Twitter is usually pretty good about protecting people's right to do parodies, but apparently someone there got a little sensitive about a parody account called CascadedBug, after the supposed cascade bug that caused quite a bit of downtime. Apparently Twitter suspended the account. Then unsuspended it. Then suspended it again. Then unsuspended it again. No matter what, it seems ridiculous that the account was ever suspended. Twitter, whose execs normally have a decent sense of humor, would have won a lot more points with the public by just tweeting at the account, rather than suspending it...
It would appear that lawyer Charles Carreon is not taking the advice of Matthew Inman to take some time off and calm down. He's still going at it. His latest move is a claimed plan to subpoena both Twitter and Ars Technica to find out who created a fake Charles Carreon Twitter account which parodied Carreon's... um... over the top approach to dealing with people making fun of him online. Twitter will get the subpoena, of course, because that's where the account was. Ars' subpoena is because someone signed up for an account on the site claiming to be the guy who ran the fake twitter account. Ars' Nate Anderson contacted that guy by email who said (1) he lives in Sweden, so good luck, Charles and (2) that he stopped parodying Carreon because Carreon's actual statements were so outrageous they didn't need any parody:
"It became clear to me at one point that I could not keep up with Charles," Modelista wrote. "His comments to the press were more damaging to his reputation than any Twitter parody account could ever be. You cannot mock someone who has such a low regard for his own reputation. Before the @Charles_Carreon account was suspended, I was simply linking to his interviews. Satire was not necessary at that point as Charles was providing it."
One wonders what Carreon must think of the parody blog that has been set up to mock him even more mercilessly at Charles-Carreon.com. That one clearly notes that it's a satire account. In the meantime, plenty of people have pointed out that Charles himself seems to have done many of the kinds of things he's now accusing others of doing. Take, for example, his call to waterboard Ben Bernanke. It's clearly satire (though, not particularly good satire in my opinion), but seems just as over the top as anything that Inman or the anonymous Twitter user did to Carreon. Actually, Carreon's piece seems like much more direct incitement. And, seriously, if Carreon should be worried about anyone doing damage to his reputation, he might want to look at the person commenting up a storm on our site (and elsewhere) claiming to be Charles' wife Tara Carreon. She's been much more nasty and angry than anything that was directed at Charles.
On the legal front, the EFF has signed up to help with Inman's defense. I'm wondering if Carreon is even going to be able to find any lawyers to help him out on his case. Once again, we'd suggest that Carreon take a step back, cool off, and think through the massive mistake he's making. If he continues, the term the Carreon Effect might just catch on for real.
We've been busy and haven't had a chance to do a Step2 Startups post in a while. If you don't recall, this is where startup execs ask you for feedback on something they're trying to figure out. This time around, a new Twitter image search engine called ThudIT is seeking your feedback on the overall concept. I actually find this to be pretty interesting. We're all used to things like Google's image search, but Twitter has become a more and more important platform for realtime images these days. We all know the stories, of course, about breaking news first appearing via mobile phone snapshots on Twitter -- things like the airplane that landed in the Hudson River, for example. Having a real-time search for images could be quite useful in a very different context than something like Google image search. ThudIT's Freddie Wynne provides two examples, one involving a sporting event and another about a conference to demonstrate the basic power of the tool. I could definitely see it coming in handy. But he wants more feedback/advice/suggestions, etc. Feel free to head on over to the thread on Step2 and provide some thoughts.
We're planning to get back to doing more Step2 Startups posts in the near future, so if you'd like to get feedback on whatever you're working on, let us know!
A few months ago we wrote about a really bad idea that was being floated in Germany: making companies like Google pay for the use of news snippets in services such as Google News. Unfortunately, that idea has now been turned into a concrete proposal for a new law; remarkably, it is even worse than the original plans.
As Udo Vetter points out in a post entitled "Digitally Castrated" (German original), the emphasis of the proposed modification to German copyright law (available as pdf) has shifted: now the primary targets of the law are not only companies like Google, but also ordinary people who blog or post short excerpts of news stories on Facebook or even Twitter, who may be required to obtain a special new license to do so.
Vetter suggests this is because the German publishers have realised that Google would probably rather close down its Google News site in Germany than pay for each snippet, and so they have decided to go after an Internet group who make up in numbers what they lack in revenue: German users of blogs, Facebook and Twitter.
They are likely to be affected because two aspects of the proposed law are vague. It would apparently apply to anyone who makes money from their online writing, and that seems to include things like a few Google Ads or a micropayment system like Flattr. The other uncertainty is what exactly is allowed in the way of unlicensed excerpts from articles. The proposal explicitly mentions that quotations that are currently legal will remain legal. But as Vetter points out, a recent German court decision established that even very short excerpts could be infringing, which effectively guts that apparent safeguard.
This creates a gray area of what will be lawful for ordinary Internet users. And that, in its turn, will create an opportunity for publishers to send out huge numbers of threatening letters to bloggers and others that have quoted from newspapers and magazines. Since few of the latter will have the resources to defend themselves in court, most will simply give in and pay for one of the new licenses the legislation would create.
This will doubtless have a chilling effect on German blogging, and by extension on the use of quotations from newspapers in German Facebook posts and on Twitter too, since users will hardly be keen to fight major battles against well-funded publishers to establish the exact contours of the new law.
The end-result could be a disaster for German blogging, microblogging and social networks. Freedom of speech would inevitably suffer, as people hesitate to challenge articles published in newspapers and magazines for fear of running afoul of the new rules. Old media will be back in the driver's seat -- exactly as the publishers doubtless planned when they lobbied for this law.
One hope is that the extreme nature of this proposal will shock enough people into protesting against it -- the massive street demonstrations against ACTA showed what the German Internet community is capable of. The other is that, if the worst comes to the worst, and it is passed in its current form, the new copyright law would surely alienate so many users of popular platforms like blogs and social networks that the German Pirate party would find itself propelled to even greater political power.
Over the weekend, the NY Times profiled the fact that Sweden hands its official @Sweden twitter account over to a different citizen each week, and lets them control it. It was the brain child of the Swedish Institute and the national tourist agency -- with the idea of showcasing some of Sweden's quirkiness. And, from the sound of the NY Times article, it had been mostly working. Some of the tweets were a bit edgy or weird, but nothing too crazy. Until now. Right after the article came out, Sweden handed the account over to a woman named Sonja Abrahamsson -- who proceeded to surprise a lot of people (including many new @Sweden followers, due to the NY Times coverage) with a series of tweets that one could deem offensive to just about anyone -- including ignorant or offensive statements and questions about Jews, gays, Africans, those with downs syndrome, those with AIDS and a variety of other people/groups as well. An example:
Of course, the most obvious answer is that Sweden handed its Twitter account over to a troll. The topic choices are so troll-worthy that it's hard to believe that the person behind the account is genuinely saying these things. It seems quite clear that it's standard troll behavior: say stupid stuff to get people to react -- and tons of people are feeding the troll in response. The really stunning part, of course, is that the folks who manage the account didn't realize this ahead of time. As multiple people have pointed out, Sonja's own blog has plenty of evidence of similar trolling activities on a smaller scale.
“It’s very important for us to let everyone take a unique viewpoint,” said Tommy Sollen, Social Media Manager at VisitSweden, in a phone interview. “Every one of our curators is there with a different perspective.” ....
“Some of them have been talking about music, some of them have been talking about food,” he said. “Sonja is more focused on her own brand of humor and asking probing questions.”
So they seem to recognize that trolling is a "brand of humor." And I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned the fact that the NY Times article was sent from the town of Trollhattan, Sweden. It's like they were born to troll...
Of course, if Sweden is going to let @Sweden be trolled, it was only a matter of time until Stephen Colbert asked for control of the account, and urged the Colbert Nation to convince the Swedish tourism bureau to allow non-Swedes to control the account -- something they've said they might consider "in the future."
Oh, and while having a troll be your official representation online for a week may, at first pass, seem like a bad thing, it is worth noting that it looks like the number of people following @Sweden has more than doubled since the NY Times article came out -- with much of the increase happening in just the last day or so after the whole trolling thing started to get more attention.
We've discussed a number of times how ridiculously over-aggressive the Olympics can be when it comes to anything close to an IP issue -- even to the point where it gets host cities to agree to pass exceptional IP laws that only apply to issues that the Olympics chooses. The Olympics are especially concerned with any non-sponsor brand even being seen. That means that non-sponsor brands, even if they're the brand of a toilet, will get "taped over." So you can guess at just how insanely over aggressive the Olympics can be to anyone who comes near its own marks.
And that results in situations like the one where the London Olympics complained about a parody Twitter account, billed as the "official protesters of the London 2012 Olympic Games." This is obviously a joke. It's a parody on the fact that the Olympics seems to find an "official" sponsor of everything, so why not mock it using parody, which is widely seen as protected speech. But, not here. Apparently after the Games complained to Twitter, Twitter suspended the entire account and said it needs to no longer rely on trademarks, like the Olympics' logo.
Except, that defeats the whole purpose. How can you parody something when you're not even allowed to show what it is that you're parodying? Twitter is good on a bunch of issues, but on this one, it looks like it may have rushed ahead and shut down an account too quickly.
We recently wrote about Twitter's decision to stand up for a user in court, fighting against a court ruling that said that a user has no proprietary interest in their own tweets and info, such that those users cannot contest a government attempt to subpoena information from Twitter. This is not the first time that Twitter has aggressively stood up for its users' rights against government excess -- in a world where that's quite rare. When the government comes calling, most companies roll right over. In response to this, the folks over at Fight for the Future have put together a petition page, asking people to sign up to thank Twitter. If they get 50,000 people to sign, they'll present Twitter with a medal for defending the internet (these medals are awesome).
Given that internet petitions are often done in protest of something or against something, I really like this idea of effectively getting people to sign on for something positive and celebrate a company that does its best to protect the interests of its users. If you agree, head on over and sign up to thank Twitter.
Two years ago, we wrote about one of the most bizarre copyright lawsuits we've ever heard of. News giant AFP (Agence France Presse) -- for reasons that I still cannot begin to comprehend -- decided to proactively sue a photographer, Daniel Morel, after it (AFP) had taken his photos (of the earthquake in Haiti) from TwitPic without permission, and distributed them for sale via Getty Images. So why did AFP sue? Because Morel contacted them upon discovering this, demanding lots of money. And what was AFP's reasoning? Well, it tried to claim that Twitter's terms of service allowed this. There were all sorts of problems with that idea. First of all, the photo was on Twitpic, not Twitter, and the two are different companies. But, more importantly, neither of the terms of service from Twitter nor Twitpic (AFP eventually figured out the difference) allowed AFP to do what it claims. The AFP appeared to deliberately misinterpret the terms of service, which simply give Twitpic the right to make use of the images -- but that does not extend to third parties automatically, which is what AFP implied.
Oh, and did we mention that AFP itself has a history of copyright maximalism, including suing Google for merely linking to AFP stories, with AFP's headline showing in Google News?
And, it gets even worse. During discovery, Morel seems to have received a bunch of pretty damning evidence from AFP suggesting that the company knew all along what it was doing. There was the fact that AFP's director of photography for North and South America reached out to Morel prior to downloading the images. The same guy apparently copies other images from other sites. Multiple people seemed to suggest from the very beginning that they shouldn't use these photos -- including the Director of Photography at Getty, who pointed out that Morel regularly used rival photo agency Corbis. There was also some other damning evidence, including editing the copyright management info, and uploading the image under multiple names, and only issuing a kill notice on one name.
Oh yeah, and then there was the fact that someone inside the AFP sent an email saying:
Anyway, AFP got caught with a hand in the cookie jar and will have to pay.
And this was before AFP decided to sue Morel. Perhaps the company should have just paid up in the first place.
We've seen that Twitter has taken a legal stance in the past to try to protect the rights of its users against the government, and it appears to be doing so again. The State of New York has filed a lawsuit against Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall St. protestor who was charged with disorderly conduct. Harris has a Twitter account at @destructuremal, and the government issued an infamous 2703(d) order to compel Twitter to hand over information about Harris' Twitter account. Twitter, as it should, informed Harris of the request, and Harris sought to quash the order. Amazingly, the court refused, not because it disagreed with the stance, but because it claimed that Harris had no standing to challenge the disclosure of his own information, by literally claiming that Harris had no interest in his own tweets.
This was based on a total misreading of Twitter's terms of service, which have been clear from very early on that poster's retain control over the content in their tweets. All they do is grant Twitter a license to display them. The NY court, bizarrely, interpreted this to mean the user gave up control over the tweets, even though Twitter's own terms of service say exactly the opposite.
In response, Twitter has now stood up for its user and filed its own motion in support of Harris, that the April 20th order stating that Harris had no standing should be rejected. It points to the above, as well as to US law that says users can challenge 2703(d) orders. On top of that, it points out that complying clearly seems to violate the 4th Amendment. In an interesting argument, it relies on the recently decided Jones case that said that even if certain information is "public" (e.g., location or tweets), it may still require a warrant to collect.
As Twitter notes, saying that its users can't move to quash such requests sets a problematic precedent:
If the Order stands, Twitter will be put in the
untenable position of either providing user communications and account information in response
to all subpoenas or attempting to vindicate its users’ rights by moving to quash these subpoenas
itself--even though Twitter will often know little or nothing about the underlying facts necessary
to support their users’ argument that the subpoenas may be improper.
It's nice to see a company like Twitter standing up for its users. It's unfortunately rare these days, when many companies simply roll over the second the government comes calling.
Last week, I had the chance to chat with the General Counsel of a well known internet company -- not a "giant" one, but one you've almost certainly heard of -- and we got to discussing Twitter's new patent assignment agreement with its employees, and whether or not other tech companies would start offering the same thing. He was a bit skeptical, and pointed out that, even at a company the size of his (big enough to have a full time general counsel, for example) they had applied for exactly zero patents. He said he's tried, but none of the engineers at the company have any interest at all in patenting what they're working on (actually, in talking to someone else later on, I heard that the bigger issue is that some of the employees are thinking about ways to open source their work). Either way, the lawyer noted that, because of that, any patent assignment agreement was something of a waste of time. His company just wasn't interested.
This is, to put it mildly, crazy. The two biggest scarce resources for startups are time and money. Throwing them away on getting patents is a huge waste, and it's main purpose is to act as insurance against failure or against jealousy over extreme success. Basically, most patents are completely useless. But if a company is failing, then perhaps it can sell off its patents. And, if a company is succeeding, then suddenly others will start suing it for patent infringement -- and the hope (rarely realized) is that having at least a few patents in the portfolio means that other practicing entities won't sue for fear of getting sued back (patent trolls are exempt from this, however).
It's really too bad that the state of the patent world today is such that are most innovative companies are basically forced to throw away time and money to apply for patents they never want to use.
One separate aside on this story. The article talks about the Twitter IPA agreement, and later quotes the founders of the startup Everyme as saying they support the IPA, but: "their first three apps were already with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by the time IPA was available, though, and they don’t plan to refile them." This sentence makes no sense. The IPA has nothing to do with the USPTO and the patent filing. It's merely a part of the assignment agreement, leaving some portion of control with the inventor. In fact, Twitter -- who does have some patents -- has said that it's using this agreement retroactively with patents that were applied for before the IPA existed. So there's no reason to refile the applications at all. In fact, the IPA is entirely separate from the actual patent application.
