Obama Administration Stalls Treaty To Help The Blind In An Effort To Appease Big Publishers (AKA Campaign Donors)

from the money-first-politics dept

Last week, we wrote about how the US was holding up a treaty to help visually impaired people be able to access more works, in large part because publishers are somehow offended that the public might want to take back some of their fair use rights (which the publishers unfortunately claim is "taking away" something from them). As more and more details come out, it's become clear that while most of the countries involved in the negotiations really want this treaty -- which has been in discussion for nearly 20 years -- to be put in place, there are two major stumbling blocks: the EU Commission and the US. Not surprisingly, these were the two biggest supporters of ACTA as well. As with ACTA, the EU Parliament is at odds with the EU Commission on this and is in support of a treaty, but the Commission is trying to put all sorts of "unreasonable restrictions" on the agreement, and the US is still fighting against the idea of calling this a "treaty."

The end result is that, rather than finalizing things at the WIPO gathering, the US's ability to drag the whole process out means that nothing will be decided until after the Presidential election. And that's by design:

This is really kicking the can down the road -- in this case, past Obama's first term in office. After four years, Obama can't overcome opposition from a handful of mostly foreign owned publishers to support a treaty for blind people. In many respects, this is a money in politics story. If blind people were financing his campaign, they would have had a treaty a year ago. The Obama administration wants the decision on the treaty delayed until the election so it will not interfere with its campaign fundraising from publishers, and so it will not suffer bad publicity for opposing the treaty, before the election.

The whole thing is pretty shameful, and yet another display of how money corrupts politics... and how copyright helps in that process.

Filed Under: blind, campaigns, copyright, obama administration, publishers, treaties, visually impaired, wipo

Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users

from the how-very-unlibertarian-of-you dept

Back in January, we wrote about the bizarre decision by Ron Paul to file a lawsuit to unmask some anonymous internet users, who had created a controversial anti-John Huntsman video. At the end of the video, the anonymous videomakers had endorsed Paul, but some conspiracy-minded folks insisted that they were really working for Huntsman and staging an elaborate ruse to put up a video that looked bad about Huntsman to have that backfire on Ron Paul. For a variety of reasons that's either improbable or just downright stupid. But even if we assume the worst case scenario, Ron Paul's lawsuit not only made absolutely no legal sense, but it also seemed to go against nearly everything he believed in concerning internet freedom and the overreaching power of the government.

Either way, a judge has rejected Paul's attempt to unmask the videomakers on the narrow grounds that he failed to state a legitimate claim, since the video was not commercial in nature (necessary for a trademark violation). The judge did not go so far as to get into the First Amendment issues, but made clear that if Paul comes back with an amended suit with an actual claim, then the First Amendment considerations will be covered. Kudos to Paul Levy at Public Citizen for filing a pair of amicus briefs in the case to make sure the judge was aware of what was happening -- and hitting back at Paul's camp for its initial filing that completely ignored the relevant law and legal standards for unmasking anonymous internet users.

There are a number of especially troubling items in terms of how Paul and his camp went about this. First, just trying to unmask anonymous internet speech seems extremely problematic. Second, however, is the way in which he tried to twist trademark law to do so. As Eric Goldman explains, Paul's attempts to route around the clear requirements of trademark law were especially mockable:

To try to salvage the situation, Paul tries two mockable arguments. First, he argues that YouTube and Twitter are commercial sites, and that gives the dispute enough commerciality. The court rightly points out that the inquiry is about the defendant's conduct, not the websites where it took place, and notes the argument's illogic would mean non-commercial activity on any commercial website would be governed by the Lanham Act. In a footnote, the court adds that "using another company’s commercial website to post a comment or video is just far 'too attenuated' to result in an individual’s own conduct automatically meeting the Lanham Act’s commercial use requirement."

Second, Paul argues that "the video was intended to frustrate Plaintiff’s fundraising efforts and increase the amount of money contributed to Presidential nominees other than Ron Paul." The court says the Lanham Act is predicated on the defendant trying to improve its competitive status, and these defendants had no competing services; and the video on its face didn't try to solicit any donations.

Anonymous speech is protected under the First Amendment, and abusing trademark law to try to unmask anonymous speakers, whose speech was not commercial, is clearly an abuse of the law to try to "out" people online. As some have noted, it appeared to go against Ron Paul's own key principles -- and whether you agree with him or not, Paul certainly has the reputation for standing up for his principles. Yet here, suddenly, all of that went out the window:

What continues to amaze me, though, is how Paul is getting a free pass for this assault on free speech. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum haven't filed lawsuits over identical videos that use their names in attacking Huntsman; why is Ron Paul the only candidate who filed such a suit? Indeed, so far as I have been able to discover, he is the only serious candidate for President in the past few decades who has ever filed a libel suit, and there are certainly Presidential candidates who have suffered far worse attacks. (I am not thinking of candidates who sued longer ago, but fifty years takes us back to the beginning of First Amendment protection against libel litigation brought by public figures). Why aren't the reporters who follow him around on the campaign trail not asking him how he can justify his use of litigation to oppress his critics and how it is consistent with the principles of liberty for which he claims to stand? How is this consistent with his First-Amendment based assault on campaign finance regulation such as McCain-Feingold? Does he just want to substitute the courts and privately financed litigation for the FEC?

Also surprising to me, is that even Paul's very vocal online supporters seem to refuse to recognize the issue here. I was amazed on our original post how many commenters came to Paul's defense here because they think that the videos were designed to make Paul look bad, and therefore the people "must" be revealed. That's not how the law works and that's not standing up for the basic principles of free speech, internet freedom and liberty that they supposedly stand for.

The sign of a truly principled person is when you're willing to retain those principles in the face of a situation where standing firm hurts you. Instead, Ron Paul folded and suddenly relied on big federal government regulations and abuse of the law to try to take away individuals' free speech rights.

Filed Under: campaign advertising, campaigns, defamation, john huntsman, lawsuits, ron paul, states rights, trademark

What Is Ron Paul Thinking? Sues To Unmask Anonymous Internet Users

from the perhaps-he-doesn't-get-the-internet-so-much... dept

One of the key points behind Ron Paul's success in this Presidential campaign (as well as in 2008) was his reputation for actually "getting the internet" and making good use of it to promote his message and motivate and activate his supporters. But it appears that perhaps he doesn't quite get the internet that well. That's all I can think after reading the details of a dreadfully short-sighted lawsuit that he filed to try to unmask some anonymous internet users. Basically, some random internet users created a pretty dumb, racist and offensive anti-John Huntsman attack video, essentially questioning his "values" because he speaks Chinese. However, it was posted by a user under the name NHLiberty4Paul. And, at the end it briefly says "Vote Ron Paul." Still, there's absolutely nothing to indicate this was created by the Paul campaign. The video has received some attention on the campaign trail, with both Paul and Huntsman speaking out against the video. Huntsman said he doesn't mind people making fun of him for speaking Chinese, but was upset about bringing his family into it with some pictures and videos of his adopted daughters. Paul disavowed the video and the creators of the video, saying: "Nobody who actually supports Dr. Paul’s principles would put together something like that." Separately, they called it disgusting.

And really, that should be it. However, for whatever reason, the Paul campaign has now filed a lawsuit in the federal courts, in the Northern California district, seeking to identify whoever created and uploaded the video -- alleging trademark infringement and defamation. Even more ridiculous is that he's filed for expedited discovery to try to unmask those uploaders quickly. This is all sorts of bizarre and not particularly smart. It also seems to go against a bunch of Paul's main points -- including his belief in state's rights over federal (he's suing in federal court, not state court, using some questionable theories) and his support of the First Amendment -- which, many courts have pointed out, includes the right to speak anonymously.

Even more specifically, on the actual details of the lawsuit it's difficult to see how this is a trademark claim in any way, since it's questionable how this is a "use in commerce" (necessary for trademark law). Second, the defamation claim is just bizarre. As a public figure, the bar for defamation is crazy high -- and he'd likely have to prove that the video was made maliciously to make him look bad. That seems like a massively high hurdle, since it's just as likely that some clueless/ignorant people made the video thinking it would help him. But, on top of that, is just putting his name on a dumb and offensive video -- without ever suggesting he was directly associated with it -- even defamation in the first place? Hell, if anyone has a defamation claim here (and I don't think anyone does) it would be Huntsman.

Finally, what good does filing this lawsuit do? I can't figure out any conceivable argument under which filing the lawsuit makes sense. Not only is it on questionable legal theories and contrary to his core statements on Constitutional support, but it also simply calls more attention to the offensive video and brings the story back into the news cycle, after he's been trying to distance himself from it. No doubt, the video is stupid, but this lawsuit may be even dumber.

Filed Under: campaign advertising, campaigns, defamation, john huntsman, lawsuits, ron paul, states rights, trademark

Who Will Be The First Politician To Be GoDaddy'd?

from the turning-into-an-election-issue dept

Having GoDaddy back off its support for SOPA/PIPA is one thing, but it hardly kills off these bills. Politicians are still very much in support of the bills, and both bills are poised to move forward in Congress when it comes back into session in late January. Of course, 2012 is an election year, which means that all of the members of the House who are supporting SOPA are up for re-election, and 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election. If I were a candidate looking to challenge the incumbents, I'd be paying close, close attention to what happened to GoDaddy, and seeing how the "netroots" community was willing to band together quickly to make things happen. I'd be especially focused on this if I were running against one of the key supporters of SOPA, like Lamar Smith, John Conyers, Bob Goodlatte or Mel Watt (whose opponent should just play that video of him saying he doesn't understand technology, but believes the experts are wrong anyway, over and over and over again).

Perhaps a little crowdsourcing is in order. Can we figure out who's already registered to run against the incumbent supporters of SOPA and PIPA, and reach out to get their opinions on the bills and of censorship of the internet?

Here's the full list of the current co-sponsors for SOPA. If any of their opponents in next year's election are paying attention, they should be using this as a key issue and reaching out to the internet community, ASAP. What happened to GoDaddy can happen to a politician in an instant:

• Mark Amodei [NV2]
• Joe Baca [CA43]
• John Barrow [GA12]
• Karen Bass [CA33]
• Howard Berman [CA28]
• Marsha Blackburn [TN7]
• Mary Bono Mack [CA45]
• John Carter [TX31]
• Steven Chabot [OH1]
• Judy Chu [CA32]
• John Conyers [MI14]
• Jim Cooper [TN5]
• Ted Deutch [FL19]
• Elton Gallegly [CA24]
• Robert Goodlatte [VA6]
• Tim Griffin [AR2]
• Tim Holden [PA17]
• Peter King [NY3]
• John Larson [CT1]
• Ben Lujan [NM3]
• Thomas Marino [PA10]
• Alan Nunnelee [MS1]
• William Owens [NY23]
• Ben Quayle [AZ3]
• Dennis Ross [FL12]
• Steve Scalise [LA1]
• Adam Schiff [CA29]
• Brad Sherman [CA27]
• Lee Terry [NE2]
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz [FL20]
• Melvin Watt [NC12]

And here's the list of Senators who are both supporters of PIPA and are up for re-election in 2012. Wikipedia lists who's already registered to challenge them.

• Ben Cardin [Maryland]
• Bob Casey [Pennsylvania]
• Bob Corker [Tennessee]
• Dianne Feinstein [California]
• Kristen Gillibrand [New York]
• Orrin Hatch [Utah]
• Amy Klobuchar [Minnesota]
• Bob Menendez [New Jersey]
• Bill Nelson [Florida]
• Sheldon Whitehouse [Rhode Island]

Jeff Bingaman in New Mexico, Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and Herb Kohl in Wisconsin are all up for re-election in 2012... but all have announced that they're retiring. It may still be worthwhile to reach out to those running for their seats, but it becomes less of an election issue in those states. Dianne Feinstein still hasn't technically announced that she's running for re-election, but most people expect her to do so. She's also an interesting one. Despite being from Northern California, she has done almost nothing to cultivate support of the tech community, and is so out of touch that she thinks they're okay with PIPA.

It seems that anyone running against these folks would be missing out on a huge opportunity not to make the incumbent's support of censoring the internet into a campaign issue.

Filed Under: campaigns, censorship, elections, free speech, internet, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: godaddy

Silicon Valley Is In DC's Crosshairs... And Silicon Valley Still Hasn't Realized It

from the time-to-wake-up dept

I didn't cover last week's "net neutrality" vote in the Senate, because the whole thing was silly showmanship. You had a totally toothless FCC rule that was designed by the telcos to benefit the telcos, and the actual Congressional debate was merely a partisan food fight that had absolutely no parallel to reality or actual network technology. The whole thing was a farce, no matter what happened. But, as Stacey Higginbotham writes over at GigaOm, the whole net neutrality food fight is just one example of many of how Washington DC has decided to turn its regulatory eye towards Silicon Valley. Between this, the spectrum fight, SOPA and a few other ideas smoldering through Congress, as Stacey notes, it's:

a frightening reminder of how easily the folks in Washington, D.C. can throw a wrench in the gears of innovation

Of course, as Silicon Valley has done for years, we mostly ignore this kind of stuff. In general, the tech world tends to believe that innovation happens best when politicians stay away, and we've tried to accomplish that by ignoring politicians. However, the politicians aren't ignoring us. The cynical viewpoint on this is that the tech and internet sectors are basically the only real bright spot in today's economy... and with the way DC corruption works, they need to tap into that market for campaign donations. What's the best way to do that? Well, propose a bunch of awful regulations that will massively hinder innovation and the startup economy. In the hive mind of DC, that's how you wake up folks to start contributing to campaigns.

Whether or not that's the actual thinking behind this rash of bad legislation, all aimed at the innovation sector, one thing has become clear: cynical or not, the startup world can't continue to ignore DC. Stacey notes:

While people in the Valley are playing at building companies and technology, the folks in D.C. are playing at politics, and when those worlds collide, its likely technologists that will lose.

That's only true if we let DC play the politics game as usual. But we have an advantage. While we tend to dislike the entire DC/political circus, we are innovative and we are disruptive. It seems like it's about time to turn that innovative and disruptive spirit towards DC, rather than pretending we can continue to ignore what's happening there.

Filed Under: campaigns, fund raising, lobbying, silicon valley, washington dc

Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

The internet never forgets, but apparently, someone involved in the Senate election campaign for Sharron Angle was unaware of this fact. It appears that Angle and her staff are also quite unaware of The Streisand Effect. As you may or may not know, Angle is running for US Senator in Nevada, where she's challenging current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid, apparently, has been using images from Angle's primary campaign website against her. Angle apparently totally revamped her website after winning the primary, apparently to tone down some of the rhetoric on the website. So, she's not very pleased that Reid is showing off her old website -- which his staff apparently reposted at a new domain.

So, what does she do? She sends a cease-and-desist to Reid for publishing her own website claiming that it infringed on her copyright. No, seriously. You can read the cease & desist here and laugh along with it. Her lawyers claim that Reid only did this to capture email addresses under false pretenses, but it seems pretty clear that Reid's campaign just wanted to highlight some of Angle's more incendiary comments from the primary campaign, which she's now trying to back away from.

And, of course, because of all of this, Angle and her lawyers handed the Reid campaign a perfect peg to highlight exactly those statements.

Filed Under: campaigns, copyright, harry reid, nevada, senate, sharron angle

Political Candidate Drops Out Of Race Due To Racy Facebook Photos

from the that-was-quick dept

It really was just three years ago when we were saying we couldn't wait for the MySpace generation to run for office, knowing that the skeletons in their closets wouldn't actually be in their closets at all, but would have been posted online for all to see. While we actually expected that it would lead to a point where people pretty much brushed off and ignored such "youthful indiscretions," we certainly have't reached that point yet. A guy running for office in British Columbia, Canada, has dropped out of the election after images of him groping a woman's breast (that first appeared on his Facebook page) came to light. It's not clear when the photos in question were taken, but expect to see political candidates and their online presence scrutinized in more and more detail in future elections...

Filed Under: campaigns, canada, politics, social networks
Companies: facebook

Jackson Browne Sues McCain For Using His Song In An Ad Without Permission

from the legal-complexities dept

What is it with politicians who position themselves being big pro-copyright supporters being caught potentially infringing on copyright themselves? Singer Jackson Browne, who is apparently a supporter of Senator Obama's presidential campaign, has sued Senator McCain for allegedly using a Browne song in an advertisement without permission. Of course, this isn't as clear cut as you might believe. McCain's campaign points out that the ad isn't actually from the campaign. And, while it's true that there's no compulsory license for pairing a song with a video, this is almost certainly infringement -- but Browne's claim of an implied endorsement may not get very far, because there are ways that it's quite likely that McCain could make use of Browne's song without Browne's permission.

Welcome to the bizarre, arcane, and confusing world of copyright licenses.

Depending on whether or not Browne's music is licensed to a performance rights organization like ASCAP, BMI or SESAC (and chances are, they are), McCain's campaign could most likely pay a royalty to them to use one of Browne's songs at an event (if not in a commercial). And, since there is compulsory licensing on covers of songs, in theory, McCain's campaign could have someone else cover Browne's song at a campaign stop, and Browne wouldn't have much he could do to stop it (again, other than make a stink out of it, getting McCain to back down). While it does seem as though there is an infringement claim here (and McCain's campaign knows it's not wise to turn this into a big deal), this story does highlight just how ridiculous various music licensing has become these days. Though, still, in general you would think that any political campaign (or its surrogates) would at least be a little careful to avoid using music from someone who supports the other guy -- as it's just asking for a PR headache.

Filed Under: campaigns, compulsory licensing, copyright, endorsement, jackson browne, john mccain