UK Paper Insists Google Is Out To Destroy British Culture

from the troll-bait dept

Matthew A. Sawtell was the first of a whole bunch of you (seriously, stop submitting this!) to send in the hilariously myopic rant by Daily Mail editor Alex Brummer in which he claims that Google is out to destroy British culture. Brummer takes a criticism that has been levied by a few folks within the entertainment industry in the last few months -- that the government of David Cameron has somehow been "suckered in" by Google because one of Cameron's top advisors is married to someone who works at Google -- and then layers onto it some hysterically clueless claims about Google's desire to destroy culture.

This all comes in response, of course, to the UK review on copyright, which David Cameron announced with a nod towards Google, and how its execs pointed out the lack of fair use rules in the UK would have made it difficult for a company like Google to start in that country. The results of the review are expected relatively soon, and this article seems to be part of the media campaign to stop the government from actually implementing anything sensible. I mean, we've already seen the preposterous claim from UK publishers that fair use would stifle innovation.

In this piece, however, Brummer simply goes into paranoid fantasy land with a bunch of his claims against Google. I can't even bother to go through them all because there's not that much time in the day. But here are a few howlers.

The reason is very simple. The company wants to plunder intellectual property -- songs by Adele and other British singers -- so that it can disseminate it free to anyone who logs on to Google anywhere in the world.

That must be why Google's current music search points everyone to places where they can buy the music. It also must explain why Google has been negotiating with the record labels for big licenses to allow for music streaming in a music locker system. It also must explain why Google has become a huge source of revenue for the record labels via YouTube and its content ID system.

The irony is that Google is alien to much that Britain holds dear. It has no respect for private property.

Our Englishman's Castle has been turned into public property by Google Earth -- which offers aerial views -- and Street View, created when an army of Google cars travelled the length and breadth of the country taking pictures of our streets and our homes to put on the internet.

I certainly can't speak for Google, but I've seen no indication whatsoever that it has no respect for private property. But taking photographs from public roads is not a violation of private property. And, I'm sorry, but it's simply impossible to take the Daily Mail seriously on a claim that taking photos in public is a violation of private property, when it has front page stories that show a woman's see-through top with a headline screaming about how you can see her breasts. Or this article, highlighting some rich young woman with photographs of her in a bikini while vacationing at a private hotel. I would suggest that those are a lot more about violating someone's privacy than a photo of a castle.

So dominant has it become that it has helped to destroy great swathes of other media in its wake, from regional newspapers in Britain and the United States to business directory companies.

Say what now? Seriously, how has Google destroyed any newspaper? Brummer is simply making stuff up. Google drives traffic to newspapers. How has it destroyed a single newspaper?

In its determination to boost the Google model and to encourage other internet search sites to follow it, the Government seems to believe the internet should be free and open to everyone.

And that's a bad thing how exactly? Don't we want more people to have access to the open internet?

Google may have won over the hearts and minds of the Prime Minister and his aides, but all over the world it is increasingly recognised that the search engine is like a giant vacuum cleaner parasitically sucking up content from media companies, publishers, film makers and musicians without paying anything back into the creative process that produces such high cost entertainment.

Google doesn't "suck up" any content. It points people to content on other sites. It's a useful service. I would imagine that Brummer probably uses it quite frequently in his role as a journalist. Now, some of Google's users may upload content to YouTube, but as already discussed, YouTube has been writing big checks to various media properties thanks to its ContentID system.

There's a lot more like that in the article. I recognize that it's pretty much pure troll bait on the part of Brummer and the Daily Mail, but it troubles me that so many people are setting up discussions about copyright as "internet companies" vs. "media companies." It's not about that at all. It's about what's best for innovation and progress as a whole. That means what's best for everyone? Is it true that companies like Google are doing well by embracing openness on the internet? Yes. At the same time, it's also true that traditional media companies have struggled due to their inability to embrace these new models and technologies. But that doesn't mean that one side is "killing" the other. It just means that the old media companies need to adapt and get with the times. They can learn quite a bit from looking at why Google was successful. It wasn't in trying to lock up everything and relying on government-granted monopolies. It was all about enabling more things to happen and putting in place business models to capitalize on that...

Filed Under: copyright, culture, fair use, intellectual property, uk
Companies: google

Zen And The Art Of Patent Protecting Zen Art

from the how-very-unzen dept

A person who prefers to remain anonymous points us to the "legal" page for an operation called Zentangle, which is apparently a method of creating artwork, with a bit of zen thrown in. But, what struck the submitter (and us) as particularly unzen, was the focus on intellectual property up and down the page. It doesn't seem particularly "zen" to demand how everyone should refer to Zentangle. There may be a legitimate trademark interest (though, it does look like they're overprotecting), but where things really get bizarre is the claim that the method for teaching this particular form of art is patent pending.

Indeed, the folks behind this have a pending patent application (which is also embedded below), and as you might imagine it seems a bit silly. Just for kicks, here's claim one:

1. A method for creating an abstract artwork, comprising the steps of:

a) Instructing a user to mark dots around the inside perimeter of a marking surface, using a temporary marking device;
b) Instructing the user to connect the dots with the temporary marking device, creating a border around the inside perimeter;
c) Instructing the user to draw with the temporary marking device one or more lines within the border which create a section or sections within the border;
d) Instructing the user to choose one of a plurality of predetermined patterns, and to draw with a permanent marking device the chosen pattern within a chosen section defined within the border;
e) Instructing the user to make each stroke deliberate and intentional;
f) Instructing the user to choose another of the plurality of predetermined patterns, and to draw the other chosen pattern within another chosen section;
g) Reminding the user to watch the tile evolve;
h) Alerting the user that the patterns are all accomplished by a series of repetitive strokes, intended to deliberately capture the user's attention;
i) Alerting the user that the engagement of the hand and eye, in combination with the effect of the repetitive motions, enables a shift of focus and perspective, and relaxation;
j) Instructing the user to shade different areas of the tile using a pencil or other temporary marking device;
k) Instructing the user to blend the shading by rubbing with a fingertip;
l) Instructing the user to sign the tile with the permanent marking device;
m) Instructing the user to view and appreciate the new patterns and lines created that may not have been planned; and
n) Instructing a user to document a back side of the tile.

Does that really deserve a patent? Thankfully, it appears that the folks in the patent office aren't so sure it deserves a patent either. Looking through the transaction history, you see that patent examiners have rejected it eight times, with four of those being "final" rejections (and, no, the word "final" doesn't mean what it means in the rest of the world when it comes from the Patent Office where no rejection is ever final -- you can just keep trying). Hopefully this continues, but really, the amount of effort that's been put into "intellectual property" here seems to go way beyond what makes sense, and hardly seems to fit with the "zen" theme. Sure, a trademark could make sense if you're going to build a brand around the name (though, a common law trademark probably would have been just as effective), but a patent? Seriously?

Filed Under: intellectual property, patents, trademark, zen
Companies: zentangle

The IP Maximalist's Guide To Making It Big

from the or,-How-to-Make-Money-in-a-Sea-of-Pirates dept

Techdirt talks a lot about how to make money in the music biz without actually selling music. Consider this an improvement. With these instructions, you'll hardly have to produce any music at all, and if you do, you won't have to go through all that time-intensive and "extremely expensive" production/promotion stuff.

1. Make some music.
Before you can start making money, you'll need some product (hereinafter occasionally referred to as "bait"). Don't worry! You don't need an entire album's worth of tracks to start cashing in on infringement and piracy. Hell, you won't even need an entire EP. The RIAA has shown that a single song is worth up to $150,000! (By comparison, the median wage of the bottom 90% of American wage earners is only $30,000. Take that, non-artistic office drones!)

2. Establish a confrontational web presence.
Set up a site to promote your music. Preferably, this should be nothing more than a huge, sternly worded copyright notice and some low-quality watermarked jpegs. Better yet, use bitmaps. Nobody swipes bitmaps. If, for some reason, you feel you should post some music, make sure it's a low-bitrate stream running through an old version of RealPlayer. Limit each stream to 90 seconds or less. Feel free to shorten this length if it seems to be "giving away" too much. You want people to feel unsatisfied and therefore, more likely to purchase your album whenever the hell it actually arrives.

3. Never release your music.
This is key. Always keep your music in demo form. (Much like Zynga games and Minecraft -- always be in "beta".) Without an official release, all music of yours found elsewhere is guaranteed infringement. The time you don't put into releasing your body of work (hereinafter referred to hysterically as "your children") will pay dividends when discovered on YouTube or Soundcloud. Never underestimate the power of self-righteousness in the face of egregious betrayal. Don't be tempted to think of this as "free publicity." Nothing in life is free, least of all when you're planning on getting rich the old fashioned way: through artistic endeavors and/or copyright infringement lawsuits.

4. Get your demo stolen.
This ties in with step 2. In order to maximize your theoretical losses, you'll need to have your product distributed without your consent. If you're still carrying around your demo on a USB drive or *gasp* a DAT (Luddite!), be sure to clearly mark it with the label "Demo." Also consider adding "DO NOT STEAL!!!" for maximum seriousness. After all, all caps and multiple exclamation points work for letters from collections agencies. This lets everyone around you know that you would prefer that your precious "children" not be kidnapped and shuffled around the internet like so many trafficked humans.

There are many ways to have your demo conveniently stolen. For those in certain genres, the quickest way to a stolen demo is through the boudoir. During your next post-gig threesome, display your demo conspicuously. (Perhaps on the nightstand. Or tape it to your bare chest.) Be sure and point out to your cohorts that said "demo" is full of "groundbreaking shit" and contains at least one "top 40 hit." Once all the fun has been had, fall into a deep sleep. This will allow your new acquaintances to let themselves out (along with your demo) without having to deal with awkward goodbyes or false promises to "do this again sometime." 

For others, it may be more convenient to have it removed by a member of the studio staff or tossed onto the internet by an unscrupulous muso journalist/blogger, who has been deemed trustworthy enough to handle your demo. Take whichever route feels more "indignant." 

5. Publicly bemoan the loss of your demo.
Use any and all interviews to rant about your stolen demo (the "bait") and its subsequent reappearance in a variety of digital storage lockers. Be sure to mention the countless hours spent finessing your product and how this betrayal has left you bitter and (most likely, especially if we're still using the "children" thing) barren. Rail against the internet in general in comment threads. Don't just limit yourself to music blogs. Take your case to tangentially-related articles at major online publications and other "artist-friendly" forums. Highlight the thousands-to-millions of dollars that have just been removed from your wallet by this theft.

Take care to downplay the fact that you still have another copy of your demo which could be released at any point in the future. If a blogger or journalist has the temerity to ask whether you'll still be releasing this album, resist your urge to punch them in their logical mouths and point out that there would be absolutely no point. After all, if everybody (yes, everybody!) has gotten ahold of it for free, why would they even consider paying for the official product?

6. Connect with your fans.
In this day of rampant digital thievery, it can be tough to tell who's actually a fan and who's just some sort of internet cat burglar. Play it safe and assume nearly everyone is out to get as much for free as often as they can. After all, you've got piles of self-interested studies to back up this viewpoint. Be sure to take to the comment threads of various sites to air your complaints. Decry "piracy" and "infringement" with passion and misspellings. Belittle independent artists who work with small labels or self-release. Write off the entirety of the internet as basement-dwellers and misanthropic teenagers. Point out how piracy has both severely damaged the world's economy and diluted the talent pool. Back up these assertions with exclamation points and poor analogies.

7. Profit.
Here's where all your efforts will pay off. Having carefully protected your intellectual property and antagonized thousands of people, all you have to do is release your music and wait for the royalties to roll in. Try to keep the sale on your terms: buy the album or get nothing! After all, you're not releasing a collection of singles. You're releasing a fully-formed child with a maximum of 40% filler! If the world fails to beat a path to your wallet, you can always blame piracy and the internet's unholy signal-to-noise ratio. But don't panic. Bide your time. After all, you've got the collective power of the world's governments in your corner. As enforcement maximizes, so should your profit.

Use your downtime to prowl comment threads with legal threats, allegations and complaints. Mock T-shirt sales. Dismiss every alternate business plan as a one-time fluke. Praise enforcement efforts for stomping all over privacy and civil liberty. Thieves deserve no less. 

[Disclaimer: The above steps are not guaranteed to provide you with a lucrative return on your time and talent investment, despite the pageview-grabbing headline. I also realize that a disclaimer is usually more effective when posted in front of the content, but you're probably used to badly-worded, opaque contracts at this point.]

Filed Under: business models, intellectual property

Why Hasn't The Report Debunking Entire US Foreign IP Policy Received The Attention It Deserves?

from the questions-to-ponder dept

We've written a few times now about the really astoundingly detailed and impressive research report from the Social Science Research Council. It effectively debunks the entire premise behind the US governments foreign IP policy, which focuses almost exclusively on ratcheting up enforcement. The report -- all 440 pages of it -- systematically details why such ratcheting up of enforcement does not, can not and will not help, but shows how alternative business models and pricing models seem to work much better.

We've questioned why the US government seems to be ignoring the research, and Reuters blogger Felix Salmon has picked up on this, calling it "the best report ever on media piracy," and bemoaning the fact that it's been almost entirely ignored.

The most depressing aspect of this report is the fact that it doesn’t seem to have caused anything like the splash that it deserves. It’s an astonishing work of cooperative international scholarship, and really ought to fundamentally change the debate about intellectual-property enforcement in arenas with names like WIPO and USTR. But I fear that it’s too sensible and empirical for that. If the Obama Administration isn’t welcoming this report with open arms, then I fear no one will.

Indeed. It's really quite depressing. Perhaps it's because the report is so long? I've noticed that those who disagree with it in our comments haven't even bothered trying to take on any of the detailed and thorough analysis in the report itself, preferring instead to mock those of us who are talking about the report. I find this troubling. As someone who believes very strongly in taking in all research and data to better understand something, it seems troubling that when so much effort and research has gone into such a report, critics are writing it off completely without even a cursory analysis of it.

But even more troubling is the fact that the press and our elected officials have mostly been ignoring this as well. I think it's a shame that this report hasn't received much more attention, and I'm going to start sending copies to various elected officials to see if I can get comments on it. Hopefully, many of you will do the same.

Filed Under: business models, intellectual property, piracy
Companies: ssrc

New Legislation 'To Protect Farmer IP' Would Make It A Felony To Photograph Farms

from the oh-come-on dept

An awful lot of you sent in this story about a proposed law in Florida that could put people in jail for taking a photograph of a farm without permission. Seriously. Not surprisingly, the "excuse" for this is that it is "needed to protect the property rights of farmers and the "intellectual property" involving farm operations." I'm not kidding. The bill was introduced by Florida State Senator Jim Norman from Tampa. It's apparently targeted at animal rights activists, who have been known to photograph questionable conditions of animals on farms. In other words, it has nothing to do with "protecting intellectual property." It's to avoid criticism for treating animals poorly. And, of course, if animal activists are trespassing to get these photos, there are already laws against that. But this is what you get in this kind of society, where people seem to project the idea that anything can be redefined as "property" and locked up -- people use "intellectual property" as an excuse for simply ridiculous legislative proposals such as this one. Even if such a law passes, it won't take long for it to be declared unconstitutional, but it could waste Florida taxpayer money to fight this in court.

Filed Under: farms, florida, intellectual property, photographs

EU Follows US Steps, Signs 'Free Trade' Agreement With Korea That's All About IP Protectionism

from the that-bill-isn't-what-it-says-it-is dept

It always seems amusing to us when various trade officials include stronger copyright and patent laws in so-called "free trade agreements." By their very nature, copyrights and patents are monopolies. They're protectionist policies and the very antithesis of true free trade. Yet, for a variety of reasons (i.e., lobbyist demands), it's now becoming quite standard for officials to put stronger protectionist patent and copyright rules into the misnamed "free trade agreements." The gold standard here, of course, was the one that the US and South Korea signed a few years ago, that forced Korea to massively ratchet up its copyright laws, leading to dangerous precedents, including fears that certain advertisements could get you in trouble for copyright infringement. Of course, the US-SK FTA was also the basis for ACTA, so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the EU has now signed a similar "free trade agreement" with South Korea, and EU officials are hyping up how it involves stricter patent and copyright requirements. They also note how they followed the lead of ACTA in keeping all the details entirely secret from the public (though you can probably assume that industry representatives were able to read it) until it was already signed. The new transparency at work.

Filed Under: europe, free trade, intellectual property, south korea

Isn't It Time To Drop The Laughable 'Special 301' Report?

from the dump-it dept

We've written about the USTR's "Special 301" report many times. It's a report that the USTR puts out each year which names which countries have been "naughty" when it comes to intellectual property laws -- and then tries to shame/coerce them into putting in place much stricter copyright and patent laws. In the recent State Department cable leaks about copyright laws in other countries, what quickly became clear is that diplomats frequently use this list to put pressure on countries that have perfectly reasonable copyright laws to create copyright laws that will almost certainly harm citizens and local culture. The "process" for putting together the report involves nothing objective at all. Instead, the USTR basically asks a bunch of lobbyists to name the countries they hate the most, and voila, there's the basis for the list. Last year, I filed my own comments, pointing to various research and evidence that suggested the entire 301 process was flawed. It didn't make a difference, of course. The report still came out and it was more of the same: a lobbyist's wishlist.

This year, I didn't even bother, because it's pretty clear that the USTR has no interest in actually doing its job in improving overall trade, but is clearly going to continue to carry out its role as a lobbyist mouthpiece. Still, some groups, including Public Knowledge and Knowledge Ecology International made filings this year, pointing out how screwed up the whole Special 301 process is, and suggesting it's about time the USTR changed the overall process.

What I want to know is why we bother at all any more? Isn't it time to just drop the whole thing? It's widely considered to be a joke among those who understand how the list works. Each year Canada is named, and Canadian officials laugh and repeat the same claim about how they don't recognize a list like the Special 301 that is clearly nothing more than an attempt by US companies to influence Canadian policy in their own favor. Even people at the Copyright Office -- who normally are closely aligned with the USTR -- have spoken out in public about how the Special 301 is a joke, not to be taken seriously.

When so many people consider the list to be a total joke, isn't it reasonable to question why we still have it at all? The list has nothing to do with improving trade or improving economic conditions. It's a simple protectionism process that allows a small group of big companies to get the US government to act as their mouthpiece. It's an embarrassment, and it's time to dump it.

Filed Under: diplomacy, intellectual property, lobbying, special 301, ustr

US Chamber Of Commerce Wants More Censorship, More IP Protectionism

from the it's-all-about-the-protectionism dept

The US Chamber of Commerce is becoming an increasingly sad and deluded shell of an organization. Its main focus these days seems to be about creating protectionist, anti-free market, anti-innovation policies that protect its largest companies from competition and newer, more efficient tools and companies. It's predictable, but sad. The latest is that it has sent a letter to President Obama with its "intellectual property agenda," which could be simplified as "more of it, please."

It asks the President to expand the role of the White House's IP Czar, whose existence mainly exists due to the Chamber of Commerce using totally debunked stats to claim that the job was necessary. And, of course, it was no surprise the other day when the IP Czar's first report was more or less a bullet point list of everything the Chamber of Commerce wants. It's as if they have their own office in the White House, so of course they want that expanded.

The report does not mention ACTA, but does mention the new, even more secretive and more ridiculous Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), which of course the Chamber of Commerce wants to include only "the highest IP standards." Along those lines, the Chamber of Commerce also wants the Feds to send more of its copyright cops around the world to enforce US copyright laws, and to put more enforcement pressure around the infamous joke known as the USTR's "Special 301" report (which is basically a way for the lobbyists to "launder" a list of countries they don't like, and have the USTR list them as violating US IP laws based on little more than what lobbyists claim).

Finally, of course, the Chamber of Commerce supports blatant censorship and a lack of due process, in praising efforts to censor websites without any adversarial hearing, just because there might be some infringement somewhere else, but that site links to it.

Notice a pattern? Basically, the Chamber of Commerce supports policies that act as protectionism for a few large US companies, no matter what the overall harm is to the rest of the economy. Protectionist policies harm the economy and the pace of innovation. Censorship and a lack of due process should be seen as an anathema to core values of the United States. It's a shame that an organization that often presents itself as being about supporting American values and capitalism goes in such an opposite direction to protect its own special interests.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, intellectual property, protectionism
Companies: us chamber of commerce

Why Is President Obama Setting Up IP Enforcement Committees Rather Than IP Effectiveness Committees?

from the what-a-waste dept

The White House recently announced that President Obama has signed an executive order creating two new, very high level "intellectual property enforcement committees." The idea is to have high level folks in different federal government agencies coordinating their "enforcement" strategies, when they do things like seizing domains without due process or First Amendment considerations.

Of course, if President Obama were serious about improving American innovation and creative output (and living up to the Constitution), he would have put together intellectual property effectiveness committees, rather than enforcement committees. By this point, you would have to willfully ignore all of the studies highlighting how today's intellectual property laws tend to cause plenty of harm to think that the laws are "effective." That doesn't mean there can't be effective intellectual property laws, just that what we have today clearly does not qualify. Those laws do serve to help some parties, no doubt, but that's not the same thing as benefiting society. The Constitution makes clear that the purpose of patent and copyright laws is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. And yet, at no time has the government ever stopped to look at the question of whether or not these laws actually do promote the progress of science or the useful arts.

It seems, then, that the only reasonable move would not be to ramp up enforcement of the current laws -- which have been shown to be problematic -- but instead to commission a look at what would actually be most effective in promoting the progress. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be in the cards at all. Too bad.

Filed Under: copyright, enforcement, intellectual property, ip, patents, president obama

A Key Myth That Drives Bad Policy: Stronger IP Laws Mean More Creativity

from the debunk-it dept

Ars Technica has an article highlighting Rep. Marsha Blackburn's "conservative tech policy goals," which has a heavy focus on ramping up intellectual property laws and enforcement. Of course, I don't see how that's any different than the "liberal tech policy" these days. Of course, this reinforces the general point that intellectual property issues are not partisan, as both major parties seem to be beholden to the interests of those who abuse IP laws.

However, as Ars demonstrates, Blackburn makes a fundamental economic fallacy in her reasoning -- and it's this fallacy that seems to be made over and over again in debates about intellectual property:

Proposition 1: The ascendant economic sector is the Creative Economy

Proposition 2: The primary commodity in this economy is intellectual property.

Proposition 3: The Creative Economy thrives online, in what is a unique, prosperous, and until recently free marketplace.

The mistake is thinking that "intellectual property laws" are the same as creative output. It's a nefarious fallacy that we see all the time. It leads to the false claim that "more IP = more creative economy." And yet, the final point in the list kind of highlights the fallacy. In fact, studies that looked into the reasons why creativity has thrived online found that it was often the absence of strict IP enforcement that resulted in such a free and open marketplace.

Furthermore, the whole basis of this line of thinking is to ignore that much of what has made the internet valuable is not that it's a broadcast medium for professional content, but that it's a communications medium, built around sharing content and speech. As Ars properly notes:

It results in a view of tech policy that is all about increasing the protection for intellectual property with little concern for the important connectivity, civic participation, and access to knowledge the Internet also provides--think e-mail, the robust political debate at online blogs, and Wikipedia, none of which need "stronger" IP protections.

It's really quite unfortunate that so many of our elected officials, no matter what their political party, seem to have fallen for the same fallacy, that seeks to turn the internet into the next version of television, rather than focusing on what the internet actually does well.

Filed Under: economics, economy, intellectual property, marsha blackburn