Want In-Depth Coverage Of Net Neutrality? Crowdfund Our Reporting - And Double Your Impact

from the beacon-time dept

TL;DR: Support our net neutrality coverage
and double your impact right now! »
As I'm sure you remember, a few years ago, the biggest story in the technology world was the fight to protect the internet from dangerous copyright legislation in Congress called SOPA/PIPA. Here at Techdirt, we covered that story top to bottom -- even walking the halls of Congress on January 18th, 2012, the day of the big internet blackout. A study done by Harvard following that fight, found that Techdirt became "the single most important professional media site over the entire period, overshadowing the more established media." We've already highlighted how the ongoing fight over net neutrality has some similarities, in that the threat to the future of the internet may be made by folks in Washington DC who don't fully understand what they're doing. And we'd like to do the same level of blanket coverage we gave to the SOPA/PIPA fight.

But we need your help to do it. And we need it now. Today we've teamed up with BeaconReader, a startup that is leading the way in crowdfunding journalism, to launch a crowdfunding campaign for Techdirt to cover "The Net Neutrality Battle."

You can help by supporting our coverage right now »
Here's the exciting part that is different from most crowdfunding campaigns. Beacon has helped bring together additional donors who have promised to match the first $30,000 in funds (with potentially more on the way -- so stay tuned), so if you support our coverage now you'll double your impact.

Net neutrality is obviously a big story -- but it's one that simply isn't getting that much coverage. A recent Pew study found that earlier this year, even as the debate heated up, it was all but absent from national television news and most major newspapers. While there was a brief breakthrough moment when John Oliver discussed net neutrality, even that was somewhat limited (HBO), and not the most nuanced of reports. As Oliver himself noted, the reason that this debate is so dangerous is because often it's been designed to seem boring to the average person so that they have no idea what it means and how it will impact them.

We aim to change that as much as possible. We want to be able to take the time and break down every angle of this story: including cutting through much of the rhetoric being spewed about what's happening and what it means. Things like Title II, Section 706 and "forbearance" are confusing and very deep in the weeds, but actually understanding these things and how they'll impact you are important. There are many vested interests who know that keeping you bored and confused works to their advantage -- and we're hoping to better educate you, so that you can take part in this debate in an informed manner, calling out bogus claims when you see them, and being able to help others understand the issues as well.

Back that Harvard study, which highlighted just how central Techdirt was to that story, noting that there were more in-links to Techdirt than any other source concerning SOPA and PIPA: But here's the part that hasn't been discussed before: covering truly important issues like this, which mostly focus on incumbents trying to stifle upstarts and innovation, is really bad for paying the bills. Our coverage of SOPA/PIPA cost us dearly. While we had some critics insist the only reason we were covering the story was because of the revenue it brought in, the truth is that we lost a very big advertising deal in large part because of our coverage. In the midst of the fight, we actually had an ad partner contact us to ask if we would "tone down" such "political stuff" on the site. That's not how we work, obviously. We cover what we think is important because we think it's important, and not based on what will attract the most advertising dollars. But, there's a big cost to that. In our case, advertising, which almost always comes from large incumbents, dried up significantly, despite the fact that our traffic basically doubled.

Thankfully, we have the research and consulting side of our business, which helps fund this site, but the site increasingly runs at a loss if you just view it in terms of advertising and sponsorship. We took another hit on that front last month, when we (basically alone among media sites) agreed to go 100% SSL, to protect your privacy -- which forced us to cut loose a number of ad partners who simply don't want to bother supporting SSL.

For years, though, we've reported on crowdfunding campaigns -- and we've had some success with our own Insider Shop, but it's not nearly enough for the kind of coverage we'd like to bring to these and other important issues. So that's where this crowdfunding campaign comes in. Beacon is a fascinating startup that is working hard to combine the best concepts of crowdfunding, but with a 100% focus on making it work for journalism, leading to some unique opportunities. With this campaign, our net neutrality coverage will appear on both Techdirt and Beacon, and supporters will get some specific perks from Beacon as well.

Like all crowdfunding campaigns, this is something of an experiment -- meaning that it's also an opportunity for you to tell us how important you think net neutrality is as well. We'll obviously cover the unfolding story no matter what, but if we can meet our goal with this campaign, we'll be able to dedicate a lot more resources to making sure that we can truly cover every angle, including following the story to wherever it leads us: whether that's Washington, DC or elsewhere, and adding more voices and more in-depth coverage on what's really happening and what it really means for you and the future of the internet. The fact that any money pledged now gets immediately doubled by matching donors makes it easy for you to have even more impact right now.

We've mentioned ways to supports us in the past, but we've never before made a direct plea to help us out. Today, however, I'm asking if you'll step up and contribute and enable us to bring you more thorough reporting on the net neutrality fight. The fact that BeaconReader will match your dollars, doubling the impact of every dollar you give, will act as added incentive. Thanks for any possible support you can give.

Once again: Support our net neutrality coverage
and double your impact right now! »

Filed Under: crowdfunding, journalism, net neutrality
Companies: beaconreader, techdirt

Techdirt Receives Its First 'Right To Be Forgotten' Request

from the which-we-will-not-follow dept

Following the ridiculous right to be forgotten ruling in the EU Court of Justice last month, we knew that it would open the floodgates to crazy requests from people trying to take down embarrassing things about them online. Immediately after the ruling, politicians and pedophiles alike rushed to ask Google to take down links to content about them. Once Google set up a form for handling such requests, tens of thousands of requests poured in.

But, of course, it was only a matter of time until people started trying to stretch the ruling further and further impacting other sites -- including ours. We've already noted how former NSA top lawyer Stewart Baker has asked Google to "forget" all Techdirt posts about him, though he was doing it to highlight the absurdity of the "right to be forgotten" concept (though, I imagine he wouldn't mind if all such posts disappeared).

However, over the weekend, we received our first request to remove comments from Techdirt, with the request referencing Europe's new ruling on the right to be forgotten. Over the years, we've received many, many legal threats in attempts to get us to remove comments, but (to date!) no actual lawsuits, because nearly all the threats are bogus (usually they ignore the protections Section 230 of the CDA provide to Techdirt, but they also tend to have extreme -- and extremely incorrect -- definitions of what kind of content is "illegal"). This particular situation appears to be a bit more complicated, but we're still not removing the comments.

The request references three comments on this story from 2011, which was about a (very bad) ruling by a California state appeals court, that found two advertising firms could be held liable for spamming actions done by their affiliates (and sub-affiliates). We found this problematic for a variety of reasons, but mainly because it totally ignored Section 230, and put the blame on one party for actions done by another. In the comments, someone named "Bill Silverstein" popped up to defend the ruling. In what appears to be something of an aside, he mentions in passing that he, himself, is engaged in some sort of similar litigation against two individuals, David Szpak and Emmanuel Gurtler. To be honest, the details of Silverstein's lawsuit are not at all clear from the comment, but he clearly thinks that this ruling helps his case.

I responded to his comment suggesting that the ruling was still problematic and that the focus should be on going after the people actually responsible for the spamming. Silverstein then responded, disagreeing with me and ranting about spammers -- again mentioning Szpak and Gurtler.

Over the weekend, we received an email from Emmanuel Gurtler demanding that all three comments be deleted, based on what we believe is his own misreading of both the claimed settlement between Gurtler and Silverstein and the new right to be forgotten ruling. Here is the main part of the email we received (leaving all typos in place):

I am contacting you in regards to the comments in the above URL by Bill Silverstein (#6, #31) and Mike Masnick's quote (#26). The comments refer to a lawsuit which has been settled with Mr Silverstein. Part of the settlement offer, the Platiniff (Bill Silverstein) is supposed to remove all information about the lawsuit. Having the fault infromation and false claims listed on your site is causing great deal of reputational probl

"8. Silverstein to Remove Materials from Websites and Refrain from Future Publication. Within ten (10) calendar days of the confirmation that all payments have been completed, Silverstein shall remove from the Websites and all other media under his control and/or ownership, any reference to the Lawsuit, the Dev8 Defendants and/or Affiliated Entities, including but not limited to any personally identifying information regarding the Dev8 Defendants and/or Affiliated Entities. As of the Effective Date, Silverstein agrees not to publish or cause to be published, in any form of media heretofore known and/or subsequently invented, devised, or discovered any reference to the Lawsuit, the Dev8 Defendants and/or Affiliated Entities, including but not limited to any personally identifying information regarding the Dev8 Defendants and/or Affiliated Entities. Silverstein acknowledges that should he violate this Section it shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. He further acknowledges and agrees that it will be difficult to determine the resulting damages to the Dev8 Defendants and/or Affiliated Entities, and, in addition to any other remedies the Dev8 Defendants and/or Affiliated Entities may have, they shall be entitled to temporary injunctive relief without being required to post a bond and to permanent injunctive relief without the necessity of proving actual damage. The Dev8 Defendants’ and/or Affiliated Entities’ failure to seek any or all remedies with respect to any given breach of this Section does not restrict them from seeking any remedies with respect to any other breach, and shall not constitute a waiver of rights."

Furthermore, as a resident of the European Union and per the above Settlement order, I am asking in reference to "European Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46EC)" aka Right to be Forgotten, to have the aforementioned comments and/or quoted replies removed from your site.

First off, we have no way of confirming if the settlement happened or if that's in the settlement if it did. He provides no further information, case name, or anything. As far as I can tell, there is this lawsuit, which the defendants removed from California state courts to the federal court, but which was quickly sent back to the state courts, where it's much trickier to track down the records. And, either way, it shouldn't matter.

Second, and more importantly, even if everything about the settlement is entirely accurate, it pretty clearly says that Silverstein needs to remove statements about the case "from the websites and all other media under his control and/or ownership." Last I checked (and, hey, I just checked), Silverstein has no "control and/or ownership" of Techdirt. So that settlement term is entirely meaningless to use. Chances are it was directed more at pages like this one, which Silverstein created, tracking the docket of his own cases. Separately, any settlement between Silverstein and Gurtler is between those two parties. Techdirt and myself were clearly not parties to the lawsuit and are clearly not bound by any settlement terms in the lawsuit. So, uh, no, we have no reason to remove.

Third, moving on to the "right to be forgotten" claim. The recent ruling is quite clear that it applies to "the operator of a search engine" and even distinguishes search engine results from information on web pages that those search engines link to, pointing out that even if the original publication may be legal, it's the search engine (not necessarily the site) that would need to remove the links. Thus, there's nothing in the latest ruling that directly applies to us anyway. Furthermore, the EU directive in question is about "data controllers" for which Techdirt almost certainly does not qualify. Data controllers are organizations that collect data on people and then store it. Here, Silverstein just posted a couple of comments. Quite different. The latest ruling and the directive have nothing to do with us.

Fourth, as an American company based in the US, incorporated and headquartered in California, and with all of our servers within the US, we are not subject to European laws on this issue. This is just an attempt by someone in the EU to try to censor statements made in the US.

Either way, the entire situation is bizarre and silly -- but highlights the kinds of things that plenty of companies are probably now forced to deal with thanks to the ridiculous EU Court of Justice ruling. What's worse is that many smaller websites and companies that probably don't follow or understand these issues carefully are probably scared into taking down content based on similar threats. And, frankly, sending the email makes almost no sense at all for Emmanuel Gurtler. This was on a story from more than three years ago, getting basically no traffic at all. The only comments that reference his name are from Silverstein, and, in our opinion, don't necessarily reflect well on Silverstein, because myself and others argue that his interpretation of the law is suspect and troubling. It's difficult to see how any of that reflects poorly on Gurtler or hurts his reputation.

However, sending a bogus threat in an attempt to silence other people from mentioning his name? That doesn't seem to reflect particularly well on Gurtler.

Filed Under: bill silverstein, comments, david szpak, emmanuel gurtler, europe, free speech, right to be forgotten, spam, techdirt
Companies: floor64, techdirt

Prenda Lawyer Would Like Future Documents Sealed Because Techdirt Commenters Said Mean Stuff About Him

from the suck-it-up,-buttercup dept

Ah, Jacques Nazaire. You may recall some of our previous posts about Nazaire, a local lawyer in Georgia who was handling some Prenda/AF Holdings cases in that neck of the woods. He's the lawyer who advertises his willingness to appear in court for you via Craigslist, and also argued that Judge Otis Wright's order out in California exposing Prenda's scam was inapplicable in Georgia because California recognizes gay marriage. He also tried to argue that it shouldn't be used because... something totally incomprehensible about hackers having nothing to do with the case at all.

That case has continued and there was a hearing back in January that didn't go particularly well for Nazaire. Andrew Norton attended and wrote about it. Anyway, the latest in the case is that Nazaire is asking the court to seal all future filings in the case, mainly because the comments here on Techdirt, along with a few other blogs, have been really really mean about Nazaire. The main purpose of the filing is to try to stop the discovery efforts opened up by the defendant in the case, Rajesh Patel, represented by Blair Chintella, as they're seeking attorneys' fees from Nazaire and Prenda -- and, as part of that, are trying to do detailed discovery to reveal more about the Prenda scam. Nazaire throws a bunch of excuses at the wall for why this shouldn't be allowed. But the request to seal the records is much more interesting to us:

Additionally, the Plaintiff is respectfully requesting that any future filings in this case may be filed under seal. This case has generated much unneeded attention on the internet. Please see Exhibits N-S. While the writers listed in exhibits N-S have the right to post these articles, unfortunately, these articles and blogs have created an embarrassment, misleading characterizations and perhaps an unsafe environment for plaintiff's counsel and third parties. As such, plaintiff is respectfully requesting that all future filings be permitted to be made under seal.

Plaintiff 1) understands that the articles attached hereto have not been authenticated and apologizes to this Court for the same. In such a short notice of time, it is difficult to authenticate these press releases and postings; however, a search on any search engine will prove these articles and postings to be real; and 2) Plaintiff is not criticizing the authors of the press releases and postings and realizes that the attached postings were meant to be humorous and not spiteful; nevertheless, those not familiar with this case may misinterpret said postings. This may lead to anger by those not quite familiar with the case but yet familiar with the captions. As such, it may be best for the court to allow sealing further filings (which may include addresses and personal information of the parties and counsels herein).

So what are exhibits N-S? They're just printouts of the comments pages (not the actual posts) from posts on Techdirt, Popehat and FightCopyrightTrolls. It also includes a press release from the opposing attorney Chintella, as well as Norton's writeup of the July 2nd hearing. In other words, just the kind of public participation that should be had around legal issues happening in a court of law. But because some of you folks here were a bit snarky, Nazaire wants to hide significant parts of the rest of the case from you.

For what it's worth, there's currently a crowdfunding campaign that's ongoing, where Norton and Chintella are trying to raise funds so that they can afford to depose Mark Lutz, and possibly John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and other members of Team Prenda. Since the likelihood of actually getting money out of Team Prenda after all this is over, even if they win fees in court, is pretty slim, they'd rather not have to pay the full deposition costs out of pocket, only to see it go nowhere. You can read more about the campaign if you're interested.

Filed Under: jacques nazaire, public participation
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law, techdirt

Techdirt Threatened With Defamation Suit Over Story On Feds Getting Royalty In Movie From Mexican Drug Cartel Money Launderer

from the the-sequel dept

We recently wrote about a very strange case, in which the US government apparently ended up with a 10% royalty in a soon to be produced Hollywood movie that is being billed as the "prequel" to Passion of the Christ -- the famous Mel Gibson movie that made over $600 million. The details were convoluted, but apparently our reporting on the subject upset someone, as we were sent an email, claiming that our post was defamatory and could cause damages in "the hundreds of millions of dollars," threatening that legal action would be taken if we did not change the post immediately.

In case you missed the original story, it involved a guy by the name of Jorge Vazquez Sanchez, who everyone seems to admit was somehow connected to a Mexican drug cartel. The government specifically charged him with money laundering and extortion. Reporters covering the story, including Guillermo Contreras and Jason Buch at the San Antonio Express-News, refer to Vazquez as a "drug trafficker."

Either way, the extortion claim came from the way he took ownership of a screenplay for Mary, Mother of Christ, which was written by Benedict Fitzgerald, who also wrote the screenplay for Passion.... Fitzgerald, at some point, took out and then defaulted on a business loan for $340,000 with Macri Inc. Because of this, the owner of Macri Inc., Arturo Madrigal, took possession of the screenplay. Some time after this, apparently Vazquez had Madrigal's brother kidnapped in Mexico, and demanded the rights to the screenplay in exchange for his release. Madrigal signed over the rights to the screenplay to Vazquez. Vazquez apparently then was able to sell the screenplay to Proud Mary Entertainment, which was later renamed Aloe Entertainment, in exchange for $1 million (less some fees) and a 10% royalty rate on any profits from the movie. After Vazquez did a plea deal in which he plead guilty and handed over that 10% royalty to the US government, Madrigal hit Vazquez with a separate lawsuit, seeking to regain control of the screenplay that Vazquez had obtained through these questionable means.

As far as we can tell all of the above are undisputed facts. It's what has been reported by others. It's what's in the legal documents. And it's what we reported. Our report focused almost entirely on the oddity of the US government ending up with a 10% royalty interest in a Hollywood movie.

And yet... we received a very threatening email claiming that our post was defamatory. The full email (complete with a series of typos, though minus the odd line breaks) is posted below. The lawyer who sent it claims to represent the producers of the film who purchased the screenplay from Vazquez. This may mean Aloe Entertainment, though the email never names the client. Oddly, the email, while insisting that our post was defamatory, more or less repeats the identical facts as we described them in the original post, and which we are reiterating here. The email does appear to raise two issues:

• Our original post referred to Vazquez as a "drug smuggler." This was based on the San Antonio Express-News report that refers to him as a "drug trafficker." Perhaps there is a difference between one and the other, but it does not seem to be one of significance. Either way, the threat email was quite upset that we did not specify that he was merely "acting as a money launderer for a Mexican drug cartel." I will admit that I do not see how this makes a major difference one way or another, but in the interest of accuracy in reporting, we have changed our original reference from "Mexican drug smuggler" to now say "money launderer for a Mexican drug cartel" -- which is how both the federal prosecutors and the lawyer sending the email appear to describe him. Considering that the lawyer claims to represent the production company, however, I still am at a loss as to how this matters. I do not believe our original statement in any way defamed the production company. It was a mere use of a synonym for the original report. But that should only concern Vazquez. It makes no mention of Aloe Entertainment nor any statement about that company.


• The threat email says that the headline of our post "implies that the film has drug money in it" and suggests that "the film or its production has drug ties." Except we never said that. We did not state it. We did not imply it. We said nothing of the sort. We explained the same chain of events that we explained above, which noted that the production house bought the screenplay from Vazquez. Nowhere did we suggest that drug money went the other way. So, we were left somewhat baffled by the threat.

Either way, as we often do, we feel that it is reasonable and important to publicize legal threats against us. We sent an email reply to the lawyer in question, noting our general confusion about what he was complaining about, while also noting the small editing change we made for factual accuracy entirely unrelated to his client. I still do not know why the original threat email was sent, as the facts about the client that were stated in the threat email are no different than what we reported. I do wonder how much the producers of the film pay their lawyers to send out such threat emails, but I imagine that is a separate issue for them to deal with on their own.

Filed Under: arturo madrigal, benedict fitzgerald, defamation, jorge vazquez sanchez, passion of the christ, seizure
Companies: aloe entertainment, proud mary entertainment, techdirt

Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes

from the could-do-better dept

So, yesterday, as you may have heard, we wrote about how a totally bogus DMCA takedown notice, coming from an "anti-piracy" firm called Armovore, deleted a key Techdirt blog post about SOPA/PIPA from Google's search results. That post apparently got some attention within Google, who kicked off an expedited review and reinstated our site and a few others. Soon after that, we got a couple emails from folks at Armovore, and they also posted some comments to the site, in which they apologized, and said that it was an "early" version of the technology. To their credit, they "accept full responsibility for the mistake" and insist that while that takedown was an automated keyword-based effort, they now only do manual takedowns. They even apologized that multiple people reached out to apologize.

Of course, the apology still involved a few statements that suggested they were upset we even wrote the story, saying it was too "one-sided." The first email from the company also suggested that we shouldn't be annoyed any more since the story was added back to Google (ignoring that it wasn't for a month). They also say they haven't made any money ("aside from a single donation") and the founder said via email: "I don't feel comfortable charging anyone for an unfinished product." That's interesting, because apparently while he doesn't feel comfortable charging, he didn't seem to have much of a problem issuing a whole bunch of bogus takedowns with it, apparently without manual review, despite signing a letter that promises, under penalty of perjury, that the takedowns are accurate.

All that said, everyone makes mistakes, and even though this one was pretty egregious and involved our own content on a key post being taken out of Google for over a month, we'll accept their apology and move on. I think it would be smart and reasonable for whoever is behind Armovore to make a public donation to Public Citizen and EFF, but that's up to them to decide.

I'll also note that our situation was obviously nowhere near as bad as the various domains that have been incorrectly seized and shut down by ICE with no due process, at the request of the RIAA and the MPAA... and those sites have yet to receive any apology. And, in some cases, the sites are still being held by the government, despite a requirement that the government either give the domains back or file for forfeiture (it's done neither). Those sites deserve an apology from the RIAA, the MPAA, ICE and the DOJ and haven't received any.

Finally, what this incident really shows is just how incredibly easy it is to suppress speech under today's copyright laws. Just the fact that an automated system was able to do this should be ringing alarm bells from here to DC and back about some pretty serious problems with today's DMCA takedown process that is a shoot first, ask questions later kind of operation (as we've now seen first hand). Not only should this be a clear warning that we should not be expanding such powers via something like SOPA or PIPA, where the penalties are much, much greater, but that we should revisit the whole idea of a system that allows content to be taken completely offline prior to any chance for those falsely accused to respond. We shouldn't be expanding copyright law, we should be rolling it back to prevent abuses like this, even if they are "mistakes." A system that allows mistakes like this is a broken system.

Filed Under: apologies, censorship, copyright, dmca, sopa, takedown
Companies: armovore, google, techdirt

Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice

from the dmca-abuse dept

We've talked a lot about how copyright law and the DMCA can be abused to take down legitimate, non-infringing content, interfering with one's free speech rights. And we're always brushed off by copyright maximalists, who insist that any complaints about taking down legitimate speech are overblown.

So isn't it interesting that we've just discovered that our own key anti-SOPA blog post and discussion... have been blocked thanks to a bogus DMCA takedown?

Last November, in the heat of the SOPA fight, I wrote a blog post, where I tried to pull together a bunch of the different reasons why SOPA and PIPA were really bad ideas. It was a very popular post for us, and I heard directly from many people that it was quite helpful in getting them to understand the real problems of these two bills.

Well, as I just discovered, that post cannot be found directly via Google any more.

I actually discovered this entirely by accident. I was looking for a totally different old Techdirt post, and was scrolling through Google results, when I saw a note at the bottom of the Google page saying that results had been removed due to a DMCA takedown: You see that warning every so often, and I have to admit that I came really close to just ignoring it. But then I remembered that the search I was doing was using the site:techdirt.com parameter, so any such notice must mean that a Techdirt page had been blocked by a DMCA takedown. That seemed surprising. So I clicked through and found this DMCA takedown notice -- and there at entry 253 is the URL for our post. The takedown comes from a company named Armovore, who apparently is one of those "anti-piracy" firms that sends DMCA notices out on behalf of others. In this case, it sent out the DMCA notice on behalf of Paper Street Cash -- which is a porn company I've never heard of prior to this. They're claiming that the takedown is about content from a site called TeamSkeet.

If you're scratching your head, you're not the only one. There's clearly nothing infringing in our post. I just wasted too much time going through all 300+ comments on that post and I don't see anything that includes any porn or even links to any porn as far as I can tell. Instead, it seems that Armovore and Paper Street Cash sent a clearly bogus DMCA takedown notice, which served the purpose of censoring our key blog post in the SOPA fight. And they did it on January 20th... the day that SOPA was officially shelved.

There are some other oddities in that list as well, including TorrentFreak's article about how ICE took down 84,000 websites illegally by seizing the mooo.com domain and saying that all 84,000 of those sites were involved in child porn.

In other words, two separate articles that have been key to the discussion concerning abuses of copyright law... both taken out of Google's index due to a bogus DMCA takedown. Hmm....

While many of the other links do appear to go to sites that may offer up infringing content, just looking at the URLs alone make you wonder what most of them have to do with Paper Street Cash or TeamSkeet. Some of the links talk about top Christian albums. One is to some Dave Matthews songs. Another is to Wiz Khalifa music. There's another one that appears to be a link to downloads of the TV show Prison Break. Obviously those things may be infringing, but the notice itself only talks about TeamSkeet, and if Armovore doesn't represent those other artists, it may have broken the law in pretending to.

Then there's a really bizarre one. Entry 533 on the list is... TeamSkeet's own website. I don't know how much Armovore charges Paper Street Cash, but they deserve a refund.

Most importantly, though, our page clearly is not infringing. This is a 100% bogus DMCA takedown -- something we only discovered by complete accident over a month later -- hiding one of our key articles in an important fight about abusing copyright law to take down free speech. Seems like a perfect example of how copyright can be -- and is -- abused to suppress free speech.

In the meantime, we'll be exploring our options for responding to this obviously bogus takedown from both Armovore and Paper Street Cash.

Update: After "further review," Google has reinstated our story to its index....

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, dmca, pipa, search results, sopa, takedowns
Companies: armovore, paper street cash, techdirt

Results From Our CwF+RtB Business Model Experiment

from the cwf+rtb dept

Before getting into the "meat" of this post about how our CwF+RtB experiment worked out, I want to announce that we've "replenished" the store with some new t-shirts and hoodies. These are brand new -- not the same t-shirts and hoodies we had before, which are sold out. You have a choice of either a t-shirt or a hoodie with the full Techdirt logo, or my personal favorite DMCA takedown t-shirt which says on the front:
The content of this t-shirt has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice.

Consider the message on the shirt a good way to engage people in a conversation about the abuses of copyright law and the DMCA. The hoodies come with a copy of my Approaching Infinity book, while you can get the t-shirts without the book or with the book.

Also, we are doing one thing differently this time around. Rather than just waiting until we sell out to stop selling these shirts, we're taking open orders for two weeks only and then will make the shirts and send them out. So if you want this shirt from us, you have two weeks to order. And that's it. On to the post itself...

---

After seeing many musicians setting up various interesting/amusing "tiers" of scarce value worth buying, while also working to connect with fans, we decided to launch our own CwF+RtB tiers, at the end of July, as an experiment to see what we might learn. We knew that this sort of thing worked for music, but had no idea if it would work elsewhere -- say, for a blog. It wasn't designed to replace our existing business model, but just as an experiment to see what would happen -- and what we could learn that might help others implementing similar business models.

I should apologize, as this post detailing the results is way, way, way overdue. We had most of the results and lessons within about a month, but this is a big post to write up and I kept procrastinating. No good reason why: there was just always something going on in the news that seemed more urgent and every so often I do like to catch up on sleep.

The quick summary: we consider the experiment to have been a huge success.

• We brought in approximately $37,000 total due to this experiment, mostly in the course of that first month.
• Nearly $12,000 came from direct sales to individuals of the tiers between $5 and $150.
• As was revealed in an article at Wired, another $5,000 came from an individual, Didier Mary, who was working on a business plan and bought the Techdirt Reviews Your Business Plan package. The package included an Insight Community conversation, which recently concluded, about his business model idea. Didier has told us that "it was a great experience" and very useful to him in moving forward with his plans.
• Another $20,000 came from larger companies, which purchased Insight Community packages after learning about them through this effort.
• The effort also resulted in potential future deals, as it led many more companies to contact us to learn more about the Insight Community.
• Other companies, with whom we were already talking about the Insight Community, contacted us after we launched this, with one noting that if what his company had been discussing with us was on the list, he probably would have just "clicked buy" right away (though, with that company, we're still discussing a deal and have not yet completed it).
• Ignoring the higher end Insight Community deals, the average amount paid by users was over $70. This was significantly higher than expected.
• Sales came from 15 different countries around the globe. North America and Europe were obviously the biggest, but we also got sales from Asia, South America and Australia (no Africa). The international sales might have been bigger if we had launched international sales the same day we launched the overall effort. Unfortunately, we didn't have all the details on that sorted out until a week later, and I think we probably lost some international sales that way. The US Postal Service does make international sales much easier these days -- especially with its "one rate" boxes, but shipping is still really expensive, and many countries then add annoying tariffs on top of everything. This was annoying, but (unfortunately) unavoidable.
• Our highest selling item was not the cheapest, second cheapest or third cheapest offering (contrary to the claims that people just want the cheapest item). Instead, the biggest seller -- by a pretty wide margin -- was the Approaching Infinity package, that included both a copy of my book and a t-shirt.
• For quite a while, the hoodies (which we almost didn't offer) outsold the t-shirts... but in the end the t-shirts barely passed the hoodies.
• The Techdirt Book Club outsold the Techdirt Music Club by a factor of three.
• No one bought the Day with Techdirt package, though we actually got a lot of inquiries about that, with multiple people who don't live in California saying that if they were closer, they would have bought it. This is still available, though.
• And, fear not, no one bought the $100 Million Silence Techdirt offer (still available as well!), though we did get a few people who were worried that someone would actually take us up on this -- and one satirical offer from someone claiming to be from the RIAA, which made me laugh, saying the RIAA would pay up, but wanted to guarantee "exclusive rights" to the RIAA, such that it would be able to "pursue appropriate legal action against any and all 3rd parties that make use of this silence purposely or inadvertently" including, of course "the right to pursue similar action against any individuals who are also not reading Techdirt and therefore infringing on our own licensed agreement to be the sole recipient of a Techdirt-free world." Brilliant.
• However, the $100 Million Silence Techdirt offer did get the most traffic of any of the tiers, by a factor of three -- though, it also drove many people to check out the other tiers.

Lessons Learned

So, what did we learn? Lots of things:

1. This works! These sorts of models can absolutely work in connecting with fans and in making money.
2. All of you, in our community, are awesome. Not just for buying, obviously, but because the overall response we got was incredible. This included many really, really nice emails that made us feel great, along with happy emails and Twitter messages from people receiving their packages, and telling us stories about wearing the clothes, reading the books, etc.
3. It's fun making people happy. Really. It really gave all of us here at Floor64 a great feeling every time we heard back from happy community members.
4. Logistics and inventory management are more complicated than you expect. We sort of knew this ahead of time, but you realize it first-hand when somehow, somewhere copies of signed books go missing, and you suddenly need to ask for an author to send extras. Also, dealing with sourcing inventory from so many different people for the Book and Music club is doable, but takes a lot of time to manage. Though, I have to say, every one we worked with -- from authors and musicians to publishers, agents and record labels really were fantastic. We didn't have even the slightest trouble from any of our partners in this endeavor. Shipping out the products definitely was an effort, but we tried to make it fun, with a group of us working together to package up and ship stuff (and on this one, the team here, lead by Gretchen, did a fantastic job, going above and beyond to get everything organized and shipped).
5. Having lots of options was a good thing because we weren't very accurate in predicting what would sell. We came close to not offering the hoodies at all, but those were incredibly popular.
6. You can't keep everybody happy, but you should try! We had to set up a better process for "customer support" as we launched this (nice job, Dennis!) and then work with and respond to customers who had questions or (in a few cases) problems. A few times the problem was that we did not explain things clearly enough, and sometimes there were problems with shipments (or, in one case, a hoodie that was frayed). But we tried our best to make sure everyone was happy and hopefully succeeded (mostly).
7. What you're selling should match your audience. The Book Club sold really well. The Music Club, not as much -- despite being awesome (seriously, the combined Music Club items are really, really cool, and the music is great as well). But, in retrospect perhaps that made sense, as the books in the Book Club directly related to everything we talk about here. The Music Club, while supporting artists who did things that we talked about here, was a bit different, and required people to like the music as well, which is a lot more subjective. Bundling together four separate musicians with different styles was, perhaps, not a great idea. On top of that, we perhaps did not do enough to promote the music itself to get more people to enjoy the work of those musicians. Finally, while some of the offerings were "unique," others could be purchased elsewhere, which limited the "scarcity" of the overall package.
8. Some promotions worked really well. The first promotion we did was offering anyone who bought both the music and book clubs together a choice of either lunch with me or a free hoodie. This helped motivate a bunch of folks to step up and buy -- and resulted in a handful of lunches.
9. Having lunch with people was really, really cool. I have to admit that I was a bit nervous going into the lunches from the above promotion, but they were all really amazing, often in very different ways. Each individual was really interesting and the conversations were quite engaging and thought provoking and fun. I'm pretty sure every lunch ended up lasting well over the allotted hour. I ended up learning a lot and had a great time at every one. I'm hoping to set up more ways to do things like that, if not the same thing.
10. Even the tiers that didn't sell, still generated interest in other things we were doing. A bunch of people contacted us about the Day With Techdirt package, and while no one bought it, many of them bought other packages instead.
11. Not everyone who says they will buy will buy, but that's okay. It was interesting to note that some people who told us they would buy (or even announced it on their Twitter/Facebook feeds) never actually did buy for whatever reason. That's fine, of course. Everyone is free to do what they want, but it was interesting to note. Just because someone says they'll buy, it doesn't mean they will.
12. Communicating directly with everyone can be difficult. While others here handled customer service requests, I started getting a bunch of emails personally from people who participated, sometimes with long and detailed questions. I tried to reply to most of these, but it was difficult, and I'm sure I missed a few.

Anyway, that's the basic summary. This really has been a lot of fun and quite educational at the same time. We've still got lots of things planned and will be trying a few new things as well, but thanks to everyone who participated and a big thanks to all the authors and musicians who partnered with us, along with the team here at Floor64 for helping to make this all work.

Filed Under: cwf, results, rtb, techdirt
Companies: floor64, techdirt

Hacked Recap

from the well,-that-was-fun dept

As mentioned over the weekend, we were briefly hacked on Saturday evening. We've put in a bit of time to figure out what happened, clean up the mess and correct the problems (and harden some other defenses as well). The short story is that we left open a big hole that we shouldn't have left open. Yay. We had certainly locked down most of the obvious holes, and people try to hack us on a semi-regular basis, with little success. But, if someone's persistent enough, they'll find a way. In this case, though, we made it a hell of a lot easier than we should have. This particular hacker tried hitting a whole bunch of different routes early Saturday morning, most of which got rejected (some people noticed his attempt to do a SQL injection via the comments -- that failed). However, he went on to try SQL injections just about everywhere and eventually found one where we hadn't properly escaped things, and bam, that's all it takes. As you probably know, this site has been around since 1998, and while we've dumped/updated most of the old code, and most of the new code is properly secured, there were still a little pieces left over from the ancient code -- and that's where the big vulnerabilities were. That's not an excuse. We should have caught it earlier (in fact, we actually had been testing some code to replace some of the vulnerabilities, but hadn't deployed it yet -- but, we now realize it wouldn't have blocked all the problems). But, it is what happened.

From there, the hacker got into part of the blog admin (don't want to get into too many details of how the blog backend works, but it actually involves two separate admins -- which are separate from other stuff we do). Then, he basically had pretty good access to doing some stuff (though not everything) on the blog. He poked around a bit, deleted a bunch of comments, deleted a whole ton of old story submissions (most of which were junk anyway -- so thanks!) and then replaced a few stories on the front page with his fancy "hacked!" claims.

After that, the story is pretty straightforward. Once we realized what happened, we put the old stories back in place and made sure to quickly toss up some more secure walls to keep him out of the admin. We also shut down comments and submissions for a while, even though we were pretty damn sure the vulnerability wasn't there (it wasn't), but we wanted to make sure. Then a few of us spent some time digging around to understand just what the guy did so we could retrace his steps and make sure we killed off the basic vulnerabilities. Considering that he tried to hit us from a bunch of different angles, this took a bit longer than expected. But, once we figured out the basics, it was just a matter of tracking down the actual holes in the code. It was a little frustrating, since we really thought we'd blocked out SQL injections -- but in the end, it turns out we didn't do it absolutely everywhere. Anyway, there's a fair amount of code to go through, so we've been going over it with a fine-tooth comb, and checking it twice, then locking it down again.

Finally, we've been restoring the lost comments (we're doing that right now, so they might not all be back yet), of which we believe we didn't lose any (there's a small chance that a very very small number of comments were lost). Restoring the lost submissions is a bit much at this point (as I said, most were junk anyway), so if you submitted stories late Friday or Saturday, and really think we should see them, perhaps submit them again.

On the whole, there's not that much to say, other than check your code carefully, folks. If there's a hole somewhere, eventually someone's gonna find it. Luckily, this guy didn't do much damage -- just a bit of vandalism -- and he kept a few of us from enjoying what had otherwise been quite nice weekends with our friends and families. But he got us to go over our code pretty carefully (and mentally kick ourselves a few times), and get in touch with our inner CSI detectives to track down exactly what happened.

Update: Well, that was just great. Less than half an hour after posting this, our network provider went down for nearly two hours, despite supposedly having all sorts of redundancies. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the hack, but was a bigger issue for the provider. However, it did slow down us restoring the comments, meaning that comments need to remain off for probably another few hours. This has really been a fun weekend.

Update 2: Comments are back. We did end up losing a few comments, mostly those right before the hack. Really sorry about that. If you said something really important and it's missing... say it again, please.

Filed Under: hacked, sql injection
Companies: floor64, techdirt

Wired Reveals First Buyer Of The Techdirt Reviews Your Business Plan Offering

from the cwf+rtb dept

Wired's Epicenter blog has a nice writeup all about our Connecting with Fans Experiment, and got to break the news about the first buyer of the Techdirt Reviews Your Business Model offering, Didier Mary. We'll have more details on the overall program shortly, but wanted to make it through at least the first month to have enough data to start sharing some of our lessons. Still, I'll say that the program has been a success well beyond what we expected...

Filed Under: cwf, rtb
Companies: floor64, techdirt

CwF + RtB = Techdirt

from the a-little-experiment dept

Techdirt's CwF + RtB

Time for a little experimenting from Techdirt... For years, we've been talking about various new business models in the digital era, and how they can work. More recently, we've seen a rapid increase in musicians who have figured this out (though, we're seeing it in a few other industries as well). Back in January, for a presentation that I did at the music industry event MidemNet about Trent Reznor's various experiments, I tried to simplify what he had done into a simple equation, and came up with
Connect with Fans (CwF) + Reason to Buy (RtB) = The Business Model

That simple formula has resonated incredibly well, to the point that I'm receiving emails daily about it specifically -- and not just in the music industry, but many other industries, asking how they can apply it themselves. Some complained that such a model only worked for "big" name acts like Reznor, so I later expanded the original presentation to include many other acts of varying levels of fame and success to show how it could work at many different levels. Most recently, I used those examples to show where I believed the overall music industry was heading.

But, it actually goes beyond just the music industry. In fact, I'd argue that these models apply to many different industries, including the media business. After doing all those presentations, some of us here at Floor64/Techdirt got to talking about ways that they could be applied to other industries -- and one thing led to another where we began to wonder why we didn't test them out ourselves. So, we looked at the various models and thought about what could we do along those lines. I certainly love the "tiered" models, where there are numerous options of increasing value that people can buy into, and we figured, why not test that out ourselves? It would be a fun experiment and a great learning experience. So... here we are introducing:
Techdirt's CwF + RtB

We had a lot of fun putting this together. There's quite a range of things on the list. Of course, everything you are used to here on Techdirt remains as free and open as ever. Then there are all sorts of relatively inexpensive extras you can buy, granting you some extra abilities, like the chance to see some Techdirt posts before everyone else, followed up by some fun products -- such as t-shirts and a package that includes both a t-shirt and a book written by me. Like hoodies? We've got those too.

Beyond that, however, is where we really started to explore the possibilities. We realized we also wanted to use it to help promote others who understood this vision (it's not just about us, of course). So we put together two great offerings that I'm incredibly excited about. The first is our Techdirt Music Club offering, that doesn't just promote four musicians (Jill Sobule, Amanda Palmer, Moto Boy and Joe Pug) -- all of whom we've discussed at times for the cool things they do with new business models -- but also offers you something unique that you can't get anywhere else. All four (and their management) have been a tremendous joy to work with through this process. It's great brainstorming with creative, positive people.

Next is the Techdirt Book Club, which is a fantastic collection of must read books from a bunch of authors whose thinking on this is far beyond what else you might find out there. Even better? All of the authors involved -- William Patry, James Boyle, David Levine, Michele Boldrin and Michael Heller -- are so enthusiastic about this experiment that they've agreed to provide signed copies of the books in question. It's the ultimate signed book collection -- and, as a bonus we throw in additional features for Techdirt and the book that we put together from my writings -- which I'll sign as well.

From there we've also got a chance to hang out -- and spend the day with us and some friends. See the magic that is writing a Techdirt post and (much more exciting) have some entertaining discussions myself and with much more interesting folks like Mark Fletcher, Andy Kessler, Rich Skrenta and Eric Goldman. We'll have some meals, we'll hang out at the office, and we'll go out and have some fun as well. Should be a blast.

Above that level, we have a whole series of options that are more for the corporate level -- though, if you're feeling flush, individuals are more than welcome to take part, utilizing the business side of what we do here at Floor64/Techdirt. You've got a variety of different options that include some opportunities to use the Insight Community to get some smart analysis on your business model. Or you can help pick a theme for a week on Techdirt, complete with an Insight Community case and additional posts. There are also offerings where I'll speak at your company or event... all the way up to a full on Techdirt Greenhouse production for your company, both of which include cases with the Insight Community. And, if you really want to dig in, and get every single thing that we have offered... that's available as well.

And, of course, these offerings are targeted at the folks who like what we do, enjoy it and would like to interact with us some more... but we like to offer up things for everyone, including those who aren't huge fans, and would rather we shut up and go away. We've even got a package for you! Though, I warn you, it's a bit pricey. We may be offering something for you, but we never said we'd make it easy for you.

Anyway, we hope you have some fun checking these out -- and find something worthwhile to you. We enjoyed getting the whole thing together, and we're curious to see what we learn from this experiment. Special thanks to the team at Floor64 for putting in some crazy hours before this launch, and to everyone else (authors and their publishers, musicians and their managers, entrepreneurs, etc.) who agreed to take part in this experiment.

Techdirt's CwF + RtB

Filed Under: cwf, rtb
Companies: floor64, techdirt