Copyright... Patent... It's All The Same To The World's Third-Largest News Agency
from the patent-that-catchphrase,-yo dept
While we realize that the intricacies of IP law (and its often-attendant ridiculousness) can be rather difficult for the average, uninterested person to parse, it's really not asking too much to expect large international news agencies to make an effort to get the terminology right.
As you recall, Kim Dotcom recently announced he holds a patent for two-factor authentication, which he then waved in the direction of other internet titans like Twitter and Google, promising not to sue in exchange for contributions to his legal defense fund.
Here's how AFP (Agence France-Presse), the third-largest news agency in the world (and one of the oldest) titled its coverage of the Dotcom/patent story: Kim Dotcom might sue Twitter, Google and Facebook over copyright infringement.
Congratulations, AFP. The headline sounds like Facebook itself wrote it, using machine learning to gather IP-related flotsam from the feeds of millions of teenagers, each one bragging about trademarking their copyright on some catchy phrase they misheard on Twitter ("Be careful talking when you have a mouthful of glass") and regurgitating its findings in 40-pt font across the top of Raw Story's piped-in news selection.
The story reiterates the "copyright" claim in the opening paragraph.
Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said Thursday he was considering taking legal action against tech giants such as Twitter, Google and Facebook for infringing copyright on a security measure he invented.Then it quotes Dotcom tweeting about his patent and even remarks on the fact that Kim posted a patent approved in 2000 as proof. But, even with multiple chances to rescue this story from the unfortunate headline, AFP continues down its chosen path.
Dotcom said he had never sought to enforce copyright on his invention but was now reconsidering in light of the US case accusing him of masterminding massive online piracy through his now-defunct Megaupload file-sharing site.Now, the hypothetical teens used above can be excused their (hypothetical) ignorance. But a news agency, especially one of AFP's size and longevity? Not a chance. It's especially inexcusable when AFP seems to know the correct terminology when its suing Google for linking to its stories or suing a photographer whose photographs it used without permission. (No, you read that last part right.)
Perhaps AFP truly doesn't understand the definitions and limitations of various IP protections. It certainly doesn't seem to be too well-informed in the linked stories. Maybe AFP views all IP terms as interchangable. It may be striving to know just enough to be dangerous, but to date, it only seems to have gathered enough knowledge to injure itself.
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
Filed Under: copyright, intellectual property, journalism, kim dotcom, patents, reporting, two factor authentication
Companies: afp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Steal... sharing... all the same at Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Steal... sharing... all the same at Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Steal... sharing... all the same at Techdirt.
I don't blame the AFP, as much as I blame the entertainment industry. For years they've been conflating ideas and terminology as part of their "education" (and what they mean by "education" everyone else defines as disinformation), and getting the government to go along with them.
Given one of the key targets of these "education" programs has been news agencies, it really isn't all that hard to see how they can often get things wrong (after all, who would understand IP rules better than the people who rely on them for their livlihood, right?). Hell, even Adam Savage, whom Techdirt has written about before for his serious interest in IP matters, recently got some of the terminology wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YOU are an ass hat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow....
Still not sure if Dotcom was serious or trolling with the patent claim (which is so overly broad it's completely absurd), but he seems to be up to his old tricks: saying something outrageous and then watching the established media make a fool of themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People make mistakes. People are lazy. People are under pressure to get shit done and quality sometimes suffers. Journalists are people. This is not news.
Anyway why don't you jot us off a quick three page summary of the changes in international maritime law over the last 10 years. Make sure to get all the details right!
Oh what's that? You don't spend all day studying the nuances of maritime law? What's your problem? What are you, some kind of simpleton?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Try harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't expect everyone to understand the distinctions of IP law (and if everyone did, there'd be no real reason to write about it), but I do expect people who write about such things professionally to get their facts right. Just as I would expect them to do if they were informing me about maritime law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you want to do a better job, DO A BETTER JOB. Making a federal case about every little mistake made by any of the 7 billion other people on the earth is not helping, it's just bitching.
If you took all the energy you spend bitching about how wrong everybody else is and channeled it into, I dunno, actually changing something, you might have an effect. Or you would at least gain some sorely-needed appreciation for why things are hard to change in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is like writing an article about baseball and referring to runs as touchdowns. Hey, not everyone is obsessed with every minute detail of sports, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Try an experiment: when you meet a new person not in your tech circlejerk - maybe your local barista or something - ask them to explain the difference between copyright and patents to you.
Then lambaste them for getting it wrong and observe the reaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So while that editor is going to appear to be very concerned about any error, the reality is that shit happens, the editor knows it, and tries to balance accuracy with every other one of 25 concerns she has all day. Sometimes accuracy doesn't win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
* facepalm *
What is the point of having news if the aren't accurate?
Did I miss the memo saying that it is OK to make shit up now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I wonder what it is exactly that you read news for, if not to educate yourself. The issue is not how many people catch the error, it's how many people walk away misinformed. Copyright and patents are a specialty but hardly one that is cut off from the general public -- the idea that you "patent an invention" is common knowledge and many individuals apply for patents; billions of people see large prominent copyright notices displayed every time they post a photo on Facebook; things like the Pinterest copyright dispute, or the patent clashes between large tech companies, make it onto the evening news regularly these days. The majority of people now have a passing familiarity, at least, with these concepts.
The fact that you think it's not a big deal for the world's third-largest news agency to leave them so badly misinformed about a major distinction of law just shows that you have very low standards for knowledge and comprehension. Anyone familiar with the basics of copyright or even a skewed version thereof -- which these days includes anyone who has *gone to high school* -- now has a completely incorrect understanding of Dotcom's actions, such that any who are interested and attempt to research more are going to find themselves immediately confused, and any who attempted to express even simple opinions about what's happening or might happen is going to sound like a fool.
That's the opposite of what the news is for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=intellectual+property
Was that so hard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you can't be bothered to do a quick search for intellectual property on FUCKING WIKIPEDIA as a quick reference check, especially since it identifies copyright and patents as two completely separate types of IP in the last sentence of the first paragraph on the wikipage, then you deserve to literally be thrown out on your ass from any respectable news organization for such a blatantly obvious screw-up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People make mistakes. People are lazy. People are under pressure to get shit done and quality sometimes suffers. Journalists are people. This is not news.
Anyway why don't you jot us off a quick three page summary of the changes in international maritime law over the last 10 years. Make sure to get all the details right!
Oh what's that? You don't spend all day studying the nuances of maritime law? What's your problem? What are you, some kind of simpleton?
Exactly. The irony is that Tim himself butchers the doctrines more than most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Confusing one for the other reveals total lack of fact checking or knowledge on the subject.
A news agency, whose job is to - supposedly - report on facts cannot be allowed to make such a mistake. They are dead wrong and thus should be called out for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What about the difference between Righthaven and Prenda?
What about the difference between Righthaven and the RIAA?
The difference between Prenda and the MPAA?
It's all just nuances I tell you!
Oh, and who owns that video that four major Hollywood studios are taking down? The ownership is just a nuance I tell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hockyball!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
French news agency?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this case it is probably a random journo who got the story to write up and he/she just tried to wing it instead of fact-checking. A complete no-go for journalists, but in todays rushed writing where a lot of random people without an education in journalism are far, far better at relaying information.
The media focus on the "news you can relate to" side and questions random people on the street about how they feel about everything and having journalists in the studio to "discuss" the issues instead of using experts! Those are far easier than actually inviting experts, researching stories further than he said/she said and actually bothering to work on a story from a new angle and with a more relevant focus (Random peoples uninformed feelings on a new law can actually make people less informed on the law in question! Glenn Beck ao. are random persons here...).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually copyright and patent are more similar to each other, with trademark having a different purpose and authorized by a completely different part of the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 24th, 2013 @ 1:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law is for Lawyers
Knowing the difference between laws helps to avoid confusion over the difference between murder and rape, theft and fraud, copyright and patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law is for Lawyers
As noted in a post above, is there a difference between the RIAA, the MPAA, and the record companies? Obviously there is and because Mike and the other authors here eat, sleep, and breathe their demonization they probably know the difference. But how many times does a commenter here get called out for conflating them? As long as they're all hated and the groupthink is satisfied, what's the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers
This article impugns the entire media organization as if this is some grand fucking systematic failure of the entire enterprise.
It is far more likely that some junior reporter put this in and the editorial staff was short handed because one person was on vacation and one person got sick the day this article hit the desk. Is that newsworthy?
This is the Techdirt mentality: if anyone in a big huge organization makes a mistake or does something stupid, it is cast as a failure of the whole organization, all of its leadership, and culture as a whole.
The plural of anecdote is not data. You have absolutely zero idea about how this mistake was made, who reviewed the article, how it slipped through the cracks, nothing. You have speculation at best. Yet you feel free to write a whole article of your own about it. So you don't need facts because why... they are "journalists" and you are just a blogger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers
Nothing in this post claims AFP is entirely in shambles -- it's just deservedly harsh criticism over a specific major error. And yes, a factual error in report is precisely "a systemic failure of the entire enterprise" because accurate reporting of the news is, explicitly and exactly, what the system of a news enterprise is set up to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers
No, it's a single mistake. A systemic failure happens when you can demonstrate that the whole system has failed, and you sure as hell can't do that with a single mistake in a single article. Please get over yourself.
And do you really believe that is the singular purpose of a news organization? I am sure that is high on their list of priorities, but even the French government has been having trouble figuring out what AFP is and isn't, and should and shouldn't be. They can quote idealistic mission statements about exactitude all they want but the fact is that organizations are motivated by ideals AND money AND politics AND a desire for self-preservation AND egos AND practical constraints.
I can't believe I'm reading a Techdirt article where the squeaky-clean Disney's Main Street USA Edward R. Murrow-and-Walter Cronkite idealization of journalism as being a superhuman endeavor is being defended as fact.
If that's the case, maybe we should make Google subsidize all the newspapers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers
Your position seems to be that because mistakes get made, we should give up on the ideals altogether... and yet you're the one accusing us of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think it's time for you to sit back and think about the side you've taken on this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers
In some cases yes. In other cases, I think I do, but there's an excellent chance that my knowledge is imperfect or wrong. In other cases, nope.
In all cases, I expect the damn newspaper to be using the correct terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers
Your sense of the importance of this incident is way way out of proportion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers
Yes, mistakes get made. And then they get pointed out. And the journalists who make the fewest mistakes rise to the top over time. There's no room for your laissez-faire attitude towards facts, and you'll find very little support for it among the very people you think you're defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers
Again, you have zero idea of how this actually happened. The pot is awfully fervent about the kettle's blackness today. Why don't you call up the newsroom and talk to the principals involved? Are journalists the only ones who can do investigation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just for thought...
Lets start with the obvious. This is a news agency. I would be surprised if their entire business model does not revolve around copyright. Even if the writer doesn't know the difference (which I would be skeptical of) their editor should definitely know. News organizations usually do a pretty good job of making sure at least someone covering a topic (the writer or editor) understands the subject. For who ever speculated that the editor was on vacation, I am sure that someone was still supposed to review the article.
Next reason why its a big deal. The difference between patents and copyright (as I am sure most readers that frequent this site can tell you) is a minimum of 50 years. And that is assuming that the copyright holder dies the moment the copyright on the work comes into existence (also that you only look at the current written rules with no adjustments). Remember patents are 20 years, copyright creator life time plus 70 years. So next time you think there is no difference between the two, you should think what it would mean to you if a judge sentenced you to jail for life without prole instead of the 20 years you were supposed to get. I bet that would mean something different to you.
Same here, there is a tremendous time difference between the two. If its too confusing for people to understand the basic differences then I think that is an indication that they obviously need work. Also given that fact that nearly everyone on this planet is impacted on a daily basis by both of these concepts we should all have some understanding of the differences.
Think my statement above is laughable, you can't use the internet, watch tv, or listen to the radio without encountering copyright. And its getting hard to eat without swallowing someones patent. Use a cell phone, you are dealing with both.
So yea, I will repeat it again. It is a big deal. Newspapers have been complaining for years about all of the business that the internet has cost them, well, if they can't even get the basics correct how can we trust that they are reporting on the complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]