Commerce Department Postpones 'Africa IP Forum' After People Point Out How One-Sided It Is

from the all-stakeholders?-you-mean-we-have-to-hear-from-the-other-side? dept

A couple weeks ago, we pointed to an absolutely ridiculous "Africa IP Forum" that was being organized by WIPO and the US Department of Commerce, where it appeared the entire event was around forcing extreme IP enforcement on Africa, despite plenty of evidence that developing nations, such as most of those in Africa, are hurt by such enforcement. The whole schedule was one-sided with speakers who mainly supported extreme enforcement over looking for the most reasonable overall solutions for different economies. After widespread outcry concerning this rather non-subtle attempt to export US-style copyright maximalism to the African continent, the US Commerce Department has announced that the event has been postponed.

The African Intellectual Property Forum, originally slated for April 3-5, 2012 in Cape Town, will be rescheduled. Organizers are committed to ensuring that all stakeholders – in government, private business, the arts and the development community – are represented and engaged in the conference organization and agenda.

The organizers apparently also sent emails to those who had registered, apologizing to people who had already made travel arrangements.

While it's nice that the Commerce Department has recognized that the original program was no good and that all stakeholders should be heard from -- it would have been much nicer and a hell of a lot more convincing if they had done so originally, rather than just a few weeks before the scheduled event when people started protesting...

Filed Under: africa, commerce department, copyright, enforcement, ip forum, patents, wipo

New EU Parliamentary Forum To Push For Even More Draconian Copyright Laws And Enforcement

from the more-is-never-enough dept

Last year, Techdirt reported on the approval by the European Parliament of the Gallo Report, which calls for harsher enforcement of intellectual monopolies. Although the Report has no legal force, it's important, since it functions as a framework for future legislation in this area. And now the eponymous French MEP Marielle Gallo is at it again, with her new "IP Forum":

The IP Forum is a new platform that intends to trigger a dialogue among parties, experts and policymakers in the areas of copyright and industrial property.

The main objective is to bring together policymakers and stakeholders from different industries and to reflect on the upcoming legislative and non legislative proposals of the European Commission that are of paramount importance for the competitiveness of the EU economy.

In other words, this is designed as another talking shop to give industry lobbyists an opportunity to bend the ear of European politicians. Conspicuous by their absence, of course, are any representatives of those most affected by legislation -- the public.

It's also a chance for copyright maximalists to get together and repeat the same unsubstantiated claims about the "damage" caused by piracy and the need for urgent action, as Gallo's first conference, "IPR enforcement in the digital era", makes clear:

Thanks to the Internet, dissemination of copyrighted works has never been so easy. At the same time however, several studies have demonstrated the negative impact of piracy to the cultural and creative industries and to the economy altogether. The transfer of the European Observatory of Counterfeiting and Piracy to the OHIM will enable policymakers to dispose, in the future, of data on the effects of piracy that may not be put into question. In the meantime there is still a pressing need to act.

During this conference, we will have the opportunity to listen to Victoria Espinel, the US IP Enforcement coordinator, who will give us an outlook on the current state of play in the United States of IPR enforcement on the internet. We will also exchange our views with several associations and companies on the possible review of the IPR Enforcement directive and also on the specific changes that policymakers should bring about.

But there simply aren't "several studies" that genuinely demonstrate the negative impact of piracy; the UK's Hargreaves Review looked for some, and this is what it found:

The Review team has examined numerous studies, including those in the table above, and a supporting paper looks at the methodological strengths and weaknesses of this work. With the exception of the Industry Canada study, we have either not been able to examine the methodology of the studies or, where we have, we have discovered problems with the methodology. Consequently, we have not found either a figure for the prevalence and impact of piracy worldwide or for the UK in which we can place our confidence.

Translated from British English, that roughly means "they're all garbage."

In fact, Gallo herself touches on this key issue when she writes of future "data on the effects of piracy that may not be put into question" -- tacitly acknowledging that the current data can be put into question.

She has more to say about the international angle on her Policies page:

Our industrialized trade partners ... have taken all necessary measures to protect effectively their companies from counterfeiting and piracy. These measures have been welcomed by trade unions. At the same time, through its trade policy the European Union participates internationally to the creation of an appropriate legal framework in order to enable our companies and their employees to benefit fully from globalization.

This gives a hint of some of the likely aims of Gallo's new forum: helping to push ACTA's "legal framework" through the European Parliament and perhaps even drumming up support for a European SOPA, just as the US DMCA was transposed into the EU's EUCD. Once again, Gallo's new initiative shows that no matter how much the copyright maximalists get in terms of legislation and treaties, they always want more – and will work in concert to get it.

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

Filed Under: copyright, enforcement, eu, eu parliament, ip forum, marielle gallo

If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?

from the put-the-weapon-down dept

Automatic Copyright is sort of like issuing everyone a gun. I've met many authors and artists who insist their restrictive licenses aren't anti-fan, because they wouldn't actually enforce them.

Filed Under: automatic copyright, copyright, enforcement

If Your Comment Section Is Awesome, It's Your Community's Fault

from the chaos-theory-at-work dept

Meek Barbarian informed us that veteran blogger Anil Dash wrote a piece recently discussing websites having open and anonymous commenting on their sites. I'll preface this with a quick anecdote. I discovered Techdirt some three years back when my boss informed me that, as a technology consultant, it would be useful to follow a couple of technology related blogs to keep up on what is occurring in the industry. I came across Techdirt, found an article I was interested in, and dove in. I was immediately drawn in by the comments section and the community. There were anonymous cowards bravely trolling the threads. There were other anonymous cowards offering up valuable statistics, links, and points of view. There were folks using funny names and cartoon pictures as their avatars, while others used what were apparently their real names and real pictures. Even the author of the article was diving into the comments and responding to some.

I saw information. I saw jokes. I saw supporting views and dissenting opinions. I saw trolls, academics, lawyers, techs, etc. etc. etc. It was true chaos theory at work, with the article setting up a comments section sensitive to the conditions discussed but open to the topological mixing of the wide open world. More than anything else, I think I was most amazed at how this tumultuous soup of free communication provided surprising and useful information, laughter, and references. I was hooked. This was the place for me to offer my view on stories I cared about, read responses from others, get opposing views, and most of all, make more phallic-related jokes than an Adam Carolla on meth.

So that was the background I brought when I read Anil's piece, which he conservatively and open-mindedly titled, "If Your Website's Full Of Assholes, It's Your Fault." Let's dive in:

"The examples are already part of pop culture mythology: We can post a harmless video of a child's birthday party and be treated to profoundly racist non-sequiturs in the comments. We can read about a minor local traffic accident on a newspaper's website and see vicious personal attacks on the parties involved. A popular blog can write about harmless topics like real estate, restaurants or sports and see dozens of vitriolic, hate-filled spewings within just a few hours."

I'll thank Anil here, because we immediately get to my baseline issue with this viewpoint. I read all of the above, hear all about how rudeboy knuckle-draggers will show up on the most innocuous article and scream racist nonsense, spout uninformed conspiracy theories, and call you the kind of names that would make Sam Kinison do that screaming thing he did, and all I can think to myself is so what? Words don't hurt unless you let them. I, as someone with an Irish background, can be called a dumb potato-farming mick, and I can ignore it. More importantly, the idiot that calls me that loses all credibility in the formed community. Even if he's anonymous, all such behavior does is provide a reason for the community to couch their faith in comments provided by ACs in skepticism. The community provides a reason to identify yourself, in the hopes that you'll be taken more seriously. In other words, from the chaos emerges order. And not an unnatural kind of order provided by head-in-the-sand policing and moderation. Assholes exist, both online and in real life. So what?

In any case, Anil prescribes us his wisdom-medication on how everyone should run their website:

"You should have real humans dedicated to monitoring and responding to your community."

I happen to agree. As does Techdirt, actually. You know who is dedicated to monitoring and responding to our community? Our community! As long as we aren't working from a supposition of "words can hurt," we see our community policing itself just fine. Trolls get called trolls, true. But I've seen dissenters stick up for Techdirt supporters. I've seen Techdirt contributors and those with like-minds stick up for dissenters and their opinions (I know this one in particular, because I make a point to do this, though I'm not the only one). ACs have a tougher road in the realm of credibility because of the way the community polices itself. Those with accounts and names have a tougher road because we have a comment history we have to own up to. It's as simplistic as it is beautiful. And it's all emergent behavior, meaning it's natural and not forced or faked. That's what open comments do: they create fertile ground for emerged behavior. And it's amazing how productive that is.

"You should have community policies about what is and isn't acceptable behavior."

Bullshit. And here's why: one man's asshole is another man's prophet. Who am I, or Mike, or anyone else to say what is acceptable and what isn't? Are there things that most can agree suck? Sure. Racism is just plain stupid and ignorant. What does a policy against racism do? Really? "Don't be racist, Techdirt community." Did I just end racism? Did I somehow change the minds of anyone who would read a racist comment and think of it as anything other than pure stupidity to be rebuked or ignored? No, I didn't. So why bother? Remember, words don't have any power unless we give it to them.

"Your site should have accountable identities."

No, it shouldn't. It should certainly offer that option. But I've seen value from both sides of the debate on this site coming from Anonymous Cowards. And I know that some of the folks that contribute anonymously here do so because they're afraid of real repercussions in having their names associated with their words. Does that make their words any less valuable? No, it doesn't. And would making some racist, trolling, or ignorant jackwad sign in with a name make his/her words any different? No, it wouldn't. So why bother with this at all? What's the upside?

"You should have the technology to easily identify and stop bad behaviors."

Again, unless it's just flatout illegal or automated annoyance, what's the point of this? I think we can all agree that a relatively intelligent spam filtering system makes sense, but that isn't the kind of "bad behavior" Anil appears to be discussing. He's talking about controversial speech. Who is getting hurt when someone exhibits "bad behavior"? And how do you define that? If the site is community driven, shouldn't they be the ones to decide what is "bad behavior" and respond accordingly?

"You should make a budget that supports having a good community, or you should find another line of work."

It isn't a matter of cost, it's a matter of reason. What's the point? You're killing off all the good you get from the anonymous and semi-anonymous chaos, and what are you getting in return? People don't have to hear certain words that make them itchy?

I apologize for repeating myself, but I can't say this enough: words do not hurt. They never do. When someone says something designed to inflict pain, you get to choose how to react and respond. If an anonymous coward calls me an idiot and my response is, "Nice argument there, captain logic", then what has that person accomplished? I'm not hurt, they've put themselves on display being a jerk, and the community at large will react accordingly.

Don't lock down your comments. Don't kill off anonymity. Don't pretend the trolls and jerks don't exist. Do the opposite. Open it all up and trust in your community to be smart enough to react accordingly. I know that's largely what occurs here at Techdirt and elsewhere.

And I can't tell you how thankful I am for it and for everyone here, from those that generally agree with us to those that don't. You're welcome here. Forever and always.

Filed Under: anonymity, community, enforcement, speech

Canada's Failure To Actually Enforce Its Net Neutrality Rules Shows Why Focusing On Regulation Is Missing The Point

from the competition-is-the-thing dept

For many, many years we've pointed out that the debate over "network neutrality" in the US was a red herring. The discussions around net neutrality are really just a symptom of the real problem: that we lack true competition in the broadband market. Furthermore, we've noted that any attempt to put in place net neutrality regulations would likely be a failure, because of the lobbying clout of the likes of AT&T and others. The end result would be incredibly favorable to the telcos, not to the public and, in fact, we've seen glimpses of that happening already.

Adding another datapoint (or, several) to this debate is Michael Geist, who got access to information about how Canadian regulators enforced that country's net neutrality rules and discovered that regulators there basically don't enforce a damn thing. They more or less let the telcos do what they want.

Although the CRTC has not publicly disclosed details on net neutrality complaints and the resulting investigations, I recently filed an Access to Information request to learn more about what has been taking place behind the scenes. A review of hundreds of pages of documents discloses that virtually all major Canadian ISPs have been the target of complaints, but there have been few, if any, consequences arising from the complaints process. In fact, the CRTC has frequently dismissed complaints as being outside of the scope of the policy, lacking in evidence, or sided with Internet provider practices. Rogers Communications has been the target of nearly half of all cases opened in response to net neutrality complaints. In recent months, there have been multiple complaints arising from bandwidth throttling of World of Warcraft, a popular multi-player online game. Rogers initially denied any wrongdoing, only to later acknowledge that there was a problem. The company promised to address the issue, though no consequences arose and it was not forced to publicly disclose the issue.

Once again, the problem is not with net neutrality, but with a lack of competition. If you had real competition, people would choose to go with more neutral providers, forcing the market to follow. It's the lack of competition that lets telcos push for less than neutral solutions, and it's the regulatory capture that makes any attempt to legislate neutrality next to useless.

Filed Under: canada, competition, enforcement, net neutrality, regulation

IFPI/BPI: Picking Off The Weak In The Herd

from the attacking-grandmothers-for-fun-and-profit dept

My name is Tim and I'm an addict.  Yes, friends, I have to stand up, get my first day of sobriety chip, and admit to you that I'm addicted.  To Animal Planet.  And National Geographic.  Basically those nature shows that show me the beauty of the outside world through the sickly glowing television in my two story walkup on the north side of America's third biggest urban environment.

It's the whole predatory thing, see.  I'm fascinated by the way we portray nature's biggest predators, be they sharks, or cheetahs, or falcons.  Can't you just hear the calm voiceover now? 

"The predator approaches from downwind so as not to alert his prey.  He spots the heard, teeming masses of animals drinking from the same stream.  Ah ha, he has picked out his victim.  An old female, third generation from the looks of her, and perhaps not as spry as the others.  Now he begins the chase.  He zigs and zags, creating confusion amongst the herd.  And then he has her in his jaws, tearing her limb from limb."

Wait.  That's not Animal Planet.  It's TorrentFreak alerting us that IFPI and BPI are going after an auxiliary nurse grandmother in Scotland whose documented obsessive compulsive disorder caused her to hoard (and apparently make available) thousands of music files (mostly kaoraoke files).  In what is being called the first case of its type in the country, the music industry is going after the weak of the herd, apparently.  The woman's lawyer noted:

"Alarmingly, this was not a commercial enterprise and Muir was not alleged to have made any money from these offences. She must be considered to have minimal culpability compared to others in the file-sharing chain. Yet again, the industry have chosen to pursue someone remarkable only by virtue of their vulnerability."

Now, before the normal pack of hyenas here begin circling the corpse and nipping at everyone's heels, it should be noted that she only made her files available because doing so was required for her to get access to the Direct Connect hub so she could hoard even more files which, again, was caused (as ruled by the courts, which ordered her to get cognitive therapy) by her obsessive compulsive disorder.  And if you think this sounds familiar, it's because the RIAA has been going after grandmothers for years (perhaps they can patent the approach?).

Perhaps I'm just an old softy, but if you're really filing these suits based on principle, why do they have to go after certifiably ill grandmothers?  I mean, I appreciate music labels trying to help me with my Animal Planet fix, but maybe mimicking predatory behavior isn't the best business strategy?

Filed Under: copyright, enforcement, infringement, punishment

EU Commission Proposes New IP Rules, With More Weight On Enforcement & Making ISPs Police The Internet

from the that's-not-how-things-work dept

Not a huge surprise given things happening elsewhere around the globe, but it appears that the European Commission (who have already been in the tank for the entertainment industry, as seen in their enthusiastic support of ACTA) has come out with a new plan for intellectual property in Europe that has a major focus on enforcement, including turning ISPs into copyright cops. Of course, it's long been the desire of the entertainment industry to have ISPs do all the dirty work in trying to stop infringement. The problem, of course, is that all of this assumes it's somehow easy for ISPs to determine what is and what is not infringing. It's not. Even the companies themselves don't seem to recognize it some of the time. It's sad that so many politicians can't seem to understand the very basics of the law and technology on these issues, leading to proposals like this one that will not help "boost creativity and innovation," but will hinder it by stifling the very technology that is most needed for creativity and innovation.

Filed Under: copyright, enforcement, europe, european commission, ip, patents

Self-Perpetuating Copyright Enforcement

from the but-think-about-the-artists dept

One of the most powerful emotional tricks used by the copyright industry against those seeking to reduce the term and reach of copyright to more rational levels is to invoke the poor, starving artists, who would suffer if this were to happen.

The fact that the vast majority of creators earn most money soon after producing their work, and relatively little years later, means that taking copyright back to the original 14-year term specified in the Statute of Anne would have minimal effect on them, but it's an undeniably clever pitch.

In reality, the copyright industry couldn't give two hoots about the artists it feeds off, as the following makes clear:

RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy previously told TorrentFreak that the ‘damages’ accrued from piracy-related lawsuits will not go to any of the artists, but towards funding more anti-piracy campaigns. “Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs,” he said.

If the copyright industry *really* cared about the artists, this money would go straight into their deserving pockets.

Moreover, this "re-investment" in anti-piracy programmes makes such actions self-fueling: the money supposedly gained for those poor, starving wretches is actually used to fund the next action, which funds the next action, and so on.

This means that the copyright organisations have a real incentive to choose a strategy that privileges heavy-handed enforcement over new business models. The latter might result in creators getting paid more, while the former ensures that the fat-cats running the enforcement machine continue to lap up the cream....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Cross posted from Open....

Filed Under: artists, copyright, enforcement

Targeting Copyright Infringers, But Hitting The Digital Economy

from the it's-time-to-stop-the-madness dept

Michael Scott points us to a short article/paper with the perfect title:Aiming at Copyright Infringers and Hitting the Digital Economy by William Dutton from Oxford. The key point, as you might imagine, is in challenging the various attempts at ratcheting up copyright enforcement around the globe in the mistaken belief that it'll actually slow down infringement. Like many other reports, he points to research that suggests that such laws do not have the intended effect at all. But the bigger issue is how this quixotic focus on ratcheting up enforcement has very serious costs to the rest of the economy:

Secondly, and most significantly, the measure could have unintended negative consequences for the vitality of the Internet -- the network of technologies, practices and people that are key to the digital economy. The Internet is not built on a house of cards, but it is nested in an ecology of policies and practices that make it difficult for legislators to change one key element and not have repercussions throughout the larger ecology (Dutton et al 2010).

Specifically, the strategy of copyright defenders could indirect consequences on freedom of expression and access to the Internet. This stems from the copyright protection measures placing the communication regulator into the position of creating mechanisms to monitor users in order to identify those violating restrictions on unlawful file sharing. Governments are moving from a position of not regulating Internet content, to assuming responsibilities for Internet content regulation. They are passing these responsibilities on to regulators, to pass these responsibilities on to the ISPs, who then are able to bring violators to the attention of the regulatory authority. By putting ISPs into the role of monitoring users and disconnecting repeated offenders, the initiatives change the role of the ISP -- moving it towards a more traditional communication intermediary, such as a broadcaster, rather than the provider of an end-to-end network.

A number of governments have been regulating Internet content via the ISPs. China has used this approach, for example, to monitor chat rooms and forums. However, once ISPs are put in the position of monitoring and potentially regulating Internet content, by either blocking content or disconnecting users, they become editors, and therefore open to many of the same legal instruments as other edited media, such as the press. This can subject ISPs to even greater risks, such as from being held responsible for defamation. In such ways, as governments push ISPs into a new role as intermediaries, they are on a slippery slope that could have a chilling effect on both ISPs and Internet users.

Of course, plenty of people have been pointing this out for years, but I'm always glad to see more people recognizing these key points.

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy, enforcement

What Have We Learned: Greater IP Enforcement Doesn't Work... Yet That's What Governments Want To Give

from the hammers-and-nails dept

It's been an interesting few weeks on the research side of things, and it seemed like a recap was in order. Kicking it off, we had two separate research reports from two highly regarded organizations, both of which came to the same basic conclusions concerning strategies for dealing with copyright infringement online. First was the, rather epic, research report from the Social Science Research Council, which concluded that greater enforcement wouldn't work and wouldn't stop infringement in various countries around the world. Instead, it argued that the solution was better business models by the entertainment industry. Just a few days later, some research from the London School of Economics concluded basically the same thing, specifically in looking at the Digital Economy Act in the UK. It came up with three basic conclusions: the decrease in sales is due to many factors; providing legal, innovative and consumer friendly services is a much better strategy than enforcement; and focusing on enforcement that suppresses new technologies will not do much good. And, then, finally, late last week, we came across a study that also highlighted that the supposed "damage" done by file sharing appears to be exaggerated.

So... what does this tell us? It seems to support what many people have been saying for over a decade. Fighting what technology allows and what consumers want is not an effective strategy. File sharing, if combined with smarter business models, can allow music to flourish just fine, and (most importantly) focusing on greater enforcement strategies won't solve any of the industry's problems, but could actually harm new businesses and new opportunities.

So, given all of that... shouldn't we be rather alarmed that the key strategic effort by the entertainment industry these days, which is now the official policy of the White House is to focus almost entirely on "greater enforcement"? Of course, part of the problem is that the last time we ramped up our IP laws, with the ProIP Act (driven by the entertainment industry, of course), part of the law was to create an "IP Enforcement Coordinator." Note how short-sighted this is. It wasn't about creating an "IP Effective Coordinator." It wasn't about creating a role to determine the best or most appropriate levels of IP. It wasn't even to help content creators understand the economics of the markets they dealt with or to suggest new and innovative business models.

The role was to focus solely on enforcement.

Yet now, as we learn that focusing on enforcement is a mistake, rather than backing off, it seems like those who created the role are simply doubling down. It's as if they don't realize how much harm they're doing to their own markets. It's really quite unfortunate. These are industries that should be thriving right now. After all, the expenses involved in almost everything they do has gone down. It's become cheaper to create professional content. It's become cheaper to package professional content. It's become cheaper to distribute professional content. It's become cheaper to promote professional content. It's even become cheaper to sell the content and ancillary products around the content. Every aspect of the business has become cheaper, and a much more massive audience has been opened up to these content creators. And rather than embrace it, they've whined and complained... and the US government's response is to support them in this? What a shame.

If the current content industries have been unable to take advantage of an amazing new world of content creation, promotion and distribution, it's their own fault. Having governments get in the game of cracking down on new and innovative technologies, just to protect a few legacy companies too slow and too confused to adapt is not a solution. It's the same story all over again. The political system is focused on bailing out the companies who failed to change with the market. We've seen it time and time again in other industries, and it always comes back to haunt us. We shouldn't be bailing out the movie industry and the recording industry right now. Both have had plenty of opportunities to embrace new business models. Plenty of content creators outside of the traditional system have done so, successfully. Governments around the world should stop focusing on protecting these players who are too resistant to change.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, enforcement, ip, strategy