To Avoid Controversy, 'Realtime' Microblogging In China Now Delayed By 7 Days

from the not-so-realtime dept

Despite increasing competition around the world, China remains the leader when it comes to finding ways to censor the online world. A few months ago, the site Tech in Asia listed no less than eight ways in which users of Sina Weibo, China's hugely-popular homegrown microblog service, can be penalized for "inappropriate" tweets. Now it seems it has come up with a ninth:

Users of Sina Weibo that mention things somewhat more controversial than cats or food might find their posts being delayed -- by seven whole days. The Twitter-like Sina Weibo is supposed to be a real-time social platform, but that no longer applies to posts that mention 'sensitive' terms such as the names of China's top leaders.

That's a worrying escalation, since it makes tweeting even uncontroversial stuff about contemporary politics, say, pretty pointless: who wants to read what somebody thought a week ago? If the Chinese authorities decided to increase their control of online postings even more, an obvious way would be to encourage all user-generated services to adopt this system. Pity that would pretty much be the death of real-time social media in China.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: censorship, china, delays, free speech, microblogging, realtime

Justice Department Uses Red Tape To Delay Release Of Required Information On Domestic Spying Until Well After It Matters

from the most-transparent-administration-in-history! dept

A couple of months ago, Julian Sanchez wrote about the ridiculous situation in which he filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to reveal the latest semi-annual report from the Justice Department concerning how it was implementing the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. As we've been discussing, for a while, how the FISA Amendments Act broadly expanded the ability of federal law enforcement, in particular the NSA, to spy on everyone. While there is some language that suggests it's only supposed to be used on foreigners, it's been revealed that there is a secret interpretation of the bill, that likely allows them to use a loophole (plus the secret interpretation) to collect and review tons of data on Americans. The FAA is up for renewal, and it's likely that Congress will rush through a five year extension -- despite overwhelming evidence that many in Congress don't know how the NSA is interpreting the bill (and even making statements that directly contradict the evidence of how the bill is being used).

The law does require the "semi-annual" report mentioned above, and thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU, the courts have said that the government is required to release redacted versions of those documents. Which is why it was crazy when Sanchez initially filed his FOIA request to see the most recent versions, arguing (quite reasonably) that such documents were inherently important in the debate over the FAA's renewal, that the DOJ initially told him that it had to deny his request because it could "neither confirm nor deny the existence of records in these files responsive to your request." That was obviously bullshit. Once again: the report is required by law, and the courts have already said that the content is subject to FOIA requests. Thankfully, after Sanchez went public with the ridiculousness of the situation, the DOJ quickly admitted the original response was a mistake, and promised they'd get right on finding the documents.

Sanchez now has an update of the situation, which is almost as ridiculous as the original story.

By mid-September, just under three months after my initial request went in, I was informed that they’d identified the reports I was looking for and forwarded them to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) for a declassification review, which they expected would be completed by early November. Joy! Would we actually get information about an intelligence program out of the government without a lawsuit? Maybe even in time to have a semi-informed public debate?

Well, no. ODNI informed me earlier this month that they were wrapping up their review and redaction Any Day Now, at which point… their redacted version would be forwarded, one at a time, to every other intelligence agency whose activities were referenced in the report. At each agency, it would go to the back of the line of FOIA requests, exactly as though it had just been submitted for the first time. Estimated time before a heavily censored version of these reports see the light of day: Another six months. At least. By which time, it won’t matter much what these reports say about NSA’s use of its sweeping powers, because Congress will have already given them another five years of spying authority.

Notice what this means in practice: Even though a court has already established, thanks to an ACLU lawsuit, that they are legally required to release redacted versions of these reports to the public on request, a cumbersome bureaucratic process effectively guarantees that it takes a solid year to get this information out, which means at best you’re working with what the assessment found two reports ago, allowing the government to assert that they’ve fixed whatever problems were found. In this case, the timing of the review process conveniently guarantees that whatever we learn will come far too late to influence this year’s vote on FAA powers, but be old news by the time Congress takes up the question again. It’s a little hard to swallow the claim that all this delay is remotely necessary: Are we really supposed to believe that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will be so slipshod about letting sensitive classified information through that their work has to be independently double checked by every other intelligence agency? And that this process has to take six months or longer, even after ODNI has done their initial review and redaction? Of course it doesn’t: This is a bureaucratic procedure designed, not to protect national security, but to allow stalling on the release of politically inconvenient information that the courts won’t allow to be completely hidden from the public.

Once again, this seems to raise questions about the process here -- and how much of it really has to do with law enforcement officials being careful... and how much of it is purely political, seeking to hide damaging information that might impact the FAA renewal.

Furthermore, as Sanchez notes, the very idea that he had to file a FOIA for this information is troubling by itself:

What we should really be asking is why I had to submit this request at all. In his first days in office, after all, President Obama issued a directive not only urging agencies to err on the side of disclosure, but to adopt a policy of proactive release of documents likely to be of public interest. Surely if there were any doubt about the public interest in the use of sweeping surveillance powers, it should have been put to rest after the ACLU won release of the earliest compliance reports. So why didn’t the Justice Department follow President Obama’s directive and draft these reports with an eye toward preparing a declassified public version, knowing full well that civil liberties groups would come asking? Well, because then they wouldn’t be able to obfuscate and delay for months and months. Because then the public might be able to have an informed discussion about the secret surveillance powers we’ve given our spy agencies before we vote to extend them. Heaven forfend.

Filed Under: delays, faa, fisa amendments act, freedom of information, nsa, spying, surveillance

WIPO Scared Of The Pirate Party; Won't Give It Observer Status Due To Objections Despite Meeting Criteria

from the but-of-course dept

There was a report a few weeks back noting that WIPO had been in favor (pdf) of allowing the Pirate Party International to be designated as an accredited "observer" to WIPO meetings (which would allow them to participate as an non-governmental organization, but without voting powers). However, it appears that the official decision on this has now been delayed because of objections from Swiss, French and US (who else?) officials:

This morning, under agenda item 6, the WIPO General Assemblies decided to defer a decision until 2013 on the application for accreditation by Pirate Parties International. I was told that the US, Switzerland the France raised objections in the informal consultations, and that some other European countries wanted to raise objections, but found it awkward given the recent success of domestic Pirate Parties in national elections. The USA said it asked for a hold on the decision until WIPO could decide if it wanted to accept political parties as WIPO observers. One delegate said European countries were concerned that the Pirate Parties would take "political action" back home when they disagreed with positions taken by the official delegates at the WIPO meetings.

While it is a legitimate question as to whether or not political parties should count as NGOs, the whole thing still feels pretty questionable. As Jamie Love notes, it just makes WIPO look like it's afraid of the Pirate Party.

KEI's view is that the decision to block the Pirate Parties International application made WIPO look even more captured by right holders than it actually is. To the extent that intellectual property rights issues become seen as political rather than simply technical matters, it may be possible to have broader, deeper and more useful debates on the purpose and performance of the intellectual property rights system. Why? Because many of the technical staff at the government levels are caught up in a system where responsiveness to right-holder interests is key to promotions or job retention, and the robust revolving door with industry creates incentives to be anti-consumer.

In other words, another blown opportunity to try to move things forward, rather than staring longingly at the past.

Meanwhile, others are pointing out that the Pirate Parties International appears to meet all the criteria, and thus it is completely ridiculous to delay their observer status:

“If the NGO’s application falls within a plain wording of the rules and regulations defining what NGOs may be accredited, then the application should be granted,” he said. “From our perspective, what harm can there be for the secretariat of a political party to be an observer at WIPO? If anything, it seems to us this will lead to a better understanding by that secretariat of the international dimension of IP public policy, which is no bad thing.”

The whole thing seems like a typical negative reaction to the party simply because of its name, without any recognition of what it actually stands for, driven by pressure from the US. WIPO looking like a US stooge yet again? Not a huge surprise.

Filed Under: delays, france, ngos, observers, pirates party international, switzerland, us, wipo

Warner Bros. Just Keeps Pushing People To Piracy; New Deal Also Delays Queuing

from the are-they-that-clueless? dept

Sometimes you really have to wonder about some legacy entertainment industry execs and their thought process. Warner Bros. is the most aggressively stupid when it comes to willfully going against what consumers want and pushing them to pirate instead. It, among the big Hollywood studios has been the leader in trying to hold back rentals in the bizarre belief that if people can't rent a video legally, they're suddenly more likely to pony up many times the amount to buy the full DVD. This is what we call denial. And economically clueless. The latest detail, which came out last week, is that one of WB's new conditions with its deal with Netflix isn't just that the rentals are delayed by 56 days (up from the previous 28), but that they won't even be able to put the delayed movie in their "wanted" queue until 28 days before it's actually available.

Under the companies' previous agreement, users could add discs to their queues even before they went on sale. Warner executives apparently believed that policy made it easier for consumers to wait, confident that the discs would arrive eventually.

But now when users search for Warner's "A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas," which goes on sale Feb. 7, the Netflix website simply says the movie is not available. Consumers will have wait until March 6 to add the film to their queues and until April 3 to get it in the mail.

What's amazing about this policy is that it seems to provide the exact opposite incentives of what WB should want. At least, when they could put it in their queue as a sort of "pre-release" commitment, they knew they'd be getting it soon, and would have less incentive to go out and get it through unauthorized means. But, now, they won't even have that, making it even more likely they seek the movie out via unauthorized means. WB is in complete denial if it thinks this is suddenly going to make people more interested in buying the physical DVDs.

Filed Under: delays, movies, piracy
Companies: netflix, warner bros.

WB, HBO Continue To Suck At Economics; New Policies Encourage Piracy

from the do-they-not-realize-this? dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting variations on two stories from last week that show -- yet again -- that the big legacy entertainment industry companies suck at economics. AdamR was the first to send over the news that Warner Bros. studio was increasing the "delay" period for rentals. If you don't recall, WB has been at the forefront of this braindead idea that, if it forbids Netflix, Redbox and Blockbuster from renting videos, maybe more people will buy the DVDs they release for sale. Of course, other studios took the time to study the matter and found that such a delay in rentals doesn't increase sales. Meanwhile, a separate study showed that such windows do increase infringement, as those who are perfectly willing to pay the price to rent, find the price to buy ridiculous... and seek alternatives.

It appears that WB is implicitly admitting that the strategy of delaying the rental period of a movie by 28 days has been a total failure, in the decision to increase the delay to 56 days. They're basically admitting that not enough people were "buying" in those 28 days... so they somehow think that doubling the wait will increase the purchases. It won't. If people really want to pay the extra money to buy the DVD, they're likely to do so pretty early on. It's not like they're waiting 50 days in and then saying "gee, I can't rent the movie, so I'll just pay a lot more money than necessary to own an obsolete piece of plastic."

Meanwhile, HBO, coming out of the same corporate lineage as WB, has decided to stop selling Netflix the DVDs of its shows. Netflix, of course, notes that it can get these DVDs from other sources, but it makes you wonder what HBO thinks it's accomplishing here. Pissing off its fans on Netflix by trying to force them into HBO's own annoying walled garden doesn't help build fans. And if it does actually lead to Netflix not offering HBO shows, then as plenty of commentators quickly noted, all they're really doing is encouraging more infringement.

This is basic stuff at this point. Not offering your content in simple, legitimate formats that the customers want doesn't help you at all. It just drives people to infringe. How does that help in any way, shape or form?

Filed Under: delays, hbo, movies, tv shows, windows
Companies: hbo, netflix, redbox, warner bros

Warner Bros. Hates Libraries, Wants To Embargo DVD Sales To Libraries For A Month

from the oh-come-on dept

The movie studios' short-sightedness knows no bounds, apparently. Warner Bros., which has been the most aggressive of the big movie studios in getting companies like Netflix and Redbox not to rent its movies until 28-days after they go on sale, has now decided to do the same thing for libraries, putting in place a 28-day embargo on all DVD sales to libraries, from the time of the DVD release. To make it even more obnoxious, they're removing bonus features and extras from movies sold to libraries.

Here's the thing, though. What's to stop a library from just buying an official version and lending it out? The whole thing is pretty silly anyway. Is Warner Bros. really thinking that if someone can't take out one of its movies from the library, that they'll really go buy the DVD from WB? Also, doesn't this seem like a form of price fixing?

In the end, though, it's unlikely to actually help. Slightly more enlightened studios, such as Paramount, actually tested such 28-delays and looked at the data, which said Netflix and Redbox don't cannibalize sales, and appear to "expand" the movie business. Too bad Warner Bros. hasn't seen that movie yet. Perhaps they're still waiting for the 28-day delay to pass.

Filed Under: delays, dvds, libraries, rentals, windows
Companies: warner bros.

ESPN Affiliate Delays Podcasts; Announcer Rips Into His Bosses For Cluelessness

from the so-shortsighted dept

Ah, the shortsightedness of old school entertainment companies knows no bounds apparently. The latest is Disney-owned ESPN ESPN 980, a local radio station that uses the ESPN name, who seems to think, foolishly, that making it more difficult for fans to listen to its radio programming will somehow be better for them. The details are that ESPN 980 used to release podcasts for its shows, making listening convenient for people who either wanted to time delay their listening, or who couldn't listen on a radio very easily. But, because ESPN 980 execs only focus on radio ratings as the key metric, they made the shortsighted calculation that they should make it harder to listen to the podcasts, in the misguided hope that it might drive more listeners to the radio version. The execs there claim that this is how it needs to "protect its ratings." Of course, that's ridiculous. If people can't listen the way they want to, they'll listen to something else. ESPN 980 is deluding itself if it thinks that people will still bend to ESPN 980 rather than expecting ESPN 980 to bend to them.

Not surprisingly, the on air talent seems to get this a lot more than the folks making the decisions. While the station insisted that star radio host Tony Kornheiser "understands" why ESPN 980 is doing this, and isn't upset about it, listeners to Kornheiser's show apparently sensed his views were a bit different. As noted by Dan Steinberg:

“The policy is gonna kill the show,” [Kornheiser] said, with typical subtlety and restraint. “It’s simply going to kill the show....That is the problem. You’re listening to this a day late. That’s the solution around here, the solution to getting more people listening live. And by the way, there’s a great glee with which I am told that my ratings are bad. There’s a great glee. The people around here seem to think that this is charming, and that if I only did what they wanted, everything would be right in the world.

“But it doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t work that way, because of the way audio is delivered to America. It’s delivered on demand. And if when you demand it you can’t get it, you’re not going to listen to it.

“Here’s what’s going to happen in the next five or 10 years, boys and girls. There’s not gonna be football on television any more. It’s all gonna be in your computer. That’s the way it’s gonna work. It’ll be brought to you by people like Google, brought to you by people who are search engine people, and I know nothing about this. There’s no way to make any money any more doing it the old way. The old way is not just old, much like me — it is dead.

“That’s the old way. People don’t want that any more. They’re not going to sit around and wait for things....The people who run radio stations, they’re apparently not adapting to the new culture and don’t truly understand how it works and what people want… Management believes differently than I believe. I still do the show. I’m not running away from the show. I just wish it were more accessible, quicker, to more people.”

He seems to get it a lot more than the people who are paid to get it.

Update: Aha. Turns out that this was the local station, ESPN 980 -- who merely licenses the ESPN name -- who made this decision. And, it appears that ESPN itself makes it easier to get access to the show. Blame goes to the local radio station.

Filed Under: audience, delays, podcasts, tony kornheiser

Redbox Realizing That Caving To Hollywood On 28-Day Delay Was A Bad Idea

from the duh dept

We were pretty surprised when Redbox caved in to the Hollywood studios, and agreed to annoy its customers with a ridiculous 28-day delay. We had many commenters say that people wouldn't care and it wasn't much of a big deal. However, the company is now admitting that the 28-day delay resulted in much lower holiday rentals than it had expected. Meanwhile, the only studio that has publicly released information about how its experiments with the 28-day delay went, Paramount, has said that such delays are bad for business, as it doesn't increase sales of DVDs, and that allowing Redbox to rent movies sooner actually helped the studio (and Redbox) make more money. So why do we still have those delays?

Filed Under: delays, movies, rentals
Companies: paramount, redbox

Warner Bros. So Thrilled With Netflix 28-Day Delays, It Wants To Have Longer Delays

from the driving-fans-to-piracy dept

Hollywood continues to seek new and ever-more creative ways to shoot itself in the foot and drive movie fans to unauthorized copies of movies. Earlier this year, Warner Bros. studios was successful in pressuring Netflix and Redbox to delay rental releases by 28-days, with the hope that people who couldn't rent the movie would buy it. Warner Bros. has been claiming this strategy succeeded and that they've sold more DVDs because of it. I would doubt that it's the delay that's increasing sales, and it seems like a pretty short-sighted strategy to look to increase sales of a format like DVD right now. Either way, Warner Bros. is now claiming it may try to increase the window over 28-days. It's as if they want to drive more people to get the movie from unauthorized providers. Making it more difficult to let people watch movies the way they want to isn't a solution that will work long-term.

Filed Under: delays, movies, rentals, windows
Companies: netflix, redbox, warner bros.

Warner Bros. Claims That Annoying Customers With 28-Day Rental Delay Is Working

from the correlation? dept

Warner Bros. studio was among the more adamant about getting Netflix, Redbox and others to delay rentals of movies until 28-days after the DVD release, in the hopes that it would drive more people to buy. We suggested that was pissing off customers, just at a time when they're discovering they have (perhaps not very legal) alternatives, and it probably isn't a great business strategy. However, Khyle points us to the news that Warner Bros. CFO is claiming success with the program, claiming that DVD sales are up 15% following this strategy.

Of course, that leaves out all sorts of important details. Beyond the simple correlation ≠ causation issue, there are so many other variables here, I'd be hesitant to believe that the higher sales were due mostly to this delay. Perhaps there was just a popular movie that people really wanted to own when it came out. Or perhaps there were other promotions. Or, maybe, it's just a dead cat bounce. Either way, let's wait and see before declaring that pissing off your customers so much is a good idea.

The best part, though, might be the confident quote from the guy:

"You make money in the film business by putting your content in appropriate windows that matches up with the way consumers like to use it."

Thing is, he's got it wrong. It's not the "windows," but the different convenience and values that people consider. You can offer "the way consumers like to use it," all at the same time, if you want. The studios aren't doing this because they're so in love with the "windowing" system as a way to price differentiate, that they keep wanting to introduce more and more windows. At some point they'll realize that this is really dangerous short-term thinking. Pissing off people eventually comes back to bite you.

Filed Under: delays, movies, windows
Companies: netflix, redbox, warner bros.