NY Times Finally Speaks Out Against Financial Firms Blocking Wikileaks

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

One of the more annoying things about watching the major news publications discussing the Wikileaks controversy is how infrequently they seem to realize that many of the attacks they themselves have been directing (or redirecting) at Wikileaks could come back to haunt them as well, as many could apply to them when they do things such as publish information about leaked documents. In fact, just last week, we wondered how come all those financial firms (including Visa, MasterCards, Bank of America and Paypal) were not cutting off the NY Times after it revealed military secrets. It appears that some folks on the NY Times editorial board have realized the same thing and published an editorial condemning the decision to cut off Wikileaks by these financial firms:

[A] bank's ability to block payments to a legal entity raises a troubling prospect. A handful of big banks could potentially bar any organization they disliked from the payments system, essentially cutting them off from the world economy...

[...] Still, there are troubling questions. The decisions to bar the organization came after its founder, Julian Assange, said that next year it will release data revealing corruption in the financial industry. In 2009, Mr. Assange said that WikiLeaks had the hard drive of a Bank of America executive.

What would happen if a clutch of big banks decided that a particularly irksome blogger or other organization was "too risky"? What if they decided -- one by one -- to shut down financial access to a newspaper that was about to reveal irksome truths about their operations?

That said, part of the editorial is a bit worrisome, as it seems to be suggesting that banks themselves should not be able to decide who they can and cannot work with, and that since they are "not too unlike other public utilities," perhaps they should be regulated, in the same way that a telco cannot refuse to provide phone or internet service to an operation who it does not like. I'm not sure that's necessarily the lesson we should be taking from this, however. The larger lesson is more about the lack of real competition in the space, where a very small number of intermediaries are effectively able to block off much of the money supply. That's the real problem. The answer should be to encourage greater competition in the space, such that if a few firms decide to cut off a service, it doesn't really matter, since there are many others to step in and help in their place.

Filed Under: ny times, wikileaks
Companies: ny times, wikileaks

Air Force In Super Denial Mode: Blocks Access To News Sites Covering Wikileaks

from the head-in-the-sand dept

And we thought the Library of Congress was in denial mode for blocking access to Wikileaks. It appears the Air Force has gone a step further into denial, as it's now blocking access to over 25 sites, including major news publications covering Wikileaks, such as the NY Times and The Guardian. Apparently, anyone on an Air Force computer who goes to the NY Times is being told: "ACCESS DENIED. Internet Usage is Logged & Monitored," Along with a notice warning people that anyone accessing an "unauthorized" site may be punished. Apparently none of the other branches of the military have the same thing in place, though we've heard from others in the military that Defense Department computers are blocking websites with "Wikileaks" in the title.

As Jeffrey Toobin notes in the CNN link above: "Our enemies can see the documents, but not those whom we trust to defend our country." How does that make sense?

And, of course, to make matters even more ridiculous, this is the Air Force... the supposed "cyber" expert branch of the military, these days. A little while back, the Defense Department announced that "cyber" issues were to be handled by the Air Force. Yet, they can't figure out that blocking their own access to mainstream media news sites is a dumb idea? These are the guys we've tapped to handle our country's "cyber defense"?

Filed Under: air force, blocks, guardian, ny times, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

NY Times Sues Kachingle Over Publicity Stunt... Making Publicity Stunt That Much More Effective

from the that's-not-helping dept

Last week, we wrote about The NY Times threatening Kachingle, over a silly publicity stunt that Kachingle pulled. As we explained, Kachingle, which is a voluntary micropayment-type solution (somewhat similar to Flattr), for blog and journalism content, had put up a site where it encouraged the NY Times not to set up the paywall it's planning. To "convince" the NY Times not to bother, it wanted people to contribute to the various NY Times' bloggers via Kachingle, and Kachingle would use the amount raised to try to let the NY Times know there were alternatives. Of course, no one really believed that the NY Times would stop its paywall because of this. It's just a silly publicity stunt.

As we noted, it seemed clear the NY Times was overreacting, and only drawing more attention to the effort. My only question was where the actual money was going, and someone from Kachingle explained that the money would be sent to the email addresses associated with each blog. I'll admit, that seemed questionable to me, as I would bet that the NY Times most certainly does not allow any of its bloggers to accept money from outside sources for its blogging.

That said, it still seems positively ridiculous to now find out that the NY Times has taken it to the next step and filed a lawsuit against Kachingle claiming that the whole effort is a trademark violation. You can see the full lawsuit below: While the Times does mention copyright questions, it did not include copyright in the lawsuit -- though Kachingle says the NY Times has told it that it has filed a DMCA takedown to Kachingle's ISP. The lawsuit looks exceptionally weak. It seems to focus on the fact that Kachingle uses the little icons associated with each blog to highlight each blog in its leaderboard. The thing is, though, no one reading the Kachingle site is likely to be confused about whether or not the Times has a relationship with Kachingle. It's abundantly clear they do not. The copyright claim (not in the lawsuit, but apparently in the DMCA takedown) also looks weak. Kachingle appears to use a tiny fragment of content.

Either way, I can't figure out why the Times is doing this. It seems to just be pure whining by the Times' lawyers, because they don't like the fact that the paywall is being mocked. There is no likelihood of confusion here. Yes, the Kachingle publicity stunt is childish, but it's the sort of thing that the Times would have been much better off just ignoring (or mocking back), rather than going to court. These days, it really seems that the NY Times has such an inferiority complex about the internet, and it doesn't make the company or the publication look good.

Filed Under: kachingle, ny times, paywalls, trademark
Companies: kachingle, ny times

NY Times Takes Up The Case Of Sherlock Holmes And The Lost Public Domain... But Gets It Wrong

from the we're-missing-some-clues-here dept

You may recall that last month we had an interesting discussion here over whether or not Sherlock Holmes was in the public domain. The answer was not entirely clear, because you get different answers from different people. However, it looks like the NY Times is on the case, and has a an article looking into the ownership of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's creation. Unfortunately, I believe the NY Times gets it wrong.

While the article does detail the amazingly convoluted history over who owned the copyrights (and the various disputes associated with those rights), it gets a bunch of things wrong and (oddly) never seems to talk to any copyright lawyers. While the article does note that Holmes is public domain in the UK, it makes a blanket statement that Holmes is still covered by copyright in the US:

Mr. Lellenberg said that Sherlock Holmes remains under copyright protection in the United States through 2023, and that any new properties involving the detective "definitely should" be licensed by the Conan Doyle estate.

Lellenberg would say that, because Lellenberg is the literary agent for the Arthur Conan Doyle estate, and wants you to believe that. But, as we discussed last time, it's not true. All of the Sherlock Holmes books except one have now entered the public domain. And, yes, this creates quite a mess. But, in theory, anyone who created a work based solely on the public domain works, and which is not based on or derived from that last work, should, in fact, be legit without a license. That doesn't mean that Lellenberg (or some of the others who claim rights over Holmes) wouldn't sue, but it's not correct to claim that Holmes is still completely covered by copyright. The fact that the vast majority of his books are very much in the public domain is a rather important fact -- and totally ignored by the NY Times article.

Filed Under: copyright, ny times, public domain, sherlock holmes