Cuomo's New Plan: A Good Idea Or A Chance For More Grandstanding?

Politics

from the that's-not-ridiculous dept

As part of NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s grandstanding against child porn, he’s mostly been making silly threats against the wrong parties in ways that don’t actually help stop child porn (and could make it worse). However, his latest announcement actually sounds a lot more reasonable. His office is putting together a database of offending photos, and letting social networks compare uploads to the database to try to stop the uploads of known offending photos. I would imagine that it also records who was trying to upload that content. Some care would need to be taken to make sure that this effort really does focus on actually offending images — one thing that makes such an effort tricky. I also do wonder if it makes sense for a gov’t agency to be putting together the database, rather than having it done by the industry itself. On top of that, given Cuomo’s earlier grandstanding and his usual methods, you have to expect that it would be long before Cuomo would start threatening any social network that doesn’t use his system with some sort of bogus (but very, very public) legal threats. In other words, when the gov’t (especially someone like Cuomo) sets up a system like this, how long until he starts acting like it’s mandatory, rather than optional?

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, database, grandstanding
Companies: facebook, myspace

Documentary Filmmakers Want DMCA Exemption; But Almost Definitely Won't Get It

Copyright

from the unlikely dept

Every few years the US Copyright Office is supposed to review requests for exemptions to the DMCA. However, it rarely gives any serious exemptions. In fact, the process is such a joke that some have argued it’s not worth participating in at all. None of the exemptions have ever favored consumers. They’ve always been extremely narrow. So, while it’s nice that documentary filmmakers are asking for a DMCA exemption from the anti-circumvention clause so that they can get around the digital locks on movies for legal (non-infringing) uses of clips in their documentaries. As they say: “If you want to use material pursuant to fair use, you have to commit crime despite your constitutional right to do so.” However, given the way the US Copyright Office tends to view these things, I find it highly unlikely it will allow this.

Filed Under: circumvention, dmca, documentary, exemption

Significant Objects Becomes A Book… More Infinite Goods Creating New Scarcities

Culture

from the cool dept

Last year, we wrote about a fascinating “art” project, called “Significant Objects,” that involved a bunch of writers buying up random cheap/worthless trinkets, but then listing them on eBay along with a creative (fictional) story about the object. The “story” was given away for free, but the object cost money. What those involved in the project quickly found was that these worthless trinkets were suddenly selling for a lot more than their nominal “price.” It was a perfect example of how an infinite good (the story), when properly attached to a scarce good (the trinket), can make that scarce good much more valuable. This is a point that many have trouble grasping. They think, when we discuss the economics of infinite and scarce goods, that the price on scarce goods always remains the same, and never seem to take into account how a connected infinite good can greatly raise the value and the price of a scarce good. A hit song (infinite) heard by millions increases the price of a concert tickets (scarce). A brilliant blog post (infinite) can increase the price of a consultant (scarce) who wrote it. A sterling reputation (infinite) for an automobile company can increase the price of the cars (scarce) they sell. It goes on and on and on.

The Significant Objects experiment was just a neat “pure” example of this in action, clearly showing how objects that otherwise would have been valued quite low by most potential buyers, could gain in value when an infinite element (a good story) was attached.

It’s cool to see that those behind the Significant Objects projects are still trying to do more with the concept. The auctions apparently are still going on, but now they’re trying something different as well. They’re taking those stories and compiling them into a book (scarce). In fact, the story behind the book (infinite) makes the physical book more valuable as well. To make it even more “valuable,” they’ve brought on some top artists to illustrate the stories — so even if you read them for free online, there’s now more value in buying the physical book to have the physical artwork as well.

Filed Under: book, business models, economics, infinite goods, significant objects, stories

Supreme Court Threads The Needle On 4th Amendment For Stored Communication

Privacy

from the privacy-please dept

The Supreme Court today ruled in the Quon case, on the question of whether or not it was legal for a police department to look at the text messages sent by an officer (using a department issued device) as a part of an audit. The big question was whether or not communications that are stored elsewhere are subject to 4th amendment protection. This is a tricky question, and it looks like the Supreme Court effectively decided to punt on it by purposely avoiding the 4th Amendment issue, and ruled on a separate issue (saying that it was legal for an employer to look at an employee’s messages). But on the specific 4th Amendment issue, the court was clear that it was better to look at the specifics of each situation, rather than creating a hard and fast rule:

The Court must proceed with care when considering the whole concept of privacy expectations in communications made on electronic equipment owned by a government employer. The judiciary risks error by elaborating too fully on the Fourth Amendment implications of emerging technology before its role in society has become clear. See, e.g., Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438 (1928), overruled by Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 353 (1967). In Katz, the Court relied on its own knowledge and experience to conclude that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth. See id., at 360-361 (Harlan, J., concurring). It is not so clear that courts at present are on so sure a ground. Prudence counsels caution before the facts in the instant case are used to establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communication devices.

However, the court did hint, that, despite the claims of some lawyers, 4th Amendment privacy rights can and should be extended to cover communications stored via third parties, since it would seem that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Cell phone and text message communications are so pervasive that some persons may consider them to be essential means or necessary instruments for self-expression, even self identification. That might strengthen the case for an expectation of privacy.

That said, it also argues the other side would be that since those devices are so cheap, anyone who wants to do personal things can just use their own, rather than use an employer’s device. But, either way, for now the Supreme Court has officially punted on the 4th Amendment question.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, privacy, quon, stored communications

US International Trade Commission Learns That 'Piracy' Claims From Industry Are Bunk

Politics

from the good-for-them dept

Could it be that folks in the federal government are finally starting to get the message that all of those “piracy” stats out there are complete bunk? Following up on the recent excellent GAO report noting that industry claims about “losses” from piracy were absolute fiction (the latest, by the way, in a very long line of smart GAO reports on topics of interest to those around here), apparently the US International Trade Commission held hearings where it heard from a bunch of folks explaining how inaccurate industry reports on “losses from piracy” are — and furthermore, based on little actual evidence and don’t take into account the additional benefits.

It’s so rare to see the government ever actually paying attention to those who don’t toe the “piracy is absolutely purely evil and destroying everything” line, that this alone is pretty impressive. Whether or not it actually gets through or leads to policy changes is another story altogether. But it’s good that more voices are being heard.

Filed Under: piracy, politics, us international trade commission
Companies: itc

CBS Demanding Much More Than It Deserves In Dispute With 48HR Magazine

Trademark

from the give-it-up dept

In May, we covered the dispute between CBS and the magazine 48HR. It was one of the rare situations where it really did seem like CBS had a legitimate claim that there could be some level of confusion among some between 48HR’s magazine and CBS’s television news magazine program, 48 Hours. We had hoped, however, that things could be quickly worked out amicably. Instead, it looks like CBS is being ridiculously overbearing in trying to negotiate an agreement. The 48HR folks have tried to be accommodating, but CBS keeps demanding more:

• CBS wants to be able to vet the magazine’s new name.
• CBS wants to own the magazine’s existing URL, 48hrmag.com.
• It’s unclear how long the network would be willing to allow that URL to redirect to the magazine’s yet-to-be-created new website, which Honan said would be the only way to ensure continuity between the debut issue, created the weekend of May 7, and the second issue, which they’re planning for the end of August.

This is too bad. It still seems like the initial reaction of too many folks these days is to lawyer up, when a straightforward discussion that doesn’t involve “we control everything” could come to a reasonable and amicable solution.

Filed Under: 48 hours, 48hrs, magazines, trademark
Companies: cbs

French Data Protection Agency Says Three Strikes Is Allowed

Copyright

from the and-we're-off... dept

France’s “three strikes” Hadopi program was originally supposed to go into effect in January (technically, it did…), but concerns about how this conflicted with European and French data privacy laws resulted in holding off on actually enforcing the law. However, it looks like the French data protection agency has reviewed the law and is now allowing three strikes enforcement to proceed. Apparently, now Hadopi is going to start sending out notices by the end of the month. We had already noted that since the law went into effect (even if enforcement hadn’t started), file sharing had increased in France (much of it through channels not covered by Hadopi), so we’ll see what happens now that enforcement begins. And, we’re still wondering will anyone actually buy more music?

Filed Under: france, hadopi, three strikes

How The NY Times Hides Behind Copyright Law To Hoard Information And Weaken Its Journalism

Journalism

from the too-bad dept

In the past couple of years, I’ve tried to be a lot more diligent about putting up primary documents when discussing them in relevant posts. Many of you have certainly noticed the DocStoc or Scribd embeds that I frequently use. This was after talking it over with a few people, who pointed out that giving readers the actual source material was a lot more useful (and after a few snarky “dissenters” suggested that I was “hiding” the real details). I’ve actually found that it’s worked out quite well, with the comments around the actual documents often quite enlightening and informative. These days, I actually get annoyed when I read reports about a lawsuit or some other type of document and the document itself is not available. It makes it that much harder to actually build a real discussion around the topic.

So why is it that so many major news sources don’t post source documents?

Felix Salmon has a long and interesting post about his discussion with the NY Times on this particular topic. Two really interesting points come out of this, neither of which is good:

1. Many (though, certainly not all) old school journalists come from an era in which they want to hoard the information, and dribble it out, because that’s how journalism used to be. The power was in those who held the information, and the journalist’s role was to just give you what s/he felt you needed, rather than giving you the full download to analyze yourself.
2. The NY Times and others then uses copyright law as a crutch to explain why they don’t provide source material. They hide behind copyright law, claiming that it opens up too much liability to post certain documents that may be covered by copyright.

The first of these looks bads for those journalists, and speaks to how they haven’t realized how the world has changed, and how their role has changed. The second shows how much copyright law can actively stifle real journalism, by limiting what a reporter can do in providing useful information to the public.

The one big thing I learned from talking to Samson is that when NYT journalists talk about copyright constraints preventing them from putting documents online, they’re not particularly upset about that. In fact, they might secretly be quite happy that there’s no question of posting the document they spent so much effort obtaining. Journalists are human, after all, and can be quite jealous and competitive: they don’t want to simply give the story, on a plate, to their competitors, and will happily sit on documents rather than publishing them if they’re given half a chance to do so. Samson said he couldn’t think of a single instance where a journalist was begging him to be able to publish something and he said no, for copyright reasons.

After all, it’s easy for the NYT to post copyrighted documents if it’s so inclined — it just needs to send them to any one of dozens of organizations who will happily put them online, and then link or embed the document into the story. Or the journalist can just ask their source to go ahead and post the document online, in some anonymous place where it can be linked to or embedded. But that never seems to happen. And even when there’s no copyright at all, as in the case of the Hank Paulson ethics waiver, the NYT went on the record as saying that the reporters “would probably be uncomfortable simply handing over documents” even to one of their colleagues, let alone to the world in general. After all, said Tim O’Brien, an editor there, “they had spent a lot of time and energy to find, analyze, and report on” that document.

This is a rather antiquated view of the information economy these days. It’s a view built on the idea that hoarding information is better than sharing it. In our own experience, that seems to create less valuable results, and for a publication like the NY Times, it seems like a huge waste. No one is saying that giving away the source material takes away from the actual reporting or commentary that happens on top of that. In fact, most people will still find that to be the most valuable part. But sharing the actual source material is an important part of the package.

The other chilling part of Salmon’s conversation with Samson was one of his rationale’s for hiding behind copyright:

“We want our readers to respect intellectual property,” says Samson. “Intellectual property is arguably the biggest asset of this company. We value others’ IP rights, and we want their IP rights to be respected.”

No, your IP is not your biggest asset. The readers and the community you’ve built up is — and if you treat them badly by hoarding information, they might start to go elsewhere. Hiding behind copyright law to provide less valuable reporting is a cheap cop out, that doesn’t befit a news organization of the NY Times’ stature.

Filed Under: copyright, journalism, sources
Companies: ny times

Amazon 'Friends' Patent Office: Gets Social Networking Patent

Patents

from the one-click-friending? dept

You may recall a few years ago that many people were up in arms over the ridiculousness of Friendster, the social network that kicked off the social networking craze (though it was hardly the first in the space), which got a patent (7,069,308) on the basics of social networking (claiming “a system and method for connecting users in an online computer system based on their relationships within social networks”). Lots of people pointed out the rather ridiculous amount of prior art on this patent, and feared that Friendster (by then very much an also-ran in the social networking world) was about to turn patent troll. Since then, the company has picked up a few more patents on some other aspects of social networking as well.

So, we were a bit surprised to see lots of folks sending over the news (first highlighted at Slashdot), that Amazon has been awarded a patent, 7,739,139, on a “Social networking system.”

Even though it was only filed in 2008, that’s not actually the relevant date. It’s a continuation patent — a dreadfully bad part of the patent system that is regularly abused to create “submarine” patents. While patent system defenders will deny this, the continuation process is regularly used to adjust what a patent covers over time, to make sure that it really covers more modern inventions than when it was originally filed. The Patent Office tried to stop this abuse by limiting continuations a few years ago, but a court eventually told them the USPTO couldn’t actually do that. In this case, this patent isn’t just a continuation patent, it’s a continuation patent of a continuation patent of a continuation patent of an original patent filed back in 1997.

And, because of that, we get patents like this one. Since the priority date in November of 1997, all the fancy social networking stuff actually invented elsewhere doesn’t count as prior art, but given how many such systems were built between now and then, it’s hard to see how the specific claims in this patent could possibly pass the obviousness test. Tons of companies came up with identical systems over the years, suggesting that it was clearly the next obvious progression in this area.

Filed Under: patents, social networks
Companies: amazon, friendster

Children's Hospital 'Allowed' To Continue Research Using System It Developed After Patent Fight

Patents

from the bizarro-world dept

Last month, we wrote about the absolutely ridiculous situation, where Children’s Hospital of Orange County had to shelve its research into brain diseases for children for three years, because the company StemCells claimed it had a patent on the technique the researchers at the hospital were using. Of course, the hospital researchers had developed the technique entirely independently (potentially before StemCells did), but due to the patent, apparently that didn’t matter. The small bit of good news is after three years of stifled research, StemCells and Children’s Hospital have worked out an agreement to give the hospital a “license” for free. While this is good news, it’s still quite worrisome that we had to deal with three years of stifled research to get to this point where some researchers could use techniques they, themselves, developed.

Even worse, because of the nature of the agreement — a license from StemCells — the press gets to erroneously suggest that somehow Children’s Hospital had taken something from StemCells. Note the opening sentence of the article above:

Palo Alto biotech company StemCells will allow a children’s research hospital to use its patented technology for free, clearing the way for greater study of conditions such as autism, brain cancer and neurological disease.

Remember, this is a technique that the researchers at the hospital came up with on their own, and now the press is saying that some other company “will allow” them to use it? And saying that it’s actually using that company’s “patented technology,” when that’s not true at all? The hospital isn’t using StemCells’ patented technology. Its using its own techniques that it developed.

This is a point that we’ve raised before. So many reporters contribute to massive misconceptions about patents by writing sentences like the one above. It implies that patent lawsuits really are about one group “copying” an idea or technology from another, and that the patent holder “owns” the technology itself. This is blatantly untrue in most cases.

What a ridiculous world we live in where a hospital researching brain diseases for children has to beg and plead for three years to be “allowed” to use its own technology, and then have the press make it sound like it had copied that technology from someone else.

Filed Under: patents, research, stem cells
Companies: children's hospital, stemcells