Jafarzadeh, who is from Virginia, said no one asked him where the phone was going. The employee only questioned his ethnicity.
“I feel like this is a bit of racial profiling against Iranians and I’m appalled,” Jafarzadeh said.
It certainly sounds like Apple might want to train some of its employees a bit better in understanding what “export” means. And maybe Apple employees should also be made aware of the fact that American citizens can speak Farsi.
Until recently there has been an unchallenged assumption that the more copyright, the better. Although people have begun to realize that’s not the case – and that extending copyright diminishes the public domain because we must all wait longer for works to enter it — governments around the world continue to make copyright longer, stronger and broader.
Francis Davey has written a blog post about an amendment to what he calls a “fairly obscure corner of the [UK] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988” that offers us yet another example. Here’s the background:
Section 52 [of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988] deals with the situation where an artistic work has been exploited in the making of articles by an industrial process and marketing them in the UK. At the end of 25 years after the articles are first marketed, it ceases to be an infringement of copyright to copy the work by making articles (of any kind)
Davey gives an example of what this rule means in practice:
Suppose an artist drew a picture of an iconic vehicle – let’s say a car – in a comic strip. After 25 years of marketing models of the car as merchandising, the artist could no longer use copyright protection from preventing others making rival versions of the car, but the artist could still stop the making of stamps, greeting cards and, most importantly, comic books based on the original drawings.
The exceptions mentioned there are thanks to a later modification to the 1988 Act, which excluded a list of objects from it, for reasons best known to itself.
The proposed amendment to the law would remove that limit of 25 years, and enable artists to prevent others from making rival versions (of the car, in the example above) for the full term of copyright — life plus seventy years. The UK government’s press release on the move speaks of:
Deterring the importation and sale of unauthorised replicas of classic designs which qualify for copyright protection and extending copyright protection for mass-produced artistic works to life of the creator plus 70 years. These measures will promote innovation in the design industry and encourage investment in new products, while discouraging unauthorised copies.
Of course, no evidence is offered that this will be the case — this is classic faith-based policy making. And it’s hard to see manufacturers investing anything extra just because their monopoly has been extended — they are more likely to sit back and enjoy the windfall profits, assuming there are any. Similarly, surely nobody is suddenly going to decide to produce replicas because of possible sales half a century from now. All in all, it’s really hard to see why the UK government is wasting the limited time of politicians pushing through such marginal and unnecessary extensions to a copyright system that already reaches too far for too long.
As people study animals in more depth, we’re finding out that animals may be smarter than previously thought. There might be some confirmation bias in some of these studies, since no one really looks for animals that are dumber. But it’s still fascinating to see complex animal behavior that suggests their cognitive abilities aren’t so different from humans. Here are a few examples of some interesting animal observations.
We’ve been busy and haven’t had a chance to do a Step2 Startups post in a while. If you don’t recall, this is where startup execs ask you for feedback on something they’re trying to figure out. This time around, a new Twitter image search engine called ThudIT is seeking your feedback on the overall concept. I actually find this to be pretty interesting. We’re all used to things like Google’s image search, but Twitter has become a more and more important platform for realtime images these days. We all know the stories, of course, about breaking news first appearing via mobile phone snapshots on Twitter — things like the airplane that landed in the Hudson River, for example. Having a real-time search for images could be quite useful in a very different context than something like Google image search. ThudIT’s Freddie Wynne provides two examples, one involving a sporting event and another about a conference to demonstrate the basic power of the tool. I could definitely see it coming in handy. But he wants more feedback/advice/suggestions, etc. Feel free to head on over to the thread on Step2 and provide some thoughts.
We’re planning to get back to doing more Step2 Startups posts in the near future, so if you’d like to get feedback on whatever you’re working on, let us know!
The folks over at EFF have launched a new site called DefendInnovation.org that seeks to get people to speak up about fixing the patent system, specifically around software patents. It puts forth a series of key suggestions:
To me, number four is the key one and would fix a large number of issues with the patent system. I’ve been arguing for an independent invention defense for years. In fact, I’d take it slightly further. Since patents are only supposed to be granted on ideas that are non-obvious to those who are skilled in the art, the fact that there is independent invention suggests evidence that it is obvious to those skilled in the art, because multiple “skilled in the art” practitioners are arriving at the same obvious conclusion. Thus, such patents should be invalid, beyond just allowing the independent inventor a defense.
Some don’t think the EFF is going far enough. Tim Lee put together a petition, asking the EFF to go even further and oppose software patents altogether. You could argue that point number seven gets towards that. In fact, you could argue that point number seven should be the whole ballgame here. The fact that we don’t have any evidence that software patents benefit the economy should make the whole system a mockery. Either way, the EFF’s response to the whole “abolish software patents” issue, is that there needs to be a first step:
Regardless of whether you think software patents should be abolished altogether or just reformed, the first step is recognizing that a one-size-fits-all patents system doesn’t make sense and that we need to treat software patents differently from other types of patents. Without that, no effort – whether reform or abolition – can be successful.
To be honest, as bad as software patents can be, I still do worry about hardware patents as well. So I don’t think we should lose sight of the independent invention defense (or independent invention as evidence of obviousness) as a useful tool to fix many of the larger problems with the system. There are some other potential fixes out there as well, including something akin to an anti-SLAPP law for patents — where it’s clear that the lawsuit is an abuse of the patent system, just to try to get a company actually producing a product to pay. A big part of the problem today is how expensive a patent lawsuit is, and how difficult it is to get one dismissed without first having to spend upwards of a million dollars (no joke). That leads many companies to settle. This is, obviously, what point number 2 in the Defend Innovation campaign is about, but getting faster, anti-SLAPP-like dismissals would be a big help as well, as no company wants a big expensive lawsuit hanging over them.
Either way, it’s good to see renewed emphasis on the problems of the patent system, especially after Congress and President Obama pretended that they’d “fixed” everything last summer with the patent reform bill that did very little (and probably made some things worse).
Today, Danish Minister of Culture Uffe Elbæk announced the death of Scandinavian-flavored 3 strikes plans that would force ISPs to issue warning letters to users suspected of copyright infringement. Instead he introduces eight new initiatives aiming at “strengthening the development of legal services” and “motivating users to go for legal solutions”.
While disconnection was never part of the letter model, its passage looked like a foregone conclusion thanks to heavy lobbying efforts by IFPI and friends, the so-called RightsAlliance. (Yes, the bogus numbers folks we’ve covered before.)
Then, governments changed, and the new Minister of Culture (who’s in charge of copyright, but, curiously, has no influence over ACTA) started listening to common sense. Elbæk’s eight initiatives signal a sea change and, seemingly, an end to a symbiotic relationship with the entertainment industry lobby. As an example, former Head of Copyright Office Peter Schönning left the ministry after, conveniently, implementing an EU directive in a way that made DNS blocking of The Pirate Bay possible shortly before joining IFPI as chief prosecutor – and winning the precedence-setting case. Recently, Danish ISPs were ordered to block Grooveshark.
Instead of warning letters, a “positive” information campaign will teach the Danes about “the many good possibilities to legally access music, films and books”. A task force will “proactively” inform users of illegal services about alternatives in comment fields and on social networks. An informal innovation forum for new, legal business models is also planned.
“I believe this is the right way to go,” says Elbæk.
Interestingly, Elbæk, in an interview earlier today, gave credit to the demonstrations against ACTA earlier this year, which, “created a polical context which made the letter model nearly impossible”.
Co-founder of the Danish internet think-tank Bitbureauet and ACTA-critic Henrik Chulu says, “We’re pleased about the news, but there are still problems. First of all, this cements the problematic DNS-blocking scheme already in place. Secondly, it opens up for DMCA-style notice-and-takedown procedures. As we’ve seen in the US this inevitably leads to abuse because it sidesteps courts and privatizes enforcement.”
Nina Paley (filmmaker, activist, occasional Techdirt contributor, and many other things) has given an interesting interview with O’Reilly’s Mac Slocum, in which she talks about the concept of “intellectual disobedience” — merging “intellectual property” with “civil disobedience.” Nina argues that if you believe in creating and sharing culture these days, copyright infringement is almost necessary, and people shouldn’t apologize for it, but should stand up for what they’re doing:
“A lot of people infringe copyright and they’re apologetic … If you know as much about the law as, unfortunately, I do, I cannot claim ignorance and I cannot claim fair use … I know that I’m infringing copyright and I don’t apologize for it.”
The phrase “intellectual disobedience” has a call-to-arms ring to it, but Paley characterized it as an introspective personal choice driven by a need to create. “It’s important for me as an artist to make art, and the degree of self-censorship that is required by the law is too great,” Paley said. “In order to have integrity as a human being and as an artist, I guess I’m going to be conscientiously violating the law because there’s no way to comply with the law and remain a free human being.”
There’s much more in the full interview:
I have to admit that I’m a little bit torn by this concept. I certainly think that each individual needs to make their own decisions about what they do when creating, but my general approach has been to avoid infringement wherever possible, and focus on convincing creators that being open and encouraging others to build on their works has tremendous benefits in both the short- and long-terms. At the same time, however, I can see where Nina is coming from as an artist who feels restricted. And that’s a major concern. When the laws are holding back what artists can do to express themselves, that seems incredibly troubling. So many people have this unfortunate view that if someone builds on someone else’s work (even though that’s the very basis for pretty much all of human culture), something has been taken away from culture or society. The truth is the opposite: building on someone else’s work expands culture, and does so in fascinating ways. It both creates something new, but also often generates new interest in those original pieces (as Paley herself did with her movie Sita Sings the Blues). Old culture doesn’t disappear because someone does something new with it — it gets revitalized.
Holding that back, for some mistaken understanding of “preserving” culture, does seem like a tremendous shame. And so in those situations I think Nina’s point is a good one. Creating new artwork should never be something that people apologize for. Historically, building on the works of others is how culture has been expanded. Some of our greatest forms of culture were created exactly that way. Great plays and novels of the past were really re-imaginings of older stories. Musical forms of folk music, rock music, jazz and soul all are versions of building on the works that came before (often very soon before). Hip hop, of course, is even more directly rooted in building on top of the work of others and making something new out of it. Why should people be apologetic for doing what we’ve always done?
We’ve talked many times about how legacy industries and organizations seek to protect against competition they don’t like. One example we’ve mentioned a few times involves taxi companies and bus companies trying to shut down upstarts such as ride-sharing/carpooling services as being “unlicensed” transportation offerings. What they really mean, of course, is that they’re competition in a market with artificial barriers to entry, which artificially keep prices high — sometimes astronomically high. But, of course, as with any attempt to defeat real competition, those in support of cracking down have some sort of sob story, and governments and law enforcement often fall for it with no evidence.
Aaron DeOlivera points us to a sort of twist on the situation described above, where the real issue is people paying less money to the Port Authority of NY. You see, if you are in a carpool (of at least 3 people) and cross the George Washington Bridge (between the Bronx and New Jersey) you save $6 on the toll. That’s a decent-sized savings, so people have set up an informal sort of ride share, in that those who want to get across will wait at a nearby bus station, and drivers will swing by and pick them up for the ride. The riders get a free trip across the bridge… and the driver gets a lower toll. Win-win.
… the crackdown on carpools smacks of a revenue-grab by the Port Authority, which has been criticized for lavish pay and benefits. With extensive overtime, some toll collectors make more than $100,000, while salaries for several officers working at the bridge topped $200,000 last year.
Curious to see what would happen, Mr. Topyan [an economist who’s been observing the practice] recently picked up two passengers in plain sight of a police officer—and was promptly ticketed. Having researched the law, he spent six hours in traffic court and won his case.
“The prosecutor was jumping up and down in disbelief,” he says. He didn’t have to pay.
Even so, the report notes that the police still show up. Even if there’s nothing illegal happening, just having the police show up — and having people think that there might be something wrong — causes people to worry about taking part.
We’ve talked a few times about how attacks on new innovations in the name of protecting copyright can create massive chilling effects. For example, the increasingly questionable arguments against Megaupload have created a real chill for online cloud storage providers. That was likely manifest last week in the news that Dropbox was killing off its “public folders” feature in deference to its link feature, basically making the product less useful.
This new study, also by Harvard professor Josh Lerner, highlights the unfortunate opposite impact: the chilling effects on investment in innovation that comes as a result of anti-innovation judicial rulings. In this case, Lerner looked at specific rulings in the EU:
We analyze the effects of a court
ruling in France and several court rulings in Germany on VC investment in cloud computing
firms in these countries. These court rulings were seen as negatively affecting the development
of cloud computing, and our findings confirm this view by showing that these rulings regarding
the scope of copyrights had significant, negative impacts on investment. Specifically, we find
that VC investment in cloud computing firms declined in Germany and France, relative to the
rest of the EU, after the French and German rulings. Our results suggest that these rulings led to
an average reduction in VC investment in French and German cloud computing firms of $4.6 and
$2.8 million per quarter, respectively. This implies a total decrease in French and German VC
investment of $87 million over an approximately three year period. When paired with the
findings of the enhanced effects of VC investment relative to corporate investment, this may be
the equivalent of $269.7 million in traditional R&D investment.
Combine these two studies and you can see how these chilling effects can be quite massive in terms of investment in innovation. Of course, investment alone is not the sole determinant of the pace or success of innovation, but it is a key factor. And scaring investors away from innovations can have a major impact on the public and the economy.
It’s really quite amazing how frequently those targeted by parody freak out and reach for intellectual property law in an attempt to silence the speech directed at them. The latest is the group “Invisible Children”, which became quite famous (or infamous) earlier this year for the viral success of the “Kony 2012” video, which sought to build support for arresting Joseph Kony. Apparently a group of NYU grad students created a website called Kickstriker, which is a parody of Kickstarter, but to pretend that it’s a crowdsourcing campaign to hire people to go get Kony.
“It has come to our attention that you are causing public confusion through your use of Invisible Children’s copyrighted and trademarked property on www.kickstriker.com. This impermissible use is a blatant and egregious infringement of Invisible Children’s valuable copyright and trademark rights,” reads a letter Invisible Children sent last week and acquired by Danger Room. “[F]ailure to cease and desist your unlawful use of Invisible Children’s intellectual property will result in legal action.”
Among Invisible Children’s demands: “Confirm in writing that you have permanently deleted all electronic copies of the unauthorized and infringing materials from any computers, servers, or other distribution media”; take down any links to Invisible Children’s material; and declare “in a prominent location” that Kickstriker is “in no way associated with Invisible Children, Inc. or the Kony 2012 campaign.”
Thankfully, the students behind Kickstriker appear to know that these demands are ridiculous and have replied, with an explanation of fair use. You would think, in this day and age, that someone might have explained all that to the Invisible Children folks before they sent the takedown.
