Evan Noynaert's Favorite Techdirt Posts of the Week
from the favorites-favorites-and-more-favorites dept
This week's favorites post comes from Evan Noynaert, Assistant Professor at Missouri Western State University.
This was a great week to be posting my favorites because it started off with Nina Paley's When Copyright And Contracts Can Get In The Way Of Art. That was a wonderful piece on several levels. First, of course, is the marvelous art work. It is under a free license, so I expect to see at least bits and pieces of the art work showing up in a variety of media. The discussion of her relationship with the museum was also interesting. It was a perfect illustration of the principle that "managers like to manage." In many cases, like this one, they tend to over manage. Someone decided that proper management required a contract. The contract they produced was silly because it included an absurd non-compete clause and completely ignored the first use rights that should have been important to the museum. One of the commenters followed up with a criticism that the problems were caused by lack of a contract, but what the situation really showed was that a signed contract is meaningless if it is poorly drawn up.
Krishna the Cowherd Prince
Then later in the week we were treated to more of Nina's work when Mike wrote about her Kickstarter Project. I was amused when Mike said that he wanted several copies to hand out. That sounds a lot like handing out religious tracts, and, I guess for some of us, bringing some sanity to the IP system does amount to a religious mission.
One thing has changed since I started reading Techdirt years ago. It seemed like most articles back then were about what is wrong with the IP system. At every turn, it seemed like the IP holders were expanding their rights at the expense of the public interest. Things are different now as we see more and more common sense being introduced into IP issues and various judges and even legislatures realizing that the public interest is not always best served by extending trademark, copyright, and patent protection at every opportunity. Yes, we still have bad things like the PROTECT IP Act proposal hanging over our heads, but there is a lot of good news.
At the risk of being a Pollyana, I would like to highlight some of the positive events this week. We saw good news from Europe, where one European court found that Freedom of expression about Darfur is more important than Louis Vuitton's trademark. We also saw the European Court of Human Rights say that newspapers don't need to pre-inform celebrities of coverage. In Ireland, it looks like they are at least considering stronger support for fair use. In the US, we saw Koch Brothers Can't Abuse Trademark & Hacking Laws To Sue Satirical Critics. The Koch case seems like a pretty straightforward freedom of speech issue, but I am not sure the ruling would have been the same a few years ago. We also saw Patent Hawk's wings get clipped with a ruling that his editable toolbar patent is invalid. On the more academic side, we saw an important statement about The Anachronism Of Today's Patent And Copyright Laws. And we had a group of legal scholars stand up and explain why ACTA requires congressional approval. In the business arena, we saw Google follow Amazon's lead and just say "NO" to RIAA demands for licenses for their cloud music locker. Now I would like to see Google create a music home page that has links to sites and musicians that provide free and Community Commons music that can be easily transferred to your music locker. Google could probably make a fair amount of money by providing searches that included both paid and unpaid advertisements. It would be interesting to see how long it takes for RIAA companies to start buying those advertisements and giving away promotional music.
Finally, one issue that Mike raised this week was in the article about Google's internal collision course of Chrome versus Android. I agree that there does not seem to be much coordination going on between Android and Chrome at the moment, and that it is a huge burden for any company to maintain two different operating systems. However, this is Google, and Google has proven to be extremely flexible in the past. They have a corporate culture of trying lots of different things and learning from their failures as well as their successes. I would not describe Chrome and Android as being on a collision course. I think it would be more accurate to say that they are on parallel courses. For example, Google TV didn't work out well under Chrome, so they are going to try Android on the next iteration. I'm not sure that the real problems of Google TV have much to do with the operating system, but the situation does illustrate potential advantages of having two different operating systems in place. Eventually the two will probably merge, or, if the Chrome laptops are not successful, perhaps Chrome will just Wave and fade away. I think that even if the Chrome OS is a failure, it isn't an indictment of Google but rather an example of how Google is willing to take chances, accept some failures, and move on.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just so it isn't missed . . .
Burson-Marsteller used by Microsoft to smear Google in 2007
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119059784609936938.html
Yes, Burson-Marsteller, the company to go to when you want to smear Google!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just so it isn't missed . . .
They were used for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Facebook would have done better hiring Charlie Sheen. At least he knows the value of winning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/05/14/195241/Disney-Seeks-Trademark-On-Seal-Team-6
If this isn't trademark abuse ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For some reason, sometime yesterday or this morning PeerGuardian apparently started blocking access to www.againstmonopoly.org -- and for whatever reason, it can't be unblocked by clicking Allow HTTP in PeerGuardian.
This means three separate things that are interesting and perhaps a bit disturbing.
1. iBlockList lists must be able to flag two levels of
severity on blocked items, the higher of which means
"don't allow user override". This fact is not advertised
anywhere that I have seen.
2. PeerGuardian must respect this flag and not permit user
overrides in this case. This fact is also not advertised.
3. Someone saw fit to put the Against Monopoly blog, which
dammit is on OUR side, on an anti-P2P site list(!).
Unfortunately, short of uninstalling PeerGuardian or using a different computer I can now not visit Against Monopoly until this situation is resolved. I may in fact uninstall PeerGuardian; I don't like software second-guessing me and allowing something that's disturbingly reminiscent of the "broadcast flag" override my own express intentions as system administrator, even if it's being done by "our side" and not the copyright maximalists.
On the other hand, the Against Monopoly blog (and especially the comment section) is not what it once was. Still, this is most likely a denial of service attack perpetrated by means of spurious submissions to iBlockList.
Interestingly, PeerGuardian maintains and displays a log of connections it blocks. It's not showing anything for Against Monopoly, though, even though it's indisputably responsible as the symptoms are exactly those caused by trying to access a web site on its block list: a "connection reset" error that otherwise basically can't happen (unless Against Monopoly decided to shut down its web server, while keeping its internet connection and IP address, which would simply make no sense; if they deliberately shut down, I'd hope they'd give some notice they were going out of business rather than just quietly pull up stakes in the middle of the night, and they'd pull the plug on their server completely, so I'd get "connection timed out" instead of "connection reset"; likewise if they had some hardware failure or other disaster there wouldn't be a functioning computer at their IP address at all until they replaced the faulty part. A genuine "connection reset" from their end would mean they still had a working, Internet-connected server at their IP still but were *choosing* not to serve HTTP from it anymore, which just does not make logical sense. Therefore the reset is coming from this end, and PeerGuardian blocks by generating resets, hence the identification of the culprit).
It is very disturbing that PeerGuardian is not only capable of enforcing certain blocks over the system administrator's wishes, but is apparently designed to try as much as possible to conceal the fact that it is doing so when this happens.
I will probably uninstall PeerGuardian at some point, given this disturbing development, and also a proneness towards false positives (for example, it doesn't like Amazon EC2 hosting, which a lot of websites use, for some reason). Does anyone here know of a superior product with a similar purpose?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
but uh... that site is actually down....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Nevertheless, I find it disgusting for any person or company to try and turn a quick buck on the backs of what these men did in the service of our country. They will forever remain anonymous and go about their daily lives as members of the Navy. No Disney parades for them. Just the quiet satisfaction of knowing they did something important.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re Google -- Chrome next Failure like Wave?
Failure is just the symptom of the underlying 'disease' of pushing and trying new things. The cure for this 'disease' isn't to punish failure as it typical in Corp America, but change the paradigm and realizing that you don't have a disease on your hands at all, but ultimately a cure instead that will lead to success.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chrome/Android
I think the browser based App Store is due to Chrome OS, and I expect other tweaks to be made, partly because the focus on Chrome OS exposes what they need.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But www.againstmonopoly.org is BY DEFINITION a web server. Either it is up and provides http, or it is down. It cannot be up but not providing http, as there is simply no logical reason why its operators would configure it thusly while calling it "www.something". But if it were up and not being blocked in between it would respond normally, and if it were down and not being blocked in between the connection would time out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chrome + Android Is Not A “Huge Burden”
Even the apps can still work. For Chrome, they’re all Web-based anyway. For Android, so long as whatever language you use compiles for the Dalvik VM, you needn’t even notice the difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]