US Hypocrisy Exposed: Has A Long History Of Rejecting Extradition Requests

from the dear-obama:-get-over-yourself dept

We've already discussed the general immaturity and petty nature of President Obama's decision to cancel his planned summit with Vladimir Putin over granting Ed Snowden asylum. Glenn Greenwald is now pointing out that beyond just being petty, it also shows astounding hypocrisy by the Obama administration. Various members of the administration (along with Congress) have been acting like it's the worst offense in the world that Russia -- with whom we do not have an extradition treaty -- turned down the request for extradition. Yet, as Greenwald highlights, the US quite frequently turns down these requests, and they don't turn into massive international incidents that top the headlines like this story.

New York Times, February 28, 2007: Washington Post, July 19, 2013: The Guardian, September 9, 2012: [US refuses Bolivia's request to extradite its former CIA-supported president, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, to stand trial on charges of genocide and other war crimes after de Lozada hires Democratic lobbyists to represent him]

El Paso Times, December 30, 2010:

The US constantly refuses requests to extradite - even where (unlike Russia) they have an extradition treaty with the requesting country and even where (unlike Snowden) the request involves actual, serious crimes, such as genocide, kidnapping, and terrorism. Maybe those facts should be part of whatever media commentary there is on Putin's refusal to extradite Snowden and Obama's rather extreme reaction to it.

There may, in fact, be legitimate reasons for refusing extradition requests. But for the US government to act like Russia's decision to give Snowden temporary asylum is some major slap in the face just seems pretty ridiculous in the face of its own actions.

Filed Under: barack obama, extradition, hypocrisy, vladimir putin

Edward Snowden, Michael Meili, And The United States' Hypocrisy On Whistleblowers

from the oh,-hello-there,-hypocrisy dept

As the Edward Snowden asylum drama marches on, examples of odd behavior by the American government are beginning to weigh down the scales of justice. Most recently, the United States seems to be overly concerned with all that free speech Russia is allowing Snowden, which would be like Switzerland criticizing another country for eating way too much chocolate. Or you may have noticed the not-so-subtle difference in treatment for established DC insiders leaking information versus your ordinary, everyday NSA sub-contractor. Finally, most apropro, the US appears to be willing to strain international relations and possibly violate diplomatic privileges for national leaders in their quest to keep Snowden from reaching anything resembling asylum, despite asylum having been offered by several South American countries.

These actions might be dastardly all on their own, but when you measure them against how the United States has behaved when the shoes were on the other foot, you're left with a dose of hypocrisy that would kill most lab rats. Take, for instance, the case of Michael Christopher Meili, security guard in Switzerland (chocolate!) for UBS, their mega-bank. He revealed some of UBS' shady dealings when it came to the banking documents of Jewish clients during the holocaust.

As a result, not only did Meili lose his job, but he was also under investigation by Swiss authorities for violating Swiss law. Moreover, according to Meili's testimony in a U.S. Senate hearing (available here), after Swiss police took possession of the documents, they told Meili that the Swiss government was treating the documents as "classified," despite the fact that they were UBS documents, and that they "would never be seen by people 'outside Switzerland.'"

Finally, while Meili believed he was exposing an act of destruction that was, or should have been, illegal, the Swiss police told him that they had concluded that UBS had done nothing wrong.

Sound familiar? Person of conscience working for a private organization that has ties to the government exposes wrong-doing, government sweeps in and initiates investigation while also unilaterally declaring classification of said wrong-doing, and then money-shots the affair by declaring all activities legal. Now, perhaps you're wondering why Meili was testifying about this at the US Senate. Well, because he went there to receive asylum, of course.

Unfortunately for Meili, the United States government determined that under no applicable law could Meili qualify for asylum. Fortunately for Meili, the Unites States government then decided to just make up a law specifically for Meili and pass it, ostensibly under the "Because Fuck You" statute in international law. And if you think I'm exaggerating, witness Private Law 105-1:

For the relief of Michel Christopher Meili, Giuseppina Meili, Mirjam Naomi Meili, and Davide Meili.

Yeah, they didn't even attempt to hide what they were doing. Just signed a law that might as well have been called "Private Law 105-1-haha-we-got-this-guy-LOL." Clinton signed the law straight away. Senators lined up to say how heroic Meili was. This in stark contrast to Obama's claim that Snowden must be returned to the US because we have to uphold "the rule of law." More striking still is Senator Charles Grassley, who claimed that because Snowden obviously broke the law, he must come home to be prosecuted at all costs. Want to guess what Grassley's take on Meili was?

The situation we have here with Mr. Meili, albeit everything that he has brought to our attention has worldwide implications, but a person like him acted out of bravery, or maybe the bravery comes after he has acted because he has had to withstand the mental torture of what has gone on since then. But it reminds me of a lot of things that happen in our own Government, and I realize his is a private sector situation, but I like to think that we keep our Federal Government honest when we have people in our Government who, when something is wrong, will be willing to come forward and say what is wrong.

We speak of these people in our Government as whistleblowers. Maybe, originally, that was to denigrate them, but as far as I am concerned the word "whistleblower" is a description of somebody who wants to seek the truth, who wants to make sure that all of the facts and circumstances are known so that a wrong can be corrected.

Now, compare that to the very same Senator Grassley and his comments on Snowden:

"I suppose it gets down to — did he break a law? — I think it's pretty obvious he did," Grassley says. "People in the Justice Department will make that determination and whatever that determination is, I'll have to abide by it, but if he did break a law, it's quite common sense that he be prosecuted."

Grassley also suggested that Snowden, who "sought truth" and "wants to make sure that all of the facts and circumstances are known so that a wrong can be corrected" was clearly "aiding the enemy." I think it'd be really nice if 1997 Senator Grassley could come back and have a long discussion with 2013 Senator Grassley, preferably one involving a pointy stick and much foul language. And perhaps include the rest of the government as well.

Filed Under: charles grassley, ed snowden, hypocrisy, leaks, michael meili, nsa surveillance, whistleblowers

Media Hypocrisy: When DC Insiders Leak Gov't Talking Points About NSA, No One Has A Cow

from the how-about-that... dept

If you haven't seen it yet, Glenn Greenwald gave a fantastic speech last week about all of the NSA surveillance leaks. The whole speech is about an hour long, but I wanted to highlight one key point, in which Greenwald discusses how the leaks haven't just outed the NSA surveillance, but the subservience of the DC press to the government they cover. The embed below should start right at the moment he discusses this, but if not, it's at 42:20: Part of what he discusses (around 45:45) is about the conversation where David Gregory asked Greenwald why he shouldn't be arrested for "aiding and abetting" the leaks of confidential surveillance info. The ridiculousness wasn't just in the question, but that in that very same conversation, when Greenwald had brought up the secret FISA court order that supposedly called out the NSA for failing to abide by the 4th Amendment. Gregory insisted that his "government sources" had told him what was in that secret ruling, and he proceeded to lay out what he believed was in that ruling (which Greenwald insists was factually inaccurate). However, as he notes, here was David Gregory, effectively "leaking" a classified FISA Court ruling (wrongly) based on a "leak" from an administration official. And yet, no one seemed concerned about that -- just about whether or not Greenwald should go to jail.

"But what was really amazing was that 90 seconds later, he was calling for my prosecution, for having disclosed classified information, and yet, he, 90 seconds earlier, had just gotten done saying that somebody in the government had come to him and described this top secret court document, which he then disclosed to the public and to the world, by telling me what he thought it said."

He then describes how Barbara Starr, a CNN reporter who covers the Pentagon -- though, Greenwald jokingly calls her the "Pentagon spokesperson who works for CNN as the 'Pentagon reporter'" -- did the exact same thing, disclosing that US officials are claiming that terrorists are "changing tactics" following the Snowden leaks, based on claims from "anonymous" government sources. These anonymous government sources sure are busy. I had been collecting a few such examples, but Michael Calderone at HuffPo beat me to it by highlighting a whole bunch of similar stories:

Anonymous officials this week have told several news organizations -– often using nearly identical language -- that the NSA leaks had prompted members of terrorist groups to change the way they communicate.

A “senior intelligence official” to ABC News on Monday:

“The intelligence community is already seeing indications that several terrorist groups are in fact attempting to change their communication behaviors based on what they’re reading about our surveillance programs in the media.”

A "senior intelligence official" to the Washington Post on Monday:

Already, several terrorist groups in various regions of the world have begun to change their method of communication based on disclosures of surveillance programs in the media, the official said. He would not elaborate on the communication modes.

A "US intelligence official” to CNN on Tuesday:

“We can confirm we are seeing indications that several terrorist groups are in fact attempting to change their communications behaviors based specifically on what they are reading about our surveillance programs in the media.”

Two “US national security sources” to Reuters on Tuesday:

Intelligence agencies have detected that members of targeted militant organizations, including both Sunni and Shi'ite Islamist groups, have begun altering communications patterns in what was believed to be a direct response to details on eavesdropping leaked by the former U.S. spy agency contractor, two U.S. national security sources said.

Two “U.S. intelligence officials” to the AP on Wednesday:

Two U.S. intelligence officials say members of virtually every terrorist group, including core al-Qaida members, are attempting to change how they communicate, based on what they are reading in the media, to hide from U.S. surveillance.

Of course, the details are incredibly sparse to non-existent. And, frankly, that's understandable since it seems like it's almost surely bullshit. The report from Starr claimed the following:

The administration official offered an example of one concern: Terrorists may be less inclined to communicate via "clean" e-mail accounts that have no links to them because they believe the U.S. government can track those.

But... does anyone seriously believe that terrorists are so dumb that they're communicating via basic email accounts like that? We're talking about Al Qaeda, who was so careful with Osama bin Laden's communications that he typed out his emails on a thumb drive, which someone else then took far away to input into a computer. Terrorists know the US government is spying on them, and so far none of the revelations has been all that surprising or revealing about how the government spies on terrorists. The concern has been about how the public is swept up in the process.

But, really, all of those stories above seem a hell of a lot more revealing about US intelligence techniques than anything that Ed Snowden has leaked. MSNBC's Chris Hayes is spot on in this scathing response to Starr and others, and the "media insiders" as he notes that the reports of government officials telling the world that terrorists are changing how they communicate seems a lot more revealing, but no one seems to be calling for any of the reporters above to go to jail: As Hayes says:

This article not only self-servingly advances the narrative that the intelligence community would like us to believe -- that the Edward Snowden leaks have helped the terrorists -- but, in doing so, it could be seen as doing far more in alerting terror groups to what the US intelligence community knows about them and their communications than anything published by the Guardian or the Washington Post. And yet, somehow, I have not heard members of Congress calling Barbara Starr's reporting dangerous, or pushing for her prosecution...

The whole video is great. But, between all of these things, you see the same thing over and over again. The actual leaks from Ed Snowden don't appear to be damaging, other than to the reputations of some in DC. And the later leaks being used to tar and feather Snowden appear to be much more revealing. But, somehow the insider press is fine with "leaks" that support the government's official position, but aren't okay when the leaks actually challenge the government.

Funny how that works. Or, rather, not funny at all.

Filed Under: barbara starr, chris hayes, david gregory, ed snowden, glenn greenwald, hypocrisy, journalism, leaks, media

IRS Audited Over Inappropriate Spending, Claims It Can't Find Its Receipts

from the off-with-their-heads dept

Just a guess, but it probably sucks to be the IRS right now. Between reports about them snooping on people's emails and their targeting of conservative groups, it's quite easy to paint them as a big, evil bureaucracy. Actually, it was pretty easy to do so before all that. You can generally rely on the hatred of the people for a group that requires meticulous spending records and then collects taxes. Big, bad, evil. What could be worse?

Well, how about hypocritical? That sure seems like an apt word in light of reports on how flighty the IRS was with tax-payer money for their own comforts.

The conference spending included $4 million for an August 2010 gathering in Anaheim, Calif., for which the agency did not negotiate lower room rates, even though that is standard government practice, according to a statement by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Instead, some of the 2,600 attendees received benefits, including baseball tickets and stays in presidential suites that normally cost $1,500 to $3,500 per night. In addition, 15 outside speakers were paid a total of $135,000 in fees, with one paid $17,000 to talk about "leadership through art," the House committee said.

Infuriating, right? The bald-faced audacity of the organization that collects our taxes using some of that tax money to go to baseball games has the air of outright thievery. Fortunately, thanks to the investigation by the Treasury Department, we now have a full and accurate account of the awful IRS spending, right?

No, we damn well don't, because the IRS -- and I stress this, the IRS -- is claiming it can't find its own receipts, so the spending may well have been even worse.

Hypocrisy, thy name is now an acronym, and that acronym is IRS. This is the type of thing that keeps pitchfork and torch manufacturers in business. In fact, were it not for the undeniably smooth face and impossibly perfect coiffure of Anderson Cooper getting me through this, I might just be leading the mob.

Filed Under: hypocrisy, irs, receipts, spending

Even As US Continues To Push Stronger Intellectual Property Laws Through Trade Agreements, It Ignores Those Agreements At Home

from the good-for-the-goose dept

Even as the US tries to ratchet up patents, copyrights and trademarks in international trade agreements, talking about how it's essential to protect the US's interests, it's amazing how the US ignores those same agreements at home. For years, we've talked about the still ongoing situation with Antigua, where the US was clearly found in violation of trade agreements, but has refused to do anything about it (other than unilatterally changing the free trade agreement in question in its own favor).

But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Other countries are complaining that the US has lost at a variety of hearings in front of the WTO (handling disputes over those trade agreements) and then proceeded to ignore those rulings entirely.

“The conduct of the United States unscrupulously discredits the WTO dispute settlement system and also constitutes an affront to the intellectual property rights,” an ambassador from Cuba said today at the WTO.

At a WTO Dispute Settlement Body meeting today, a number of WTO members fired shots at the US delegation for its continued failure to change its laws to comply with WTO rulings that found it out of compliance on intellectual property-related issues.

The article lists out a bunch of countries all complaining that, while the US keeps pressuring them to adopt strict IP laws, the US routinely ignores the same clauses in the various free trade agreements it signs.

“It is very ironic to observe the United States projecting laws on intellectual property, despite keeping violations as egregious as Section 211,” under which the Bacardi Company continues to market rum labelled Havana Club, a mark which is otherwise owned by Cuba and partners. “This is one of the most famous cases of trademark counterfeiting and conducting misleading advertising by a company backed by the US legislation.”

And while a number of the countries complaining obviously have other issues with the US (Cuba, Venezuela), it's not just those countries. The EU also has complained that the US has been ignoring various agreements.

Even the 27-member European Union weighed in on the Section 211 case, thanking the US for its report and adding the hope that “US authorities will very soon take steps towards implementing the DSB ruling and resolve this matter.” The EU also urged that the US comply with another IP case – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act – which involved the US commercial practice of playing music recordings, such as Irish music, aloud in bars without paying royalties. “We refer to our previous statements that we would like to resolve this case as soon as possible,” the EU said.

Of course, the proper response to all of this isn't just putting more pressure on the US to change its laws to comply, but a more basic solution: stop agreeing to "intellectual property" issues in trade agreements. The US has now made it abundantly clear that it will pressure countries into rules that go against its own best interests and then will ignore any rules that go against its own interests. So the most basic response is that the US is clearly not trustworthy on "intellectual property" in trade agreements, and other countries should refuse to include such provisions in any agreement with the US. Don't reward hypocrisy and bullying by allowing the US to do more of the same.

Filed Under: cuba, eu, hypocrisy, intellectual property, trade agreements, us, venezuela, wipo, wto

US Hypocrisy: Supports Open Dialog On Internet Governance At WCIT; But Full Secrecy At Parallel TPP Negotiations

from the hypocrites dept

Back in October, we pointed out how the US delegation to the ITU WCIT (World Conference on International Telecommunications) was pushing for much more openness and transparency for the notoriously closed and secretive process that could impact internet governance. That was certainly refreshing to see. But it also stood in stark contrast to the same US government's massively secretive and opaque process to the Trans-Pacific Parntership agreement -- which could have just as much, if not more, of an impact on internet governance issues.

With negotiations on both issues happening simultaneously (WCIT in Dubai and TPP negotiations in New Zealand) it seems quite crazy to see the US speaking out vehemently in favor of greater openness and transparency in Dubai, while actively trying to prevent similar transparency in Auckland. Here's the State Department on WCIT:

On the eve of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), we believe that it is the right time to reaffirm the U.S. Government's commitment to the multistakeholder model as the appropriate process for addressing Internet policy and governance issues. The multistakeholder model has enabled the Internet to flourish. It has promoted freedom of expression, both online and off. It has ensured the Internet is a robust, open platform for innovation, investment, economic growth and the creation of wealth throughout the world, including in developing countries.

[....] The Internet's decentralized, multistakeholder processes enable us all to benefit from the engagement of all interested parties. By encouraging the participation of industry, civil society, technical and academic experts, and governments from around the globe, multistakeholder processes result in broader and more creative problem solving. This is essential when dealing with the Internet, which thrives through the cooperation of many different parties.

The global community has many serious topics to discuss with respect to the Internet. Collectively, we need to ensure that these matters are taken up in suitable multistakeholder venues so that these discussions are well informed by the voices of all interested parties.

Our commitment to the multistakeholder model is based on the fact that transparency, inclusion and participation are the 21st century standards governing discussions related to modern communications.

Yet, over in New Zealand, US officials, as well as negotiatiors from others countries, are taking the opposite view. They're doubling down on secrecy, not transparency. They are not using a "multistakeholder" model at all, but rather locking out civil society and public interest groups. They've ignored or limited the ability of the innovation industry to have any say in the proceedings at all, and (most ridiculously) they're enforcing a secrecy policy many times worse than what we see at the ITU with WCIT. Many of the documents from WCIT have leaked out, while precautions mainly driven by the US government have, to date, limited the leaks from TPP negotiations.

It's really quite incredible that the same government can make those claims about openness, transparency and the importance of a multistakeholder process on the one hand, while going in the opposite direction on basically the same exact issue at the very same time for an event held elsewhere. The whole thing stinks of hypocrisy, which could easily be solved by opening up the TPP process, revealing the negotiating documents for public comment, and allowing the public into the process. After all, in the words of the US government:

We have and will continue to advocate for an Internet that is not dominated by any one player or group of players, and one that is free from bureaucratic layers that cannot keep up with the pace of change. We will work with everyone to ensure that we have a global Internet that allows all voices to be heard.

If only the US government would listen to that important message.

Filed Under: hypocrisy, internet governance, itu, openness, tpp, transparency, ustr, wcit

US: India, Stop Censoring Websites! India: Wikileaks, Hello? US: That's Different!

from the hypocrisy dept

We've argued for a while that the US's effort to censor websites at home while talking about internet freedom is hypocritical and takes away any moral high ground the US might have had with other countries concerning their efforts to censor the internet. What's stunning, unfortunately, is how rarely US officials seem to recognize this problem. When confronted on it -- they always revert to a "but that's different!" claim, missing that this is exactly the excuse that other countries use to justify their own censorship efforts.

Case in point: there's been significant concern in India, as the government has been censoring Twitter accounts of certain journalists and political groups, as well as blocking certain websites (sometimes just blog posts, other times, full websites). As that last link explains, the content targeted for censorship tends to have to do with content around "communal issues and rioting," and thus there's an argument to be made that the censorship is for the benefit of the public, to prevent riots. Even so, of course, one can question whether or not such censorship is even effective, let alone the rather obvious temptation for those in power to overblock for their own benefit. Indeed, that last link explains that there have been "egregious mistakes" in how the blocks have been carried out.

And what about the US? With plenty of attention being paid to the debate over this Indian censorship, the US State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, was asked her thoughts about what was happening, and trotted out the standard line about internet freedom:

"On the larger question of Internet freedom, you know where we are on that issue, and we are always on the side of full freedom of the Internet," she said.

Which sounds great, of course, but if Nuland thought that such a blanket statement would let her off, she was mistaken. Reporters immediately hit back, pointing to examples of the US fighting against internet freedom in its own back yard. And Nuland apparently wasn't happy, and pulled out the "but that's different!" excuse:

But when she was probed on the issue of WikiLeaks, Nuland snapped: "WikiLeaks didn't have to do with freedom of the Internet. It had to do with the compromise of US government classified information."

To be fair the US government has not "blocked" Wikileaks. It has blocked it on certain government computers and has used public pressure to have its hosting and payment processors cut it off. Whether or not that's to the same level as to what's happening in other countries may be debatable, but it certainly opens up the US to criticism on that point. And that's the real issue here. Even if you argue "but that's different," just the fact that the US has opened itself up to such an easy retort any time it argues for internet freedom in countries that espouse censorship, it makes it that much harder for the US to seriously push an internet freedom agenda abroad.

Filed Under: censorship, diplomacy, hypocrisy, india, us
Companies: wikileaks

GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language... But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

from the no-freedom-to-get-off dept

We've discussed the push to get both major political parties in the US to adopt language around internet freedom in their official platforms. With the RNC Convention happening, there's been some news that they are, in fact, putting in some internet freedom language, but the specifics do matter. The Daily Caller report indicated that the language was based on the manifesto that Ron Paul and Rand Paul released a few weeks ago, which had serious problems (such as arguing that the public domain was a "collectivist plot" and that the end-to-end principles of the internet were also some sort of awful conspiracy). One would hope that cooler heads would prevail.

Of course, at the same time, there are numerous reports saying that the same GOP platform will include significant anti-porn language. The GOP has had anti-child porn language before, which makes sense, but they're expanding it to porn in general. And it's being cheered on by various groups who seem... a little excessively happy about this (you should see some of the press releases I've been getting from groups in favor of this). They argue that porn, in general, is "a major, major problem." And Mitt Romney seems to support this, arguing that "every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography."

No matter what you think of pornography, it's hard to square the idea of supporting internet freedom (or freedom of speech in general) with mandatory filters. Porn filters already exist and are widely available in the market. For those who wish to put them on their computers, it's not like they have a lack of options. To make them mandatory seems highly questionable, and it's difficult to see how one can argue for both internet freedom and mandatory filters at the same time.

Of course, this is politics that we're talking about, where it's pretty common to hold two completely conflicting viewpoints at the same time. I expect we'll see similar contradictions in a couple weeks when the Democrats hold their convention as well...

Filed Under: free speech, hypocrisy, internet freedom, mitt romney, pornography, republicans

Back And Forth Cloning Battles With Zynga Continue With New EA Chapter

from the karma-slapped dept

Our first introduction with Zynga was back in 2009 when the maker of Mob Wars sued Zynga over its Mafia Wars game. Zynga was accused of copyright infringement and ended up paying a pretty penny. Later on in the year, Zynga turned around and sued Playdom over what it claimed was trademark infringement. Shortly there after Zynga was sued for trademark infringment over the name Mafia Wars. Then last year, Zynga decided to sue a Brazilian company, Vostu, for various claims of copyright infringment and even some claims that the company copied its entire business model. This lawsuit resulted in a very interesting ruling from a US Judge telling Zynga not to enforce its win over Vostu, because the US Judge wanted first dibs on the ruling. Remember this last case, because it is the most important one when reviewing this next lawsuit.

Just last week, word came in that Zynga was being sued yet again over allegations of game cloning and copyright infringement. This time the player doing the suing is none other than EA, the makers of the game The Sims Social. In its complaint, EA accuses Zynga of pretty much copying the entirity of the Sims Social in its game The Ville. In a press release about the case, EA states:

As outlined in our complaint, when The Ville was introduced in June 2012, the infringement of The Sims Social was unmistakable to those of us at Maxis as well as to players and the industry at large. The similarities go well beyond any superficial resemblance. Zynga’s design choices, animations, visual arrangements and character motions and actions have been directly lifted from The Sims Social. The copying was so comprehensive that the two games are, to an uninitiated observer, largely indistinguishable. Scores of media and bloggers commented on the blatant mimicry.

Compare that to Zynga's statement about its lawsuit against Vostu:

Let’s be clear – it is one thing to be inspired by Zynga games, but it is entirely different to copy all of our key product features, product strategy, branding, mission statement and employee benefits lock, stock and barrel. We welcome Vostu into the arena of social games, but blatant infringement of our creative works is not an acceptable business strategy—it is a violation of the law.

In both statements, the accuser is stating that outright copying was taking place. That each accused game was a near replica of the other game. Such a claim from EA after Zynga made very much the same claims has got to be one of the largest legal karma slaps in history. One that Zynga will be very much lucky to walk away from.

Elsewhere in the filing, EA shows that Zynga's cloning is not limited to this one case. It lists numerous instances where Zynga had been accused of cloning other popular games. It lists the afore mentioned Mafia Wars, Dream Heights, Farmville and Zynga Bingo, all games that had been publicly accused of being clones. This was done to show that Zynga has an extensive history of cloning games.

EA's filing is also full of interesting screen shot comparisons in which it points out some of the more common similarities, such as the almost exact duplication of skin tone selections and personality types. EA even provided a video showing other similarities in animations.

Something to note in these examples is that they follow a very similar pattern to the filing Zynga made in its case against Vostu. In that filing, any time Zynga wanted to show off the similarities of the two games in question, it would show images that use as many similar elements arranged in as similar a fashion as possible. Something that EA does as well. This tactic is deployed as a method to project as much of a feeling of copyright infringement as possible. Unfortunately, it also clouds the fact that much of what is shown are in all actuality user made choices. 

In response to this lawsuit, Zynga has sent a comment out to the media.

The Ville is the newest game in our 'ville' franchise -- it builds on every major innovation from our existing invest-and-express games dating back to YoVille and continuing through CityVille and CastleVille, and introduces a number of new social features and game mechanics not seen in social games today. It's unfortunate that EA thought that this was an appropriate response to our game, and clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic copyright principles. It's also ironic that EA brings this suit shortly after launching SimCity Social, which bears an uncanny resemblance to Zynga's CityVille game. Nonetheless, we plan to defend our rights to the fullest extent possible and intend to win with players.

Since we are in a compare/contrast mood today, let's take a quick look at how Vostu responded to Zynga's lawsuit.

Zynga has been accused of copying so many games that they’ve sadly lost the ability to recognize games like ours that are chock full of original content and have been independently created. Vostu has 500 brilliant employees working night and day making hand drawings and writing proprietary code for online games that our 35 million users worldwide enjoy. Zynga’s anti-competitive effort to bully us with a frivolous lawsuit — especially when we have some of the same key investors — is pathetic. While Zynga plays games with the legal process we will continue focusing on using our substantial resources to create games that entertain our customers.

There are two key similarities between these two defensive statements. The first is that both companies make the claim that their work is original and built with the companies' creative talents. The other is both are claiming that the lawsuits are less about copyright and more about attacking a competitor. It really boggles the mind that a company like Zynga has missed the poetics of this situation.

While we have repeatedly stated that the practice of game cloning is something that can be dealt with outside of the legal system, it is interesting to see these two players go toe to toe. What makes this case even more interesting than a typical cloning case, as I have tried to portray, is that Zynga set itself up for this lawsuit. Not just by copying EA's game, but also by providing the exact kind of legal precedent EA needs to win. If Zynga is to defend itself in this case, it is in effect defending Vostu's actions. Something that Zynga probably isn't looking forward to.

Filed Under: cloning, copying, hypocrisy, video games
Companies: ea, vostu, zynga

Transparency Double Standard: UK Public Inquiry Requests Info From Wikileaks

from the feeding-the-hand-that-bites dept

Well, this is interesting. Given the general condemnation of Wikileaks by governments, all the ongoing controversy and reputation problems faced by the organization, you wouldn't expect them to be approached with any official requests for leaked information. But it seems just that has happened in the UK, where the Leveson Inquiry into media ethics has requested and received a dossier from Wikileaks on corruption in the British press.

On the surface this is pretty hypocritical, and more than a little ironic: in the past, the UK government asked media outlets to brief them on government secrets they received from Wikileaks before publishing them. Now, a government-run inquiry is asking Wikileaks to hand over information on UK media outlets. Apparently they don't hate leaks as long as they flow in the right direction.

Hopefully this represents another step towards governments recognizing that Wikileaks isn't pure evil, even if there are questionable things about the operation. Though there are risks, bringing sensitive information to light is often in the public's best interest—indeed, that's the whole spirit behind public inquiries. The Leveson Inquiry was convened when the News of the World phone-hacking scandal pointed to a secret culture of corruption in the press, and now Wikileaks is helping to expose it further. If governments attempt to maintain secret cultures of their own, they too will be exposed.

Filed Under: corruption, hypocrisy, leaks, uk, wikileaks