<?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;seattle&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:59:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>San Diego Refuses To Answer FOIA Requests About Drones Because 'There Is Very Little Public Benefit'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/13591421096/san-diego-refuses-to-answer-foia-requests-about-drones-because-there-is-very-little-public-benefit.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/13591421096/san-diego-refuses-to-answer-foia-requests-about-drones-because-there-is-very-little-public-benefit.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few months ago, MuckRock and the EFF teamed up to start a <a href="https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2012/jul/03/drone-watch-help-eff-and-muckrock-uncover-planned-/">drone watch</a> effort, in which they send Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) -- or the local equivalent -- requests to local governments and police departments, seeking to find out information on local law enforcement using drones.  At last count, <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/eff-and-muckrock-have-filed-over-200-public-records-requests-surveillance-drones" target="_blank">over 200 such requests</a> have been made.  You can <a href="https://www.muckrock.com/foi/list/user-DroneWatch/" target="_blank">track them here</a>.  As you might imagine, they're getting very varied responses, with some saying that there are no responsive documents.  In many cases, it's likely that this is true.
<br /><br />
However, the folks at MuckRock discovered something interesting in looking over some of the responses.  While the San Diego County Sheriff's office initially <a href="https://www.muckrock.com/foi/san-diego-county-55/san-diego-county-police-department-drone-documents-1487/" target="_blank">stated that they had no responsive documents</a>, reviewing <a href="https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2012/oct/11/two-seattle-police-drones-sit-unused-department-se/" target="_blank">the Seattle Police Department's response</a> suggested that San Diego was lying.  Why?  Because the Seattle release shows an email from a manufacturer of drones, Datron World Communications, to Seattle police in which they share a sales quote that was sent to San Diego for a drone, the Scout UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle).
<blockquote><i>
Attached is the quotation recently provided to the SD Sheriff's CID team.  They visited Datron's facility and experienced the system with all three cameras and left with a flashdrive full of personal footage and a new found purpose for submitting their wish-list early.  Use this quote as a reference point for configuring your system.  With this we should be able to tailor an ideal system for your needs and gain marketing support for 'special pricing' specifically for Seattle PD.
</i></blockquote>
Given this contradiction, MuckRock <a href="https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2012/nov/15/san-diego-county-sheriff-refuses-release-drone-doc/" target="_blank">sent a followup request to San Diego</a>, asking the Sheriff's office to explain this newly revealed information.  In response, the sheriff's "legal advisor" sent a note saying that "we decline to comment on the sales quotation referenced in your September 4, 2012 letter."
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/LmBvW"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/LmBvW.jpg" width=560 /></a>
</center>
Well, isn't that nice?  Of course, under freedom of information laws you can't just ignore such requests.  As MuckRock notes:
<blockquote><i>
As is true in most states, California's public records law provides that documents related to equipment purchases are matters of public record unless exempted by statute. Accordingly, the San Diego County Sheriff and other public agencies have the latitude to justify denial of public records requests, but not to "deny comment" when faced with such a request.
</i></blockquote>
After continuing to press the San Diego Sheriff's office, MuckRock was first told that San Diego had not purchased such drones and then that it will not release the records because "there is very little public benefit in the release of such records," in part because the quote from the company had not resulted in a purchase.  The office then notes that the request is denied "on the grounds that any information and/or records obtained by the Sheriff's Department are protected by the Deliberative Process privilege, as well as the Official Information privilege (Evidence Code 1040)."
<br /><br />
Again, MuckRock notes that San Diego is misreading the law in question:
<blockquote><i>
But public records law puts the burden of evidence not on those who seek disclosure, but on those who would keep them from public view. Evidence Code section 1040 of California's disclosure law, which the San Diego County Sheriff's office has invoked as a basis for its denial, provides that public agencies may refuse to disclose official information in the case that such disclosure "is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice."
<br /><br />
The onus is on the Sheriff to demonstrate how releasing the documents sought by MuckRock would injure the public interest.
</i></blockquote>
As they note, the public has a "right to know" when their government is using drones to surveil the public, and it's unfortunate that some governments seem to be stonewalling requests for information.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/13591421096/san-diego-refuses-to-answer-foia-requests-about-drones-because-there-is-very-little-public-benefit.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/13591421096/san-diego-refuses-to-answer-foia-requests-about-drones-because-there-is-very-little-public-benefit.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/13591421096/san-diego-refuses-to-answer-foia-requests-about-drones-because-there-is-very-little-public-benefit.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>keeping-the-public-in-the-dark-for-their-own-benefit</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121119/13591421096</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:41:29 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Court Rules Yellow Pages Are Protected Speech</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/20152220741/court-rules-yellow-pages-are-protected-speech.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/20152220741/court-rules-yellow-pages-are-protected-speech.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A couple of years ago, the publishers of a number of phone books in the Seattle area <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101117/04041211910/yellow-pages-sues-seattle-for-new-law-letting-people-opt-out-of-getting-the-phone-book.shtml">sued the city</a> for passing a new ordinance that required the publishers to pay a fee and subscribe to an opt-out program. The ordinance was implemented to allow Seattle residents to opt-out of phone book deliveries and the fee was created to pay for the program. The publishers sued stating that this fee and the other regulations that came with it violated the publishers&#39; First Amendment rights.<br />
<br />
While we lost track of the lawsuit over the following years, it finally made its way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the three judge panel ruled that the <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/10/phone-books-the-hefty-tomes-of-telephone-numbers-that-invited-consumers-to-let-your-fingers-do-the-walking-are-pr.html" target="_blank">city&#39;s ordinance did indeed violate the First Amendment rights of the publishers</a>. The ruling is very thorough in defining just why the phone book is protected by the First Amendment and thus requires strict scrutiny before any regulations can be applied.
<blockquote>
<i>To be sure, the Yellow Pages Companies are in the business of selling advertisements and contracted to distribute the noncommercial speech to make their advertising space more desirable due to greater directory use. But it is important to keep in mind that the First Amendment protections available to newspapers and similar media do not apply only to those institutions of the type who &ldquo;have played an historic role in our democracy.&rdquo; To assume that every protected newspaper, magazine, television show, or tabloid&rsquo;s &ldquo;noncommercial&rdquo; content precedes and takes priority over the publishing parent company&rsquo;s desire to sell advertising is at odds with reality and the evidence in the record.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, we do not see a principled reason to treat telephone directories differently from newspapers, magazines, television programs, radio shows, and similar media that does not turn on an evaluation of their contents. A profit motive and the inclusion or creation of noncommercial content in order to reach a broader audience and attract more advertising is present across all of them. We conclude, therefore, that the yellow pages directories are entitled to full First Amendment protection.</i></blockquote>
The city had argued that because the phone books are commercial speech they qualified for a more lenient scrutiny when it comes to regulation. This was argued because the publishers are in the business of selling advertising space and the phone books are the medium. However, the court ruled that neither the presence of advertising nor the financial motive of the publishers disqualified the noncommercial content, such as the phone listings and maps, from strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
<blockquote>
<i>The Ordinance does not satisfy this standard. While arguing that the Ordinance survives intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson, the City advanced three governmental interests: (1) waste reduction, (2) resident privacy, and (3) cost recovery. See Seattle Ordinance 123427 (Oct. 14, 2010) (Preamble). We need not determine whether any or all of these interests are &ldquo;compelling&rdquo;; even if they are, the Ordinance is not the least restrictive means available to further them. One clear alternative is for the City to support the Yellow Pages Companies&rsquo; own private opt-out programs. With proper implementation, the private opt-out programs could achieve precisely the same goals as the City&rsquo;s registry. Even fining the Yellow Pages Companies for a lack of compliance with their own opt-out terms would be less restrictive than compelling them to fund and advertise the City&rsquo;s program.</i></blockquote>
While most people these days get annoyed with the constant receipt of the yellow paper brick, that annoyance does not qualify the books for such regulation. As the court states, the city could have performed a number of other actions that would have met the needs of its citizens while still protecting the rights of the publishers. The publishers, perhaps in anticipation of this ordinance being passed, set up a voluntary <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/17364112914/yellow-pages-companies-team-up-to-offer-opt-out.shtml">opt-out program</a>. The city could have instead promoted that voluntary program with its residents.<br />
<br />
Despite this ruling, the future of the Yellow Pages still looks bleak. With the majority of people in the US and many other parts of the world now connected to the internet, owning a physical book of phone numbers has become rather pointless. The internet has changed the way people search for goods and services in such a way that the phone book can never compete. Without that ability to stay competitive, this ruling will do little good for these publishers in the long run.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/20152220741/court-rules-yellow-pages-are-protected-speech.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/20152220741/court-rules-yellow-pages-are-protected-speech.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/20152220741/court-rules-yellow-pages-are-protected-speech.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-landfills-groan</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121017/20152220741</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 6 Jul 2011 08:23:14 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Another Fair Use Debacle: Photographer Settles Bogus Copyright Threat From Artist</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/01433514945/another-fair-use-debacle-photographer-settles-bogus-copyright-threat-artist.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/01433514945/another-fair-use-debacle-photographer-settles-bogus-copyright-threat-artist.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, we wrote about the absolutely ridiculous situation in which an artist, Jack Mackie, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/0157238044.shtml">sued a photographer</a>, Mike Hipple, for copyright infringement.  The details of the case were pretty crazy.  Mackie had created a piece of <i>public</i> artwork with <i>public</i> funds, putting instructional dance steps into the pavement on a sidewalk in Seattle.  Hipple did not photograph the whole thing.  Instead, he took a photograph of someone standing in a couple of the footsteps, and included a few others around it.  It's hard to see how anyone could say this was not fair use.  It's transformative, and it most certainly would not hurt the market for the original artwork.  The issue was that Hipple put the image up on a stock photo site for sale, and Mackie apparently believes copyright covers a hell of a lot more than it does.  The other crazy thing: after receiving a takedown letter, the image came down... but Mackie still sued.
<br /><br />
Hipple was planning to fight the lawsuit, but just like the Andy Baio/Jay Maisel <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/01393814836/kind-blue-using-copyright-to-make-hobby-artist-pay-up.shtml">situation</a>, it appears that Hipple realized it was <a href="http://hipple-ldf.blogspot.com/2011/06/settlement_29.html" target="_blank">better to settle than to risk huge statutory damages</a>.  The statement about the settlement seems pretty clearly done with the approval of Mackie's lawyers, and makes you wonder what else was going on behind the scenes.  Tragically, unlike Baio, Hipple appears not to have received permission to relay the details of the settlement.  That's really too bad, because this is the kind of information people need to know about.
<br /><br />
Even worse, Mackie response to the settlement has been <a href="http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2011/07/02/following-settled-lawsuit-creator-of-broadway-steps-responds" target="_blank">nothing short of obnoxious</a>, and includes some blatantly false statements about copyright law:
<blockquote><i>
Artists hold copyright to their work, period.  The Federal Law that states this was well vetted and argued before becoming law.  This law comes with strict standards that must be met to gain copyright.  I met all of these standards.  My copyright is secure meaning it comes with protections and it comes with controls.  Artists are the only people who get to say how images of their work will be used.
</i></blockquote>
That's simply not true.  Artists are <i>not</i> the only people who get to say how images of their work will be used.  That's the entire point of fair use, which it appears Mackie is denying.  This is another reason why these kinds of settlements, while understandable, are so tragic.  They reinforce these kinds of ignorant claims from copyright holders who wish to deny fair use.  Mackie continues:
<blockquote><i>
I do not want my work to be part of a coffee company's ad campaign. I do not want my work to be part of a sales pitch for condos on Broadway.  I do not want my work associated with banksters... all of which I have had to deal with.  I want my work to be seen as it was intended and in the setting for which it was created - Seattle's sidewalk on Capitol Hill, Broadway.  I do not want it used by whoever might think it a cool idea to appropriate the image for their current fancy.
</i></blockquote>
What you <i>want</i> and what the law <i>allows</i> may be two totally different things.  Look, I don't <i>want</i> to have to spend time debunking your cluelessness on copyright law.  But that doesn't mean the law allows me to sue you over it.  Furthermore, copyright law has nothing to do with "associations."  It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you like someone using your work in a certain manner.  If it's fair use, they absolutely can use the work in that way.  Your own desires have nothing to do with it.
<blockquote><i>
It was with glee that I took the news of Tom Petty sending cease and desist orders to Michelle Bachmann for appropriating his work without his permission.
</i></blockquote>
With "glee" and some additional total ignorance about the nature of copyright law in this country...  As we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/03482614973/dear-musicians-once-again-politicians-can-probably-play-your-songs-events-without-your-permission.shtml">noted</a> recently, Tom Petty has no legal leg to stand on here.  That's because his music is licensed out for public performance with ASCAP or BMI, and if the venues where Bachmann is playing these tunes has their ASCAP/BMI licenses in order (as they almost certainly do), he's got nothing to stand on.  That's the way US copyright works when it comes to music performances on such licensed music.  But, apparently, Mackie has no interest in actually understanding how copyright law works, but prefers his mythical version in which it's some sort of "moral rights" that are not present in US copyright law, no matter how much Mackie dances around and pretends they are.
<br /><br />
Between the Andy Baio situation and the Mike Hipple situation, it would be great if people started to recognize what a horrible setup copyright law's statutory damages provisions are.  They allow artists like Mackie and Maisel to shake down other artists over work that those other artists believe is fair use.  The risk of a statutory damages award is simply too high, and so these artists are forced to submit, to pay, and to stifle artwork.  It seems like statutory damages provisions do the exact opposite of the stated intentions of copyright law to promote the progress, doesn't it?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/01433514945/another-fair-use-debacle-photographer-settles-bogus-copyright-threat-artist.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/01433514945/another-fair-use-debacle-photographer-settles-bogus-copyright-threat-artist.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/01433514945/another-fair-use-debacle-photographer-settles-bogus-copyright-threat-artist.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>lame</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110702/01433514945</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:26:11 PST</pubDate>
<title>Yellow Pages Sues Seattle For New Law Letting People Opt-Out Of Getting The Phone Book</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101117/04041211910/yellow-pages-sues-seattle-for-new-law-letting-people-opt-out-of-getting-the-phone-book.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101117/04041211910/yellow-pages-sues-seattle-for-new-law-letting-people-opt-out-of-getting-the-phone-book.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few weeks ago, I walked out my front door to see a phone book dropped on the front step.  I honestly couldn't remember the last time I'd seen one.  But I picked it up and walked it straight over to the paper recycling bin, where I deposited it.  That's what an awful lot of people do these days.  Apparently, the city of Seattle passed a law recently creating a "do-not-deliver" list for residents, that would bar phone book providers from delivering the books to their homes.  However, the Yellow Pages Association <a href="http://consumerist.com/2010/11/yellow-pages-sues-seattle-for-letting-residents-opt-out-of-getting-phone-books.html" target="_blank">has now sued the city</a>, claiming that this law is a First Amendment violation:
<blockquote><i>
The complaint... asserts that the ordinance enacted last month violates the First Amendment, which prohibits government from licensing or exercising advance approval of the press, from directing publishers what to publish and to whom they may communicate, and from assessing fees for the privilege of publishing. The suit also claims that the Seattle ordinance unlawfully interferes with interstate commerce and violates the privacy rights of Seattle residents...
<br /><br />
The Seattle ordinance unfairly singles out the Yellow Pages industry with regulations and fees that are not imposed on other media, including discriminatory license fees for the right to publish and unprecedented "advance recovery fees" that previously have been limited to toxic or hard-to-recycle materials. The ordinance also mandates that publishers turn over consumers' private information to the City of Seattle and imposes obligatory cover language dictated by the city government.
</i></blockquote>
Now, I'm a pretty big First Amendment supporter, but I'm not sure how a bar on dropping a phone book on someone's property -- at their request -- is a free speech violation.  Perhaps I'm missing something?  In the meantime, the group actually says that it's <i>not against</i> letting people opt-out, and is actually creating a website to let people do just that.  It just doesn't like this particular law.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101117/04041211910/yellow-pages-sues-seattle-for-new-law-letting-people-opt-out-of-getting-the-phone-book.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101117/04041211910/yellow-pages-sues-seattle-for-new-law-letting-people-opt-out-of-getting-the-phone-book.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101117/04041211910/yellow-pages-sues-seattle-for-new-law-letting-people-opt-out-of-getting-the-phone-book.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>is-that-a-first-amendment-issue?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101117/04041211910</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>