Barney Frank's Attempt To Allow & Tax Online Gambling Moves Forward (Again)

from the with-caveats dept

Back in 2006, some politicians included a bill that effectively banned online gambling as a part of a law designed to protect our ports (don’t ask what one has to do with the other). Pretty much since then, Rep. Barney Frank has been seeking to legalize online gambling (in order to tax it), and he just got a step closer to that as the House Finance Committee has passed a version of his bill. There were, not surprisingly, complaints against how this bill would “bring gambling into everyone’s homes,” but that ignores (of course) that it’s already available in homes, and the feds have long admitted that they have no idea how to enforce the original law.

Of course, this is not the first time that the House Finance Committee has approved such a bill, and in the past it went nowhere. So, there’s still a half decent chance that this really means nothing much.

Still, there are some interesting provisions in the bill, as a few amendments were added, including banning the companies who have currently been letting Americans play poker online from getting approved for a license. Yes, all of those online gambling sites who are still offering services and hoping this bill passes… may get shut out by it. Of course, they might have a pretty strong legal case that this is not legal, seeing as some courts have suggested that poker is not technically gambling. Another amendment would bar those who are behind in child support payments from visiting online gambling sites, though I don’t see how they enforce that one.

Filed Under: barney frank, online gambling

Colbert Helps Save World From Polka Pirates

from the those-darn-pirates dept

A few of you have sent in the fact that the Colbert Report recently did a fun segment about a guy arrested for selling polka DVDs:

The Colbert Report	Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Nailed ‘Em – Polka Piracy
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

For all the talk we hear about how DVD counterfeiters are connected to “organized crime” and “terrorists,” a lot of the times it’s really situations like this one, involving a guy who did a public access TV show about polka. Someone called him to see if they could buy some DVDs of the show, so he made a few DVDs and sold them. But the whole thing was a setup, and the next morning he was arrested. The whole thing shows what a joke some of these claims really are.

Separately, I do find it amusing to see folks like Colbert mock the overreaction to things like copyright infringement — considering that his employer, Viacom, is so aggressive on spreading the myth that DVD counterfeiting is really about supporting terrorism and organized crime.

Update: Good discussion in the comments about what the specific charges were in this case. Apparently, the guy used government equipment to make the recording and DVDs, so the local government felt it was theirs — and they sold their own DVDs, which this guy’s DVDs undercut. He was charged with using city property for “personal gain.” Oddly, there’s an “embezzlement” charge as a part of this… More details here.

Filed Under: colbert, counterfeit, dvds, piracy, polka

Wikileaks Afghan War Document Leak Again Raises Questions: Treason Or Whistleblowing?

from the depends-on-who-you-ask dept

A few weeks back, as part of our discussion on the arrest of Bradley Manning for handing over classified documents to Wikileaks, we questioned where to draw the line between “whistleblowing” and “criminal” leaking of military secrets. At the time, we compared the situation to Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. With the the new leak of nearly 100,000 documents about the war in Afghanistan, that same question is getting a lot more attention.

Ellsberg says that the leak is no different than the Pentagon Papers. Both involved massive leaks that showed a government was not being entirely forthright with the public about the status of a war. Others in that article suggest there are some key differences, in the lack of any smoking gun of direct lying by the government (in the latest case, it was more about just not telling the full truth), as well as the scattershot nature of the content. But that’s no matter to some grandstanding politicians, like Rep. Pete King who were quick to call the leak treasonous and demand prosecution of those involved (he seems to imply that he believes Manning leaked these documents, though no one has said that conclusively yet).

Of course, that was the strategy taken by the Nixon White House in response to the Pentagon Papers — to attack the messenger. It looks like the Obama White House is taking a rather different response. While worrying about how the leaks could “jeopardize” people or operations on the ground, the White House is actually trying to turn the few revelations into an advantage, by claiming that the information revealed support the strategy the military has taken under his watch. Whether that’s true or not, this actually does seem like the type of response that could diffuse the criticism much faster than simply screaming “traitor!”

Of course, some of the revelations, such as the news that the US was paying Afghani press people to run positive stories about the US don’t look good at all, no matter how you spin them.

On the whole, it seems like the debate about whether this is “whistleblowing” or “traitorous” behavior misses the point. The fact is, information like this is going to get out — probably at an increasing rate. The real question is how does the government and the military learn to function in a society where information is a lot more open and free.

Filed Under: journalism, treason, whistleblowing, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Can Man Who Found Long Lost Ansel Adams Glass Negatives Sell Prints?

from the copyright-conundrum dept

Reader Ken points us to a “feel good” story of a guy, Rick Norsigian, who found a box of old glass negatives at a garage sale in 2000, which he bought for $45 (bargained down from the $70 the other guy wanted). It turns out that a bunch of experts have now agreed that the negatives are actually previously unpublished works by Ansel Adams. Most of the article focuses on how Norsigian got the negatives, why the experts seem pretty convinced the negatives are from Adams and even how the negatives might have ended up in Southern California. However, right at the beginning, the article says the negatives “may be worth $200 million.” Oddly, this isn’t elaborated on until the end, when they claim that sales of prints from those negatives could net Norsigian $200 million:

It could be a while before he sees the profits from the sale of prints from the negatives, but Streets estimates over the next 25 years it could mean over $200 million for Norsigian.

Ken wondered about that statement, since there may be some copyright issues here, and as far as I can tell, he’s right. I can’t see how Norsigian has any legal right to sell the prints at all — though, perhaps some copyright scholars could chime in. The works are estimated to have been made in the 1920s, which could actually complicate things. However, from all of the indications, none of these works were “published,” and as the handy dandy public domain tracker notifies us, unpublished works are given a copyright of “life of the author +70 years.” Ansel Adams died in 1984, so it would appear that the copyright on the images would likely belong to his heirs, and will last until 2054.

Now, if the works were published (which seems unlikely) then it gets a bit complicated. If they were done before 1923 (and no one’s exactly sure of the date on most of these negatives), then they’re in the public domain. If they were done after 1923 and weren’t registered at the Copyright Office then, again, they’re in the public domain. If that’s the case, then Norsigian actually could make prints, but once those prints were out there, others could most likely copy the prints and sell competing prints themselves legally, which could put a damper on the $200 million. Of course, there then could be things Norsigian could do, such as specially “branding” his prints in some manner, but it’s a bit trickier.

If the works were published after 1923, registered at the Copyright Office and had that registration renewed, then they should retain the initial copyright until 95 years after publication, meaning, until at least 2018 (and, again, most likely remaining with Adams’ heirs). But, if that were the case, it seems unlikely that these negatives would have been considered “lost,” though it is possible.

And, for those of you wondering, no, owning the negatives does not give you the copyright on the images, even if that creates a weird situation where someone who owns a bunch of negatives might not legally be able to use those negatives (yay, copyright law!).

The most likely scenario remains the first one, which would suggest Norsigian might actually get into legal trouble for making prints. And, in fact, the managing director of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust, Bill Turnage, first says that Norsigian’s claims are a “fraud” and he’s actually considering suing over Norsigian’s use of Ansel Adams’ name for commercial purposes (the article claims “copyrighted name,” but I believe the AP reporter gets that wrong — at best there may be a publicity rights claim under California state law). Of course, that puts another twist on the situation as well. If the Adams’ heirs deny the prints are Adams, but they’ve been authenticated as Adams’, then could the Adams’ heirs still then make a copyright claim on any prints? That could be fun.

Of course, Adams himself, were he alive, might find the whole debate amusing. As the article notes (and which is well known among followers of Adams):

“Ansel interpreted the negative very heavily. He believed the negative was like a musical score. No two composers will interpret it the same way,” he said. “Each print is a work of art.”

In other words, if Norsigian does make prints, they wouldn’t be considered the same thing as a true Ansel Adams print. It might be more like a high school orchestra performing Beethoven.

Still, from a copyright perspective, there may be a very interesting legal battle brewing…

Filed Under: ansel adams, copyright, negatives, photographs

Dear Warner Bros., It's Not 'Word Of Mouth' If You Have To Pay People To Promote Your Movies

from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept

There was an amusing post this week at TheWrap.com discussing how the various Hollywood movie studios are confused about the basics of social media and Twitter. You may remember (or, maybe not), back in 2003, when Hollywood suddenly started blaming text messaging for certain movies failing, because some kids would go to a movie, realize it sucks, and quickly warn their friends to stay away. Of course, Hollywood blamed text messaging, instead of the fact that they made a crappy movie, and couldn’t rely on their old methods of squeezing a ton of money out of people before word got around. In the age of Twitter, of course, this has only increased, so the studios started blaming Twitter, calling it “the Twitter Effect” and proceeding to freak out about it.

This new article points out that “The Twitter Effect” doesn’t really appear to have any impact at all, but does mention that studios are trying to jump on this “Twitter” bandwagon by “buying trending terms” on the site. But watching the movie studios try to figure out this whole social media landscape can be pretty funny. Adam Singer sent over an email he just received from Warner Bros. asking him to join its “word of mouth marketing team” in which the studio would pay him to say nice things about Warner Bros. films:

Hello,

I am a part of the Warner Brothers word of mouth marketing team and recently came across your blog! Your blog uniquely stood out as dynamic, informative and highly creative. We are seeking bloggers that are passionate about entertainment to help us engage your readers with content that would be interesting to them.

We would like to have you join our WB Word marketing team to let fans know about our latest releases and relevant content/products. As a member of the team, you will be asked to display photos, clips, and stories on your Blog, Facebook and Twitter accounts. The best part is you will get paid! Additionally, we may even debut event previews and new content so that fans like you get to enjoy it first.

Here’s a tip for Warner Bros.’ “word of mouth marketing team.” If it’s really “word of mouth marketing,” it probably doesn’t require you to pay people to talk about your bad movies. And, of course, depending on how the various bloggers on the “team” indicate their relationship with WB, the studio may be opening itself up to FTC problems.

Filed Under: bloggers, marketing, shilling, word of mouth
Companies: warner bros.

Paramount Sends More Bogus DMCA Takedowns On Fans Filming Transformers 3 Shoot

from the who's-copyright? dept

Earlier this year, there was a reasonable bit of fuss over Paramount issuing a bogus DMCA takedown on someone who had videotaped a brief snippet of the filming of the next Transformers movie, which was going on in an alleyway right outside the guy’s office. It was difficult to see what sort of “copyright” violation there was here. The guy, Ben Brown, had filmed it himself, and it wasn’t like it was a private set or anything. Paramount never made any sort of statement, but the video did go back up a few days later. Apparently, the over aggressive lawyers at Paramount didn’t learn their lesson. Apparently, a bunch of videos that people shot themselves of filming of the movie going on in Chicago were all taken down from YouTube under DMCA claims. Again, it’s difficult to see how these claims are legit — and this is especially troubling, seeing as it comes from Paramount, which is owned by Viacom. Viacom, of course is involved in a bit of a legal battle with YouTube — but, more importantly, in a previous legal battle over bogus Viacom DMCA takedowns, Viacom had agreed to manually review all takedown notices to avoid bogus takedowns like this one.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, transformers, videos, youtube
Companies: paramount

ASCAP Boss Refuses To Debate Lessig; Claims That It's An Attempt To 'Silence' ASCAP

from the you-and-me-against-the-world dept

We were among those who were amazed at ASCAP’s misguided and factually incorrect attack on EFF, Public Knowledge and Creative Commons. ASCAP’s Paul Williams falsely made the claim that those three groups were against copyright and against compensating content creators. Nothing could be further from the truth. All three groups responded politely to the bizarre and factually incorrect attack, and many ASCAP members who support these groups and use Creative Commons licenses expressed their displeasure with ASCAP for such a blatantly misleading letter. Larry Lessig responded with a blog post, again pointing out the blatant errors in ASCAP’s attack, noting that these groups actually look to help content creators by providing them tools to better exercise their rights. In that blog post, Lessig also challenged Williams to a debate so they could iron out their differences and ASCAP could (hopefully) retract their false attacks on these groups, and focus on helping artists again.

Hephaestus points out that Williams and ASCAP have refused to debate Lessig, with an open letter that is so bizarre that I keep rereading it to make sure it’s not a joke. But, apparently, it’s no joke, and it gets more and more bizarre the further you read, down to the point where Williams suggests Lessig’s request for a debate is really an attempt to “silence” him. But, let’s start at the beginning:

Anti-copyright crusaders are currently engaged in a publicity campaign to discredit ASCAP’s efforts to defend the copyrights of our professional songwriter and composer members.

Again, the groups that Williams mentioned (though, amusingly, he does not rename them here) are not anti-copyright. And the statement is wrong as well. The only thing people are trying to “discredit,” are the blatantly false claims that EFF, Public Knowledge and Creative Commons are trying to undermine copyright or that “their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.” None of those groups makes any such claim.

The copyleft movement has encouraged a culture of disrespect for copyright by defending corporate and individual infringers; undermining every effort to provide more effective protection, no matter how limited or reasonable; promoting a reduction in copyright protection; supporting the dismantling of our rights through the courts; and questioning the basic premise that the tidal wave of infringements and unlicensed uses online hurts creators.

Well, that’s one way of looking at things. Even if it’s wrong. First of all, Creative Commons has done no such thing in “defending” infringers. That’s just false. EFF and Public Knowledge don’t defend infringement, either. They defend consumer rights, and advocate balance in how copyright law treats consumers. Copyright law in the US was always supposed to be about providing more benefit to society as a whole, not about protectionism of artists. That EFF and Public Knowledge get attacked for simply reminding people of that fact seems like a travesty. As for the final point: “questioning the basic premise that the tidal wave of infringements and unlicensed uses online hurts creators.” How does asking whether or not a claim made by certain organizations is true or false undermine copyright?

Has ASCAP really sunk so low that simply looking to see if something is factual is somehow “undermining” copyright? Really?

Then, in responding directly to Lessig’s debate challenge, Williams spends a few paragraphs talking about his own success as a songwriter, and how he now spends all of his time fighting for the right of songwriters to make a living. And, because of that, he doesn’t have time to debate Lessig, because he doesn’t see how it will “help” in this neverending fight.

Of course, this is ridiculous. Everyone wants content creators to be fairly compensated and to earn a good living. The EFF has even put together a proposal (which I don’t agree with) to create an ASCAP-like setup for digital music. Creative Commons gives content creators more options in easily licensing their music, to make it easier for them to get heard and to use within a business model. As for Public Knowledge, just a few months ago I was at an event they put on, which celebrated various content creators and their success stories in figuring out smart ways to earn a living. And, of course, many others who are regularly derided as being a part of the “copyleft” are successful content creators ourselves, and regularly highlight smart ways for content creators to earn a living. Suggesting that any of us are against helping content creators earn a living is both false and extremely disingenuous.

And then it gets bizarre. Williams simply repeats the false claims that were clearly debunked by tons of people in responding to his original letter:

I am well aware of those “copyleft” mouthpieces who take a highly critical view of ASCAP’s efforts to protect our members’ rights. That will not change ASCAP’s commitment to doing so. ASCAP exists for one purpose — fair payment to music creators for the use of their music by businesses and others who seek to attract viewers and customers. ASCAP has long welcomed and licensed new technological means of performing its members works, seeking only reasonable fees for those performances. Our members have every right to give their music away for free if they choose, but they should not be forced to do so.

People aren’t upset that ASCAP is trying to protect members’ rights. They’re upset that (1) ASCAP seems to stretch the legal boundaries to do so — such as claiming that ringtones or the 30-second “previews” on iTunes are “public performances” that require a separate licensing fee and (2) that you falsely claimed any of these groups were somehow seeking to “force” musicians to give away their music for free. No one has ever suggested that at all. That’s what got everyone upset. For Wiliams’ response to simply repeat that blatantly false claim is strange.

And then there’s this:

What I find most fascinating is that those who purport to support a climate of free culture work so hard to silence opposing points of view. They will not silence me.

Huh?!? No one has tried, at all, to silence Williams. In fact, people seem to have done the exact opposite. They’ve asked you to come out and talk about stuff in a public debate. That’s the opposite of trying to silence you. No one has any interest in silencing Williams at all. We just want him to stop making totally false claims and attacking groups who have worked hard to support artists as well by falsely suggesting they seek to undermine artists.

Filed Under: copyleft, copyright, larry lessig, paul williams
Companies: ascap

Study About IP On The Human Genome Shows That Patents Hindered Innovation

from the another-one-to-add-to-the-pile dept

David Levine points us to the abstract of a recent study of the human genome, which shows how the parts protected by intellectual property resulted in a significant decrease in both scientific research and product development. This won’t come as a surprise to those of you who have been following the research on patents over the years, but it’s another bit of evidence to add to the (growing) pile. In this case, the researcher, Heidi L. Williams, had an interesting “natural experiment” to deal with. The race to sequence the human genome had two main players, the public Human Genome Project and the private company Celera — a massive supporter of patent rights. The paper notes that Celera got IP on genes it first sequenced, but that IP protection was “removed when the public effort re-sequenced those genes.” I have to admit I didn’t know that was the case, and don’t quite understand how or why that happened. Nevertheless, it created a natural set of data worth studying, and Williams conclusions suggest that IP doesn’t seem to promote the same kind of progress as opening up the data does.

This paper provides empirical evidence on how intellectual property (IP) on a given technology affects subsequent innovation. To shed light on this question, I analyze the sequencing of the human genome by the public Human Genome Project and the private firm Celera, and estimate the impact of Celera’s gene-level IP on subsequent scientific research and product development outcomes. Celera’s IP applied to genes sequenced first by Celera, and was removed when the public effort re-sequenced those genes. I test whether genes that ever had Celera’s IP differ in subsequent innovation, as of 2009, from genes sequenced by the public effort over the same time period, a comparison group that appears balanced on ex ante gene-level observables. A complementary panel analysis traces the effects of removal of Celera’s IP on within-gene flow measures of subsequent innovation. Both analyses suggest Celera’s IP led to reductions in subsequent scientific research and product development outcomes on the order of 30 percent. Celera’s short-term IP thus appears to have had persistent negative effects on subsequent innovation relative to a counterfactual of Celera genes having always been in the public domain.

Levine laments that the NBER version of the paper he links to is not available for free, but a quick Google search turns up a few publicly available versions of the paper (though, they appear to be earlier drafts) such as this one (pdf)). There’s also the following powerpoint presentation (pdf) embedded below, which highlights the key findings and data from Williams’ research:

The key slide is the fourth one, which reads as follows:

Celera IP on genes has strong negative impact on future research and product development

• 35% fewer publications since 2001
• 16% points reduction in chance of gene having known uncertain genotype-phenotype link
• 2% points reduction in chance of gene having known and certain genotype-phenotype link
• 1.5% points less likely to be used in genetic tests

Also, Celera genes have not “caught up” with ex-ante similar genes sequenced by HGP as of 2009

Now, it’s important to note that both the paper and the slide presentation note that you can’t necessarily conclude from this paper that IP slowed down the overall human genome sequencing efforts. It notes, for example, that the presence of Celera in the market, getting IP, may have created competitive pressure that sped up the Human Genome Project’s effort to sequence. However, it does note that given the competition between Celera and the Human Genome Project, it seems clear that Celera’s use of IP was clearly not the best way to create the greatest level of social benefit.

While the paper doesn’t delve into it, this is really another way of pointing to the difference between invention and innovation as a process. Innovation tends to be an ongoing process of continual improvements. And that’s where IP almost always seems to hinder activities, rather than help it. That’s because IP puts a giant brake or tollbooth into the process of all of that important follow on innovation. There may be some argument that IP can help in one-off situations where there is no ongoing innovation, but those situations are excessively rare in the real world, if they exist at all.

Filed Under: human genome, innovation, patents, studies
Companies: celera

Forget Vinyl, Now Cassette Tapes Are Making A Comeback?

from the retro-retro dept

Over the last few years, there have been countless stories about the supposed “return” of vinyl, as people have actually been buying more vinyl records in the past few years. It still remains a tiny part of the market, but it has continued to grow over the past few years. However, if vinyl is making a comeback, what about other supposedly “dead” formats? Brad points us to a report that cassette tapes are supposedly making a comeback as well, at least among a small group of garage rock bands. I have to admit, reading the explanations for why are pretty funny: “Tapes are great because they have a really nice warm and fuzzy sound.” I think that’s the first time I’ve ever heard audio cassettes referred to as having a “warm” sound.

Others complain that MP3s are simply too disposable, and by giving people a cassette, it makes it seem more tangible, real and permanent. I can understand the thinking, but I wonder if it’s more wishful thinking than anything. And I say that as someone who still regularly buys CDs, but is increasingly wondering why I bother with so much useless plastic.

Either way, if we’re going to be reviving dead formats, how about the 8-track as well? The band Cheap Trick released their last album on an 8-track, but I haven’t heard that it’s catching on with anyone else just yet…

Filed Under: cassette tapes