Here's the problem with the story: There is no indication (not even the slightest) that shows that any client attorney priviledge was actually violated. Yes, the calls are records - all calls are recorded. The question unanswered and avoided here is how they handle those particular calls after they are recorded.
Remember, this is an automated system. I doubt they have hundreds or thousands of live operators sitting listening to every call as it happens and pushing the big "lawyer call" button to delete it. It's way more likely that most calls are filed and never listened to at all, one way or another, and that calls are only actually listened to be a human if there is a specific request made through whatever process. At that point, they can weed out the lawyer calls as needed.
So hacking (against the law, you know) to get raw phone recordings isn't exactly telling. In fact, it's quite the opposite, suggesting the HACKERS may have violated the privileged communications. Oh, that would sting, wouldn't it?
With due respect John, Burlignton isn't the richest place in the world, but it has a very low crime rate and part of that is not having all the trappings of crime ridden cities of the US - and yes, that includes things that make some people say "that's Wassist!". It's fairly easy to draw a correlation between ethnic mix and crime rates, but few have the balls to do it. Those that do generally find themselves in serious shit because nobody wants to deal with reality.
Ignoring the facts is sort of like saying "guns don't kill people"... but damn, have you ever tried to push a bullet into someone by hand? Hard work. Some people have a hard time accepting that guns kill and injure so many people each year. They deny cause and effect (while screaming to take the guns away from the cops because people get killed... odd that).
America won't get better until there is a shift back to personal responsiblity and less PC bullcrap that makes us avoid talking about problems because someone might get offended or start a riot and burn down unrelated stores.
Shhh! You are letting out another secret nobody wants to talk about. Innovation isn't always good or to our benefit, but that goes against a basic pillar of the Techdirt world.
I think that daily fantasy sports has the potential for abuse, from the teams, players, and officials who may be motivated to screw around with the results of a single event in a longer season for profit. With no real tracking or regulation, it would be very easy for the systems to be "gamed". Not saying it happens, but the potential is there.
Where there is a lot of money on the table, there is almost always someone trying to figure out how to get more of it, better so if they can do it without being easily traced down.
Did anyone bother to check up on the racial mix of Burlington Vermont before touting this story? Seriously?
93% of the population is white. 39000 people, and 32500 of them are white. There are less than 700 black people in the city, outnumbered by more than 1000 Asian people.
The city is so white bread, it's beyond understanding. They just don't have the issues that the other cities face. They don't have an "inner city" or a "ghetto" or a huge gang problem (biggest gang in Burlington is the cows in the farmer's fields).
It's sort of like Miami turning down snowplows. *facepalm*
Re: "probable cause" is a lot tougher than "relevant"
More than that, the real question would be one of constitutionality. Is there an actual "right to privacy" when it comes to things that can be seen from a public location?
For that matter, where is the public location? The airspace over your land extended up to a certain point, and after that it's common public airspace. You cannot (as an example) control the flow of aircraft over your home unless they get very close. From what I can see, that is something like 500 feet or so (maybe 1000 feet in the UK). We don't even get into the discussion of flying over someone else's land or even a public street... what you can see from there, is it public or private?
Moreover, technology means that taking a video from 2000 feet up or 2000 feet to the side would be high enough quality to be able to read your wrist watch (or just about). Provided they are not looking inside any buildings, is there any real expectation from privacy from above?
For that matter, if police stand on a hill that looks down on a property, would this bill essentially make it illegal to take action on anything they see? Are they not free to see what they can see while in public space, and if so, why would that not include the public airspace?
Re: Re: Re: Don't like the terms? Don't use the service
"Do you really think that changing the nature of robots.txt to an opt in request vs an opt out request will change the situation at all? "
You miss the point. Why should a news site have to turn off ALL search engine listing to avoid being part of the news site? It's not a question of opt in or opt out, Google news should be treated different from Google the search engine, such that a news site can appear in the search listings without being part of "Google News" site. Google right now says "all or nothing" and that is a problem. It means that in a way they hold sites for ransom - if you want to be in search results, you have to let us use your stuff in our news aggregation scheme as well.
"IP extremists are so lazy,"
You are being intellectually lazy, assuming I am saying something when I am not. Google news aggregation should be opt in (in Spain) to comply with the law. Being in the search results shouldn't require that they also accept being part of something else.
"I love how you act as though it was Google that was the entitled one, that it was Google that was refusing to see the value of what the other side brought to the table. It wasn't, it was the short sighted, greedy newspapers that couldn't help themselves, and ended up shooting themselves in the collective foot. "
Here's the rub: What is Google News without content? It's a blank page. Google doesn't produce content, they use content from others as a method by which to build their brand and retain people on their websites long, to use their services, and to gain ad revenue. It works very well, Newspaper and media are dying left and right and Google is making billions.
Yet, Google without other people's content is, in the end, just and empty space.
My point is two-fold: Google could easily make deals with media partners for a "same price" exchange that would net both sides nothing, except that it would make providing news an opt in rather than "block them bots out" system.
Google's choice, which is to walk away from the situation, indicates that they were unwilling to enter into any deal with might infer any value to content - yet as already established their site without the content would be worthless. Google is a value added provider, but it starts with something of value and adds value to it. Google is not going to hire people to write news articles all day, they are not a content creation company.
" If they really think that their content is so valuable, that Google provides no benefit to them, then they are welcome to make what I have heard is a tiny little change to their site code which will cause Google's services to not list it, allowing them to bask in all the traffic they don't get."
Two things: Why should they not be available in the normal listings like other companies and websites? The real issue is that Google marks their content as "special" and repackages and reformats it as a news portal site. Why does Google treat it differently? Why should the news sites be obligated to opt out of everything just to avoid being slammed into a news site they don't want to be part of?
Remember something too: bad traffic isn't any better than no traffic. In a world where advertisers are more and more often paying by action rather than paying per view, getting a million people in the door isn't always the best way to make money if those people aren't going to spend. The online model entirely changes the advertiser / newspaper relationship, in a manner where merely aggregating large numbers of readers isn't any assurance of solid income.
Google's way or no way is the sort of arrogant answer that make Facebook's Zuck look like a flexible guy.
Re: Re: Copyright Arbitration Board of the German Patent and Trade Mark Office
It also shows how much Google has no interest in allowing content to be defined as having any real value. Google could have easily set up a net zero system, where they pay news partners for news in return for the partner "buying" a logo or mention on the news pages. Making those two costs exactly the same would have cleared any legal hurdle and would have allowed Google to continue offering Google news in Spain.
However, that move would require them to admit openly that content has value. They don't want to do that. They don't want to establish that content in and of itself has any real value, it only has value when found on Google, and Google should get first crack at extracting value through various methods to get people to pages and content types that page Google handsomely.
It's a basic premise of the Web 3.0 economy: Don't admit content has any value. It's one of the reasons why Facebook banned that linking site, because it was essentially assigning value to content on Facebook, in a manner that FB could not control and could not profit from. It was teaching the inmates how to game the system and how to profit from it. That wouldn't be profitable for Facebook, so boom - ban hammer.
"Everyone knows that Internet video will become more and more popular."
Here's the rub though: Most of the internet doesn't pay for the content to be created. Most of the "usual" sources depend on free content, "user uploaded" content, and outright piracy. Only a few services (like Netflix) have managed to bridge the gap and actually have an income stream that allows them to pay for content.
The longer term implication is always the same: The free lunch is great until there is nobody left to pay for it, then the buffet closes.
You may hate cable (Karl certainly does), but you have to understand in economic terms that it's a method by which the public pays for the content they enjoy. You pay cable, cable pays the channels, the channels buy the content... which is what you pay for, really.
Since it's unlikely that most people will want to pay a bunch of different subscriptions each month to get steaming this and online that, it's very likely that your cable company will at some point be replaced by your "online cable company" that will group together many channels and sources.
Remember, for the moment at least, it's really not economical or technically reasonable to move all of the OTA channels and cable channels to a streaming model. The internet can't handle it - it's already choking on Netflix.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When in doubt, blame copyright
Paul, as always, you miss the point. They are the copyright holder and they have that choice. They actually created something (unlike you, who creates mostly hot stinky air, it seems). They have that right granted under copyright (as per the US constitution, natch!).
However, the costs related to archiving are high, especially when you talk about very old material on printed paper. I can see where many of them would love to forego this legacy expense and allow someone else to care for it.
Now, before you go off in a tizzy, I am not suggesting they are going to hand the copyright to someone else. I am thinking it would be more like a library, where the public could consult and read, but ownership is not granted. So for commercial use, the rights holder could still ilcense, but for those seeking the "culture" of newspapers, they would be able to read them.
"Except, you advocate a copyright system where no such thing is possible, legally anyway. At the very least, you advocate an archiving system where only the data pre-approved by a biased corporation make it into an archive for later generations. That's a horrific proposition."
I made not such suggestion. I said that the current material is being archived naturally because it's already digital, and the only real questions are about the older, print only material. I made not suggest that they would pick and choose articles or content to share and what not to share. That's you. That's you trying to add in "scare" to the discussion. It's why having a discussion with you is very difficult, because you keep attributing things to me that I don't say.
So go away troll. You are much more useful when you just shut up.
Something that is missing in all of this is the question of how many documents are involved here. If it's 1000 pages, then $42 a page (including redaction and such) isn't really off the chart.
That may be part of the problem of FOIA requests, which is if the "responsive set" is way too large or the required search too large, then the costs may be way off the charts. It's a really complex problem.
Perhaps if we have a better idea of the size of the documents involved, we might have a better idea if the cost is too high or too low.
I don't think their intentions are pure, most newspaper publishers are high and might dicks who are paying for their arrogance by missing the technology changes that are coming close to wiping them out.
I do think, however, that they are smart enough to follow money, and desperate enough to want to save money. I didn't suggest that they would give all the rights to an archive, I said they would grant rights to an archive for the purposes of archiving - but not a distribution right.
Basically, the money is this: If each paper is spending a certain amount each year to maintain it's archives - current copies on hard drives or physical backup somewhere, older copies printed and stored in a climate controlled space, then they are spending a shit load of money to do this - and it only gets more expensive each year.
Newspapers are so hard up for cash they will do almost anything to save money. Outsourcing their archive to a non-profit archiving system would be a double benefit: Assured their stuff outlives them, and a serious bottom line saving.
Will all of them want to do it? Of course not. Put in the right context and presented in the right fashion, it would be to their advantage to join up with an archive that can take the expense off their bottom line, without giving up full rights to the content.
One of the great thing about you Paul is that you are consistent. But like someone who always burns toast, that consistency isn't a good thing.
"Which is why it's important to have an independent archive that's in public hands, rather than have historical documents beholden to the whims of the ancestors of whoever happened to buy a copy and keep it."
The thing is, going forward that is pretty much already taken care of. The digital nature of publishing (even print publishing) is such that retaining an archive is merely a question of backup space and nothing more. We are no longer stuck with just the printed page as the only remaining examples of something. From everything I can tell, pretty much every modern newspaper auto archives their stuff, with many of them having archives back nearly 20 years already.
So your solution is to deny a copyright holder their rights, because you think that maybe they may not be able or willing to do this, and that their work somehow has so little value that even in a complete closure of a newspaper that their archive would just be flushed.
See, the problem here is that you are looking at a 50 or 70 year old problem, and using it to try to make rules for current times. It's just out of touch.
As for "I don't care so nobody does", sorry but you are full of shit. I do care, and I know others do care for different reasons. How you draw a conclusion like that just shows how hard you are trying to be a prick about stuff, rather than enter into a discussion.
Welcome to the black hole again, the only "whatever" who will answer you is the fake one that so badly trolled you the other day. Damn, you are a sucker!
I think that you misunderstand the economics and the politics at play. Copyright defines ownership, ownership allows sales / lending / leasing / income, and income allows for taxation. Governments are almost always motivated by taxation and income.
So strong copyright with a tax on sales of products (even if it's just a VAT / GST / Sales tax) is good. It's not hard to get agreement to make money.
When it comes to the other stuff, the politics kick. The politics of keeping jobs local. The politics of making the sales happen through a local company so you can properly tax them. The politics of preservation of local culture, language, and the like - and the politics of forcing outsiders to work in that language and provide content in that language. It's about the politics of morals and ratings... and yes, for the politicians, it's the politics of control.
They are very quick to agree to ways to generate new tax revenue, they are very slow to agree to release control (and potentially release tax income). It's why there is a big push all over the world for companies to be forced to collect and remit sales tax local to where the buyer is, and not the seller.
It really is all about the money. Agree to a global 20% sales tax (example) of online goods that must be remitted to the government local to the buyer, and you would find many barriers would drop much more quickly.
Gotta love how Techdirt tolerates this. It's a true shame that they allow people to post under a registered name without logging in.
Paul, you have been trolled. Or did you troll yourself? We will never know, because Techdirt doesn't seem able to handle a simple technical detail like blocking people from impersonating registered users.
I think you run into a bit of a logical problem here. "control" without money is meaningless. Studios never "control" things in a manner that doesn't make money or generate a revenue stream.
Example, when Disney puts videos "in the vault" (aka, makes them unavailable at retail for a while) and them brings them back out for a sales cycle, it's not done for the pure exercise of control, rather it's done for the purpose of making the most money and yes, controlling the distribution to do so.
Control is the power, but money is the scorecard. You can't have one without the other. Otherwise, it's like an NBA game where both teams compete for who has the ball the longest, and not for who scores the most. A zero zero tie at the end of it all would rending the game meaningless.
Geo blocking, release windows, and all those other things have everything to do with making money AND meeting the laws of different countries and areas. It's also about meeting the economic realities of those areas. Talk with your local government about restrictions on movie distribution, on local "rating" systems, local labeling, local language version requirements, and even local ownership of the distribution system. That will give you a bigger idea of the problems involved. Meeting those requirements in order to get a full same day worldwide release is a real challenge, there are just so many different rules and regulations to meet.
Blaming the studios for local laws is just plain stupid.