PlayStation Boss Addresses Abortion Concerns From Staff With Jaunty Email About His Cats

from the missing-the-mark dept

In the wake of the SCOTUS draft leak of a decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade, plenty of tech companies have begun scrambling to get public and internal messaging out. We recently discussed how game studio Bungie had put out a statement disagreeing with the draft ruling and committing to its own staff to give them the support it can on these matters of health. This approach is being mirrored all over the tech industry, and elsewhere, but it’s notable that Bungie is set to become a subsidiary of Sony’s in the very near future as a result of an acquisition. The reason that’s notable is because PlayStation chief Jim Ryan recently addressed his own internal staff on the SCOTUS leak and it’s… a something.

His opening wasn’t bad, though it will likely only serve to rile up both ends of the abortion rights spectrum with a call for mutual respect of opinions.

In the email, which Bloomberg has seen and Kotaku has confirmed was sent out to internally hired staff, Ryan writes that the company, its employees, and its players are a “multi-faceted and diverse” community and that they all hold “many different points of view.” He also wrote that staff and the company “owe it to each other and to PlayStation’s millions of users to respect differences of opinion among everyone in our internal and external communities. Respect does not equal agreement. But it is fundamental to who we are as a company and as a valued global brand.”

As I said with Bungie’s statement, which took a different tact, there is very little in this that anyone should be angry about. What Ryan states about his staff and their multi-faceted viewpoints is almost certainly true. And, while calls for respect and unity are somewhat tired in these times of social distress, it’s certainly not a request that reads as ridiculous.

Unlike Ryan then using the same email to take a jaunty turn towards his own cats.

Ryan wanted to share something that was “lighthearted” in an attempt to “inspire everyone to be mindful of having a balance that can help ease the stress of uncertain world events.” (Stress that a powerful president of a large company could perhaps more effectively ease by supporting his staff and their rights…)

He then spent a reported five paragraphs in the email talking about his two cats’ first birthdays, the noises they make, and his dream of one day owning a dog. Bloomberg reporter Jason Schreier additionally reported via Twitter that Ryan wrote “that dogs really are man’s best friend, they know their place, and perform useful functions like biting burglars and chasing balls that you throw for them.”

Insert yourself, just for a moment, into the shoes of someone working for Ryan and who is concerned one way or the other about what is a very important social issue that’s going to undergo a monumental change. Imagine the whiplash you would feel reading the opening of the email only to then get a deep dive into Ryan’s opinions on common furry friends he has. Imagine reading an email about abortion rights that then turns to lauding dogs because they “know their place.”

And now imagine just how many times Ryan must have hit himself in the head with a hammer such that he thought pumping this bizarre email out was a good idea.

As you might expect, some staff weren’t happy with the email. Bloomberg reports that internal discussion about the email was negative, with many sharing their anger and disappointment over the tone of the letter and its lack of a stance in support of reproductive rights. One employee reportedly wrote that they had “never been so mad about a cat birthday before.” Some women at the company allegedly wrote that they felt their rights had been disrespected or even trivialized by Ryan’s email.

Maybe those female employees would be more respected if they would simply “know their place.” You know, like dogs. Or maybe their boss could simply do a better job of reading the room next time he wants to fire off an email.

Filed Under: abortion, cats, jim ryan, playstation, roe v. wade
Companies: sony

YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring

from the purrrrfect dept

YouTube’s Content ID automated copyright system sucks. There, I said it. Any review of the different posts we’ve done specifically on the topic of Content ID can only leave you with one impression: the system doesn’t work. Not that it never works, of course, but when you build a system that is designed specifically to allow 3rd parties to take down speech content, that system had damned well better not be wide the hell open for abuse or laughable errors. Well, guess what? You’ve got your music labels getting works taken down that were specifically designed not to not be infringing, news organizations managed to claim their own live streams as copyright infringing, and music labels being able to demonetize videos of a guy singing public domain Christmas carols. It’s all very stupid, very much the tip of the iceberg, and very much an indication that Content ID, in its current state, is broken.

What’s that, you say? You need more? Fine, a guy uploaded videos of his cat purring and those got claimed by two different labels as infringing on their copyrights.

YouTube’s automated takedown tool is known for its flaws, but this week it crossed a line by attacking a purring cat. According to YouTube’s Content-ID system both EMI Publishing and PRS own the rights to a 12 second purring loop. Last March, YouTube user Digihaven uploaded one hour of video loops featuring his cat Phantom, purring, as cats do. The video didn’t go viral but appealed to a niche public, and more recently also two major music publishers.

Nearly a year after the video was posted Digihaven was informed by YouTube that Phantom is “pirate” purring. Apparently, part of the 12 second loop belongs to EMI Music Publishing and PRS.

Yes, this is sort of funny, but only after you’ve encountered so many Content ID problems just like this that you become dead inside, like me. I’ve made statements like this before, but I’ll repeat it again: your automated copyright system doesn’t have to be perfect, but if your system is so flawed that a 12 second video of a cat purring can be flagged by multiple music labels then your system sucks so badly that you need to completely start from scratch on a new one.

Now, I’ve done some haphazard searching for songs entitled “Focus” by artists on the EMI label and, frankly, I gave up. There are a ton of search results for songs that include that word in their titles. That being said, I’m fairly certain that EMI doesn’t have a band with a song that is 12 seconds of a cat purring or, if that in fact is a thing, that such a video would be copyrightable. In other words, either way, EMI and PRS should not be monetizing Phantom the Cat’s musical stylings.

“I’m sure EMI/PRS made Phantom a sad kitty. It seems like companies such as EMI are pirating ads on people’s legit videos, so I’m wondering if they apologize to, or reimburse people for those false claims,” he tells TF.

Hoping to clear his cat’s name Digihaven decided to file a dispute. This was partially successful, as EMI lifted its claim shortly before publication of this article.

Which, absurdly, means now Phantom just has to figure out what PRS’ problem is.

Or, hey, maybe we could all just admit together that Content ID in its current form doesn’t work and should be done away with in some organized and planned fashioned. Replace it with a better automated system. Replace it with more humans doing moderation. Admit that content moderation at scale is completely impossible and stop trying.

Anything would be better than living under a automated system we all know sucks.

Filed Under: cats, contentid, copyright
Companies: emi, google, prs, youtube

Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?

from the promoting-what-progress-excactly? dept

This past Saturday was (apparently) “National Pet Day.” I have pets and was unaware of this, but I’ll survive. Anyway, the US Copyright Office thought that this would be a good day to tweet out this utter nonsense:

On the off chance the Copyright Office comes to its senses and takes down that tweet, it shows a (cute!) picture of a sleeping kitten, and then says in the text of the tweet:

Happy #NationalPetDay from the Copyright Office. All 10k of the photos you took of your cat while asleep are protected by copyright from the moment they are created.

You’d think that someone at the Copyright Office would have enough sense to recognize that this message just makes basic copyright law appear to be the insane mess it truly is. Remember, under the Constitution, the sole reason that Congress is allowed to enable copyright protections over creative works is to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” In short, copyright in the US (under the Constitution) is designed as an economic right in order to create an incentive for the production and distribution of creative works.

Now, who the hell takes 10,000 photos of their pet because of the copyright granted on those pictures? The answer is basically no one — with the possible exception of a few professional photographers who sell images of animals. Most of us don’t need the 10k photos of our pets locked up under copyright for the rest of our lives, plus an additional 70 years.

Indeed, this tweet by the Copyright Office succinctly reveals the absolute insanity in American copyright law post-1978 when we moved from a copyright system of “formalities” (i.e., you need to register your works to get the copyright) to automatic copyright, where everything that meets the low bar of creativity gets an automatic copyright at the point of fixation. Even if you believe in the necessity of copyright for protecting professional creators, authors, artists, etc., the idea that you’re happy and excited and bragging over the fact that it covers the kind of artwork that needs no such incentive, is not intended for economic purposes, seems pretty messed up and really raises questions about the Copyright Office’s understanding of the underpinnings of copyright law in the first place.

Oh, and it gets worse. Someone on Twitter responded to the Copyright Office by asking “what is the legal position on retweeting this?” and the Copyright Office gave really bad advice:

In case you can’t see that, it says:

All government created work is part of the public domain, meaning you can freely use and reuse it. As cat people, we’d welcome it.

But… that’s wrong. Specifically, it’s wrong in that the photo in question is not a government created work. As the photo itself shows, the photo is from photographer Alena Ozerova, a Russian photographer, and the image is available to license via Shutterstock. Odd that a Copyright Office that is gleefully claiming that photos of cats are covered by copyright, then freely (and incorrectly) suggests that the image it’s tweeting is in the public domain, when that absolutely does not appear to be the case — and that’s not even getting into the question of whether or not retweeting copyright-protected material would be fair use or infringing.

Either way, the whole sequence of events seems like an abject lesson in how screwed up American copyright law is that even the US Copyright Office is both gleefully celebrating unnecessary copyrights that appear to go against the Constitution, and then claiming an actually copyright-protected image is in the public domain.

Update: Hilariously, many hours after giving the misleading advice regarding public domain materials, and after multiple people pointed out on Twitter that they had given an incorrect explanation, the Copyright Office then came back to clarify its earlier misleading tweet. Which brings up a neat follow up point: when even the Copyright Office can mislead the public about copyright in such a way that it has to come back and qualify its earlier incorrect tweet, how the hell are every day people expected to not accidentally infringe?

Filed Under: cats, copyright, economic rights, incentive, national pet day, personal photos, pets, us copyright office

Caterpillar Now Going After All The Cats For Trademark Cancellations

from the meowsers dept

A couple of weeks back, we discussed the story of Caterpillar Inc., famous manufacturers of tractor equipment, deciding to bully Cat & Cloud Coffee, makers of you’ll-never-guess-what, all because the former had long ago trademarked “CAT” as a truncated brand. At issue specifically is Cat & Cloud’s use of the word “cat” on clothing and merchandise it sells, with Caterpillar claiming there is the potential for public confusion with its own clothing and merch lines. This is, of course, plainly ridiculous. There is no overlap in the branding and nobody is going to confuse the tractor folks with the coffee folks.

Others pointed out that there are tons of other companies out there that sell apparel and/or merch while holding trademarks that incorporate the word “cat.” If those other companies are allowed to exist, why not Cat & Cloud? Caterpillar Inc. heard you dear friends, but its response is probably not the one you were hoping for.

According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, Cat & Cloud is among 174 registered trademarks including the word “cat”. Caterpillar has filed 125 cancellation petitions so far including one to internet sensation Keyboard Cat. You may have been one of the 150-million viewers of the viral video of a feline, clad in a blue shirt, playing the piano.

Charlie Schmidt, Creator of Keyboard Cat and www.keyboardcat.com spoke to us about his ordeal.

“I’m just a poor artist trying to you know, maintain my integrity! Who wants to hurt a tractor company just by having a cat!?”

So, yeah, Caterpillar has expanded its trademark bullying out to encompass more small businesses. It is again defending its actions by saying they are only targeted for apparel trademarks, but that still isn’t good enough. It’s virtually impossible to believe that all 125 trademarks for the apparel in question comprise uses that would actually cause any real public confusion. Instead, this is obviously a corporate legal team pulling out the legal shotgun and just spraying buckshot everywhere it can.

For Cat & Cloud, at least, its story is getting some public attention.

Customers including tech titan Guy Kawasaki, former Chief Evangelist for Apple and current Chief Evangelist for Canva, is getting behind the café, leveraging his millions of online followers to join the effort.

“Sometimes you have to stand up for something. For the principal of it. And this is one of those times.”

Actress Sophia Bush has also weighed in on Instagram to help Cat & Cloud.

Now we just have to marshal forces for the hundred-plus other victims of Caterpillar’s bullying, I suppose.

Filed Under: cat, cats, charlie schmidt, keyboard cat, trademark, trademark bullying
Companies: cat & cloud, caterpillar

DailyDirt: Smarter Than The Average Bear Cat… Bird?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Animals aren’t as dumb as you might think, and the more we study our pets — the more we find that we may not just be anthropomorphizing our favorite animals. Some animals definitely have personalities, and some can exhibit some pretty complex cognitive skills. If we can understand more and more animal brains, maybe we’ll be able to figure out our own brains, too, someday. Here are just a few things to remember about cats, fish and birds.

• Cats are pretty smart pets, and they may understand more than you think — like cause and effect. Okay, that ability isn’t exactly surprising, but cats might also understand a bit of physics, too — but it probably won’t help them when they’re trapped in a box with a radioactive source connected to trigger a release of poison.
• How long does a fish’s memory really last? Finding Dory makes a joke out of fish having short term memory loss, but some researchers have measured some fish with memory spans that can last 3 months.
• Bird brains are surprisingly packed with more neurons per pound than mammals (including primates). This might explain how some birds can make tools, pass the mirror test, understand cause and effect, and even be said to be as smart as a 5-year-old human child.

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: animal cognition, biology, birds, brains, cats, fish, intelligence, smart animals, tool

DailyDirt: Studying Our Ancient Ancestors

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Genetic testing is becoming more and more common now. The costs have come down dramatically in a very short time, but our methods of interpreting the results could still stand to mature a bit. DNA is everywhere, and some of the most interesting DNA is from ancient remains that have been preserved naturally in glaciers or by mummifying techniques practiced by ancient Egyptians. We may never get a clear picture of prehistoric people, but some DNA evidence could help clear up a few mysteries (or start some strange protests?).

• A 5,000-year-old glacier mummy has provided scientists with samples of 5,000-year-old human red blood cells. This discovery comes from the very aptly named Institute for Mummies and the Iceman — which also sounds like an awesome band. [url]
• Analyzing the DNA of King Tutankhamun (aka King Tut) wasn’t a simple lab procedure. Foreigners trying to test samples have been denied access due to various reasons (some explained, some not), so an all-Egyptian team of researchers analyzed King Tut’s DNA in 2008. However, concerns of DNA contamination persist, even though samples of mummified cat DNA have been successfully obtained using similar techniques without contamination. [url]
• Genetic analysis of some prehistoric Europeans show that all Europeans came from a “founding population” about 37,000 years ago. Since then, there have been at least two population turnovers, but this narrative is based on just dozens of DNA samples that have only recently been extracted from ancient bone remains. [url]

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: ancestors, biology, cats, dna, genetics, institute for mummies and the iceman, king tut, mummies, red blood cells

Will PETA Now Sue To Control The Copyright In These Cat Selfies?

from the questions-questions-questions dept

As noted recently, PETA isn’t giving up in its quixotic quest to argue that it can represent the interests of an Indonesian selfie-taking monkey, and further that the photos in question have a copyright and that copyright belongs to the monkey (and, by extension, PETA). UK IP professor Andrés Guadamuz recently wrote an interesting paper arguing that there is a copyright in the photograph and it belongs to the guy who owned the camera, David Slater, based on UK copyright law. It’s an interesting read, though others have convincingly argued the opposite, noting that UK law requires a “person” to have created the work.

Either way, it seems this question may not be going away any time soon. Guadamuz has now also posted an amusing blog post highlighting the next potential battleground: a cat who loves to take selfies. I mean, just look at them. While there are some clearer shots, I think this one is clearly the best, based entirely on the cat’s “I’m concentrating here” tongue:

Guadamuz notes that it’s not entirely clear how much control the cat really has in these pictures, and they may really be the camera owner holding the camera itself, and snapping the photo when the cat is incentivized to reach in. In that case, there’s a stronger copyright claim for the original camera owner — an Instagram user by the username “youremahm”. But, as Guadamuz notes, the real question is whether or not PETA will now sue on behalf of the cat.

Filed Under: animals, cats, copyright, peta, selfie cat, selfies
Companies: peta

DailyDirt: This Is Your Brain On Drugs…

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Drugs are baaad, mmkay? And it is highly recommended that you NOT take micro-doses of LSD while you’re at work. So just don’t do drugs. Never. (So that when you do…) And check out all the other animals in the animal kingdom that like to get high — cuz if everyone else wanted to jump off a bridge, would you do it, too?

• Dolphins are pretty intelligent creatures — and they apparently suck on puffer fish for fun. Young dolphins ingest a nerve toxin from puffer fish, pass around the fish like a joint, and chill. Marine biologists haven’t seen dolphins get the munchies yet, though. [url]
• Catnip doesn’t work on all cats — just about 70-80% of them — and it only works on cats that are older than 6 months that have reached sexual maturity. Catnip is considered harmless to cats and non-addictive. [url]
• Spiders were first given drugs by scientists in the 1950s — generating some unusual spider web patterns. Research on this strange topic has continued and has even been done by NASA in the 1990s. Clearly, some drugs have an effect on the motor skills of spiders, but it’s not exactly clear what we’ve learned from getting spiders artificially intoxicated. [url]

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: animals, catnip, cats, dolphins, drugs, spiders

DRM, Or How To Turn Your Cat's Litter Box Into An Inkjet Printer

from the please-insert-$20-to-continue dept

For those of you who have wondered whether a cat litter box could achieve the same functionality as an inkjet printer, CatGenie has the answer for you. Jorge Lopez covered his experience with his brand-new purchase at Medium, swiftly discovering the downside of the litter box that cleans itself. While it does take care of most of the nasty business (disposing of feces — although occasionally leaving one behind to be baked into “poop jerky” by the heated cleaning cycle), it only does so if properly loaded with specific products made and sold by CatGenie.

The CatGenie is not without it’s consumables. It requires these theCatGenie Washable Granules, which are little pieces of hard plastic designed to be washed and not taken up by the cleaning mechanism. There’s also the SaniSolution SmartCartridge, which is a cartridge of fresh smelling cleaning solution needed to wash the granules.

Contained within the SmartCartridge is an RFID chip that tracks fluid levels and turns the automatic litter box into a useless stinkhole once the fluid runs out. It can’t be tricked into believing you’ve refilled it. It can only be replaced with a new one. Like any number of printers that won’t let you print/scan/copy without replacing an ink cartridge, the wonderful, self-cleaning litter box refuses to do anything but collect cat excrement until new cartridges are installed.

That’s a $200+ litter box that becomes indiscernible from the $6.99 non-auto version once the proprietary cleaning fluid runs out. You’ll need a $20+ cartridge to get up and running again. While Jorge Lopez likes the self-cleaning aspects of the litter box, he’s less than thrilled to be in possession of a bricked shithouse.

This made me realize that I don’t actually own a CatGenie, I’m renting it. Though I paid for it, I have to pay per use yet I’m still responsible for all repairs until it craps out and I have to get another one. A tad disheartening.

Fortunately, there are workarounds. CatGenie users who are irritated by both the inkjet-style “DRM” and other issues with cleaning cycles have compiled their own custom firmware to override the negative aspects of CatGenie’s pay toilet.

“CatGenie can’t run without SaniSolution, like a car can’t run without petrol.” is often heard. But that’s a flawed analogy and an insult to most people’s intellect because it’s the laws of physics that prevent a car from running without petrol, but it’s a flaky business model that prevents CatGenie from running without SaniSolution. When this project first started, early 2010, I didn’t know what cleaning agent to use, so I decided to postpone this selection procedure. But after running without any cleaning agent for over a year, my test box was no dirtier (or cleaner) than my standard box, proving that the box can run without cleaning agent very well.

Not that CatGenie is very happy with having its flaky business model circumvented. While the two fixes posted by Jorge Lopez are still live, rooting around the internet a bit shows the company has issued cease-and-desist orders in the past, targeting third-party products that turn the litter box into an owned product, rather than an eternally-rented service.

The damage hasn’t been too widespread, however. For one, a $200-$300 litter box is a niche product, something owned by far fewer people than, say, Keurig’s DRM-laden coffee maker. For another, the workarounds aren’t nearly as simple as taping a label to a scanner, requiring far more investment in skill, time and money than most people are willing to part with to truly take ownership of their CatGenie.

That being said, the underlying concept is severely flawed. Tying people into lifelong purchases is every manufacturer’s dream, but it’s nearly every consumer’s nightmare. Hobbling a purchased product just to harness an additional revenue stream is no way to run a business. And, of course, when put in the position of defending its DRMed cat box, PetNovations (CatGenie’s manufacturer) — like Keurig — claims it’s all about safety.

While I cannot say we support what you are doing, I can say that while cartridge sales are a part of our business model, they are also important to the safe function of the CatGenie. We have already had people try to refill and ruin their floors, gummed up the inside of their unit etc. That is why we sell a cartridge that is sealed with a safe but effective cleaning solution that has been tested to ensure that is not just safe for people, but just as safe for our target user your cat.

But that’s just a dodge. The company could easily provide information on safe refilling, as well as license third-party vendors to produce cheaper and/or refillable cartridges. But rather than work within the confines of its high-end litter box market, it has also chosen to lock up the technology that would make the product more convenient and more affordable. By doing so, it has ensured it will never reach its stated goal of being the litter box “for everyone.” There are plenty of ways to effectively monetize cartridges without turning CatGenie owners into mere renters, but PetNovations has chosen to do things the Lexmark way — remove functionality until “rent” is collected.

Filed Under: catgenie, cats, drm, litter box, refills, sanisolution, smartcartridges
Companies: catgenie

DailyDirt: Caring For Our Pets

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

People with pets sometimes go a bit overboard when it comes to spoiling their animals. There’s nothing really wrong with that, but non-pet people might question how the treatment of animals can trump the treatment of people. Here are just a few pet-related stories to ponder.

• An organization in New Zealand is teaching dogs how to drive cars. Imagine the traffic problems if someone shouts, “Squirrel!” [url]
• Cats and dogs are training their owners to respond to their wishes, just like human babies do. Can you resist a cat’s solicitation purr? [url]
• The technology for turning departed loved ones (humans) into diamonds has been around for several years, but pet diamondification is where the synthetic diamond memorialization market is heading. A diamond really isn’t forever, but nobody wants to hear about the actual thermodynamic stability of diamonds. [url]

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: cats, diamonds, dogs, driving, pets, training