Techdirt. Stories filed under "opt-in"

Did The RIAA Really Just Come Out In Support Of 'Opt-In' Copyright? [Updated]

Mike Masnick — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:53:34 PDT

Here's some potentially big news. The RIAA, who has always appeared to be in favor of ever expanded copyright, may actually be changing its mind. Two separate reports out of the National Academies' meeting on "the impact of copyright policy on innovation" note that RIAA president Cary Sherman apparently stated that he now believes an opt-in registration "formalities" approach to copyright might make sense. Derek Slater, on Twitter, summarized Sherman's statement as:

"my opinion is that pre-Berne system, requiring some sort of registration, makes more sense today."

Of course, the MPAA and the BSA apparently disagreed, with the BSA saying copyright should definitely be opt-out rather than opt-in. That said, it is nice to see the MPAA come out in favor of flexible fair use policies, though I'm sure that's as an alternative to actually improving copyright law.

I've asked the RIAA for comment (updated below) on whether or not this represents a change of position for them, and whether the group would now support an opt-in copyright system that only gives copyright to works that are formally registered (as we had for many, many years). If true, this would really be a huge deal. While an opt-in system has many problems, if set up properly, it's a lot better than the current opt-out system, which obliterated the public domain. An opt-in system at least makes it much easier to feed the public domain.

Update: The RIAA responded to my request as to whether or not this was a policy change, in response, I was told:

His basic point (and I'm quoting from his remarks) was that "we need better ways to distinguish when copyright is a beneficial property right, and when copyright is a meaningless and unwanted right." He was later asked what he meant by this, and he responded that it may be time for creators to affirmatively assert copyright, rather than have it automatically granted to them whether they want it or not. He also explained that this was a personal view, not an RIAA position.

The note also pointed out, correctly that there really "is no way to opt-out" of copyright today. So, while it's not the official RIAA position, I'm still really surprised that Sherman would feel this way, but kudos to him for making a statement that would seem at odds with the RIAA's standard position on copyright.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Congressmen Not Happy About Charter's Plan To Sell Out Users To Advertisers

Mike Masnick — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:02:19 PDT

While Charter Communications is out defending its efforts to inject ads into your surfing activities by collecting data on where you surf, it appears that some powerful Congressional Representatives are suggesting that Charter might want to think twice about implementing this. Reps. Ed Markey and Joe Barton (who both have a fair amount of power in Congress) have sent Charter a letter warning the company that doing this without letting people affirmatively opt-in may violate the Communications Act, which limits what cable companies can do with customer records. What's really surprising is that, after so much anger over similar efforts in the UK (including similar questions about legality) that Charter forged right ahead with a nearly identical plan in the US, positioning it as an "enhancement." Update And on top of this, reports are now coming out that opt-ing out of this system isn't so easy after all.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Marketers Freak Out About Mandates To Make Clickstream Tracking Opt-In Only

Mike Masnick — Wed, 7 May 2008 16:38:00 PDT

With all of the fuss finally being raised concerning clickstream tracking by companies like Phorm and NebuAd, there's an effort underway to force ISPs to make any such tracking strictly opt-in. That is, users would have to proactively agree to allow their data to be used in this manner. In response, various marketers are complaining about how much data they would lose, claiming it would be an "armageddon" for the industry. Don't believe them. This is the same thing marketers warned about when the US instituted a "Do Not Call" system, and it's hardly decimated the marketing industry. Instead, it's improved marketing by making firms focus less on intrusive telemarketing and more on useful marketing. The same would happen if ISPs were required to make this an opt-in instead of opt-out setup. It would force the ISPs and companies like Phorm to make sure that the services really benefited customers in meaningful and noticeable ways so that customers would be happy to make use of the services. By whining about an opt-in solution, all these firms are really admitting is that they do not add value to the surfing experience of users.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apple Trying To Sneak Safari Onto Windows Machines?

Timothy Lee — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:25:28 PDT

Last week, Apple apparently began distributing its Safari web browser to Windows users using the software update mechanism that comes with iTunes. This has generated a firestorm of controversy, notably from Mozilla CEO John Lilly, who says Apple's behavior undermines users' trust in the software update process. He's got a point. What Apple is doing here is a little bit sleazy. Users who opt to download iTunes aren't necessarily interested in installing or running Safari, and so making installation the default is an abuse of the relationship between Apple and its customers. On the other hand, I think it's important to make it clear that there's nothing inherently wrong with Apple using its installed base of iTunes users to help promote Safari. The issue here is that the opt-out mechanism it's chosen is somewhat misleading. Apple can fix the problem very easily by switching the default, so that Safari is unchecked until the user chooses to check it. Or, if Apple wants to be a little more aggressive, a pop-up window could require the user to make a yes or no choice on installing Safari. If the user clicks "no," the update mechanism should respect this choice and not bring it up again. The problem, in other words, is not that Apple is using the popularity of iTunes to promote another of its products. The problem is that it's not being as transparent as it could be with its users.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

NY Legislator Looks To Outlaw Behavioral Targeted Ads Without Opt-In

Mike Masnick — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:42:00 PDT

A New York Assembly member is pushing to outlaw targeted advertising without opt-in approval. Given the scrutiny facing companies like Phorm in the UK, this isn't all that surprising. However, the complaints around Phorm are that it tracks all of your surfing activity and generates ads based on that aggregate info. The bill that is being discussed in New York would apparently apply to websites that do targeted advertising within the site. That seems both extreme and unnecessary. Even though the law would technically only apply to New York, since it would be difficult to figure out who's in NY and who's elsewhere, it would force many providers to get rid of targeted advertising. It seems a bit extreme to think that targeted advertising should be banned entirely, without an initial opt-in. By this point, most people probably expect basic targeting to take place, and when done right, such targeted ads should be more effective. The real problem comes in when such targeting presents a privacy violation, but the focus then should be on privacy laws, not specifically targeting a single activity such as targeted ads.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Time To Do Away With Sleazy Checkbox Opt-Outs

Mike Masnick — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:08:13 PDT

We've all seen the practice of somewhat sleazy "opt-out" offerings on things. You sign up to buy something at an e-commerce site and you have to uncheck a box or you'll get bombarded by promotional emails for the rest of your life. However, Jeremy Wagstaff is pointing out one that's even more questionable. Apparently, on a Lenovo page for journalists, it includes two confusing checkboxes. The first says: "Please use e-mail to send me information about other offerings." The second says: "Please do not use this data to send me information about other offerings." They're checkboxes (not radio buttons), meaning that you can check none, one, the other or both... which raises some interesting questions. What happens if you check none or if you check both?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story