Nancy Pelosi Joins Ted Cruz And Louis Gohmert In Attacking CDA 230

from the not-great dept

Well, it appears that the attacks on Section 230 of the CDA are now officially bi-partisan. Following the path of Republicans Rep. Louis Gohmert and Senator Ted Cruz, now we have Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi deciding it's time to attack Section 230 of the CDA, by completely misrepresenting what it does, why it does that, and what it means to the internet. In a podcast with Kara Swisher, Pelosi said the following:

“230 is a gift to them, and I don’t think they are treating it with the respect that they should,” she said. “And so I think that that could be a question mark and in jeopardy. ... For the privilege of 230, there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it, and it is not out of the question that that could be removed.”

This is wrong on so many levels. Section 230 is not a "gift" to the tech companies. It's a gift to the public and their ability to speak freely on the internet. Section 230 is what enables all of these websites out there that allow us to speak out without having to get what we want to say approved.

And to argue that companies don't "respect" Section 230 is weird, given that internet companies have spent basically the past 20 years fighting for Section 230 and explaining why it was so important, while almost everyone else downplayed it, didn't care about it, or didn't understand it. The only internet company right now that doesn't seem to "respect" Section 230 would be Facebook, which caved in and supported chipping away at Section 230's important protections.

Look, it is completely fair to argue that the big internet companies have lots of very real problems -- including questions about how they treat their users, and about privacy. But the focus on Section 230 is bizarre and misguided. And attacking it in this way will literally do the opposite of what Pelosi seems to think it will. Removing Section 230 won't help bring about more competition. It won't help make the companies "act better." Rather, stripping 230 protections means that you won't get smaller companies building competing services to Facebook and Google, because it will be way too risky on the liability side. Facebook and Google can afford the fight. Others cannot.

Stripping 230 protections won't encourage companies to act better. It will encourage them to either not accept any user-generated content (removing the key communications function of the internet) or to stop moderating entirely, meaning that you end up with just the worst parts of the internet -- spam-filled, troll-filled garbage. Anyone who knows the first thing about Section 230, and why it was put in place, understands this. Unfortunately, there's the idea out there that Section 230 was a "gift" to the internet companies. It is not. It's a gift to the internet itself, meaning to all of us as users of the internet.

But, given that it's now a bi-partisan thing to misrepresent and attack CDA 230, perhaps we're reaching the end of the open internet experiment.

Filed Under: cda 230, free speech, intermediary liability, internet, nancy pelosi, responsibility, section 230

Hell Forms Bobsled Team After Police Chief Admits Fault In SWAT Raid Targeting Wrong Address

from the tfw-the-gold-standard-should-just-be-the-goddamn-standard dept

Something that happens far too often -- police officers raiding the wrong house in search of criminals -- has resulted in national headlines.

A police search warrant team going after a drug dealer targeted the wrong address and burst into the apartment of an innocent resident who shot and wounded two officers believing they were home invaders, Prince George’s law enforcement officials said.

It has been greeted by something that almost never happens.

Police Chief Hank Stawinski apologized for the error Thursday and said he has halted executing search warrants until the department reviews how it corroborates information to confirm addresses and the location of investigative targets.

There's more. No charges will be filed against the man who shot two officers. The police chief said the man ambushed in his own home was a "law-abiding citizen." Beyond that, he called the warrant itself into question, along with the information used to obtain it.

A confidential informant led investigators to the address at which they were serving the search warrant Wednesday night, Stawinski said. But the chief said he is “not satisfied” with the amount of information investigators used to obtain the search warrant and with the efforts to verify the information from the informant.

Here's all the things that didn't happen:

- No one suggested everyone "wait until all the facts are in."

- No one blamed the media for rushing ahead with a narrative the PD didn't find flattering.

- No one refused to comment until an investigation was completed.

- No one disparaged the victim of the raid by feeding his criminal record to local media.

- No one suggested the resident be more compliant in the future.

- No one defended the officers' actions as reasonable.

- No one filed charges against the resident for shooting and wounding police officers.

This is an astounding reaction to incidents that are far too commonplace in this country. This is also an indictment of policing in America. There is no reason this reaction should be as stunning as it is. This should be standard operating procedure when cops screw up. Instead, we're most often greeted with defense of indefensible actions combined with a multitude of efforts designed to make the SWAT raid victim appear as unsympathetic as possible.

Wrong address raids, killings of unarmed citizens, excessive force deployment… all of these events are normally handled by police departments with maximum defensiveness and minimal acceptance of culpability. A law enforcement agency immediately stepping up to take responsibility for its errors -- especially ones with potentially deadly outcomes -- is a breath of fresh air in the fetid, stagnant swamp of US policing.

But this shouldn't be the ultra-rare exception. It should be the rule. The public law enforcement serves deserves far better than the condescending, self-serving crap it's so often handed in the wake of incidents like these.

Filed Under: apology, hank stawinski, police brutality, prince george, responsibility, swat, swat team, wrong address

UK MP Thinks Secret Online Groups Are The Root Of All Evil Online, Promises To Regulate 'Large Online Groups'

from the good-luck-with-that dept

It's always fascinating to me when people try to condense the complex and varied reasons why people sometimes behave badly into a single factor for blame. This is especially true online. A commonly misdiagnosed "problem" is anonymity, despite the fact that studies show anonymous online users tend to be better behaved in online flame wars, than those using their real names.

British Member of Parliament Lucy Powell has come up with her own simplistic and ridiculous explanation for why people are bad online and has a plan to do something about it. In her mind, the real problem is... "large secret online groups." She's written a whole Guardian opinion piece on it, as well as given a Parliamentary speech on it, not to mention making the rounds to snippet of the actual proposal (the full bill hasn't been placed online as far as I can tell as I type this), it appears that she wants to ban secret groups over 500 members, requiring that for any online group that has more than 500 members, the moderators and administrators would be legally required to publish public information about the group (she insists not the members), but also "to remove certain content." What kind of content isn't explicitly stated, which should set off all sorts of censorship alarm bells.

In her speech to Parliament, she mentions racism, revenge porn, jokes about the holocaust, and conspiracy theories as the types of content she's concerned about. Also... um... bad advice for autistic parents? It seems kind of all over the map. Which is why most people find this all so ridiculous. First off, you can't stop people from saying stupid stuff. That's just asking for the impossible. But it's even more ridiculous to argue that non-public groups of over 500 individuals now suddenly are going to be legally liable for censorship of amorphous "bad content."

In both her speech and the op-ed, she insists that she's just trying to make these groups have the same responsibilities as news organizations:

Our newspapers, broadcasters and other publishers are held to high standards, yet online groups, some of which have more power and reach than newspapers, are not held to any standards, nor are they accountable. It is about time the law caught up. The Bill is an attempt to take one step towards putting that right. It would make those who run large online forums accountable for the material they publish, which I believe would prevent them from being used to spread hate and disinformation, and for criminal activity. It would also stop groups being completely secret.

But that doesn't make any sense at all. Newspapers, broadcasters and publishers are not open forums for members to post their own thoughts. They are top down organizations that have an editorial process. An open forum is an entirely different thing, and it makes no sense to regulate one like the other. I mean, she actually uses the following in her speech:

If 1,000-plus people met in a town hall to incite violence towards a political opponent, or to incite racism or hate, we would know about it and deal with it. The same cannot be said of the online world.

But, under her proposal, rather than blaming the people who actually incited violence in that situation we should blame... the mayor who set up the town hall? This whole thing shows a rather astounding lack of understanding of both technology and human nature. There are already laws on the books against those who incite violence. Forcing private groups to become public, and making the organizers of those groups liable for "bad stuff" doesn't fix anything. It's also silly and impossible. Secret groups will continue to just remain secret and avoid this whole law. And, of course, is many cases, this would be impossible anyway. Who would be "responsible" for large IRC channels or Usenet groups?

I know that politicians see "bad stuff" online and feel the need to "do something" about it, but actually understanding technology would go a long way towards not making utter fools out of themselves.

Filed Under: intermediary liability, lucy powell, online groups, responsibility, secret groups, uk
Companies: facebook

UK Court Says Company Is Innocent In Massive Data Breach Caused By Vindictive Employee, But Must Nonetheless Pay Compensation

from the who-said-life-is-fair? dept

It's well known that the EU has laws offering relatively strong protection for personal data -- some companies say too strong. Possible support for that viewpoint comes from a new data protection case in the UK, which follows EU law, where the judge has come to a rather surprising conclusion. Details of the case can be found in a short post on the Panopticon blog, or in the court's 59-page judgment (pdf), but the basic facts are as follows.

In 2014, a file containing personal details of 99,998 employees of the UK supermarket chain Morrisons was posted on a file-sharing Web site. The file included names, addresses, gender, dates of birth, phone numbers (home or mobile), bank account numbers and salary information. Public links to the file were placed elsewhere, and copies of the data sent on a CD to three local newspapers, supposedly by someone who had found it on the Internet. In fact, all the copies originated from Andrew Skelton, a Senior IT Auditor in Morrisons, as later investigations discovered. According to the court, Skelton had a grudge against the company because of a disciplinary process that took place in 2013. As a result of the massive data breach in 2014, Skelton was sentenced to eight years in prison.

The current case was brought by some 5,500 employees named in the leaks, who sought compensation from Morrisons. There were two parts to the claim. One was that Morrisons was directly to blame, and the other that it had "vicarious liability" -- that is, liability for the actions or omissions of others. The UK judge found that Morrisons was not directly liable, since it had done everything it could to avoid personal data being leaked. However, as the Panopticon blog explains:

having concluded that Morrisons was entirely legally innocent in respect of Skelton's misuse of the data, the Judge held that it was nonetheless vicariously liable for Skelton's misdeeds

That is a legal bombshell as far as UK privacy law is concerned, since it means that a company that does everything it reasonably can to prevent personal data being revealed can nonetheless be held vicariously liable for the actions of an employee, even a malicious one. That clearly offers an extremely easy -- if potentially self-damaging -- route for disgruntled employees who want to harm their employers. All they need to do is intentionally leak personal data, and the company they work for will have vicarious responsibility for the privacy breach. In fact, even the judge was worried by the implications of his own decision:

The point which most troubled me in reaching these conclusions was the submission that the wrongful acts of Skelton were deliberately aimed at the party whom the claimants seek to hold responsible, such that to reach the conclusion I have may seem to render the court an accessory in furthering his criminal aims.

As a result, the judge granted leave for Morrisons to appeal against his judgment that it was vicariously liable. Hundreds of thousands of companies around the UK will now be hoping that a higher court, either nationally or even at the EU level, overturns the ruling, and sets a limit on those super-strong data protection laws.

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

Filed Under: data breach, data protection, employees, eu, liability, responsibility, uk

Congress Pats Itself On The Back Via Social Media For Its Opportunity To Slam Social Media

from the so-that's-how-it-works? dept

As you may have heard, this week there were three Congressional hearings in two days, allowing various Congressional committees to drag out officials from Facebook, Twitter and Google and slap them around for the fact that some bad things happen on those platforms. The general sentiment appeared to be sputtering anger that social media companies haven't magically figured out how to "stop bad stuff" on these platforms.

Perhaps the strongest statement came from Senator Dianne Feinstein during one of the hearings, in which she stated:

I must say, I don't think you get it. You're general counsels, you defend your company. What we're talking about is a cataclysmic change. What we're talking about is the beginning of cyber warfare. What we're talking about is a major foreing power with the sophistication and ability to involve themselves in a presidential election and sow conflict and discontent all over this country. We are not going to go away, gentlemen. And this is a very big deal. I went home last night with profound disappointment. I asked specific questions, I got vague answers. And that just won't do. You have a huge problem on your hands. And the US is going to be the first of the countries to bring it to your attention, and other countries are going to follow, I'm sure. Because you bear this responsibility. You created these platforms, and now they're being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it... or we will.

We've gone over this before, because it's one of those things that everyone seems to think is easy to solve, when the reality is that most attempts to solve the "problem" of "bad stuff" results in a bigger problem. Yes, it's probably true that these companies could be more forthcoming and transparent, but part of the problem is not that these companies just want to hold their cards close, it's that (1) there are no easy answers and (2) almost any "solution" is fraught with even more problems that will almost certainly make the problem worse. At the very same time that tons of people are complaining about these platforms failing to stop loosely defined "bad speech," you have another group that is complaining about bad/bogus takedowns/censorship. How do you balance those two things? If you think there's an easy way, you're wrong.

On top of that, the idea that "bad" content is obvious is ludicrous on multiple levels. First, the scale of this issue is massive. And that impacts things in multiple ways. It means it's impossible to carefully review every piece of content, meaning that a ton of "bad" stuff will always slip through and people will complain that the platform is failing or not taking the issue seriously. At the same time, a bunch of errors in the other direction will be made (taking down stuff that should be left up). It's the classic issue of Type I and Type II errors -- and at the scale these platforms operate, you will inevitably have so many of both as to make the entire effort appear completely ineffective.

And, to make the situation even more ridiculous, even if there were some regulatory regime that could accurately manage the issues discussed above, they would almost certainly be cost prohibitive for all but the largest of players. And thus, the end result of this regulatory "attack" on Facebook, Google, and Twitter may be to lock in those three companies as the dominant players and lock out any innovative startups.

And then there's this: While these Senators were attacking these three companies, they were relying heavily on Twitter and Facebook to talk up and promote the fact that they were in a hearing bashing Twitter and Facebook. While the article linked here suggests that this isn't ironic because it just demonstrates the power imbalance, there's a more subtle issue at play. These platforms became so useful in large part because they were free to innovate and to experiment and to allow for lots of different uses. And, sure, some of those uses are ones that many of us find distasteful, offensive, or even potentially dangerous. But before we leap in with wild abandon with Congress mandating solutions that will be policed by these very same platforms, shouldn't we be at least a little careful that the end result will create a lot more problems than it's supposedly solving? And, yet, so far, there has been little indication of what exactly Congress (or anyone with the anti-tech pitchforks) have in mind other than "take responsibility" or "stop the bad stuff." And that's not even remotely productive, and has a high likelihood of being harmful.

Filed Under: congress, dianne feinstein, regulations, responsibility, tech
Companies: facebook, google, twitter

Moral Panics: Don't Blame Facebook Because Some Guy Posted His Murder Video There

from the get-a-grip dept

As you've probably heard by now, on Sunday a horrific act of violence happened when a clearly disturbed individual apparently decided to (1) randomly murder an elderly man walking down the street, (2) film the entire process from searching for the guy, approaching him, talking to him and then shooting him, and (3) upload it to Facebook for people to see. The police initially reported that he streamed the murder live, but it was later clarified that, while he had streamed some other commentary live earlier in the day, the murder was filmed separately and then uploaded. Still, as happens all too often in these situations, people are immediately jumping to the moral panic stage and asking, as Wired did quickly after, what kind of responsibility Facebook should take. The title of the article says that Facebook "must now face itself" for streaming the murder -- but then seems to have trouble explaining just what it needs to face (perhaps because... there isn't anything for it to face).

And when the manhunt is over, and the grieving begins, so too will Facebook’s soul-searching.

Facebook is not the first media company to struggle with the prospect of unwittingly broadcasting violence shortly after being uploaded. When news anchor Christine Chubbuck killed herself on live TV in 1974, the station was unable to stop the event from airing, but never showed the footage again. The number of viewers who actually saw the event was minimal. Facebook has taken similar steps, pulling Stephens’ video shortly after it was posted. “This is a horrific crime and we do not allow this kind of content on Facebook,” the company said in a statement. “We work hard to keep a safe environment on Facebook, and are in touch with law enforcement in emergencies when there are direct threats to physical safety.”

Uh, right. So... what else does anyone expect Facebook to do? It's not like it can magically stop murders. Or stop people from initially uploading or streaming a murder video. Yes, it can (and does) take those down, and it can (and does) block re-uploading. But to pin this on Facebook seems... really, really weird. It's almost as if whenever there's a murder people want to find someone or something else to blame other than the person doing the killing.

The article kind of admits, later on, that expecting Facebook to do anything is impossible... but that just raises the question of why write a whole article asking what Facebook should do if the answer is "uh, it can't and shouldn't do anything."

Facebook, of course, is a decentralized system, with millions of freelance “reporters” with unfettered access to the public. By the time the company removed the video, thousands had already watched it, and it lives on in other corners of the internet. Meanwhile, the company has resisted calls to use its algorithms to censor videos like this before they are ever posted–not just because it does not want to be accused of violating speech rights, but also because training computers to identify real-time or recent murder is hard. Facebook has long relied on an army of humans to scour videos uploaded to its site. With videos, and especially Live videos, that job goes from hard to impossible—not even Facebook employees can watch a video before it posts.

Currently, Facebook relies on other Facebook users to flag videos that need to be taken down. But that means that someone has to watch the horror before others can be spared it. The onus falls to the viewers, not the company, to determine what is appropriate, what should be shared, and what should be flagged for removal. Traditional media companies have finely-wrought guidelines and policies to help them make these decisions, but Facebook depends on us to do it.

But even after basically admitting that this is an impossibility, the article still then says:

And now it might very well be time for the company to roll up its own sleeves and get to work.

And get to work doing what exactly? Again, Facebook isn't going to stop a murder. And I don't care how good the AI gets, it's unlikely any time soon to say "hey, that video is some person killing another person, don't stream that." There is no sleeve rolling to do on the Facebook side of the equation and even exploring this question seems silly. Yes, senseless murders and violence lead people to go searching for answers, but sometimes there are no answers. And demanding answers from a random tool that was peripherally used connected to the senseless violence doesn't seem helpful at all.

Filed Under: facebook live, murder, platforms, responsibility, video
Companies: facebook

Rep. Marsha Blackburn Says Internet Service Providers Have 'An Obligation' To Censor 'Fake News'

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

Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn doesn't have a very good history demonstrating any knowledge of how the internet works. She's generally in favor of two very stupid policies related to the internet. First, getting rid of net neutrality. Second, forcing tech companies to censor the internet to stop "piracy." The fact that her rationales for these two things are completely in conflict with each other doesn't seem to enter her thought process. That is, she claims that there shouldn't be any net neutrality because it's important to keep the internet free from all regulations. Here's Blackburn explaining this point in a nice, quick and utterly idiotic whiteboard video: If you can't see that, she starts out by talking up how wonderful the internet is just as it is today, and notes that it's necessary for creating jobs. Then she says this:

Some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy. The World Wide Web! This hasn't happened. And there has never been a time when a consumer needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene.

Then she talks about passing her legislation to block the FCC "from ever regulating the internet" because "we want to keep it open free and prosperous."

Of course, she's quite willing to sing a different tune when it comes to her other pet projects. She was a major backer of SOPA, of course, which was a bill to regulate the internet and open it up to Chinese-style site-blocking. A few months ago, she also made the nutty claim that the script kiddie botnet hack that took down large parts of the internet would have been stopped if only SOPA had been passed which made no sense at all.

And she's back again now to deal with the highly exaggerated scourge of "fake news." Her solution? Have ISPs censor and delete "fake" news. Really: If you can't see that, it's part of a clip of Blackburn on CNN talking about "fake news," where she says:

If anyone is putting fake news out there, the ISPs have the obligation to, in some way, get that off the web. And maybe it's time for these information systems to look to have some type of news editor doing some vetting on that. Whether it's the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians or whomever. You do not want that out there because it's... because it's fake news! It is not something that is going to be correct. It's going to end up being refuted. But it takes time, effort and energy to do that, and trying to sway or misinform is completely inappropriate, and in my opinion unethical.

So she isn't directly calling for legislation, but any time you have a sitting legislator (not to mention a Trump transition team member...) talking about how internet companies need to censor the internet to do away with "fake news" your ears should perk up. First off, note that she says that refuting fake stories takes "time, effort and energy" but doesn't note that finding "some type of news editor" who can review the news postings of billions of internet users is, um, physically impossible. Does she really not understand the scale of what she's talking about?

Second, I get the feeling that Marsha Blackburn's definiton of "fake news" differs from many other people's -- which is why we've noted that the whole "fake news freakout" is so misguided. The term can mean just about anything -- and all too frequently means "news I disagree with." I'm going to imagine that Rep. Blackburn doesn't much like this article for instance. Does she believe that her friends, the internet service providers, have "an obligation" to get this article "off the web"?

Because that's a pretty serious issue: you have a sitting legislator effectively calling for internet censorship based on a vague standard of news being "fake." Somewhat ironically, Blackburn has been one of the most vocal opponents of the bogeyman of the Fairness Doctrine -- which was an attempt to beat back biased news in the past by requiring "equal time" to opposing views. But Blackburn is constantly freaking out about a non-existent "fairness doctrine" for the internet that she insists was part of the FCC's net neutrality rules (it wasn't, and never was suggested). But her suggestion for having internet companies censor "fake news" seems even worse than a fairness doctrine. Rather than encouraging more speech, Blackburn is flat out supporting having internet companies censor content they deem to be "fake." That's bad.

Filed Under: censorship, fake news, free speech, isps, marsha blackburn, responsibility

Hollywood Funded Group Demands BitTorrent Inc. 'Take Responsibility' For Piracy

from the just-like-hollywood-takes-responsibility-for-its-movies? dept

You would think that a Hollywood astroturfing group, funded by all of the major Hollywood studios, would know better than to issue a blatant attack on another company for "failing to condemn" how some people viewed their products. After all, Hollywood is the industry that glorifies murder, con men and (yes) piracy. And Hollywood gets quite up in arms any time anyone suggests that its movies might influence folks in that way. That's the correct response because it is silly and ridiculous to attack an industry that makes one thing for then not condemning how that thing may be viewed or used improperly. But, apparently, some folks in Hollywood have no problem casting similar aspersions on industries they hate.

Earlier this year, we wrote about the "launch" of a new Hollywood-funded organization called "CreativeFuture." As we noted, this "launch" was a bit misleading, because CreativeFuture was just the rebranding of Creative America, an organization that Hollywood slapped together as an astroturfing group in support of SOPA and PIPA. It pretends to represent the interests of creators, but actually is almost entirely funded by the major Hollywood studios. After Creative America was a complete disaster, widely derided (even inside Hollywood) as a joke, Hollywood did a rebrand to CreativeFuture, and brought in new leadership in the form of Ruth Vitale, whom the NY Times described as "sassy." Except, as we noted, the playbook remained the same: basically misrepresent issues related to copyright, pretend to represent "artists" when actually representing the big studios who regularly screw over artists, and always, always, always blame the innovators and technology companies who have provided new tools and services that have helped reinvent the industry for decades.

Vitale is bringing her "sassy" take to this playbook with a bizarre attack on BitTorrent, entitled: We're All Waiting, BitTorrent. The basic argument is that since BitTorrent is often used for exchanging unauthorized copies of content BitTorrent Inc. has a responsibility to (1) "condemn" how its own technology is used and (2) figure out a way to stop it from being used that way.

If BitTorrent wished to prevent their client applications from being used to facilitate massive piracy, it could do something about it. The company says it’s all about technology, so how about using technology to reduce piracy?

Funny how some technology companies like BitTorrent are always extolling the unlimited power of technology – except when it can be used to help creators by preventing the unauthorized distribution of their creative content.

I believe that BitTorrent’s failure to publicly condemn the misuse of its protocol – and to actually do something about it – is going to hurt the company’s efforts to build legitimate business models... just like it hurts everyone else’s.

Despite the fact that, for many years, Hollywood has been blamed for all sorts of stuff concerning its movies -- and Hollywood has, rightly, pointed out that it's ridiculous to blame its movies for idiots imitating what's in the movies, or for believing they're anything more than fictional stories. And yet, now, when it comes to technology, Hollywood wants to take the same bogus moral panics used against it and turn it on technology? Just how cynical can Hollywood get?

Oh, actually much more cynical. Vitale also pulls out a sarcastic "manifesto" that BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen wrote many years before working on BitTorrent, in which he jokingly talked about building tools to "commit digital piracy" as if she's found the smoking gun.

The whole point of this "sassy" rant appears to be to drive creators away from embracing new technologies. She directly says that creators should "pause" before working with BitTorrent Inc., because even though it's created a massive tool for free distribution, combined with a very committed and loyal audience, which many creators have found help drive sales, she doesn't like that they haven't "done enough" to "stop piracy."

This is the same misguided playbook that Jack Valenti played for years, attacking the very technology his industry needed to embrace, delaying the inevitable and harming the very industry he "represented." Because, really, what does Vitale think will happen if either of her demands are met? If BitTorrent could magically make its protocol less useful, people will immediately switch to something else. If BitTorrent were to vocally "condemn" uses of its technology for infringement, does she honestly think that people who use BitTorrent to infringe on copyrights will magically change their ways? Who is she fooling, other than herself?

Instead of recognizing that there are many big entertainment fans that the industry could embrace and drive towards additional offerings, Vitale wants to make this a silly moral stand that will do no good -- not unlike the silly "morality" attacks on Hollywood for "promoting" sex and violence. Why Vitale would take such a page from the very people who tend to attack her industry is beyond me. It's hardly a strategy for embracing the future, and seems like one that only cements legacy Hollywood's image of being clueless and out of touch with today's entertainment fans, as well as new and innovative technologies.

Filed Under: astroturfing, blame, copyright, innovation, responsibility, ruth vitale, sassy, technology
Companies: bittorrent, creativefuture

Funny How Microsoft's Views On Responsibility To Competitors Differ Based On Who's In The Antitrust Hot Seat

from the this-is-known-as-hypocrisy dept

We recently mentioned the latest round of Microsoft's antitrust fight, dating back to some of its actions around Windows 95. To be clear, I think the action against Microsoft is pretty silly. It's pretty clear that the market is quite capable of dealing with any perceived Microsoft "monopoly" and routing around it. That said, one thing that is quite stunning in all of this is the sheer hypocrisy from Microsoft in discussing this case, as compared to Microsoft's own efforts to drag Google into an antitrust battle as well. Now, some will shrug and say that this is basic self-interest on Microsoft's part. It's always going to favor things that help Microsoft. But it certainly seems to weaken the validity and credibility of Microsoft's arguments.

Back in March, we noted just how ridiculous this was, when Microsoft complained about Google to the European Union, whining that Google made it difficult for Microsoft's platforms (mainly the Bing search engine and Microsoft's mobile platform) to access YouTube video data. At the time Microsoft's General Counsel sure seemed to insist that Google had a duty to engineer its platform to make life easier for its competitors. Here's the quote we highlighted back in March:

First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube--and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.

Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft's new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It's done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn't offer a competing search service.

Note how in both paragraphs, Smith seems to clearly suggest that Google has a duty to engineer its products to make life easier for Google's own competitors.

Okay. Now, jump over to the ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft by Novell. And note how Microsoft's lawyers appear to argue directly against this idea that a company should have a duty to build its products to help competitors:

Microsoft attorney Steve Aeschbacher said Novell is saying it wishes Microsoft would have developed Windows 95 differently than it did.

"The law basically doesn't require people to design their products to the whim or demand of other companies. You get to design your own products. There isn't any legal obligation for us to do what they wanted us to do," he said.

Seems to directly contradict what Microsoft said just months ago when it was talking about Google. Furthermore, in Microsoft's motion for summary judgment (pdf) in the current case -- a brief you can be sure MS General Counsel Brad Smith was well aware of -- Microsoft again appears to argue the exact opposite of what it said in regards to Google just months ago:

The allegations underpinning count I are premised on the notion that Microsoft had some affirmative duty to assist�or to continue assisting�a competitor. Novell complains that Microsoft harmed its office productivity applications designed for use with Windows 95 by (i) discontinuing the formal documentation of six APIs in pre-release versions of Windows 95, (ii) failing to include in Windows 95 certain functionality that Novell would have liked, and (iii) failing to endorse Novell�s applications by granting Novell a license to use the Windows 95 logo. These allegations are not cognizable under the antitrust laws.

The objective of our antitrust laws is to promote competition. Successful companies�even monopolists�are encouraged to compete vigorously. Foremost Pro Color, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 703 F.2d 534, 544 (9th Cir. 1983) (�A monopolist, no less than any other competitor, is permitted and indeed encouraged to compete aggressively on the merits.�). Monopolists are encouraged to innovate and are entitled to retain the benefits of such innovation. Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 281 (2d Cir. 1979). Moreover, a monopolist is not required to help its smaller rivals or shield them from the rigors of competition. Olympia Equip. Leasing Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 797 F.2d 370, 375-76 (7th Cir. 1986) (�A firm with lawful monopoly power has no general duty to help its competitors.�); Twin Labs., Inc. v. Weider Health & Fitness, 900 F.2d 566, 568 (2d Cir. 1990) (�Antitrust law . . . does not require one competitor to give another a break just because failing to do so offends notions of fair play.�).

I agree very much with the Microsoft filing in this case. Antitrust law shouldn't be about propping up competitors or requiring a company to engineer its products in a certain manner to help competitors. And while I understand that Microsoft's position will shift depending on whatever benefits Microsoft best, it seems like the company is being ridiculously short-sighted in being so blatantly hypocritical and inconsistent. It hurts its chances in this particular lawsuit, and it hurts Microsoft's overall credibility. While I understand that Microsoft thinks tossing around antitrust accusations at Google may make life difficult for Google, it seems like both companies would be a lot better off if neither of them tossed antitrust arguments at the other. It seems only likely to backfire.

Filed Under: antitrust, brad smith, competition, responsibility
Companies: google, microsoft, novell

Caught With A DUI In New Jersey? You Can Now Blame The Bar That Served You

from the liability? dept

This is from a few weeks back, but techinabox writes in to point out the latest in ridiculously misapplied third party liability. It appears that in New Jersey, if you get good and drunk at a bar, and then hop in your car and get into legal trouble for driving under the influence (DUI), you can blame the bar for serving you... and win. The state supreme court said that it's perfectly reasonable for Fredrick Voss to sue the bar that served him drinks, even though he was the one who drove to the bar on his motorcycle, drank a bunch, and then got back on his motorcycle after drinking, drove off, ran a red light and got into an accident. A lower court still needs to determine if the bar actually is liable, but the supreme court seems to have no issue with holding bars liable in such situations. It's pretty scary that we keep seeing stories concerning attempts to stretch third party liability. Beyond blaming the wrong party, third party liability only serves to take responsibility off the parties actual responsible. It's a bad idea... but one that seems to be getting more and more popular.

Filed Under: blame, dui, new jersey, responsibility, third party liability