European Commission Sued By European Parliament Member Because Of ACTA Secrecy

from the political-lawsuits dept

It's no secret that the European Parliament and European Commission have been at odds over ACTA, and specifically over the secrecy around ACTA. However, it's now come out that a member of the European Parliament is actually suing the European Commission over the issue, though details are scarce. A lawsuit seems like a pretty extreme response, but it would be nice to see the details.

Filed Under: acta, eu parliament, europe, european commission, politics

IP Legal Experts Say ACTA Is 'Inconsistent' With EU Law

from the but-of-course-it-is dept

It's been pointed out over and over again how ACTA would require many countries to change their IP laws, while locking in some other laws that are still very much in flux. However, many of the main proponents of ACTA have insisted that it won't really require any legal changes. Now a group of IP experts from around the globe have pointed out that ACTA is inconsistent with European law, and have written an open letter explaining why (pdf). While the letter does say that many of the most egregious problems with ACTA have been fixed, it does still note a variety of places where it seems inconsistent with the law -- despite promises that it wouldn't require changes in the EU.

Filed Under: acta, europe

European Commission Planning New, More Draconian 'Anti-Piracy' Laws

from the but-of-course dept

This is hardly surprising, but the European Commission is currently discussing "IPRED 2," its latest attempt to craft pro-Hollywood laws concerning copyright infringement. As in the past, these are incredibly broad and conflate a variety of issues. They also seek (of course) to make everyone else copyright cops for Hollywood -- with specific focus on getting ISPs to start blocking and/or filtering users. The link above highlights some of the problems with the current outline, but the very worst part in my mind is the continued conflation of copyright infringement with physical counterfeiting. We've pointed out how common and nefarious this is. It allows certain lobbyists to change their argument as necessary. Basically, they can point to organized crime's involvement in physical goods counterfeiting, and then lump in fans listening to their favorite bands, as if they were the same thing. They're not. Treating them as if they were only serves to make people respect copyright law even less. Anyone can tell the difference between these scenarios, and pretending that they're the same makes it look like these lobbyists and politicians know that they're trying to hide behind one scenario to pitch laws that the industry wants, but clearly does not need.

Filed Under: copyright, europe, ipred 2

Wait, Can Anyone Explain Why Google Should Promote Other Search Engines?

from the i'm-confused dept

As the EU continues to use its Tim Wu-sian definition of monopoly where "being successful" equals "monopoly," it is has taken the step that everyone expected and has begun investigating Google for supposedly anti-competitive practices with regards to "competing search engines" such as Foundem. Foundem has been on this kick for a while. It has a crappy search engine that sucks and then it complains that Google doesn't link highly enough to them. The whole thing almost feels like it was set up purposely to have an excuse to go after Google.

As per usual, the absolute best response to this investigation comes from Danny Sullivan, who satirically notes that when he searches Google, obviously it had better link to other search engines as the top results:

I did a search at Google today for "cars" and was shocked. Rather than list links allowing me to search for "cars" on Bing, Yahoo, Baidu, Voila, Naver and Yandex, Google instead favored its own search results. I’m glad the EU will be investigating whether this favoritism violates anti-trust laws.

He goes on from there. It's worth reading the entire piece, because at the end he dismantles the entire argument of Foundem and the EU. It simply makes no sense. The whole thing is based on a basic fallacy that some companies who failed to actually get the market to come to them somehow think Google owes them traffic. Here's a tip: if your business model depends on getting traffic from Google, you are making a poor strategic decision.

And this is more true today than ever before. It wasn't that long ago that the vast majority of our referral traffic came from Google (the majority of our overall traffic comes from direct access/RSS readers). These days, however, while Google is still high up there, there's a wide mix of alternative sources that bring us traffic: StumbleUpon, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and a variety of other sources. Most of these aren't search engines -- but they are massive traffic generators, showing that people find stuff via social means at an increasing rate, and the idea that any business is totally reliant on one company, Google, to survive, simply suggests a poor business strategy. Regulators should never reward poor business strategies, but that appears to be what they're looking to do over in the EU.

Filed Under: antitrust, europe, search, search results
Companies: google

EU Proposes 'Right To Be Forgotten' Online, In Contradiction With Free Speech Concepts

from the which-is-more-important? dept

As a bunch of folks have sent in, there's a proposal making the rounds in the EU for a "right to be forgotten," which would require websites to delete all information about a person at their request. We've actually seen something like this in the past, in Germany, where last year we noted that a convicted German murderer, was using such a law to demand details of his conviction be removed from various websites. It's not difficult to recognize how problematic this concept can be. As Adam Thierer notes, a "right to be forgotten," is a clear restriction on free speech.

Now, some might claim that this is a point where free speech and privacy rights clash, but I'm not sure I actually agree with that. In fact, I'd argue that a "right to be forgotten" is not really a "privacy" right in the first place. A privacy right should only concern information that is actually private. What a "right to be forgotten" does is try to take information that is, by default, public information, and pretend that it's private. That's a very different situation, and one that clearly conflicts with free speech concepts.

Filed Under: europe, free speech, privacy, right to forget

If Spotify Is Making Labels So Much Money In Europe, Why Are They Still Demanding Crazy Upfronts In The US?

from the major-label-logic dept

For a few years now, people have talked about Spotify as the "next great hope" for the recording industry. For those who haven't seen it, it's effectively an "iTunes-in-the-cloud." I've played around with it, and it's definitely a hell of a lot nicer than most other things out on the market and the company continues to improve the product and to play around with some interesting additional models. I'm always a bit wary of anything that people think will "save" an industry, and Spotify is no exception. I think it's nice and useful, but it alone certainly isn't going to be the answer to the recording industry's inability to adapt to a changing marketplace. That said, one of the more amusing things to watch has been the fight over bringing Spotify to the US. It's been rumored to be "coming soon" for about a year and a half now and every time there's some rumor about it getting close, there's another rumor about the ridiculous terms and conditions the labels are insisting on to launch it here. They already have deals in Europe, but apparently, the labels want much better deals in the US.

The latest rumor says that Spotify is (once again) closing on deals with the major labels for a US launch, though it's going to involve massive upfront payments to the major labels (don't expect any of that to actually go to the artists). This has become pretty typical for the majors -- demanding massive cash up-front, which is why so many music-related startups have died an early death. The startups simply couldn't make enough money to cover those huge upfront fees. Now, Spotify might be a bit different in that it's raised a ton of money on the strength of its success in Europe and so it probably can handle the cash payment, at least initially.

But here's the thing that's strange. Just as the news of these huge upfront payment demands is leaking, Sony and Universal Music are both admitting that they're making more from Spotify in Sweden than any other retailer -- including iTunes (which, by the way, sort of puts a dent in Apple's attempt to spread FUD about Spotify to the labels).

So, here's the thing: if the labels are making so much money from Spotify in Europe, why have they fought so hard against doing a deal in the US without huge upfronts and/or guarantees? Part of it may be that the money in Europe has really only ramped up in the past few months, but part of it might just be how the major labels deal with music startups these days -- as seen by various quotes from major label bosses that suggest a jealousy of any other company being successful in the music business even if it helps them succeed as well. Basically, if another company is successful, these execs seem to think that they must have been given a bad deal. It's as if they don't understand how a non-zero sum market works. They believe if someone else is doing well, they must have been ripped off, so they want to make deals that practically cripple any other company, so that at least they're not doing as badly as those new companies.

Filed Under: europe, licensing, music
Companies: sony music, spotify, unversal music

European Parliament Approves Gallo Report: Opens The Door To More Bad IP Laws & Enforcement

from the it-never-ever-stops dept

One of the issues that's been clear in covering the politics associated with intellectual property laws is that those in favor of ever more draconian laws have a lot more efforts going underway than it's possible to follow. Every single time people get focused on one aspect that's getting attention, something else is slipped through when no one is looking. We may have just seen that happen again. While people around the globe are now certainly concerned and worried about ACTA, not much attention was paid to the Gallo Report, a proposal for the European Parliament to support similarly draconian intellectual property enforcement, based on a series of highly questionable or debunked claims. You can read the report below, or see some of the concerns about it here. Unfortunately, since the calls for attention on this document really only came out with a day's warning on the vote, it should not be surprising to find out that the Gallo report was approved by a vote of 328 to 245. This is disappointing for a European Parliament that had already hit back strongly against ACTA, when this document effectively opens the door to very similar ACTA-style problems.

Filed Under: copyright, europe, gallo report, parliament

Once Again, Lego Learns That It Cannot Trademark An Interconnecting Brick

from the can't-compete,-huh? dept

For many years now, we've covered Lego's quixotic quest to "trademark" its famous brick design. It hasn't gone well. Back in 2005, we wrote about how Canada rejected a trademark claim it made against a competitor, MegaBlok. But Lego didn't stop there, and tried to go after Mega Blok in Europe. In 2008, it lost in Europe as well. Rather than recognize the situation and focus on actually competing in the marketplace, Lego kept appealing. However, SteelWolf points us to the news that the European Court of Justice has upheld that 2008 ruling, meaning, once again, Lego has been told you can't trademark interconnecting bricks. And to think, all that time, Lego's lawyers could have just been building something cool. In the meantime, it still seems silly that the company was so focused on this. It has built up a strong fan base, and a great brand, without having to resort to trademark tricks to eliminate competitors.

Filed Under: europe, trademark
Companies: lego

Raids Across Europe Targeting File Sharing Sites

from the mole-wacking dept

Well, here we go again. Despite a near total lack of these kinds of activities helping anyone, apparently there's just been a European-wide set of raids on various file sharing operations. It's happening in at least 14 countries, with police showing up at various hosting firms, and trying to take down various private groups.

I'm sure we'll hear the entertainment industry and/or law enforcement make some silly claim about how this represents a "significant blow" against file sharing. But, of course, the people saying that are the only people who actually believe it. Most people involved in file sharing via these sites will just move on somewhere else.

Filed Under: europe, file sharing, piracy, raids

Describing How To Create A Software Program Now Puts You At Risk Of Contributory Patent Infringement?

from the for-the-purpose-of-teaching... dept

A whole bunch of you have been submitting the following story from a Dutch developer who is being threatened by Landmark Digital, a BMI subsidiary which owns the patents on Shazam's music recognition technology, for writing a blog post describing how to build similar technology in your spare time. The story is a perfect example of the ridiculous situation with patents today. Basically, the guy noted that what Shazam does in recognizing music is really not that complicated, and explained how to create something similar yourself, which he did himself in a weekend. He had not released the code, but was planning to do so when the legal threats came in. The guy wondered what patents they were talking about specifically, especially considering that in Europe, the standards to patent software are much higher. In response, he was only told about two US patents (6,990,453 and 7,627,477 -- oddly, on that last one, Google still shows it as being patent pending, even though the patent was granted last year).

The developer points out how silly this is:

Why does Landmark Digital Services think they hold a patent for the concepts used in my code? Even if my code works pretty different from the Shazam code (from which the patents came).

What they describe in the patent is a system which:

1. Make a series of fingerprints of a media file and/or media sample (such as audio, but could also be text, video, multimedia, etc) 2. Have a database/hashtable of fingerprints as lookup 3. Compare the set of hashtable hits using their moment in time it happened This is very vague, basically the only innovative idea is matching the found fingerprints linearly in time. Because the first two steps describe how a hashtable works and creating a hash works. These concepts are not new nor innovative.

But, with a bit of imagination one could (possibly) argue that my code (again, written completely by myself in a weekend with some spare time) does the same thing as the patent describes.

After talking it over with some attorneys, he realized that it probably wasn't worth the potential lawsuit to publish the code he wrote over the weekend, as ridiculous as that sounds. But then things got more ridiculous, as the lawyers for Landmark demanded he take down the original blog post as well, saying that it could teach others how to infringe the patent:

As I'm sure you are aware, your blogpost may be viewed internationally. As a result, you may contribute to someone infringing our patents in any part of the world. While we trust your good intentions, yes, we would like you to refrain from releasing the code at all and to remove the blogpost explaining the algorithm.

Great, so now we have to worry about contributory patent infringement as well? Are we really going to keep stretching third party liability to such ridiculous levels? Explaining to people how they might possibly build a simple app is now putting yourself at risk of liability?

Filed Under: contributory infringement, europe, music recognition, netherlands, patents, software patents
Companies: bmi, landmark digital, shazam