FSF Sets Up Fund To Pay For Experts Who Can Show How Flimsy RIAA Evidence Is

Culture

from the oh-so-flimsy dept

For years, people have been pointing out that the evidence the RIAA often uses in lawsuits against people for file sharing is often quite flimsy. While there’s no doubt that many of the people the RIAA goes after are guilty of unauthorized file sharing, that doesn’t rationalize the use of questionable evidence that can often suggest completely innocent people were engaged in file sharing. Of course, it’s one thing to say the evidence is flimsy, and it’s another thing altogether to bring experts into court who can convince a judge (or jury). The Free Software Foundation has now decided to create a fund (for which it’s seeking donations) to help pay for expert witnesses to combat the RIAA’s evidence in cases. Lawyer Ray Beckerman, who has been quite vocal in fighting the RIAA will help advise the fund and determine which lawsuits deserve money from the fund for an expert witness. It’s really too bad that such a fund is even needed — and it should (though won’t) be a wakeup call to the recording industry to see that so many people are sick of these lawsuits that they would fund such a thing in the first place.

Filed Under: copyright, evidence, flimsy, fsf, ray beckerman
Companies: riaa

Yahoo, Google Sued For Trademark Infringement For Blogs And Mail Groups

Legal Issues

from the would-you-like-to-rethink-this-lawsuit? dept

There really ought to be a term for suing a big company that has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute at hand, just because they have a lot of money. Whenever I hear about such cases they remind me of an old Bloom County comic, where the lawyer character, Steve Dallas, tries to figure out who to sue after the actor Sean Penn beats him up for snapping his photo. In the end, he decides to sue Nikon, the camera maker, for not putting a warning on the cameras… and because it’s a big company with lots of money. These “Steve Dallas” cases seem to be hitting Google all too frequently these days. The latest involves the International Information Systems Security Certifications Consortium (“ISC2”), who offers “Certified Information Systems Security Professional,” or “CISSP” designations for security professionals. The organization is suing a guy who was, at one time, CISSP certified, but lost it. Rather than just lie about still being certified, the guy started describing himself as a Chief Information Security Systems Practitioner, which just so happens to spell out CISSP. That seems like a pretty clear trademark problem. However, the organization is then also suing both Google and Yahoo, claiming that both are guilty of trademark infringement because Google had some blogs with CISSP in the name and Yahoo had some YahooGroups with CISSP in the name. Unless those groups or blogs are representing themselves as being officially connected to ISC2 or the CISSP program, it’s hard to see what the problem is. In fact, it seems clear that a few of the groups are to criticize CISSP, which should be perfectly legal (suggesting that ISC2 is simply trying to silence critics). As Eric Goldman notes in the link above, it’s hard to believe that ISC2 stands much of a chance in these lawsuits, but why let that stop you? In the world of Steve Dallas, you always sue the big companies.

Filed Under: cissp, trademark
Companies: google, yahoo

'Open DRM' Is Snake-oil

Overhype

from the oxymoron dept

A Pioneer spin-off called SyncTV has launched. Consumers will apparently be able to subscribe to "channels" of content, and eventually you'll be able to play those channels on a variety of devices around the home, as well as portable devices. So far, it looks like little more than vaporware, as their public website doesn't have any real details about pricing, supported devices, etc. What really irritates me about the coverage of the launch is the description of Marlin as an "open-source DRM system." This phrase is a contradiction in terms, and anyone who claims their DRM scheme is open source, or based on open standards, is either confused or trying to mislead. For a product to be considered open source, not only must the source code be publicly available, but there can't be any legal restrictions on the modification and re-distribution of the product. On the other hand, DRM works by ensuring that approved devices won't perform certain operations, such as converting content to an unencrypted format. The two sets of requirements obviously can't be reconciled. SyncTV's site phrases things slightly differently, describing its platform as "completely based on open standards." But this, too, is deceptive. An open standard is one that anyone is free to implement without asking for permission. HTML is an open standard: you don't need a license from the W3C to create a new web browser. On the other hand, a DRM scheme requires a licensing authority to verify that each new device to verify that it complies with the rules of the DRM scheme. And we've seen incumbents use this approval process (and the DMCA, which gives it the force of law) to squash innovative competitors that threaten their business models. Marlin could turn out to be marginally better than some existing DRM schemes if it employs less restrictive licensing terms. But it's still a DRM scheme, and that means there's nothing "open" about it.

Filed Under: drm, open drm
Companies: pioneer, synctv

Biotech Now Being Taught In High Schools

Bleeding Edge

from the with-an-emphasis-on-real dept

There’s definitely been a lot of talk lately about how biotech is the industry that’s got the most promise to be “the next big thing.” Whether you agree with that or not, it seems that some high schools want to prepare the next generation of students for biotech jobs, so they’re actually offering biotech as a high school class. What may be most interesting here is the connection between the schools and actual biotech companies. This isn’t just about learning about biotech, it’s about interacting with companies in the space and understanding the business side of biotech, rather than just the technology (er… and biology). The hope, obviously, is to help make sure the next great biotech breakthroughs come from American companies — and the best way to do that, supporters of these programs believe — is to get high school kids thinking about and excited about biotech opportunities. Still, while it’s surprising that there isn’t more pushback (at least the article doesn’t note any) about corporations reaching directly into high school classrooms, it seems like a reasonable thing to do in such an emerging area. A standard curriculum won’t be all that useful in a rapidly changing arena — and connecting with companies who are on the bleeding edge is likely to be a lot more educational in the long run anyway.

Filed Under: biotech, high school

Dutch Justice Ministry Bans Wikipedia; But Not For The Reason You Were Probably Expecting

Surprises

from the it's-the-edits,-not-the-content dept

When you hear of someone banning Wikipedia, you might naturally assume it’s because they’re worried about the accuracy or reliability of the content (as misguided as that might be). However, it’s a bit surprising to learn that the Dutch justice ministry has decided to ban Wikipedia because its employees were a little too eager to edit the site. Ever since people started outing who was behind what Wikipedia edits, there have been some amusing stories about how people adjust entries in their own favor — and apparently, a few of those edits came from Dutch justice ministry employees, who are all now banned from using the site, at least temporarily. It’s not clear from the article why the ban is temporary or under what conditions it will be lifted. The group admits that most of the edits weren’t objectionable (though, a few were). However, no one seems to indicate how this ban could possibly be effective. Those who are likely to adjust Wikipedia entries for political gain are just going to do so from home, making it even harder to pick up the biased entries — while at the same time, decreasing the likelihood that the more honest corrections can happen at a reasonable pace from those justice ministry employees who actually can make Wikipedia articles more accurate.

Filed Under: dutch justice ministry, netherlands

Korea's Internet Addiction Bootcamps Mistargeted

Overhype

from the the-symptom-rather-than-the-disease dept

For years, we’ve pointed out how ridiculous it is for people to be blaming internet addictions for things, when almost every case of “internet addiction” that’s demonstrated that the actual problem was something else, and the internet usage was just a way of “escaping” from those other problems. It didn’t help that many of the big supporters of “internet addiction” happen to be the people (i.e., doctors) who are most likely to profit from such a thing existing. On top of that, reports have shown that so-called “internet addictions” tend not to be particularly harmful, and it makes you wonder what the big deal is. However, more recently, we’re seeing some governments take the “threat” seriously. The NY Times is running an article about a “boot camp” in Korea to help cure kids of internet addiction, incorrectly suggesting it’s the first such camp in the world. Earlier this year, we pointed out that China was opening a summer camp for internet addicts, which followed Chinese attempts to cure internet addiction with electric acupuncture, shock therapy and special halfway houses.

Still, as you read the NY Times piece about the Korean boot camp, you see that the folks running the camp are marking the same assumption: that it’s the internet or computers to blame, and therefore, the solution must be to remove kids from the internet and computers entirely. This is fighting the symptom, not the disease. There’s a reason why people started spending so much time online, and simply taking away access probably won’t change that. The one kid that the article discusses in any detail started spending more time online because he wasn’t very popular in school. Taking away the internet isn’t going to fix that. There’s no doubt that some people can spend way too much time at their computers, and it can potentially damage other parts of their lives — but simply blaming the internet and pulling it away completely seems like a cure that’s not likely to help very much. If the real problems that lead the person to spend so much time online aren’t dealt with, then they will simply manifest themselves in some other manner soon enough. Calling something an internet addiction seems easy enough (and it’s catchy, so it gets headlines), but if people are treating the internet part, rather than the real problems, it’s not doing anyone any good.

Filed Under: addiction, internet addiction, korea

Hollywood Faces A Swarm Of New Competitors

Predictions

from the video-startups dept

A lot of people seemed to be interpreting my post about the writer's strike a couple of weeks ago as taking the studios' side. That wasn't really my point. I don't know enough about the details of writers' compensations structures to have any opinion about which side is being more unreasonable in the dispute. Rather, my point was that a protracted strike is going to hurt everyone in Hollywood—studios and writers alike. There's a very real risk that a protracted strike will create an opening for outsiders to attract viewers who would otherwise be watching Hollywood fare, and that at the end of the strike a lot of those viewers might never come back. That would hurt the studios the most, obviously, but it wouldn't be good for the writers either.Two recent stories illustrate the sort of threats Hollywood is facing. First, the New York Times profiles some of the many online video startups that have sprung up in the last couple of years. These sites develop a variety of different types of content and are built on a variety of different business models. Some are producing "webisodes": scripted, episodic video programs. Others are creating low-budget comedy clips to spread virally. For example, this silly clip of Will Farrell arguing with a 2-year-old has apparently racked up nearly 50 million views. At the opposite extreme, TechCrunch reports on Blowtorch, which has raised $50 million in venture capital to launch a new low-budget movie studio. The company plans to produce movies for about $5 million each, and has lined up 600 theaters near college campuses to show their movies. They're planning to solicit short films on their websites, and show the best short films on the big screen before their movies. It is, as TechCrunch puts it, "a movie company that is thinking like a cable channel": providing users with content whenever and whereever they want it, instead of trying to force users to watch content on the studio's schedule.

Now, it should be emphasized that it's far from certain that any given company will succeed. A lot of the content on these sites isn't that great. But with so many companies trying so many different approaches, it seems likely that some of them will create some hits. And if the flow of new content from Hollywood dries up, that's obviously going to create a huge opening for these sites. And once one of these companies creates a loyal following, Hollywood is going to find it awfully difficult to lure them back.

Filed Under: content, hollywood, movies, studios, writer's strike
Companies: blowtorch