Why Does Rep. Mike Rogers Always Mock The Internet And Its Users?

from the do-you-not-care-about-the-public? dept

Rep. Mike Rogers, who has long been a strong supporter of stomping on your privacy in the name of supporting his friends (and family) who are a part of the intelligence-industrial complex, seems to have a real hatred for the internet and the people who express their opinion via the internet. No wonder he was the lead sponsor of CISPA and wanted the ability to undermine the privacy promises of internet companies. Back when the CISPA debate was happening, and there was widespread grassroots opposition, Rogers dismissed it all, claiming that it was just "14-year-olds in their basement clicking around on the internet.

So it should come as little surprise that when he stood up on the House floor yesterday to defend the NSA's mass collection of Americans' private information, he once again mocked the internet and its users. You can watch Rogers' impassioned speech here, which is almost entirely made up of misleading rhetoric in defense of the program, and concludes with this obnoxious sendoff:

Are we so small that we can only look at our Facebook likes today in this Chamber? Or are we going to stand up and find out how many lives we can save?

Note the implication: those supporting the Amash Amendment are those awful basement-dweller "internet" types who are tweeting and Facebooking their support -- and those people don't matter. Sorry, Rep. Rogers, but those people are the American public whose interests you're supposed to be representing. Not the interests of your wife's career opportunities, or the interests of your friends in law enforcement. A few other tidbits from his speech: He claims that "this program and others" stopped 54 terrorist attacks. Note the "and others." No one has yet shown any actual evidence that this program -- the one being debated -- did actually stop any attacks or, even when it may have been used in investigations, that it was necessary as compared to other investigative techniques and programs.

Amusingly, while he conflates "this program" with "others" when talking about how important it is, earlier in the speech he goes in the other direction, focusing very narrowly on "this program." In the opening he insists that, under this program, the NSA collects "no emails, no phone calls, no names, and no addresses." Right. This program, the Section 215 "business records" collection of bulk metadata, does not include that info. But the NSA is collecting much of that info through other programs. Or, you know, through publicly available databases. We've seen many people argue that "this program" doesn't include things like names attached to phone numbers, but does anyone actually think that the NSA isn't able to do a reverse lookup to match a phone number to a name? Meanwhile, it's well known that the feds absolutely can get emails and phone calls if necessary. So, to say that because those things aren't obtained under this program, it means this program is fine, is silly -- because it's not difficult to get from this program to those others.

He also exaggerates how many people have said this program is legal. Especially when it comes to Congressional oversight. As this very debate showed, many in Congress were misled into believing this program was entirely different. Furthermore, when he claims that the various Intelligence Committees in the House and the Senate "approved" of this program, claiming they "came together" and supported the program, he implies that it was universal approval, but as we've seen from Senators Wyden and Udall that's hardly the case. And I won't even get into ridiculous fear mongering mentions of 9/11 and how without this program we're back to 9/10. That's just wrong.

Perhaps if Rep. Rogers actually went out and spoke to the American public, rather than insulting them, he might learn that his job is to represent them, and not the intelligence community and the big defense contractors. This isn't about getting Facebook likes. This is about the American public.

Filed Under: congress, facebook likes, mike rogers, nsa, nsa surveillance, public

Copyright Holders Will Define Details Of UK's Orphan Works Bill, But Not The Public

from the same-old-same-old dept

The UK's new orphan works legislation allows works to be classed as orphans only after a "diligent search" has been conducted to find the owner. The fear expressed by some is that this "diligent" search won't be very diligent, allowing publishers to use materials that aren't orphans. That's actually wrong for a number of reasons, as Techdirt explained recently, but the continuing furor from photographers in particular has been such that the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) felt compelled to issue a document entitled "The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 –Your photos and you" (pdf) explaining how the system would work, and why the fears were unjustified.

However, that document still does not answer the central question of what "diligent" will mean. A post on Out-Law.com provides some information about how this will be addressed:

"The 'diligent search' requirement will be defined through a working group so that it can reflect current best practice across all sectors," a spokesperson for the IPO told Out-Law.com. "This will make sure that any requirements are practical and manageable. The working group will include representation from creators, including the photography sectors, and users such as museums and archives."

Reading that made me wonder who exactly was on this working group, so I contacted the IPO's press office asking for details. Here's the list of organizations they kindly sent me:

Society of London Theatre and Theatrical Management Association
BBC Publishers Content Forum
JISC
National Museum Directors' Council (NMDC)
Copyright Licensing Agency
Musicians' Union
Creators Rights Alliance
British Association of Picture Libraries & Archives
British Equity Collecting Society
Focal
Authors Licensing & Collecting Society
The National Archives
Stop 43
Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance
The Association of Photographers
British Screen Advisory Council
Publishers Licensing Society
The Association of Illustrators
Society of Authors
Directors UK
Producers Alliance for Cinema & Television
UK Music
Association of Authors Agents

There are two things that struck me about that list. One is the appearance of Stop 43, probably the most vociferous of the photographer groups that have been complaining about the new orphan works law. Let's hope that its presence here, and thus its ability to contribute to the definition of "diligent", means that it drops the rhetoric about how the UK government has "reversed the normal workings of copyright," when that's simply not the case.

The other thing is that in contrast to the two groups representing photographers, there is not a single advocate for the somewhat more populous general public. Of course, that's absolutely par for the course: the public is routinely overlooked whenever it comes to asking "stakeholders" what they think about proposed changes to copyright. The UK's welcome move to liberate hostage works at last would have been the perfect opportunity to break yet more new ground by engaging directly with groups representing the 60 million people whose views are never properly considered. Sadly, that seems not to be happening.

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

Filed Under: copyright, diligent search, orphan works, photographers, public, public interest, uk

Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'

from the don't-list-to-them,-they're-just-the-public dept

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." That is the purpose of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, which is sometimes referred to as the "copyright clause" (or "the patent clause"), which enables both areas of law to be created via Congress. It's also the part that is most often ignored. As we've discussed, the whole purpose of this clause is to make it clear that the public are the sole stakeholders when it comes to proper policy making decisions regarding these laws. However, with this new push for comprehensive copyright reform, it appears that the copyright lobby is already working on ways to make sure that the public is marginalized in the discussion.

We've got two recent examples from the "Copyright Alliance," a DC-based lobbying shop put together by copyright maximalists (with the help of super right wing interests who normally don't link up with Hollywood on much), who are seeking to spin the debate in their favor with a lot of bluster and propaganda, often trying to demonize and/or marginalize the public's role in this debate. First up is an op-ed piece, in which the Copyright Alliance argues first that any new copyright reform must focus on maximalist principles, whether or not they make any sense. And then it digs in against the public, arguing that their voice shouldn't count for much because, apparently, they're so easily manipulated.

Those skeptical of copyright protection have expended a lot of energy to redefine its language and revise its history. Calls for lessening copyright protections are far too often accompanied by heated rhetoric. Appealing to emotions may be a great way to drum up signatures for online petitions, but has no place in policy discussions. Finally, it is not hard to find examples of those who propose dramatic changes without understanding the business realities of how creative individuals and industries operate.

Let's unpack that a bit. Each sentence is ridiculous in its own special way. If we are to look at the history of the copyright debate, one side and one side alone, has focused on "redefining its language and revising its history" and that would be the maximalists. In fact, there's an entire book that details exactly how the copyright maximalists have continually changed the language of copyright and revised its history. Copyright turned from a very narrowly focused concept, which was designed to encourage the spread of learning and knowledge, to something entirely different. A "limited monopoly" (as the framers called it) was turned into boundlessly vague "intellectual property." The act of "infringement" was turned into "theft and stealing." People who incidentally infringed on copyrights were describes as "pirates." The law was expanded and expanded because of moral panic after moral panic.

As for "heated rhetoric," we've been told over and over again that if we don't expand protections and kill of technologies, "the creative industries will die," despite no evidence to support that. Technologies which have helped to expand the industry, to create new ways to create, to promote, to distribute and to monetize were seen as the enemy because the powers-that-be did not control them. This is why the VCR was called "the Boston strangler of the movie industry" by the MPAA's Jack Valenti. I'm sorry, but the idea that those of us skeptical of today's copyright laws are the ones redefining the language or history is simply a laughably false claim.

But the really disturbing part is the next line. The claim that the public speaking out, such as via petitions or through various actions in which they contact politicians, should be ignored because it has "no place in policy discussions" is really just downright insulting. We know that, in the wake of SOPA, the copyright lobby has spent plenty of effort pretending that the public really didn't speak out, or that, if they did, it was only because they were stupid and deluded. But that should be seen for what it rightfully is: an insulting way of dismissing the public's interest in a law that is for the public's benefit.

The copyright lobby is scared to death that the public might actually speak up on its own behalf, because that would ruin the scam it's been running for quite some time.

In another piece by the same Copyright Alliance group, in response to the good ruling in the Kirtsaeng case, the alliance lashes out at public interest groups Public Knowledge and others for supposedly deluding the public:

Supporters of Kirtsaeng, including companies like eBay and groups such as Public Knowledge, have played an aggressive role in warping the public's understanding of the anti-arbitrage provisions of the Copyright Act and the benefits of market differentiation. Behind the veil of the Owners Rights Initiative, they perpetuated a series of falsehoods; these sweeping generalizations mischaracterize the impact of Kirtsaeng, generally attempting to recast a case limited in scope as an issue that will concern all individual resellers of goods.

The entire article is full of "redefinition" and "revising of history" -- to the ridiculous point of suggesting that the US hasn't recognized first sale rights on foreign goods for decades (a laughably false claim). But in the paragraph quoted here, you see its true contempt for the public. Apparently the public is simply too stupid to understand copyright law and is easily led astray by groups like Public Knowledge.

Taken together, you see both the fear and outright contempt that the copyright lobby has for the public. To them, the public are interfering with "the industry's rights" and are apparently stupid, gross and easily led astray and into mob behavior. I'm guessing that some of this is just PTSD following the lobbyists getting their clocks cleaned in the SOPA fight -- through cognitive dissonance, they've determined the only plausible explanation is that the public was duped.

But some of us believe that copyright law is supposed to be used in the public interest, and if that's the case, we should recognize that the public is the stakeholder who matters. To claim they should "have no place in policy discussions" isn't just wrong, but it's insulting. We should be welcoming the public into these discussions as much as possible -- not just because they are the key stakeholders here, but (more importantly) because if the Copyright Alliance actually wants a law the public respects, it might want to try including them in the process this time around. That its kneejerk reaction is to insult, demean and exclude the public gives a pretty clear indication where they would like this debate to go.

Filed Under: copyright, lobbyists, public, rhetoric

If Microsoft Shuts Down Google Maps In Germany, How Does That Benefit The Public?

from the monopolies-deemed-harmful dept

Most sane human beings have stopped trying to keep up with the interwined legal actions arising out of the smartphone patent wars between Apple, Google, Motorola, Nokia, Microsoft and all the rest. The cases, though, are still grinding through the courts, which periodically throw out their verdicts. According to Florian Mueller, one such decision in Germany is imminent:

Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann of the Munich I Regional Court just told Google and its Motorola Mobility subsidiary in no uncertain terms that his court is at this point (prior to counsel's argument on claim construction, infringement and validity) inclined to hold Google Inc., its subsidiary Motorola Mobility LLC and MMI's German subsidiary liable for infringement of a key Microsoft patent, EP0845124 on a "computer system for identifying local resources and method therefor", which is the European equivalent of U.S. Patent No. 6,240,360.

Here's that EPO patent:

A map of the area of a client computer (10) is requested from a map server (11). Information relating to a place of interest is requested from an information server (12) by the client computer (10). The information is superimposed or overlaid on a map image at a position on the map image corresponding to the location of the place of interest on the map. The information (or "overlay") server (12) may contain details of, for example, hotels, restaurants, shops or the like, associated with the geographical coordinates of each location. The map server (11) contains map data, including coordinate data representing the spatial coordinates of at least one point on the area represented by the map.

As the claims make clear, it's exactly what any half-way competent engineer would come up with given the task of providing certain kinds of information local to a geographical location. Moreover, it is of course implemented in software; given that Article 52 of the European Patent Convention explicitly excludes "programs for computers" from patentability, the fact that the EPO granted a patent here is an early example of how it circumvented that exclusion because a computer was used to run that software (well, doh.)

There's another problem with the patent, as Mueller's post makes clear:

Microsoft is seeking, and now very likely to obtain, a German patent injunction against the Google Maps service, the Google Maps Android client app, and web browsers providing access to Google Maps. In order to comply with the injunction that looms large, Google would have to disable access to Google Maps from computers using a German IP address, discontinue shipping the Google Maps Android app in the German market, and distribute web browsers in Germany only if they block access to Google Maps in a way comparable to Internet filters used for the purpose of parental controls.

If that turns out to be the case, and Google isn't able to code around the problem, that means that the patent was ridiculously over-broad -- essentially, it's a patent on all implementations of the basic idea. That's unlike traditional patents, where alternative, non-infringing inventions can be devised to solve a given problem.

Moreover, Microsoft can't fall back on its usual justification that it spent years of research and huge amounts of money developing this "breakthrough" idea, and therefore deserves its sweeping monopoly. According to both the European and US filings, the original patent was granted to Sean Phelan, based in London. Here's the background:

Sean started Multimap.com as a bootstrap start-up in his spare bedroom in 1995 and built it into one of the 10 most popular British web services, with revenues of £12M and profits of £1M

Sean formed Multimap.com to bring together his lifelong love of sailing and navigation with his experience with the internet and web-based technology. Through Multimap, Sean realised his vision of services based on the integration of navigation, wireless communications and the web. He is one of Europe's original internet entrepreneurs, with a unique combination of business and technical skills. In December 2007 the company was acquired by Microsoft for £30 million, cementing its position in the ranks of Britain's internet success stories.

And good for him. But buying his patent doesn't give Microsoft -- or anyone -- the right to lock out competitors from the entire online map space. If Mueller is right, and a broad injunction is granted against Google Maps, the net result will be millions of Germans unable to use this popular service in a Web browser or on their smartphones. In what way does that benefit society or promote innovation?

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

Filed Under: germany, google maps, patents, public, software patents
Companies: google, microsoft

Justice Sotomayor Doesn't Want Cameras In The Supreme Court Because Americans Won't Understand

from the citizen-mushroom,-reporting-for-inactive-non-duty dept

This adminstration is having a hard time reaching its goal of being the "transparentest place on earth," what with its executive orders, state secrets and a whole lot of "as you were" in reference (deference?) to existing Bush-era policies. To make matters worse, Obama's appointees are proving themselves to be "team players" and blocking out much of the remaining sunlight.

Justice Sotomayor is pitching in with the "new transparency" (now available in black, charcoal and midnight slate!), reversing field on her previously stated opinions on cameras in the courtroom.

At her confirmation hearings in 2009, she said she was in favor of letting citizens see their government at work. “I have had positive experiences with cameras,” she said. “When I have been asked to join experiments of using cameras in the courtroom, I have participated. I have volunteered.”

Apparently, much like the rest of the administration, transparency is a great talking point in theory. In practice, however, it's a very different story.

She was singing a different tune a couple of weeks ago, telling Charlie Rose that most Americans would not understand what goes on at Supreme Court arguments and that there was little point in letting them try.

“I don’t think most viewers take the time to actually delve into either the briefs or the legal arguments to appreciate what the court is doing,” she said. “They speculate about, oh, the judge favors this point rather than that point. Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate.”

Now, while Sotomayor may be correct that many Americans don't understand the nuances of the Supreme Court, it's rather insulting to believe this ignorance should preclude them from observing the inner workings. After all, many Americans are ignorant of ins and outs of the entire political process, and yet, no one's suggesting (at least not legislatively) that they have their right to vote revoked. Not only that, but C-SPAN offers wall-to-wall coverage of the legislative process, something few people in their right minds would claim to understand in its entirety, but no one seems concerned that viewers drawing the wrong conclusions will somehow harm that process.

In fact, she doesn't really make an argument as to why cameras shouldn't be allowed into the courtroom. All she does is claim that the proceedings would fly over the heads of viewers. If she's concerned some of the real-time "devil's advocating" will be misconstrued, her fears are misplaced, to say the least. The public can misconstrue the intentions of the justices without a live feed, thank you very much.

And, if it's the public's understanding of the process she's worried about, wouldn't it make more sense to make the process easily accessed? It's pretty hard to increase knowledge without observation. It seems counterintuitive to dismiss the public as ignorant and think you're going to improve this by locking them out.

Unfortunately, it's not just Sotomayor making a 180 when actually faced with making a theoretical situation a reality. Justice Elena Kagan has also reversed her stance.

At her confirmation hearings in 2010, she said video coverage “would be a great thing for the institution, and more important, I think it would be a great thing for the American people.” Two years later, she said she now had “a few worries, including that people might play to the camera” and that the coverage could be misused.

Once again, we have fake fears covering for the government's natural tendency to do its "best" work behind closed doors. C-SPAN has seen its share of "playing to the camera," and yet, the American public is still better off having access to this coverage. And, if Kagan's worried the courtroom coverage might be "misused," she's apparently unaware that anything can be misused, whether it's press releases, public statements, speaking engagements, interviews, C-SPAN footage, etc. Worrying about potential "misuse" is an incredibly weak argument for opacity. Of course it will be misused. But it will also be beneficial to the general public. An open feed shows the whole story, which can then be used to punch holes in the arguments of those who misuse the information.

Oddly enough, the home of free speech and democracy is lagging behind countries like Canada and the UK in terms of cameras in these nations' highest courts.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which was formed in 2009, allows camera coverage. Last month, Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge, the head of the judiciary for England and Wales, announced that cameras would be allowed in appeal courts starting in October, after judges receive media training.

Lord Judge agreed with Justice Sotomayor, to a point. “I suspect John and Jane Citizen will find it incredibly dull,” he told a committee of the House of Lords. But that did not seem to him a reason to prevent them from trying to make sense of the proceedings.

Arguments in the Supreme Court of Canada have been broadcast since the mid-1990s, and more recently they have been streamed live on the Internet.

Owen M. Rees, the court’s executive legal officer, said the experience had been positive.

“The filming of the Supreme Court of Canada’s hearings has increased the public’s access to the court and its understanding of the court’s work,” he said. “Of course, each court must make its own evaluation of whether introducing cameras in the courtroom would be appropriate.”

So, we've heard the excuses (they're not actually "reasons") presented for keeping cameras out of the Supreme Court, but what's the real reason behind this resistance to cameras in the courthouse? According to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the problem may be with the justices themselves.

Chief Justice Roberts said he worried about the effect that cameras would have on lawyers and, perhaps more important, on the justices, who may have less self-control than their counterparts abroad.

“We unfortunately fall into grandstanding with a couple of hundred people in the room,” the chief justice said.

If true, then the American public is being cut out of the process in order to save the justices from themselves. This is completely backwards, to say the least. If cameras provoke this sort of response from the highest court in the land, then something needs to be fixed within the court itself. Trying to place the blame on the public for a perceived lack of comprehension or tendency to misuse information is wholly disingenuous. Our Supreme Court can, and should, follow the lead of Canada and the UK and stop treating US citizens as though they have no (comprehensible) horse in this race. 

Filed Under: public, sonia sotomayor, supreme court, video

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

from the biasing-the-comments dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Year Later, SOPA/PIPA Supporters Still Completely Ignore The Public

from the incredible dept

On this Internet Freedom Day, Declan McCullagh has a great post in which he reached out to the key politicians and lobbyists who supported SOPA and PIPA last year to see what they had to say one year later. The quotes are really incredible in their tone deafness to what happened. All of them -- smartly -- are about looking forward, rather than looking back, but none of them mention the public or doing what's best for the public. A bunch of them set up the false dichotomy of "Hollywood" vs. "Silicon Valley" as if this was all a giant commercial dispute. The others all speak of it in commercial terms. Incredibly, despite millions of individuals speaking up for our rights, not a single person interviewed by McCullagh seems to even think it's worth mentioning.

Let's take a look at some of the statements.

The problem of Internet piracy and the sale of counterfeit products online has not gone away. Senator Leahy continues to monitor law enforcement actions, significant developments in the courts and voluntary industry practices, and all those pieces will help determine what next steps are appropriate.
— spokeswoman for Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee and author of the Protect IP Act

Well, first problem: the continued conflation of internet copyright infringement with the sale of counterfeit products. These are two very, very different issues with very different causes that require very different approaches to dealing with them. Yet, Leahy and others have used this conflation to dangerous ends with bills like PIPA. What they do is take the widespread nature of copyright infringement and mix it with the very very very small, but still real, possibility of serious harm from some very specific cases of product counterfeiting (i.e., drugs and military equipment) -- and then try to create broad "solutions" that have massive unintended consequences impacting individual freedoms like freedom of speech. If both of those things are "problems" then lets have real discussions about them individually. The second you mix them together, you know that something bad will come out of it.

We can all agree about the importance of protecting American innovation from foreign thieves, but I think it is critical that all parties have a seat at the table and work together to solve important policy issues. As chairman of the Judiciary committee, I look forward to working with both the technology and content communities to find ways to protect America's competitive advantage while promoting internet freedom and growth.
— Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia), chairman of the House Judiciary committee and original sponsor of SOPA

First of all, you don't "steal" innovation. Innovation is a process. But, even beyond that, when he talks about "all parties" having "a seat at the table" and working together, notice that he doesn't mention the public at all. It's just "technology and content communities." That was a big part of the problem in the first place and it's disappointing that Goodlatte is still pushing this silly line. This was never "tech vs. content." This was about the public and forward-looking organizations who want to keep the internet free and open -- and legacy players (in both the content and tech industries, by the way) who were looking to lock down and control new systems in a weak attempt to protect increasingly obsolete business models. Bringing "tech" and "content" to the table and thinking those are the two sides in this fight isn't just mistaken, it gets the whole basis of this dispute wrong and will inevitably lead to more problems. Out of that comes bogus "solutions" like the six strikes agreements, which again completely left the public out in the cold.

Goodlatte is now the head of the House Judiciary Committee. He's always presented himself as a friend to Silicon Valley (and reminds us over and over and over again that his son works at Facebook). If he wants to do a better job than his predecessor, he needs to get past the artificial divides like "tech" vs. "content" and start looking at the real issues: the public and innovators vs. legacy players. Those cut across both lines. There are legacy tech players looking to hold back innovation, just as there are innovative, public-embracing content players.

Hollywood and Silicon Valley have more in common than most people realize. We share a commitment to innovation, to our consumers, and are working together to develop new platforms to make that content easily and legally accessible. Like the tech industry, the well-being of the film community is dependent on a vibrant First Amendment and we would never support any legislation that limits this fundamental right. We can all agree no one wins if everyone loses. Preserving freedom of speech and protecting intellectual property rights are not mutually exclusive efforts. Intellectual property protection is essential to creators and makers in both industries and we need to discuss it rationally. Let's use this anniversary to forge a path toward the future where the creative content and technology industries work together to develop meaningful solutions that ensure an Internet that works for everyone.
— Michael O'Leary, senior executive vice president for global policy and external affairs at the Motion Picture Association of America

We agree on the first half, but as is so often the case, O'Leary states the first half to basically try to avoid the obvious criticism of the second half. He states that the MPAA would never support legislation that limits the First Amendment, but he's done exactly that. Preserving freedom of speech and protecting "intellectual property" may not be mutually exclusive, but they absolutely can conflict, and frequently do conflict. The MPAA has refused to even acknowledge this possibility.

From there, the statement gets more and more problematic. We've seen over and over again that, while many creators and tech companies do use copyright, patents and trademarks, they are hardly "essential". Again, by simplifying this to "tech" vs. "content" it's easy for O'Leary to point to legacy tech companies who lean hard on copyright or patents, and then suggest that both "sides" want greater protectionism. But that's misleading. As discussed above, much of this is really about legacy players trying to block innovators who are looking to benefit the public. You can easily line up a bunch of legacy players on both the tech and content sides who will agree until the end of time about the values of protectionism -- just as you could line up true innovators in both areas who say that patents, copyright and trademark are of little value and are mostly a distraction.

It's a new day for a new music business and for the RIAA. For the better part of the last year, we have focused on being an evangelist for the dynamic, exciting legal online marketplace that now exists for fans. That will continue to be our priority in 2013. We earn more than half of our revenues from digital services and platforms. Not many creative industries can say that. Music helps drive social media trends and device sales. In fact, in 2012, the two top Google searches were music-related. Currently, 19 of the top 20 YouTube videos are music videos. And according to Twitter, seven of the top 10 Twitter accounts are held by artists.

What does this all tell us? Music is at the center of cultural and commercial phenomena. We are not stuck in the past but looking ahead at a promising, bright future teeming with new music options. Which is why we created, along with our online retailer partner NARM, WhyMusicMatters.com, a one-stop educational guide for digital music so fans can know where to get their favorite music in a variety of different ways. And we expect that this bright future will offer access to music in ways currently unimaginable but will perhaps seem commonplace a year from now.

Yes, piracy still continues to plague us and is a continuing threat to our business. But instead of looking to Congress for help, we are tuned in to the marketplace and actively seeking out voluntary partnerships with intermediaries like ISPs and advertisers to help curtail illegal downloading. Moving forward, we want to simplify music licensing to make it easier to develop music business models. We know that music models continue to evolve - access and listening models are becoming more prevalent and it's imperative we derive a fair market return for the music that is the foundation of those businesses. And as always, we'll continue to find new ways to promote the dynamic music marketplace.
— Mitch Glazier, senior executive vice president at the Recording Industry Association of America.

In typical Glazier fashion, those first two paragraphs are simply misdirection. Yes, of course music is important and a part of the cultural fabric. Duh. But notice that he's not actually concerned about ways to increase that through the better spreading of music, the ability to share and experience culture. No, he's solely focused on one thing: getting paid directly for each use of the song. And that's because the companies he represents -- the music labels -- were mostly built on that as a sole revenue stream. He's not talking about neat things like Kickstarter or Bandcamp that have allowed artists to "go direct" to fans, because that kind of stuff gets in the way.

It's good to see him committed to fixing licensing, because it's a massive problem, but I'll note that the RIAA was heavily involved in trying to block a bill last year that would have made music licensing more reasonable and affordable so that there would be new ways to distribute music legally.

Finally, the whole "voluntary" agreements thing is a bit of a red herring as well, as it seems as though the MPAA and RIAA are really focused on using these "voluntary" agreements to more or less get what they wanted in SOPA in the first place -- and that often means less due process and fewer fundamental rights and abilities for the public.

Protection of intellectual property and Internet freedom are critically important. The Chamber will work with members on both sides of the aisle to find an effective and commercially reasonable solution to address this ongoing problem.
— U.S. Chamber of Commerce spokeswoman

Not much to say on that, other than the US Chamber of Commerce was the leading lobbyist pushing for SOPA/PIPA last year. Their interpretation of "commercially reasonable solution" is highly suspect. Oh yeah, as is their interpretation of the "ongoing problem." The last time we looked, the US Chamber of Commerce was using flat-out bogus numbers and claims to support their description of "the problem." If you define "the problem" incorrectly, the "solution" is probably going to be an even bigger problem.

If you had asked me how I felt on January 18, 2012, about the prospects for protecting the creative work of artists and innovative businesses in the wake of the internet revolt against the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, my response might have involved some muttering under my breath and a request for a stiff drink. In the coming week, many who seek to exploit the work of creators without their consent will be looking backwards and celebrating last year's defeat of those bills. So one might expect advocates for artists and creators to be in a dour mood again, but there is ample cause for optimism among members of the creative community...

At least some of the goals of the legislation have been achieved through increased private and government action since the introduction of the first version of the bills in 2010:

• More credit card companies are engaging in best practices. In June 2011, major credit card companies and online payment processors (American Express, Discover, MasterCard, PayPal and Visa) reached an agreement on voluntary best practices to reduce sales of counterfeit and pirated goods by cutting off sites that distribute infringing goods from conducting financial transactions through these processors.
• More advertisers are engaging in best practices. On May 3, 2012, the Association of National Advertisers and the American Association of Advertising Agencies issued a statement of best practices to address online piracy and counterfeiting.
• Internet service providers, movie studios and record labels are collaborating on a Copyright Alert System. Under this system ISPs have agreed to notify users when their accounts appear to be used for illegal downloading activity and to impose real consequences on users who refuse to stop after receiving multiple notices.
• Google finally started considering whether sites are rogue websites when doing search rankings. In August 2012, Google announced a change in its search algorithm that takes into account the number of "valid copyright removal notices" when determining the ranking of search results. In its announcement, Google indicated the goal was to help its users find legitimate sources of content more easily...

As more artists and creators stand with their peers and highlight what is really happening on the Internet, more people will listen and think twice. If there is a silver lining to the blackout, it has been the people who we have met this year: artists, reformed 'pirates' academics and lawmakers who want to begin meaningful conversations about promoting creativity and ensuring it finds a place in all of our lives.
— Sandra Aistars, executive director of the Copyright Alliance

This picks up on Mitch Glazier and Senator Leahy's comments on "voluntary" solutions and shows something important. Note that all of those bullet points in the "voluntary" category are the kinds of things that SOPA/PIPA sought to make mandatory. As incredibly vital as the fight against SOPA/PIPA was last year, it's also important to see that the industry (sometimes with government help) has continued to browbeat companies into more or less implementing the rules anyway. When those "voluntary" rules conflict with individual freedoms -- as is the case with certain gatekeepers (e.g., limited number of payment processors) -- we should be worried.

All in all, these comments show a consistent pattern. SOPA and PIPA might not come back as new legislation... but the issues are still very much with us. Those in power still don't understand the core issues, believing it's a commercial dispute between two mis-defined industries, while the focus on "voluntary" solutions seems to be attacking individual rights without people noticing.

Filed Under: bob goodlatte, content, hollywood, innovation, legacy players, michael o'leary, mitch glazier, patrick leahy, pipa, public, sandra aistars, silicon valley, sopa, tech
Companies: chamber of commerce, mpaa, riaa

UN Wants Multi-Stakeholder Discussions On 'Rethinking Copyright' -- Ignores That The Only Stakeholder That Matters Is The Public

from the and-they've-already-decided dept

The UN's Internet Governance Forum had a gathering to discuss rethinking copyright, in which WIPO made the case that it should lead "multi-stakeholder" discussions on how to reform copyright. WIPO, of course, has a history of having a rather one-sided view of copyright and who the "stakeholders" are. But now, it insists that it can hear all voices:

Trevor Clarke, assistant director general for the Culture and Creative Industries Sector of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), said during a workshop on “Rethinking Copyright” today that the multi-stakeholder environment is “the best and and most appropriate” when it comes to the debate on copyright in the digital age. WIPO is preparing for such multi-stakeholder discussions, Clarke told Intellectual Property Watch.

Clarke said the WIPO director general and secretariat has added their voices to the call for a reexamination of the copyright system and have not shied away from the fact that some aspects of the law need to be revisited. Not only law, but also culture and infrastructure of the system, have to be considered, he underlined. Member state positions vary considerably on the issues, and it would make sense to include the private sector and also civil society into the talks, he said, adding, “We need that dialogue.”

While it's nice to "include the private sector and also civil society," that's really ignoring the larger point. The only real "stakeholder" in copyright is the public. The private sector may be beneficiaries, but the system is supposed to benefit the public. And while "civil society" may represent the public in some areas, which is helpful, it seems that any real discussion on reforming copyright should be very, very open to the public.

Yet that never seems to be suggested by anyone.

And, really, when you look at what's happening in reality vs. what's happening in these discussions, you realize that the public has already made its position pretty clear. People are more than willing to pay for a certain amount of content if it's convenient and not hindered/locked down. They're willing to pay for content when they know they're directly supporting artists they love. They're willing to pay. But, if things are annoying and limited, expensive or inconvenient, they certainly might take matters into their own hands. On top of that, certain aspects of copyright law seem quaint or simply so unrealistic that they're consistently ignored (such as with people making mashups and videos and the like). Yet, no one seems to want to address how the public is actually dealing with all of this, preferring to try to make up new rules based on artificial claims about copyright.

There's no need for "multistakeholder" debates when the public has already said "here's the deal: offer us what we want and we'll pay and everyone's happy." The job of any governing organization right now should be to stop ignoring the public and start paying attention.

Filed Under: copyright, internet governance, public, reality, stakeholders, un, wipo

Barnes & Noble Claims That Public User Names Are Private Info; Refuses To Restore Blog With Comments

from the huh? dept

We've linked to the Photography Is Not A Crime (PINAC) blog on Pixiq.com many times in the past. To be honest, I had no idea that the site was actually owned by Barnes and Noble -- I had assumed that it was just an independent blogging operation. It turns out, however, that B&N hired Carlos Miller, who had written PINAC as an independent blog, and "moved" the blog to Pixiq two years ago. However, it recently chose not to renew his contract, and agreed to transfer the blog back to being independent. Except... that now it's claiming that it cannot transfer all of the comments on the site because that would somehow violate B&N's privacy policies (note that link goes to PINAC at Pixiq... but I have no idea where it will go in a week when the "transfer" takes place). At best, B&N says it can transfer the comments but only as "anonymous."

At first, Pixiq was asking me to sign a document, which stated that the migration of my blog would not include a single comment because of its privacy policy.

But when I protested, Pixiq attorney Gillian Berman said they would make an exception in my case and migrate the comments, but turn every username into “anonymous,” which would make every single comment over the last two years appear to have been left the same person.

This makes no sense. We're not talking about handing private info over to a third party, but the actual names that people chose to display publicly. Perhaps B&N would have an argument if there's concern about transferring email addresses or IP address info with the comments -- but even that seems like a stretch. People commented on a blog. Transferring the entire blog to a different site doesn't change any of that -- but it's especially stupid when it comes to public info like commenters' chosen display names.

It seems like the only explanation I can figure out is that B&N is being incredibly lazy here, and doesn't want to do the bare minimum amount of work to return the blog to Carlos. We've seen a few other blogs "join" different sites in the past, and it seems worth highlighting how the separation can create ridiculous problems like this when a big company decides to make claims that just don't make any sense.

Filed Under: blogs, photography is not a crime, private info, public, usernames
Companies: barnes and noble

ITU: Travel All The Way To Dubai... And Then We'll Decide If You Can Attend Our Meeting On Internet Governance

from the not-really-that-open dept

We've talked a bit about how the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) -- a part of the UN -- is getting ready for a big meeting in Dubai in December (the "World Conference on International Telecommunications" -- WCIT), where it will seek to put in place some new internet governance rules. There are significant concerns that the rules being discussed will favor certain governments and fracture the internet, by letting incumbent international telcos both tax internet usage and track all usage (potentially blocking anonymous usage). Part of the problem, of course, is that the ITU has been extraordinarily secretive.

In response to the criticism, the ITU is claiming that it will now be more open, including making the various draft plans publicly accessible. Still, it often looks like they're making empty gestures towards openness, rather than showing any real commitment towards it. Take, for example, the FAQ the ITU released (pdf and embedded below) about the WCIT, in which they say that the public is welcome to come all the way to Dubai... to find out if they'll be allowed in the meeting. Seriously.

CAN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTEND WCIT-12?

At the opening of WCIT-12 the Secretary-General of ITU will propose that the public be allowed to be present at the conference venue, in line with the practical arrangements adopted at similar ITU conferences. A formal decision on admitting the public will be taken at a meeting of the heads of delegations on the first day of the conference. This would permit the public to attend plenary sessions and certain committee meetings. Webcasts of plenary sessions are also planned.

Got that? Fly to Dubai, show up, and then wait for them to take a vote on whether or not to let you in. If they decide not to let you in, then, um... well... I guess you can enjoy the world's largest shopping mall while a bunch of bureaucrats who don't understand the internet carve it up and break it apart next door. That's not exactly being "open" to the public, now, is it?

Filed Under: dubai, internet governance, itu, public, transparency, un