Italy's Troubling View Of The Internet

from the sucks-to-be-an-internet-startup-in-Italy dept

For some unclear reason, this weekend there was a fair amount of press coverage of the fact that Italian officials are suing The Pirate Bay in court. This lawsuit has been ongoing, so there really isn't much new -- other than the recent verdict in Sweden, which is now in dispute over conflict of interest charges against the judge in the case. In Italy, the case first made news last summer, when a prosecutor on the case ordered ISPs to start blocking The Pirate Bay. However, what was really odd was that ISPs weren't just told to block the site, but to funnel all the traffic to a site run by the major record labels. That was quite questionable. Even if The Pirate Bay were found to be illegal, to hand that traffic over to the labels raises plenty of ethical questions. Either way, a judge rejected the ban for the time being, though it could be reinstated later.

But what's struck me is how many of these sorts of stories have been coming out of Italy lately, raising lots of questions about officials there and how they view the internet. The other high profile case involves the decision to charge Google execs with criminal charges because some kids put up a questionable video on YouTube -- which YouTube took down within hours of finding out about it (and, which officials used to track down the kids who misbehaved in the video). It's difficult to think up any reason that would make Google execs criminally liable for a video of dumb kids being uploaded to its site. We're still wondering why other tools used in the video aren't also being charged (for example, one part of the video involved kids throwing a tissue box at a disabled boy -- so, clearly, the execs at the tissue-maker should be equally liable).

However, that's hardly all of the oddities coming out of Italy lately. Of course, like France, the country is looking to implement a three strikes law, but has also required all blogs to register with the government. Then there were the folks who ran an online music store, where they had officially licensed the music for sale, but the IFPI claimed they didn't get all the right licenses, and an Italian court sent them to jail for this (rather than just fining them or passing an injunction). Oh right, and Italian cops have been asking for a back door to listen to Skype calls. And... finally, recently we wrote about a law that the gov't was considering that would ban anonymity online in Italy -- and it just so happened that the law was written by entertainment industry representatives. Add all these up, and it seems that Italy appears to be an incredibly anti-Internet country. You'd have to imagine that can't be good for business.

Filed Under: copyright, italy, politics

Administration Lobbyist Ban Not Doing What It's Supposed To Do

from the too-bad dept

While conceptually, I think many people appreciate President Obama's stance against bringing lobbyists into his administration, in all practicality, the rule has been a combination of meaningless or troubling. Tom Barger points to a NY Times article where many people are upset that some extremely qualified folks who worked for non-profit human rights organizations are being denied positions in the administration. There's been some pushing to get the administration to make an exception for human rights and non-profit lobbyists, noting that the intent of the rule was to bar corporate lobbyists from gaining too much influence, but the administration has struck down those suggestions, saying it leads to a slippery slope.

But, of course, in reality, we know that slippery slope already exists. That's because the ban on "lobbyists" is really only being used for folks who were officially registered as lobbyists. That leaves out tons of people who worked for these corporate entities or even for the lobbyist groups themselves, but weren't officially registered lobbyists themselves. We've already seen how the Justice Department is, for example, being filled with lawyers who regularly worked with the RIAA, MPAA and BSA -- three of the biggest copyright lobbying organizations, and those individuals have wasted no time in expressing their desire to continue pushing those industry's viewpoints in their new positions.

So the idea that lobbyists are being kept out is pretty silly. As the NY Times article notes, all this really does is encourage lobbyists not to register themselves as lobbyists, but to focus on lobbying unofficially, so that they can still get administration positions at a later date. That creates less openness and transparency, and a larger risk of regulatory capture, rather than a diminished one. We all like the idea of trying to keep corporate influence out of the law making (and law enforcement) side of government, but a blanket ban on all lobbyists, while letting non-lobbyist lobbyists in the back door isn't exactly reassuring.

Filed Under: administration, lobbyists, obama, politics, riaa
Companies: riaa

VP & Commerce Secretary Suck Up To Hollywood, Cite Bogus Stats And Promise Misguided Action

from the just-what-wasn't-needed dept

The Obama administration continues to give in to pretty much every wish of the entertainment industry. At an MPAA-sponsored dinner, VP Joe Biden repeated a bunch of Hollywood talking point myths as fact, and promised stronger intellectual property enforcement. He incorrectly referred to file sharing as "pure theft," claimed that it hurt the economy (with no evidence to support that) and said that it caused lost jobs. Of course, the industry has been putting out bogus studies claiming such notions, but they're easily debunked when you look at the details. Biden also promised that the "IP czar" would be "the right person," which (given the audience was Hollywood execs) almost certainly means someone who will roll over and obey the industry, rather than focus on actually increasing innovation and protecting consumer rights.

Earlier at the event, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke noted that the recent leak of Wolverine "underscores the problem the industry faces," while saying that he "believes in the full and impartial enforcement of the law." Again, as has been discussed widely, the leak of Wolverine doesn't demonstrate any problem at all. Plenty of people will still go see the movie in the theater, and if the industry had reacted intelligently, it could have turned the leak into a marketing coup. Instead, it acted stupidly, and because of that, the administration is going to bend over backwards to help the industry keep acting stupid rather than adapt. What a shame.

These moves represent a real loss to the economy, society and culture. For whatever reason (money has a lot to do with it), the administration seems to have bought into the totally unsubstantiated claim that there is only one business model for entertainment (selling content), and thus it needs to create laws to make sure that such a business model works. In doing so, it's creating massive inefficiencies, decreasing content production and making it even more difficult for new and innovative business models and services to thrive.

Filed Under: gary locke, hollywood, ip czar, joe biden, politics
Companies: mpaa

Political Candidate Drops Out Of Race Due To Racy Facebook Photos

from the that-was-quick dept

It really was just three years ago when we were saying we couldn't wait for the MySpace generation to run for office, knowing that the skeletons in their closets wouldn't actually be in their closets at all, but would have been posted online for all to see. While we actually expected that it would lead to a point where people pretty much brushed off and ignored such "youthful indiscretions," we certainly have't reached that point yet. A guy running for office in British Columbia, Canada, has dropped out of the election after images of him groping a woman's breast (that first appeared on his Facebook page) came to light. It's not clear when the photos in question were taken, but expect to see political candidates and their online presence scrutinized in more and more detail in future elections...

Filed Under: campaigns, canada, politics, social networks
Companies: facebook

Just Add Diesel: How Unintended Consequences Rob Taxpayers Blind

from the regulatory-mess dept

One of the reasons we're often skeptical of legislative/regulatory solutions to things is that they almost always have unintended consequences that do a lot more harm than good -- and quite often those unintended consequences are the exact opposite of what the regulation was supposed to do. Tim Lee points us to an excellent, if depressing, example. A few years back, the government passed a bill to encourage "greener" transportation by providing tax credits for the use of alternative fuels -- including for the use of fuel mixtures that combined alternative fuels with gasoline or diesel. As Chris Hayes explains, this resulted in America's paper companies suddenly dumping diesel into their production process solely to qualify for the tax credit.

The end result is staggering. The paper companies are wasting diesel fuel (remember, the whole point of this bill was to decrease the use of such fuels) by adding it to a process even though it's entirely unnecessary, and then claiming the tax credit. And, boy, is it worth it. The top ten paper companies are likely to take in $8 billion dollars from this tax credit. The money coming from this is so valuable that it dwarfs the actual paper business. The industry is making a lot more money throwing diesel fuel away than actually selling paper. And that is a perfect example of why even the best intentioned regulators often end up doing an awful lot of damage.

Filed Under: green energy, paper manufacturers, politics, regulations, unintended consequences

Making The Tough Choices To Save The Economy?

from the stop-giving-the-banks-everything-they-want dept

With the latest plan laid out last week on how to "save Wall Street" ("the Geithner plan"), there's a lot of back and forth over whether or not this is a good plan or not -- and while Planet Money had a decent "is it good or bad?" show, the folks there didn't get too deep into it (and even claimed that no one really thought the plan was all that dangerous (just that it could slow down the recovery). However, the more I read up on it, the worse and worse it seems. Simon Johnson has a long, but worthwhile writeup at The Atlantic, where he delves into how Wall Street has effectively taken over Washington DC, such that it helped both create the mess, and then set things up so that the "recovery plan" only benefits those who caused the problems in the first place. This echoes a piece by Andy Kessler last week, where he pointed out that we're effectively handing money to those who brought the collapse upon us -- and suggests that the better response is to simply stymie the plans of the hedge funds -- flooding the markets where they're looking to buy, rather than subsidizing them.

Then, there's Umair Haque, who basically makes the same points, but suggests that this is an outright looting of taxpayer money by putting most of the risk on taxpayers, and encouraging the hedge funds to make increasingly risky loans (you know, like the ones that got us into this mess in the first place). The root of all of these stories is that the government seems to think that the only way to fix the problem is to reinflate the bubble, rather than letting the bubble deflate and moving forward from there. The problem with reinflating the bubble isn't just that it puts off the inevitable (though, it does), but that the inevitable is that much worse when it comes.

It's what we've done for the past couple decades -- effectively building an even shakier house of cards, and every time the cards start to fall... we just reinforce it with another layer of shaky cards to prop it up. At some point, the cards do have to fall, and propping it up with more leverage isn't going to help that.

Even if, as Richard Posner suggests, the current plan is about the most politically feasible, it's still problematic. The politics of the situation is troubling. On one side, you have populist anger, making it difficult to do certain necessary things. On the other, you do still have the influence of the bankers, who view the world as being one where we need to keep propping up that house of cards.

Why is it that no one is talking about carefully taking down the house of cards while building a sturdy house next door?

Filed Under: bailout, financial crisis, politics, timothy geithner, wall street

European Parliament Still Debating Three Strikes Laws

from the which-way-will-they-go dept

I don't understand enough about how EU policy-making works to fully understand this, but the EU Parliament which has rejected "three strikes" type rules (that would kick those accused of copyright infringement offline after three accusations) as being against basic civil rights in the past, has apparently rejected yet again a three strikes approach. Yet... at almost the same time, we're being told that France is actively pushing the EU Parliament to approve a three strikes provision in a telco bill that will be voted on next week. There was some concern last year that while the EU Parliament rejected three strikes, it would backdoor its way in via a separate telco bill. Is that what's happening again, where there are two separate discussions about three strikes provisions? It would be great if those familiar with how the EU Parliament system works could explain the two items.

Filed Under: europe, isps, politics, three strikes

President Obama Still Missing The Point: Include The Public In The Process, Not Just The Selling

from the the-difference-between-transparency-and-outreach dept

The new Obama administration was supposed to represent a revolution in participation and transparency -- and while there have been some moves in that direction, there's plenty that's troubling, such as its recent decision to declare negotiations on an intellectual property treaty a state secret. However, more troubling is this fundamental disconnect between what the administration seems to think "participation" in the process means -- and what it really should mean. Rather than actually having people participate, it seems the administration is a lot more focused on having people sell.

That's not the same.

We saw it in the stimulus plan -- which was written by the same political insiders, and then the various email lists and social network connections were used to try to get the public to support the bill -- and now we're seeing the same thing with the budget. Apparently, the DNC is putting on a big push to use the 13-million emails collected during the campaign to help urge passage of Obama's budget, with David Plouffe claiming this is "the first major engagement" of that public list in the legislative process.

But that's the problem. This is a bit late to be engaging everyone. The budget's already been written. Shouldn't participation included more openness earlier in the process and more of a real way to participate to get these people to actually buy into a budget that they had input on? But that's not what we're getting. We're getting the same stuff, handed down from on high by the same political operatives, and being told that the people's "participation" is to help this budget get passed.

I would imagine people would be a lot more excited about doing that if they'd actually been asked to help out in the process. I'm glad that the administration is trying to reach out to people more, but so far it's doing so in a very fake way. It's not getting people to really participate in the process at all. It's just looking at them as a way to help sell. That's not the same.

Filed Under: budget, community, obama, participation, politics

Big Retailers Pushing Legislation To Harm Online Retailers

from the why-compete-when-you-can-legislate? dept

Why should you compete with new technological innovations when you can just get elected officials to pass laws that greatly limit what those innovations can do? That seems to be the position of the National Retail Federation, the trade group that represents a bunch of the big offline retailers. We wrote about their attempt to do this last year, where they went so far as to claim (and then stand behind) that eBay was driving people to shoplift. Supposedly, selling stuff on eBay was just so addictive that once people ran out of their own stuff to sell on eBay, they would all rush to the nearest big box store to shoplift. That, of course, is totally bogus and not at all backed up by the facts. But who needs facts when you have politicians willing to do your bidding? The NRF's statement was so hilarious, we can't resist republishing it:

"Thieves often tell the same disturbing story: they begin legitimately selling product on eBay and then become hooked by its addictive qualities, the anonymity it provides and the ease with which they gain exposure to millions of customers. When they run out of legitimate merchandise, they begin to steal intermittently, many times for the first time in their life, so they can continue selling online. The thefts then begin to spiral out of control and before they know it they quit their jobs, are recruiting accomplices and are crossing states lines to steal, all so they can support and perpetuate their online selling habit."

While the three laws proposed last year went nowhere, it didn't take long for all three to be introduced again. The intended purpose of these three laws is to force these online platforms to interrogate every seller over every product they put online for sale. It goes against everything that's the basis of section 230 rules for online platforms, in that it says "you're not the tool someone uses, now you're liable for everything that happens with the tool." This is not, at all, about stopping crazy eBay addicts from shoplifting from big box stores. This is about making it tougher for people to buy and sell stuff online so that more people are forced to trek out to their local offline retailer to buy stuff.

The amusing thing is that, last year, when these same bills were introduced, the retailers were asked why they couldn't just do a better job policing their stores for shoplifting -- and the retailers replied that their employees were there to sell stuff, not to be police officers. Yet, the very purpose of these laws is to make that impossible for online retail services. It forces them all to be police officers, or face tremendous liability. It's no secret that it's tough to compete with new online services, but that's no excuse for passing bogus laws to harm those online players.

Filed Under: competition, e-fencing, online auctions, politics, retail stores, shoplifting

NY Politician Demands Ban Of Video Game... Not Available In The US

from the moral-panic dept

There was a flutter of controversy last week, when someone realized that a rather despicable video game, where the goal of gameplay is apparently to rape someone, was available for sale via Amazon's marketplace (where 3rd party sellers offer items, rather than Amazon itself). Amazon was quick to block the sale of the game, but that hasn't stopped a politician in NY from using the story as an opportunity to grandstand. New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is demanding US publishers boycott distributing the game, which seems pretty silly since no US publishers are distributing the game (it's only been released in Japan), and there's no indication anyone wants to distribute the game in the US. But why should that stop a good opportunity to create some moral panic?

Filed Under: ban, christine quinn, moral panic, politics, video games