singapore (blocked); the prohibited words are not sent at all. The name of the magazine can be sent in English.
Interestingly, just a day later the warning was gone, and Tencent claimed it was simply a "technical glitch": A small number of WeChat international users were not able to send certain messages due to a technical glitch this Thursday. Immediate actions have been taken to rectify it.
But as Tech In Asia points out: It's as clear as day in many screenshots. "The message [Southern Weekend] you sent contains restricted words. Please check it again."

Yes: Restricted words. That's no error message. It's very far from being: Ooops, our servers are a bit busy right now, please try again a few minutes later.
As the article notes, maybe the "technical glitch" referred to was accidentally turning on the censorship for the service outside China.

In any case, this is a clear straw in the wind. China's Internet companies are now so big and successful in their home market that it is only natural for them to look to expand overseas. I'm sure that at first they will be very reluctant to censor material there to avoid drawing the ire of digital rights groups and local governments; but at some point something will crop up that is sufficiently problematic for them as Chinese companies that they will feel compelled to act in order to safeguard their relations with the government in China, which will remain their priority.

Of course, the West can hardly claim the moral high ground here, since it, too, is censoring material. It's just that different governments take exception to different things, and react with differing degrees of severity against those who flout their laws. Unfortunately, the end-result of Chinese Net companies expanding overseas is likely to be double censorship – one imposed by local authorities, and the other flowing from China.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Silencing Of Guy Adams Gives Another Graphical Representation Of The Streisand Effect

Mike Masnick — Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:14:52 PDT

We've talked plenty about the Streisand Effect for years, but every so often something happens that actually demonstrates the impact graphically with data. We saw this a couple years ago when Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder tried to censor a satirical article about himself. Add to that this week's controversy over Twitter suspending the account of journalist Guy Adams, at the request of NBC Universal (after Twitter alerted NBC to some of Adams' tweets). Twitter has reinstated the account, but in the interim, there was an awful lot of discussion about Adams and what he had to say. Megan Garber, over at The Atlantic, has highlighted graphically how much more attention Adams got (via Topsy). Once again: seeking to stifle speech online is only likely to give that speech much, much, much more attention.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Just Because Companies Can Design Around Patents Doesn't Mean There's No Impact For Consumers

Mike Masnick — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:27:34 PDT

This one's from a few week's back, but a few people have called it to my attention. Nilay Patel over at The Verge argued that because various companies offering Android phones have been able to design around a couple of Apple patents that have made their way into lawsuits -- #7,469,381 which covers the "scrollback" bounce when you scroll to the end of a page, and #7,657,849, which covers the "slide-to-unlock" concept -- that there's "really no day-to-day impact on the consumer" from the big patent fights going on over smartphones.

That seems like a rather simplistic analysis. Patel is right that many companies are "designing around" these overly broad and somewhat silly patents, and so it doesn't mean that Android phones aren't available. But that doesn't mean that there's no real impact on consumers. While it can't be quantified directly, there are numerous ways in which these patents are likely impacting the results. First, there's a matter of cost. The legal fights over patents are quite expensive, and that's almost certainly keeping prices on these devices somewhat higher than they might otherwise be. Second, the money and time it takes to do that "designing around" potentially slows the development of these phones. Third, those same resources could have been put elsewhere, working on additional innovations that would make the phones better and more valuable. Instead, they're forced to reinvent the wheel without doing the same scrollback or slide to unlock. Finally, while some will claim that forcing these companies to invent around the patents can lead to new innovations, there's little evidence to support this claim. Certainly it might happen accidentally, but letting developers come up with new innovations based on their own experiments and what the market tells them is always going to be more efficient than stumbling on some innovation because you're trying to avoid the artificial monopoly of a patent.

Of course, this is one of the difficult things in discussing the problems of the patent system. People insist they can't be that bad because these devices are still on the market. It's difficult to see or even explain the innovations that we don't have because of this, or even to show how the pace of innovation is almost certainly slower because of this, but that's exactly what plenty of research has shown for years. No one says that innovation stops completely because of patents, but we have significant concerns about how they impact the overall pace of innovation, as well as the specific direction of innovation. While it might not seem to have a "day-to-day impact on the consumer," chances are it's having quite a large one. We just can't see how big.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Evidence Shows That Megaupload Shutdown Had No Real Impact On Infringement

Mike Masnick — Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:10:56 PST

The first big analysis of what happened to file sharing via cyberlockers following the shutdown of Megaupload shows that there was no slowdown in file sharing -- it's just that the traffic moved elsewhere. The analysis, by Deepfield Networks, concludes that there was no significant drop off in file sharing in the US... but that it has become "staggeringly less efficient" from a network standpoint, because much of it moved to offshore locations over "expensive transatlantic links." This isn't a huge surprise. We've been pointing out for ages, that you can shut down as many sites as you can, and new options will always pop up. Shutting down sites has never worked, but for whatever reason, ICE and the MPAA/RIAA never seem to learn from their past mistakes.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

SOPA Can Impact Companies Who Think They're Immune

Mike Masnick — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:30:07 PST

SpiderOak is an online backup/syncing/storage platform. If you're familiar with Dropbox, it's quite similar to that. In fact, when Dropbox ran into some very public challenges concerning its privacy setup as well as how it handles government requests, one of the "alternatives" we heard about a lot was SpiderOak. I haven't used it myself, but a lot of folks I know and trust suggest that it's a good product, with really strong security and privacy rules. The company recently sent out an email to its users, which (in part) discusses SOPA:

What is SOPA? This act allows content owners - movie companies, music labels, etc. - to obtain court orders requiring search providers such as Google to filter their search results to exclude websites that host allegedly infringing material, and requiring the net registrars to block DNS servers from providing the correct IP address for such sites. The act also makes site owners civilly liable for the availability of copyright material on their sites. In addition, it makes the posting of a link to a third party website that has copyright material on it the same as hosting the material on your own site.

What does this mean for SpiderOak users if this act passes? You don't have to worry. Our level of encryption means not even your filenames, file sizes or file types are readable.

They also include a link to the American Censorship site. That's all cool, and it's certainly reassuring that their encryption keeps things secret... but in saying that you don't have to worry about it, it seems like SpiderOak actually just put a huge target on themselves. After all, SOPA has a big fat anti-circumvention clause, which specifically includes calling out products that are "marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures" in the bill. SpiderOak may have run afoul of that by "marketing" its product as immune to SOPA because of encryption (a circumvention tool).

This is, obviously, not to question SpiderOak at all, but rather to point out just how ridiculous the anti-circumvention clause is. Obviously there are tremendously good reasons why we all should want services like SpiderOak, with their high levels of encryption. But just the fact that it advertises that shouldn't be cause to get it in trouble under the law.

And the larger point is that even companies who think they're immune to SOPA may discover otherwise, thanks to the way the bill actually works.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

HADOPI Wants To Research File Downloads: Shouldn't It Have Done That First?

Glyn Moody — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:28:13 PST

One of the most important aspects of the UK's Hargreaves Report was that it called for copyright policy to be based on evidence. It also noted that so far that simply hadn't been the case, and that practically all of the so-called "studies" used to justify laws in this area came from the copyright industries, with missing or dubious methodologies.

The French three-strikes scheme known as HADOPI (actually the name of the government agency that oversees its implementation) is a perfect example of such dogma-based legislation: no research was done into how files were being shared or even whether they did any harm (there's a fair amount of evidence that file sharing increases sales).

So it's interesting to see HADOPI putting out a call for some research into streaming sites (original in French):

The commissioned study focuses on an economic analysis of streaming sites and direct download where illegal practices are the most common, offering cultural property in the areas of music and video.

This new interest in streaming sites is presumably a consequence of Nicolas Sarkozy's announcement at the recent Forum d'Avignon that "we have to tackle the streaming web sites." It's certainly welcome that HADOPI is doing some research before it draws up its proposals in this area; but shouldn't it have done the same with the original three-strikes scheme?

There's an interesting parallel with SOPA here. In the section with the splendid title "Denying U.S. Capital To Notorious Foreign Infringers", we read the following:

Report to Congress- The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator shall, not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report that includes the following:

(1) An analysis of notorious foreign infringers and a discussion of how these infringers violate industry norms regarding the protection of intellectual property.

(2) An analysis of the significant harm inflicted by notorious foreign infringers on consumers, businesses, and intellectual property industries in the United States and abroad.

Again, it's good that some research into that "significant harm" will be carried out, but shouldn't that come before the legislation is drawn up and enacted, not after it?

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Questionable 'Piracy' Study Found; Details Show It's Even More Ridiculous Than Expected

Mike Masnick — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:53:00 PDT

Thanks to G Thompson for pointing us to where the BSA has stashed a copy of that mysterious "piracy" research report we were just talking about, which was apparently written by someone named Emilio Ferrer. It's embedded below, and it's even more ridiculous than we had initially expected. First, the entire thing is based on the massively and completely debunked TERA report from last year, that used such outrageous assumptions as to not even pass the most basic sniff test. The researchers here appear to have made no attempt to determine the accuracy of the TERA report, nor to respond to any of the debunked points.

Digging into what little details there are suggests that this study just gets worse and worse and worse. It takes bad assumptions, then piles on more bad assumptions and then extrapolates out to get totally unsubstantiated conclusions. For example, it assumes that the volume of online infringement grows at the same rate as IP traffic and assumes the rate at which the industry will grow. That last one is particularly silly. Since it's making up a number for what the total jobs "should" be, it can just create whatever justification that it wants.. and can claim any job loss number it wants to name. The whole thing is a house of cards built on nothing.

Of course, it's worth pointing out that there was another report, this time from AFACT (the Australian anti-piracy group) just a few weeks before that some have confused this report with. The AFACT report can be seen here (pdf). It's even worse than the other study in some cases. Check out some of the assumptions in that report: including the laughable claim that "just under half of all pirate consumers would have paid." There have been various attempts to quantify that number, and I've never seen any unbiased source come anywhere close to 50%. At best, I've seen 10% claims. The only concession the report makes is that maybe some people use unauthorized copies to "sample," and make a legit purchase later. But they only count this if the person says they would pay for that legit product, not if it resulted in them buying other authorized products or services.

It also does a laughable job with "ripple effects." It's pretty sad. We've debunked "ripple effects" reports over and over and over again. They all seem to make the same mistakes. First, it ignores that ripple effects are really ways to count the same dollar over and over and over again. Second, they only count the ripple effects in one direction. So, for example, they say movie industry people lose their jobs, and that means less taxes. But what they don't say is that any money not being spent on the movies doesn't disappear from the economy, but is spent on something else -- and that something else might actually be even more productive or value generating. In fact, looking at this report, it appears they don't even consider this point, and assume that all the money "not" spent on movies disappears from the economy.

So there you have it. Two separate reports released within weeks of each other in Australia by the entertainment industry. Each one seems to be trying to outdo the other one in questionable assumptions and extrapolations.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

A Tale Of Two Studies On File Sharing...

Mike Masnick — Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:03:00 PST

I've recently come across two separate studies concerning file sharing -- that seem to come to vastly different conclusions. The first, as pointed out by Michael Scott, is a very long (128 pages), but very thorough research report analyzing pretty much everything having to do with file sharing in the Netherlands, commissioned by the government. It studies the economic angles, the legal angles, the cultural angles -- and then compares the local results to international results. While you might quibble with some of the methodology here or there, the overall conclusions of the report are pretty strong and clear: file sharing is not a problem for the overall industry. File sharing has, in fact, created a net benefit to the economy and society in both the short and long term, and that will likely continue. The direct impact on sales of file sharing is minimal (though it depends on the category). In fact, the only areas actually in trouble right now may be the sale of plastic discs (CDs and DVDs), but much of the damage has nothing to do with file sharing, and there are indications that the "lost" money can be made up in other ways. The report recommends moving away from criminalizing user activities, and focusing instead on encouraging new business model development. A quick excerpt from the conclusions:

The short-term net welfare effects of file sharing are strongly positive given that it is practised by consumers whose demand is driven by a lack of purchasing power. To the extent that file sharing results in a decline in sales, we see a transfer of welfare from operators/producers to consumers, with no net welfare effect.

The market for CDs and the market for DVD/VHS rentals are the only sectors of the entertainment industry that are suffering from a slump in sales. Whereas this may be attributed in part to file-sharing activity, file sharing is not solely to blame for the decline. The markets for DVDs and console games continued grow impressively after P2P services were introduced, and the cinema market showed sustained growth between 1999 and 2007. The total entertainment market has remained more or less constant, suggesting budget competition among the various products.

As long as the markets for games and films are on the rise or remain stable, there is little reason for concern that the diversity and accessibility of content is at stake. File sharing has significantly enhanced access to a wide and diverse range of products, albeit that access tends not to have the approval of the copyright holders.

In other words, pretty much everything that plenty of folks around here have been saying for a better part of a decade is pretty much true. File sharing isn't damaging -- and, in fact, can represent a net economic improvement, and the business troubles faced by a few small parts of the industry are really business model challenges, rather than legal ones. The report makes it clear that focusing on legal solutions to dealing with file sharing is a big mistake that tends to only backfire and seems to be totally misdirected.

So, what's the other study? It's also quite long, but is full of fear mongering about piracy. It just so happens to be funded by the movie studios claiming that piracy is helping to promote terrorism -- and because of that, the US government needs to devote stunning levels of new resources to stopping piracy at all costs. So what does this report recommend?

Fully funding and implementing the PRO-IP Act (PL 110-403), which toughens civil and criminal laws against counterfeiting and piracy, provides enhanced IP enforcement and prosecutorial resources, and improves IP coordination within the executive branch.
Supporting the introduction, passage and enactment of a Customs and Border Protection Reauthorization bill to better address trafficking in illicit goods.
Supporting the Baucus-Hatch legislative improvements to the USTR's Special 301 process to help deal with other countries that fail to live up to their international IP obligations.
Concluding negotiations for a substantive and enforceable Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) with major trading partners.
Pursuing trade agreements with strong global IP protections.
Expanding U.S. leadership on IP protection within the G8, the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America, and other bilateral and multilateral frameworks.
Building coalitions in favor of strong IP protections at international organizations, such as the World Health Organization, World Intellectual Property Organization, and U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Engaging Beijing to improve China's IP legal and regulatory regimes through the implementation of new patent, trademark and copyright laws.
Pursuing reforms on data exclusivity, incremental innovation and optical discs legislation in India.
Working towards improved retail and copyright enforcement in Russia, as well as the successful implementation of IP reform through Part IV of its Civil Code.

Which of the two reports is more credible? Which do you think will have more impact on government policy in the next year or so? The answers to both questions are unfortunately obvious and extremely disappointing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

What Would Pushing Back The Digital TV Transition Mean?

Carlo Longino — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:22:00 PST

As the deadline for the shutdown of analog TV broadcasts and the transition to digital draws closer, calls for a delay in the switchover grow louder, thanks largely to poor management of the converter subsidy program and inadequate education. But while consumer groups and politicians fret over the few million people who will need converters but haven't gotten them, Kevin Fitchard over at Telephony Online has a nice roundup of the wireless and mobile companies that will feel the effects of any delay in the transition.

The reason for the digital switchover is to free up the 700MHz spectrum that's used by analog broadcasts. The spectrum's low frequency gives it great propagation characteristics for mobile broadband, while the sheer quantity of it the TV broadcasts occupy translates into a lot of capacity for next-generation mobile networks. Also, keep in mind that the government has already auctioned off the licenses to this spectrum, so companies like Qualcomm and Verizon Wireless, which have already shelled out billions of dollars to set up shop in it, will have to push back their investments and rollouts. This could have a carry-on effect on consumers. For instance, Cox Communications bought 700MHz licenses in many of the markets in which it offers cable TV service with the intention of setting up its own mobile networks, introducing new competition for incumbents. One other group that stands to lose out if the transition is delayed: public safety agencies, which were allocated 700MHz spectrum in order to build interoperable, unified communications systems. This transition has been pushed back for years; it's important now that the hard deadline stands, and that the vast amount of spectrum used by the analog broadcasts -- broadcasts that relatively few people rely on -- can be refarmed and put to a more valuable use.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Reliable Are Industry Announced Piracy Statistics?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:20:00 PDT

Eric Goldman sent in a link to a recent research paper that aimed to look at the reliability of industry-released reports on piracy. That sounded interesting, as we've spent plenty of posts picking apart why almost all of their released numbers are bogus. In particular, we've pointed out how incredibly bogus the BSA's statistics are. So, it was somewhat surprising to have the study say that the BSA's were the most reliable, when compared to other groups like the RIAA and MPAA. If anything, though, that really just suggested that the RIAA's and MPAA's stats were even more bogus (remember, things actually got so bad for the MPAA that it had to admit how bogus its own stats were). That actually seems likely, as the BSA is the most upfront about the methodology used.

However, reading through the actual report, it does little to vindicate the piracy numbers that the industry reports always trumpet. That's because the report actually focuses on the rate of unauthorized use, rather than the cost or impact of that unauthorized use -- which is the key point to come out of these reports. The rate of unauthorized use is fairly meaningless, so it doesn't matter that much who is the most accurate. It's the impact that matters. While reports used to do silly things like count every unauthorized copy as a lost sale, most have stopped that, and now use a multiplier. Some have started using a questionable ripple effect that counts the same loss multiple times and ignores the "ripple effects" in the other direction that benefit the industry. So, yes, perhaps the BSA is the best of a bad bunch, but even if the rate of unauthorized use is somewhat accurate, that has little bearing on the actual impact of those unauthorized copies.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story