Time Magazine Says SOPA Is 'A Cure Worse Than The Disease'; Would Encourage Censorship

from the mainstream-press dept

It appears that more people in the mainstream press are beginning to recognize just how horrible the SOPA/E-PARASITE bill is when you look at the details. Over at Time Magazine's Techland blog, there's a post by Jerry Brito, saying that it's a "cure" that is "worse than the disease." The post notes that it won't do much to actually stop infringement, beyond at the margin, but the costs of doing so are quite a lot -- especially as the State Department is trying to convince others around the globe not to regulate the internet:

At a moment when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is urging world governments to keep their hands off the Internet, creating a blacklist would send the wrong message. And not just to China or Iran, which already engage in DNS filtering, but to liberal democracies that might want to block information they find naughty. Imagine if the U.K. created a blacklist of American newspapers that its courts found violated celebrities' privacy? Or what if France blocked American sites it believed contained hate speech? We forget, but those countries don't have a First Amendment.

It's good to see the mainstream press recognizing that this isn't just a fight about "foreign rogue sites" as the entertainment industry would have you believe -- but about massive regulation of the internet and free speech.

Filed Under: blacklist, due process, journalism, press, sopa

Mainstream Press Realizing That E-PARASITE/SOPA Is Ridiculously Broad

from the good-for-them dept

It's been unfortunate that the mainstream press hasn't really spent much time digging into the actual details of the text of the E-PARASITE/SOPA bill, and just how awful it is. At best, some of them have done a "well, the tech industry is worried about it" kind of piece, without actually looking at the details. Thankfully, some in the press really are digging in. James Temple, at the SF Chronicle, has an excellent and detailed piece about how SOPA would do more to "stop online innovation" than it would ever do to stop online "piracy." Just a snippet:

There are lots of concerns here, including the amount of discretion it hands to the attorney general. But another big worry is that blocking the domain name for one infringing site (say, latviablogging.com/counterfeitrolexes) could prevent access to thousands of innocent ones also hosted under that domain (like latviablogging.com/motherscookierecipes).

"It is inevitable that there will be bad behavior on any site that has thousands and thousands of dedicated subsections," said Dane Jasper, CEO of Santa Rosa Internet service provider Sonic.net. Cutting off the entire site's traffic and funds amounts to an "Internet death penalty" without a trial, he said.

It also highlights the ridiculous broad drafting and confusing language in the bill -- something SOPA/E-PARASITE defenders still refuse to admit. The worst of the worst is in the definition of what constitutes "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." The dreadful drafting is going to lead to massive lawsuits:

This section of the bill appears to apply to both U.S.-based sites and foreign ones, or even a portion of a site, if it's "dedicated to theft of U.S. property." One of the key definitions of that is if a site "is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement. Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C., public interest group, helpfully boiled down that clumsy legalese to: "lacking sufficient zeal to prevent copyright infringement."

In other words, it would place the responsibility for detecting and policing infringement onto the site itself, rather than content owners, as required under the DMCA.

"There's really not much question that this bill is designed to do an end run around the DMCA," said Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group in San Francisco. "What has been affirmed by court after court is that service providers do not have to affirmatively police infringement. That's a good thing because it's a terrible burden to put on a service provider."

The thing that gets me is that if defenders of this bill were intellectually honest, they'd just admit that they were, in fact, trying to change the DMCA, and have a conversation on that point. So far, only Rep. Bob Goodlatte has been intellectually honest enough to admit that's the case. However, others in our comments and on other sites keep insisting that the bill is "narrowly drafted" just to impact the worst of the worst. Anyone who reads the plain (if convoluted) text of the bill knows that's simply not true. A "narrowly drafted" bill does not impact pretty much every internet property, like SOPA does.

Filed Under: danger, e-parasite, innovation, press, sopa

Mainstream Press Account In Australia Makes The Case For Why 'Piracy' Is Not The Problem

from the a-wonderful-essay dept

You don't quite expect to see this sort of thing on a mainstream press source, but ABC, down in Australia, has a feature piece entitled, The case for piracy, which sounds quite similar to many of the things we tend to talk about. It argues that the old school opinion that "piracy bad, copyright good" may not be particularly accurate -- and, in fact, it could be argued that "copyright owners" are in many ways their own worst enemies. If you think that sounds like the same thing we've been saying for over a decade, then you're correct -- but you probably haven't seen something like this show up in the mainstream press.

Much of the article focuses on how various industries abuse copyright to do anti-consumer activities, and how infringement is often the only way around it -- even for people who want to pay. The article also covers the recording industry's own suicidal tendencies.

Rather than give customers what they wanted publishers threw every toy they had out of the pram and hit the litigation button. One example saw the recording industry sue a 12-year old girl and won $2000. From her point of view she was simply using a free service on the internet that all her friends were using and discussing. One wonders how happy the recording industry was with its $2000 payout. Over the years industry bodies have spent far more money suing people than they recouped through the courts.

One of the main reasons we all have anti-piracy slogans embedded in our brains is because the music industry chose to try and protect its existing market and revenue streams at all costs and marginalise and vilify those who didn't want to conform to the harsh new rules being set.

It really is a fantastic piece. Kudos to ABC for running it, and to writer Nick Ross for publishing such an article.

Filed Under: adapting, business models, piracy, press

Chorus Of Mainstream Press Saying The Patent System Is Broken Gets Louder

from the why-isn't-Congress-doing-anything? dept

We've been noticing that the mainstream press has really been speaking up about the broken patent system lately. It was mostly kicked off by the excellent This American Life story about just how broken our patent system is, and that seems to have thrown open the floodgates. So, suddenly an issue that was generally discussed mainly by entrepreneurs and geeks was suddenly showing up all over the place. Last week we noticed stories in both the NY Times and the Economist calling out the dreadful problems of the patent system.

And now we've got two more mainstream publications going further down that road. First up, is The Guardian, which focuses mainly on software patents in explaining how the system is really broken and wondering why the government isn't fixing anything:

Patents were supposed to protect innovation. Now they risk throttling it. Such acquisitions may drag technology companies ever further from their original core competences. Academic research by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society has found that software patents have provided no net benefit to the software industry, let alone to society as a whole. Tragically, because so many corporations which formerly opposed software patents have now joined the system, an effective solution will be harder to find. Once again consumers are pitted against the corporations. Where are the regulators when they are needed?

A much bigger deal, however, is that the Washington Post has a story by Pulitzer-prize winning business and economics columnist Steven Pearlstein, explaining how the patent system is completely broken and the patent reform going through Congress right now won't fix the real problems (he's actually a bit generous in thinking it will fix some of the problems). The piece is a giant condemnation of a broken patent system:

Silly me. I thought the purpose of patents was to spur innovation by giving people who invent something the exclusive use of their innovation for a limited time.

There’s still some of that. But out in Silicon Valley, patents have become the competitive weapon of choice, used by high-tech giants to bludgeon rivals and crush upstarts.

It turns out that the more patents you have, the more likely it is that you can extort exorbitant royalties from people who might have easily come up with the same idea or the same feature that you did but never thought to patent it. And the more patents you have, the more your competitor wants so he can retaliate with a patent suit of his own, claiming that it was you who stole the ideas from him.

In other words, it’s an arms race to buy as many patents as possible, bidding up the price of patents without anyone gaining a permanent competitive advantage. Like all such races, this one involves a huge waste of time, talent and capital, not only in the race to buy patents but in trying to win a patent on every half-baked notion that anyone thinks up.

Instead of spurring innovation and entrepreneurship, patents are being used by companies, venture capitalists and their cynical lawyers to stifle and discourage them.

Pearlstein is someone that folks in DC actually read, which means that our elected officials are hopefully reading this. Will it make some in Congress finally wake up and realize that the patent system is really, really broken, and the patent reform bill they're discussing does little to address the real problems? It would be nice, but it seems unlikely.

Filed Under: innovation, patent system, patents, press, software patents

Hillary Clinton: We Want Journalism Innovation That Makes Info Easier To Share... Unless It's Wikileaks

from the tone-deaf dept

Jeff Sonderman points us to the odd statement put out by Hilary Clinton and the State Department for World Press Freedom Day, in which she praises the internet for making info easier to share and for holding governments accountable:

We have all witnessed the power that this surge in connectivity can have in shaping society and holding governments accountable. New media empowers individuals around the world to share information and express opinions in ways unimaginable just ten years ago.

Even as we celebrate innovations that make information easier to share, we are reminded that in many places around the world, journalists are still targeted for harassment and abuse, and are sometimes killed. Today, we remember that journalism is a calling of everyday heroes. We must continue to stand up for those who speak out in perilous circumstances as they pursue, record, and report the truth.

And yet, all of this is occurring at the same time that the State Department has continued to condemn Wikileaks and has supported the treatment of folks like Bradley Manning. He doesn't qualify as someone who decided to "speak out in perilous circumstances" as he tried to "pursue, record and report the truth?"

Filed Under: freedom, hillary clinton, journalism, press, state department, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Patent Office Wants To Open Up Shop In Silicon Valley... But Doesn't Want The Press To Know

from the why-not? dept

Well, this is odd. Cathy Gellis points us to the news that US Patent and Trademark Office director David Kappos was out in Silicon Valley recently and convened an event that involved inventors, executives, intellectual property lawyers and politicians -- all discussing the idea of having the USPTO open a satellite office in Silicon Valley. You know who was missing from the meeting? The press. Apparently journalists were explicitly barred from attending, which reasonably upset some attendees.

“Why would you exclude the press from this?” said Neil Smith, an IP partner at Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley, who attended the event. “He didn’t say anything untoward or particularly controversial. I didn’t hear anything they would want to keep away from the press.”

It really does seem kind of strange. Why would they be so afraid of the press being there? Personally, I think it would be a very good thing for the USPTO to open up an office here, as they might spend a bit more time with Silicon Valley folks who are intimately familiar with the problems of the patent system.

Filed Under: david kappos, press, silicon valley, uspto

Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible

from the surprising dept

The mainstream press has had a bit of a love-hate affair with Wikileaks over the past few months, often conflating some of the issues with Julian Assange with the overall operation itself. But what's been really troubling is how quiet the press has mainly been about the treatment of Bradley Manning, which is so severe that many people consider it to qualify as torture. Even the UN is now investigating whether the treatment qualifies as torture. Of course, even if you don't consider it torture, it's pretty clear that the treatment is designed to punish Manning, despite no trial and no conviction (or, perhaps, it's being used to pressure him to implicate Julian Assange in a potential conspiracy that might not actually exist).

However, it's nice to see at least some in the press realize this is a serious problem. The LA Times has an editorial suggesting that this treatment of Manning is clearly indefensible, and should be stopped. It does not come out and say he's being tortured and says that it's fine to punish Manning (within the limits of the law) if he's convicted, but that to do so prior to any conviction is immensely problematic:

Some see Manning as a whistle-blower who deserves leniency for exposing official duplicity; others believe that, like anyone who engages in civil disobedience, Manning, if guilty, should accept punishment for his actions. But regardless of one's view of his alleged conduct, the conditions under which he is being held are indefensible.

There's no reason that Manning can't be held under more reasonable conditions. It's sad that our government appears to not be willing to allow that to happen.

Filed Under: bradley manning, press, treatment, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Mainstream Press Seems To Think Fighting For Civil Liberties Is Childish

from the oh-grow-up dept

We've already pointed out how many mainstream newspapers and magazines have been mocking the concerns of people who are upset by the TSA's new search procedures. And, of course, the latest is that the press has decided this story is over because not enough people (in their estimation) opted out of the naked scans last week. NYU professor Jay Rosen notes a related, but disturbing, trend in the mainstream press coverage, with multiple publications suggesting that it was somehow childish to suggest these machines invade privacy with little actual security benefit. The common theme in all of these reports? "Grow up."

I find this incredibly disturbing. No, perhaps, being scanned or felt up in this manner isn't a huge deal to some people, but is it really so crazy that some people are actually concerned about their civil rights? That some people are actually concerned about the efficacy of these scanners? That some people are actually concerned about where this leads to next? That doesn't strike me as being childish or immature. It strikes me as exactly the opposite: it's about adults recognizing that rights are being eroded and that it's happening with little evidence that the reasons given make much sense. Simply giving in and submitting to authority because of some bogeyman claims certainly seems a lot more childish than asking "why"?

Filed Under: civil liberties, grow up, maturity, press, rights

Just Because 'National Opt-Out Day' Didn't Do Much, Does It Mean People Don't Care About TSA Searches?

from the say-what-now? dept

Last Wednesday, there was a lot of media attention paid to this concept of "national opt-out day" concerning the TSA's new "naked scan or grope" security options. I didn't cover that story at all. Leading up to it, I don't think I even mentioned the concept of the "national opt-out day" once, because the whole idea seemed pretty silly. In retrospect, it may have been worse than silly. Since there was no corresponding gridlock at airports, it appears that the press has now decided that because "national opt-out day" was a failure, it means people don't really care about the TSA's new policies. In other words, the failure of the protest means this "story" is over, much to the relief of the TSA and the administration, who now thinks it can go on ignoring the very real concerns of passengers.

This is a problem.

It's no surprise that the media storm over the TSA procedures had an arc. It's how major media stories go. But, it's unfortunate that there was this misguided focus on getting a bunch of people to do stuff on a particular day (and a day when they are probably least interested in actually doing what's asked of them). Because of that, suddenly, to the major media, it feels like this story is "over." But to the people who are still worried about the scans or uncomfortable with being groped by the government without reasonable cause, it's unfortunate that this story will now get less attention. It's not because the issue is any less. And it's not because the TSA has responded to the concerns. It's because of this one silly, poorly thought-out "event," which became a part of the media spectacle and an easy way to end the story with a claim that the whole set of protests has been a failure.

Filed Under: journalism, opt-out day, press, privacy, security, tsa

More Companies Looking To Cash In On So-Called 'Cyber War'; Press Buys Questionable Claims

from the fact-checks? dept

We've been discussing the manufactured buzz around the concept of a "cyberwar," despite the lack of any real evidence of anything beyond some typical espionage efforts with a bit of vandalism thrown in for color. However, for the companies building up the buzz, it's proving to be quite profitable, and it appears others are rushing to get in on the gravy train -- and they're using the unquestioning press to push the claim along. Take, for example, this Reuters article, that is all about how British aerospace/defense contractor giant BAE is now trying to cash in on the US government's new obsession with "cyberwar." The article opens in a cinematic fashion:

Threats to sensitive computer networks lurk everywhere and with a few mouse clicks, organized criminals and hackers could shut down vital networks that run the U.S. government, industry and military.

Source for that? None. Details? None. Evidence? None. Explanation for why vital networks that run the U.S. government and military are connected to the open internet? None. Explanation for why if all it takes is a few mouse clicks, no one has actually taken down these networks yet? None. In fact, that opening is never revisited or explained. Instead, it's taken for granted along with what's effectively a press release for BAE's new "cyber center" in (of course) Washington DC. If this keeps up, perhaps Techdirt will need to open a "cyberwar" division just to cash in on this hype.

Filed Under: cyberwar, politicians, press
Companies: bae