USTR Only Wants To Hear From You If Some Foreign Country Isn't Maximalist Enough

from the biasing-the-comments dept

For years, we've pointed out how ridiculous the USTR's Special 301 Report is. The report, which the USTR is required to put out each year, is basically a chance for copyright and patent maximalists to launder their complaints about certain countries through the USTR, allowing such complaints to get the official stamp of the US government, such that diplomats can pressure countries to implement really bad laws. The whole thing is a joke. Everyone admits that there is no actual objective process that the USTR uses to figure out who has been "naughty" and who has been "nice" when it comes to intellectual property laws. There is just the USTR going through submissions from copyright and patent maximalists, and deciding who has been named enough to be shamed.

Three years ago, we actually tried participating in the open comment period and submitted a comment highlighting the value of not creating a monoculture of maximalism around the globe on these issues, and why merely stamping the industry's claims as legit was probably not a good idea. The end result? The same exact crap as before. Given that this seems to be standard operating procedure for the USTR (and, it's only gotten worse with things like ACTA and TPP), I've not even bothered to submit comments any more. However, if anyone would care to try, the comment period is open through Friday... but it's interesting to note that the instructions for commenting already show that the USTR doesn't want to hear from you. It's really quite incredible. The very explanation of what they're asking for pre-supposes a whole bunch of things, and effectively says "only use this to complain about countries who haven't done enough to help your industry -- that's all we want to hear about."

USTR requests that interested persons identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.

What about comments from people pointing out countries whose copyright and patent policies are too protective? Not wanted?

Written comments should include a description of the problems that the submitter has experienced and the effect of the acts, policies, and practices on U.S. industry.

Not the US public. Not on US culture. Just on US industry. Yes, the USTR is focused on industry, but the very purpose of copyright and patent law is supposed to be to benefit the public. Shouldn't their interests matter?

In other words, the USTR doesn't care about the public or your interests. All it wants to know is how it can better force other countries into over-protectionist policies that benefit a few legacy industries. You can still submit your own comments, but it seems pretty clear that they don't want to hear from you.

Filed Under: comments, copyright, industry, maximalism, patents, public, special 301 report, ustr

TechCrunch Admits That Using Facebook Comments Drove Away Most Of Their Commenters

from the treat-your-community-right dept

I must admit to something of a minor fascination in how other sites manage their comments. As we've noted many times, we've personally found that keeping our comments pretty wide open fosters the best sorts of discussions in the long run. Yes, like any sites, there are some users who are annoying, and some who exhibit trollish behavior, but most people can get past that pretty quick. In fact, at times, those people (while frustrating initially) can spur some really interesting conversations. One thing we've never quite understood, however, is the attack on anonymity that so many sites insist upon. As we've seen over and over again, many of our most insightful comments have come from anonymous commenters.

So I was actually surprised a few years ago when TechCrunch moved to switch all of its comments to Facebook comments, claiming that one of the good things about it was that it required you to provide your real name. Apparently that wasn't actually such a good thing for lots and lots of commenters -- as after nearly two years, TechCrunch has dumped Facebook comments and is pleading for commenters to come back.

Our comments are obviously far from perfect, but we've never been at a loss for having spirited discussions on nearly all of our posts. There's just something awesome about the community that likes to really dig into the various stories. That's part of why we've always viewed this site as a discussion site, rather than a "news" or "reporting site." We post stuff with our opinion because we expect people to respond -- good or bad, agree or disagree -- in the comments, and for some sort of discussion to ensue. That doesn't mean that we like to encourage trollish behavior, but we recognize that encouraging a real community has its benefits, and one key aspect to that is keeping the barrier low. Too many other sites seem to think the best way to deal with the messiness of some annoying commenters is to make it more difficult to comment. However, as TechCrunch has discovered, like chemotherapy, it's a solution that can kill off many of the "good" cells along with the "bad."

Filed Under: anonymity, comments, community, ease of use, engagement, facebook comments, openness, techcrunch
Companies: facebook

Time Warner's 'Conversation' Website Ditches All Comments; The Conversation Is Just Them To You

from the that's-not-a-conversation dept

Last summer, we talked about a site that Time Warner Cable had launched called Time Warner Cable Conversations, which it insisted would be a "conversation" between it and the public. As they put it, the goal was "to interact with our customers and to contribute to the on-going conversation about cable." Except... as we noted at the time, they didn't seem to want to discuss what most customers wanted to talk about. The "conversation" was limited to discussions about TV network deals, just as they were fighting with Time Warner Cable about how much the various networks would cost. If anyone wanted to "converse" about things they didn't like about Time Warner Cable, such as it's super low data caps, too bad. The comments on the site were limited and heavily moderated. Even friendly discussions about data caps were rejected.

And, now, it appears that TWC has decided to make the "conversation" even less of a "conversation." It has removed the ability to comment altogether. So, it's no longer a "conversation." It's just a marketing brochure.

This week we checked back and discovered the dialogue had decidedly turned one-way: namely from Time Warner Cable to you. The company deleted the few views that were published on cable television programming costs and removed its comment section altogether.

Of course, this is how companies like TWC view "a conversation." They talk. You shut up and listen.

Filed Under: broadband, comments, conversation, data caps
Companies: time warner cable

It's Not Defamation To Call Someone A Terrorist Online; Accusing Them Of Putting A Severed Horse Head In A Pool, However...

from the different-story dept

In this edition of "Real Life Soap Operas, as Seen Via Court Filings," we have a case involving someone putting a severed horse head into a pool, anonymous accusations, family members accusing family members, blog comments calling someone a terrorist and... wait... a severed horse head in a pool? Yup. From the ruling in LeBlanc v. Skinner at the New York State Supreme Court:

The defendant Wayne Skinner, a former Town Supervisor of the Town of Wawayanda, and his wife, the defendant Karen Skinner (hereinafter together the Skinner defendants), were involved in a number of Town policy disagreements with the plaintiff, David LeBlanc. Wayne Skinner was elected to his position as a Democrat. The plaintiff, a Wawayanda businessman, attended numerous Town Board meetings, voicing his concerns over a variety of issues, including property taxes, and donated money to one of Wayne Skinner's Republican political rivals.

Nonparty Gail Soro was one of Wayne Skinner's colleagues, and a Wawayanda Town Board member. Soro likewise was an elected Democrat. In July 2006, Soro discovered a severed horse head in her swimming pool. It was never determined who was responsible for the incident. Nonetheless, as could be expected after any incident with such cinematic bravado, public comment ensued. Of relevance here were a number of blog entries posted on a web site allegedly dedicated to community issues and local government, and a number of comments on the local newspaper's web site. These blog entries and comments accused the plaintiff of being responsible for the horse head incident.

Yes, this obvious reference to that classic scene from The Godfather caught some attention from the wider community, and the court. As the ruling notes in a footnote:

While the discovery of any deliberately placed mutilated animal carcass in a family swimming pool would be shocking and noteworthy, the choice of a severed horse head immediately evokes to many the infamous scene from Mario Puzo's novel, "The Godfather," as immortalized in the film directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The scene, probably one of the most iconic in cinematic history, has come to exemplify an act of intimidation through violence, a reminder of power, and a warning that a request or "offer" from a Godfather or leader of an organized crime family should not be "refused."

That said, the case has little to do with the actual severed horse head, but rather the many, many accusations that flew around following its discovery:

In the amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged that, with the assistance of Hawkins, the Skinner defendants posted several defamatory statements on the Internet regarding the plaintiff. More specifically, the first and second causes of action in the amended verified complaint alleged that Hawkins, at the request and direction of the Skinner defendants, posted two allegedly defamatory statements regarding the plaintiff on August 29, 2007, and October 6, 2007, respectively, on the now-defunct web site www.wawayandafirst.blogspot.com (hereinafter the Wawayandafirst blogspot). In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had posted the following comment on October 30, 2007, at www.forums.recordonline.com, a site run by the area newspaper (hereinafter the newspaper site): "We all know who was behind the Horse Head . . . there is only one man around town dumb enough, violent enough and with a vendetta to do that . . . Dave LeBlanc . . . I hope all this negative publicity on him destroys his business." The fourth cause of action alleged that the defendants posted the following comments on the newspaper site on October 30, 2007: "Dave LeBlanc is a terrorist" and "Who was the one who threw the horse head in Gail's pool . . . check it out: . . . wawayandafirstblogspot.com."

The case gets even more complicated when it is explained that "Hawkins" is the nephew of the "Skinner defendants" named above -- and while they were all named as defendants, they quickly turned on each other, with Hawkins claiming he posted stuff online, but entirely at the direction of his aunt and uncle. The Skinners hit back with a variety of claims as well.

But the two key points are that the court noted:

1. Calling someone a "terrorist" online isn't defamation.
2. Accusing someone of severing a horse's head and dumping it in a pool, however, could be defamation.

It's really the first one that's important -- as that scenario is somewhat more likely to repeat itself than the second issue:

Internet forums are venues where citizens may participate and be heard in free debate involving civic concerns. It may be said that such forums are the newest form of the town meeting. We recognize that, although they are engaging in debate, persons posting to these sites assume aliases that conceal their identities or "blog profiles." Nonetheless, falsity remains a necessary element in a defamation claim and, accordingly, "only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action" (600 W. 115th St. Corp. v Von Gutfeld, 80 NY2d 130, 139, cert denied 508 US 910; see Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146, 153). Within this ambit, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the accusation on the newspaper site that the plaintiff was a "terrorist" was not actionable. Such a statement was likely to be perceived as "rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet" (Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v Bresler, 398 US 6, 14; see Milkovich v Lorain Journal Co., 497 US 1; Immuno AG. v Moor—Jankowski, 77 NY2d 235, 254, cert denied 500 US 954). This conclusion is especially apt in the digital age, where it has been commented that readers give less credence to allegedly defamatory Internet communications than they would to statements made in other milieus (see Sandals Resorts Intl., Ltd. v Google, Inc., 86 AD3d 32, 43-44, quoting Jennifer O'Brien, Note, Putting a Face to a [Screen] Name: The First Amendment Implications of Compelling ISPS to Reveal the Identities of Anonymous Internet Speakers in Online Defamation Cases, 70 Fordham L. Rev. 2745 [2002]). Accordingly, we conclude that this statement constitued an expression of opinion, and, as such, is nonactionable.

As Eric Goldman highlights, it's good to see more and more courts recognizing that random insults thrown out in online forums shouldn't be treated the same way as, say, a formal accusation in the press. Context matters:

...there is now an impressive body of precedent holding that people don't interpret online name-calling literally. See, e.g., Seldon v. Compass Restaurant, Chaker v. Mateo, Sandals v. Google (cited here), DiMeo v. Max, Finkel v. Dauber and others. I wish this meant that plaintiffs will think twice about suing over online name-calling, but I doubt it.

Of course, name calling is one thing. Accusing someone of dumping a severed horse's head in a pool -- if the horse's head really did show up in a pool -- people might take that accusation a bit more seriously. And, as in this case, it could lead to a defamation claim not getting tossed out so easily.

Filed Under: comments, defamation, free speech, horse head, terrorist

HuffPost Moderates Comments To Please Advertisers [Updated: Or Not]

from the that-doesn't-actually-help-advertisers dept

Update: After hearing from a few people at Huffington Post, it appears that the original explanation from Isaf was unclear, and led us to believe they were moderating comments based on advertiser preferences. However, Huffington Post has now clarified that they use the same AI just to determine how to post ads on certain content -- and that's what Isaf meant with his remarks. Not that they moderate comments based on advertiser preferences.

We've been somewhat excited that we're rapidly approaching one million total comments on Techdirt. We thought it was quite a nice milestone. But we feel a bit small to learn that the Huffington Post already has over 70 million comments just this year alone. Over at Poynter, Jeff Sonderman has a fascinating interview with the site's director of community, Justin Isaf, about how they manage all those comments. Apparently they have a staff of 30 full time comment moderators, helped along by some artificial intelligence (named Julia) from a company they bought just for this technology.

Now, obviously, sites have lots of different philosophies on moderating comments. Our own is pretty open. We have a spam filter that tries to cut out obvious spam (of which we get about 1,000 per day, last I checked) and other than that comments are basically unmoderated. We do have a system that allows the community to vote on funny and insightful comments (which we then round up in a weekly "best of" post). We also, just recently, introduced our first word/last word feature, which lets the community promote certain comments. Finally the community can also "report" comments they find problematic, which then minimizes those comments, though they remain available for anyone to see with one click. We've found that this system of trusting the community works pretty damn well overall.

HuffPo, on the other hand, between the technology and the moderators, seems more focused on nudging the conversation themselves. I can understand and respect that choice, but there was one detail that struck me as a bit questionable:

I’m a big fan of having machines help us with the lower level tasks, freeing up time, resources and brain power for more interesting and complex tasks. Julia [the artificial intelligence system that HuffPo owns] takes that a few steps further and helps us with a lot of other aspects of HuffPost in addition to helping weed out abusive members, including identifying intelligent conversations for promotion, and content that is a mismatch for our advertisers. She has allowed us to do a lot more with a lot less.

(Note: see update at the top). I recognize that these are all advertising businesses, but I'm a bit surprised to see HuffPo so blatantly admit that they moderate comments if they're "a mismatch for our advertisers." I've seen plenty of sites say they'll moderate inappropriate commentary, but leave reasonable commentary alone even if it's critical. But HuffPo is basically saying that if advertisers aren't likely to like the comments, they may moderate them. It's their system, and they can do what they want with that, but personally, that makes me feel uncomfortable. We've always tried to promote the fact that our own community is very opinionated (and not shy about it) when we've spoken to advertisers, and we use that as a way of explaining why things they do should be authentic and real, rather than forced and phony. And, because of that, we'd like to think that we're able to drive more interesting engagement. If you leave open the possibility of moderating comments that advertisers won't like, that seems to only encourage bogus and annoying advertising, since marketers may never learn that people don't actually like that kind of thing.

In the end, HuffPo's position is obviously self-serving, even as they pretend that it's best for advertisers. What they may end up doing is hiding the fact that the advertisements are bad, rather than improving the quality of the advertising. Now, obviously, I'm sure AOL does quite fine with HuffPo's ad selling (and they're a hell of a lot bigger than us), but it still struck me as interesting to see the company so blatantly admit how it reacts to content their advertisers might think is "a mismatch."

Filed Under: advertisers, comments, moderation
Companies: aol, huffington post

First Word, Last Word And Letting Our Biggest Fans Help Shape The Conversation In Our Comments

from the hop-to-it dept

With the launch of our new Techdirt Insider Shop, one of the new features we've enabled on the site is something we're calling First Word/Last Word, which you may have noticed appearing on the blog. The feature allows Techdirt Insiders with credits to help highlight key comments as either "The First Word" (on top of all the other comments) or "The Last Word" (beneath all of the comments, even if other comments are added after). You can designate one of your own comments, or feel free to designate a truly awesome comment from someone else.

Because this is such a new feature, I wanted to discuss a little of the thinking behind it. Despite blogging for well over a decade, I'm still amazed by how much controversy there is over blog comments. Some people insist that they're completely useless. Others spend many hours of their day engaging in discussion and debate in the comments. There are various attempts to try to "improve the quality" of comments out there, including banning anonymous comments, heavily moderating comments or doing things like having editors highlight the best comments. Others have integrated third-party platforms to manage comments, such as Facebook or Disqus. Gawker keeps pushing the bleeding edge with a series of commenting experiments that try to increase the importance of comments while decreasing the number of comments that actually get viewed.

Over the years, we've taken a very open approach to comments. We don't require a login to comment (though there are benefits to having one). We don't require people to identify themselves at all. And despite the default assumption some have that anonymous comments are bad, we quite regularly find that comments from anonymous users are some of our most insightful and funniest comments. To that end, we've always focused on trying to do more to highlight and encourage good behavior -- such as highlighting the comments voted most insightful and funniest, both with badges on the comments and in our weekly summaries.

With the First Word/Last Word feature, we're trying to take all of that a step further. We've seen how a single trollish commenter can sometimes (not always) derail an interesting conversation by getting in early and saying something completely brain dead, then watching (probably with laughter) as the thread disintegrates. Our expanded Crystal Ball may take care of that in some cases by giving insiders more early access to kick off the comments. But, not everyone's going to be able to rush in and be first. With "First Word/Last Word," Insiders with credits can help highlight one or two of the absolutely key comments on a story and put them in places of prominence to help define the overall conversation.

This is very much an experiment (and like all experiments could flop completely). But what fun is it if you never take chances? We've trusted our community for many, many years, and here's another attempt to trust those who become Insiders to help curate the absolute best comments for everyone to see. We hope you'll take part and help us develop an even more interesting and compelling comments section.

You can get your own First Word/Last Word credits at the Techdirt Insider Shop. Most purchases include at least one credit, and subscriptions like the Watercooler Package and the Behind The Curtain Package include a cache of credits that replenishes on a monthly basis.

Filed Under: comments, community, features, first word, last word, techdirt

Former MPAA CTO Tells The White House Why SOPA Is The Wrong Approach For IP Enforcement

from the you're-free-to-speak-now,-paul dept

You may recall who Paul Brigner is. He was formerly the Chief Technology Policy Officer for the MPAA, who at one point was tasked with standing up to pretty much every knowledgeable internet engineer in trying to defend why SOPA was both necessary and wouldn't be a technological disaster. This resulted in some wacky arguments. Back in January, he and I faced off on a panel in Washington DC the day before the Internet blackout, in which he tried to defend the MPAA's position on SOPA, though almost everyone who watched the panel noted that his statements appeared half hearted. It was little surprise two months later to see Brigner leave the MPAA to go work for the Internet Society, who fought strongly against SOPA. Since then, Brigner has more or less admitted that SOPA was a bad idea.

So it's not too surprising, but still a bit ironic, to see that Brigner has written the Internet Society's response to the White House's request for comment on IP Enforcement, and much of it explains why any approach that mirrors SOPA is completely unacceptable. From all indications, this has been Brigner's true belief all along, and you can see it in the depth of explanation and knowledge he puts into this letter as compared to his half-hearted "defenses" of the MPAA when he was employed there. What's striking, however, is how directly Brigner's comments today contradict the claims of the MPAA, which he was responsible for defending just a few months ago. It's almost a step by step argument against the MPAA's position: Brigner/ISOC are against mucking with DNS, are in favor of highlighting the importance of due process and protecting civil liberties and in favor of much greater transparency in policy making.

We are also of the opinion that any enforcement attempts – at both national and international levels – should ensure and not jeopardize the stability, interoperability and efficiency of the Internet, its technologies and underlying platforms. The Internet – a network of networks – is based on an open and distributed architecture. This model should be preserved and should surpass any enforcement efforts. For the Internet Society preserving the original nature of the Internet is particularly significant, especially when enforcement is targeting domain names and the Domain Name System (DNS) in general. There are significant concerns from using the DNS as a channel for intellectual property enforcement and various contributions have been made on this issue by both the Internet Society and the technical community. It needs to be highlighted that from a security perspective, in particular, DNS filtering is incompatible with an important security technology called Domain Name Security Extensions or DNSSEC. In fact, there is great potential for DNSSEC to be weakened by proposals that seek to filter domain names. This means that DNS filtering proposals could ultimately reduce global Internet security, introduce new vulnerabilities, and put individual users at risk.

Our second recommendation relates to the legal tools that should be in place in any enforcement design. ISOC would like to stress the absolute need for any enforcement provisions to be prescribed according to the rule of law and due process. We believe that combating online infringement of intellectual property is a significant objective. However, it is equally important that this objective is achieved through lawful and legal paths and in accordance with the notion of constitutional proportionality. In this regard, enforcement provisions – both within and outside the context of intellectual property – should respect the fundamental human rights and civil liberties of individuals and, subsequently, those of Internet users. They should not seek to impose unbearable constitutional constraints and should not prohibit users from exercising their constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of association and freedom of expression.

As a general recommendation, we would like to emphasize our belief that all discussions pertaining to the Internet, including those relating to intellectual property - both at a national and international level - should follow open and transparent processes.

It's a great filing overall, and I appreciate the Internet Society's longstanding support for these key principles. Similarly, I think it's great that Brigner appears to have found employment much more in line with his own knowledge, experience and personal views -- but there is something ironic about seeing his name on a filing like this just months after he was tasked with arguing the opposite position.

Speaking of the White House's request for comments, that process is still open until this Friday. Later this week, I'll be sharing what I am submitting as well, but I urge many others to post thoughtful comments of their own. You can see what's already been submitted, and unfortunately, it appears that many (on all sides of the issue) submitted short/ranty "internet comment" style comments. I would urge that anyone seeking to submit a comment write out something a bit more thoughtful and detailed if you would like those in the White House to take them seriously.

Filed Under: comments, cto, paul brigner, white house
Companies: isoc, mpaa

UK Government Censors Copyright Consultation Submission About How Awful Collection Societies Are

from the the-wrong-kind-of-evidence dept

When the UK Hargreaves Review of intellectual monopolies in the digital age came out last year, Techdirt noted that one of its innovations was an emphasis on basing policy on evidence. The fact that this was even notable shows how parlous the state of policy-making has become. One important way to gather evidence is through public consultations, and in the wake of the Hargreaves Review, the UK government conducted a major exercise in gathering views and information in this field.

The responses to that consultation have now been published -- all 471 of them. That's a surprisingly high number for what was once an arcane area of interest only to a few lawyers, and a measure of just how important the subject has become. On that Web page there's the following slightly unusual statement:

in the course of reviewing the responses received, it became clear that a small number of respondents had advanced criticisms or inappropriately criticised the activities of others in the sector. The Government has now carefully reviewed the submissions to establish any potentially defamatory material and has redacted any inappropriate or defamatory comments.

One of the people whose submissions were redacted is Andrew Norton. He's written a fascinating blog post detailing what exactly was taken out. The first and biggest redaction occurs in his answer to the following question:

What aspects of the current collective licensing system work well for users and rights holders and what are the areas for improvement? Please give reasons for your answers

Here's what the UK government published of Norton's response:

Almost no aspects work well for users or rights holders. The standard operating system for collecting societies is to demand all, demand often. There have been many cases in the recent past where agencies have gone above and beyond their mandate, and targeted people in shakedowns.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

In short, what aspects work well? None. What needs to be done? First of all, an audit needs doing, to ensure compliance with the law. Then, shut them down. At the very least start a new, independent one with significant oversight, because this one just DOES NOT WORK.

So what exactly did the UK government think was "inappropriate or defamatory"? This, apparently:

… and targeted people in shakedowns.

In the past few years, there have been reports of UK Collection societies calling up small businesses, and threatening them if they hear music in the background (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090202/0128383597.shtml), carollers, charities (http://torrentfreak.com/charity-forced-to-pay-copyright-police-so-kids-can-sing-071209/) have been targeted for fees, as have schools (http://torrentfreak.com/uk-copyright-cops-target-kids-schools-community-centers-081015/). Even people who sing to themselves have been targeted because they're doing so at work (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/8317952.stm) and let's not forget their targeting of employers like Kwik Fit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm) and even the police (http://torrentfreak.com/police-chief-faces-high-court-anti-piracy-action-120608/). Incidentally, The EU Court of Justice just ruled that in cases like these, there are no fees to pay (http://euobserver.com/871/115621#.T2cCyGfYteQ.twitter)

That's just one of three such paragraphs, all linking to external sites. As you may have noticed, the first link above is to Techdirt, and the others are to sites like the BBC, El Pais, Die Welt and TorrentFreak. None of them is defamatory, since they are all reporting on established facts. This means that the UK government must think that these facts are somehow "inappropriate". That's a pretty extraordinary state of affairs. The UK government has taken it upon itself to hide what UK collection societies get up to, in an absolutely key consultation, one of whose purposes is surely to get the facts about what's happening in this sector.

What makes this censorship of linked information even more striking is that alongside the main consultation document itself (pdf) the UK government also published guidance on providing "open and transparent evidence" (pdf), where we read:

When you draw on other work, a reference, and link to the original work should be included. References to other people’s work should have the relevant web link

That is, the guidelines specifically ask for precisely the kind of scrupulous linking to sources that Norton provided, and yet the UK government censored them all because it didn't like the unequivocally dire situation they delineated.

This does not augur well for the results of the consultation. It suggests that the UK government is happy to gloss over one of the key failings of the present copyright system -- the UK collection societies -- and is seeking to present a very partial view of the real situation. It also undermines confidence in the whole consultation process: if the UK government has arbitrarily redacted true information that it finds inconvenient once, what's to say it hasn't done so multiple times elsewhere? If people aren't allowed to provide all the evidence what's the point of conducting a consultation in the first place?

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

Filed Under: censorship, collection societies, comments, government, redacted, uk

Patent Office Seeking Comments On How To Implement A 'First To File' Regime Instead Of 'First To Invent'

from the help-them-not-muck-it-up dept

You may remember that last fall, there was an incredibly weak attempt at patent reform known as the America Invents Act. This was the result of a nearly seven-year-long fight over patent reform, with nearly every good idea from early proposals being watered down to completely useless, and a few bad ideas ramped up for good measure. Nothing in the AIA actually dealt with the problems of patent trolls or patent thickets. One of the ideas that survived the years-long culling was flipping the US patent system from a "first to invent" system to a "first to file" system. I've long argued that this is a very bad idea for a variety of reasons. First, it encourages inventors to file for lots of patents as early as possible to beat anyone else to the Patent Office, rather than making sure that the invention is actually worth patenting. It also seems to go against the basic principle of the patent system, if it's supposed to reward actual inventors. Finally, switching to a first to file certainly seems likely to favor large companies with big legal staffs that can focus on rushing out as many patent applications as possible. Smaller entities might be in trouble.

To be fair, the arguments in favor of this switch are basically (1) everyone else does it (mostly true) and (2) proving who was first to invent is a total pain in the ass and can be slow and costly. Thus switching to a first to file system could save a lot of wasted time and money in the cases where there's a dispute. That may be true, but I'm not convinced it's a good reason.

That said, it doesn't much matter what I think: it made it into the bill and is now the law. The US Patent Office is now seeking comment on how it should go about implementing this new rule. It's put out two requests. First, it wants to know how it should change the examination guidelines for patent examiners (pdf and embedded below) to take this new rule into account. Second, it wants comments on how it should amend the "rules of practice," regarding this change -- since the current rules are based on the old "first to invent" system.

For those thinking of participating, this is not the place to argue why "first to file" is a bad system (or even why the patent system is broken). I imagine any such filings will be (correctly) deemed off-topic and discarded. However for those patent holders and patent lawyers (and scholars) for whom this change is a big deal, now might be the time to share some thoughts with the USPTO for how it can implement this change with as little damage as possible.

Filed Under: comments, first to file, first to invent, patents, uspto

YouTube Wants You To Comment Under Your Real Name

from the accountable-community dept

I've written before about the benefits of having an open commenting system on websites, complete with anonymity, and I still believe in that stance. I've also made the point that the comments and communities a site develops can often be as much the stars of the show as the original content. So, it goes without saying that the more you enable your community to provide awesome and relevant commentary, while not locking the system down, the better off you're going to be. I think Techdirt does this well, by still allowing for anonyous comments while providing benefits for having a profile with a comment history (participation in contests, credibility through history, etc.).

YouTube (famous for its often-awful comments) has never been completely open, but the majority of commenters use standalone accounts with pseudonyms. Now, according to a recent CNN article, YouTube is actively encouraging users to link their accounts with their real identities (via Google+, of course), not just by prompting them to do so but also by asking them to explain why if they decline.

"Try to comment on a video today and a window will pop up with the title "Start using your full name on YouTube," which will sign you in with your Google+ account. A YouTube spokesperson told BetaBeat that this option has been offered since June 29 and that users with a Google+ account will see the same thing if they try to upload a video.

If you don't want to use your Google+ account, you can refuse -- but then you're taken to a second prompt, which asks "Are you sure?" Then, like some kind of Internet degenerate, you must explain why you don't want to use your full name."

Now, this may be a tad irritating to anyone who insists on commenting anonymously, but I think if the strategy works to get more people to comment while being accountable then the benefits will outweigh the annoyance. Because if there has been any single great all-encompassing truth about the last decade, it's this: if you're looking for a reason to hate humanity, spend 20 minutes browsing YouTube comments.

Having said that, it's important that YouTube still allow the option to comment anonymously. Without that option, you may lose valuable comments from people with legitimate fear of reprisal if their name is associated with their words, whether that reprisal comes from friends, family, their employers, or the government. But being proactive in encouraging users to comment under their accounts is a good thing, which may very well breed a better commenting community.

Filed Under: anonymity, comments, community, youtube