Italian Politician Blames Facebook For Berlusconi Attack; Facebook Begins Self-Censorship

from the well-that's-nice dept

By now you've probably heard that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was attacked with a statue last weekend. Apparently, his political friends have decided that Facebook and Twitter are to blame for this, and they're now considering laws to crack down (even more than already) on what is allowed on such sites. Perhaps aware of how Italian prosecutors are still pushing forward with criminal charges against Google execs over a single video on YouTube posted by some kids, Facebook apparently was quick to respond that it will happily monitor and censor content on the social networking site that relates to Berlusconi.

As the CSMonitor article points out, Berlusconi owns a significant portion of the media business in Italy, and the internet is often viewed as a problem because he hasn't been able to control it. Thus, this may just be another political move to try to gain more control over dissenting voices online -- and it's a shame that Facebook would so easily play along. Update: The politician in question has apparently clarified his remarks to say that there is no plan to introduce new internet legislation. Really. Of course, one could easily interpret the original statement as a trial balloon -- and the resulting outrage leading to the "clarification."

Filed Under: control, free speech, italy, silvio berlusconi, social networks
Companies: facebook

Apparently Even VCs Get Confused Over Ratio Ownership Compared To Total Value

from the and-those-are-the-VCs-you-don't-want dept

Venture capitalist Fred Wilson recently had a great post where he calls out a bunch of his colleagues in the venture capital business (not by name) for insisting on owning a certain percentage of a company in order to invest. Fred notes, correctly, that it's not the percentage that matters, but the actual value (and the appreciation of it) of the equity that one holds. In simplest terms: owning 10% of a $1 billion company is always going to be a hell of a lot better than owning 40% of a $1 million company.

But, what I find amusing -- and what Wilson doesn't mention -- is that this very argument is quite commonly presented to entrepreneurs from VCs. That is, when an entrepreneur frets about giving up a portion of his or her company, a VC will often make the point that "with our investment, we can take your company's valuation way up -- so even if you own a smaller percentage, your absolute value will increase." And it's a true argument (if the value increase happens). And, in many cases, it's the very same VCs who will use a line like this that then insist on owning a certain percentage. It makes you wonder if they believe what they're saying themselves, or if they're just using all of it as a negotiating tactic to take a larger cut of the deal.

Filed Under: control, ownership, value, venture capital

Sneaky UK Attempt To DRM Television

from the not-this-again dept

Danny O'Brien over at the EFF has the details on how the entertainment industry is attempting to push through an attempt to DRM TV in the UK. It's not quite a "broadcast flag," but close enough. In the last few years, since the original fight over the "broadcast flag" ended in "failure" for Hollywood, they keep attempting to sneak it through in other ways. In the US, it's been via "selectable output control," or SOC. Over in the UK, it's a bit different, but no less ridiculous. Basically, there would be some encoded metadata with all digital TV channels, and the algorithm would be kept "secret." As Danny notes, this has nothing to do with preventing copying, and everything to do with giving the entertainment industry yet another "veto" on innovation (similar to the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA):

In Britain, as in the United States, this proposal isn't about piracy. It's about creating a rightsholder veto over new consumer technologies in DTV.

No British commercial digital TV manufacturer would risk any innovation that might invalidate their "metadata compression parameter" license, and leave them open to litigation. And competition between devices would be limited by the byzantine requirements that DRM requires (it's notable that the BBC says the rightsholders demands came via the Digital Transmission Licensing Administrator (DTLA), a DRM consortium who would clearly benefit from mandatory adoption of its own system.)

But, of course, in an era of copyright moral panics, we'll hear over and over again about how this is all about stopping "piracy" -- even though it actually does nothing to prevent unauthorized copying.

Filed Under: broadcast flag, control, drm, innovation, uk

The Big Ten vs. The SEC: Embracing Fans vs. Shutting Them Up

from the which-one-is-better? dept

Last week we wrote about how the Southeastern Conference (SEC), a big college sports division was looking to limit how fans could interact with the world while at games. Michael Kruse, at the St. Petersburg Times did an excellent analysis of this move (and I don't just say that because he quoted me), talking about how it's really about the SEC trying to prevent the genie of "fancasting" events from getting out of the bottle, because exclusive broadcast contracts are so lucrative. While a short-sighted economic analysis by SEC officials may think this makes sense, perhaps other college sports divisions see this as an opportunity to pick up fans. CitMediaLaw points out a comparison showing that another division, The Big Ten, seems to take a very different approach, not just encouraging fans to use social media tools to broadcast their views and thoughts, but also providing linkable and embeddable videos and content to make it even easier. Admittedly, college sports fandom often has more to do with where you personally attended, but you have to think that enabling fans to help promote you is going to be a better long term strategy for building up fan loyalty than trying to actively stifle their ability to express themselves and promote the teams and events. How enthusiastic are SEC fans going to be, if every time they try to talk up their favorite team, the league threatens to sue them?

Filed Under: big ten, control, fans, reporting, southeastern conference

Southeastern Conference Wants To 'Control Memories' Of Sporting Events; Limits Reporters & Fans

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Over the past few years, we've seen both MLB and especially the NFL try to limit how reporters can report on sporting events. This is highly questionable, in a variety of ways. Obviously, the NFL has no legal right to limit how anyone reports on event, but it was effectively holding "access" over the head of the reporters. That is, any reporter that failed to live up to these "rules" would no longer get a press pass and access to the locker room or players. This seems designed to piss off reporters, and limit the actual publicity that a sports league gets. In the past, I've suggested that newspapers who are threatened with such rules should simply ignore the press passes and start buying their reporters' tickets to report from the stands in protest.

Now, a whole bunch of people have been sending in the news that the Southeastern Conference (SEC) -- a college sporting division -- is now taking this concept to a whole new level, limiting not just all kinds of reporting that can be done by reporters, but also on any fans attending the game (thanks to Jeff T for sending this in first). The press will not be allowed to show more than 3 minutes of highlights -- all of which must be taken down within 72 hours. This includes not just the sporting event itself, but any press conferences related to the event (nice way to make embarrassing press conferences "disappear").

The much bigger issue, however, may be the attempt to stop fans from taking photos of, or discussing, a sporting event they attend. The conference will put a license agreement on the back of every ticket noting these rules -- which are almost entirely unenforceable. The buyers of the tickets will not have "agreed" to the policy and would likely have a strong argument in court that the license is invalid. On top of that, how insane is it that a sports conference is trying to stop fans from telling or showing others about a game?

Someone in the article explains the (somewhat obvious) reasoning behind these policies. The SEC (Southeastern Conference) is basically "protecting" the rights to sell TV broadcasting rights for huge sums, and it's afraid that others reporting on the events takes away from the value of it. That's wrong for a variety of reasons -- including the simple idea that limiting how people can find out about your sporting events doesn't make them more engaged, it makes them less engaged. That's less value for any big broadcast deal.

The second reason given in the article? The SEC "wants the ability to have full control of the memories that these events can generate." That's nice that it wants that. But it goes against pretty much everything the law says is protectable.

But, once again, welcome to "ownership society." With so many people pushing so hard for stronger and stronger intellectual property rights, you get massive landgrabs such as this one, that go well beyond legal protection rights, in an attempt to "control memories." That's just what Jefferson and others intended when they put "promote the progress" in the Constitution, I'm sure...

Filed Under: control, fans, reporting, southeastern conference

Fox Publicity Department Trying To Exert Editorial Control Over Dollhouse Fan Site?

from the that's-not-how-it-works... dept

It's no secret that some entertainment companies have had trouble recognizing that fan sites help promote a show and add value to the show for free. In spite of these benefits, they still seem to have trouble with fan sites, sometimes threatening them over intellectual property violations or simply trying to shut them down. Now Blake points us to the news that someone in Fox's publicity department is apparently trying to exert editorial control over the fan site Dollverse, which helps promote the TV show Dollhouse. From the details, it really does look like a single person in the publicity department writing a too-sternly-worded letter demanding: "Moving forward do not make any further announcements on your site regarding network scheduling unless you receive notification from the network that scheduling is confirmed." It sounds like, otherwise, the network had been supportive of the site (and this didn't come backed up with any specific legal threat). However, it's still quite an amazing move for a "publicity" department to first demand that a site no longer write about stuff without confirmation, and then to later claim: "Clearing up your misperceptions of the show has become very time consuming and frankly takes away valuable time that could be spent actively marketing the series in the proper way." That's not exactly embracing the fan community.

Filed Under: control, dollhouse, dollverse, fan sites
Companies: fox

MPAA's Suit Against Real About Control And Innovation -- Not Piracy

from the clarifying dept

As we've been writing about the MPAA's odd lawsuit against RealNetworks for its RealDVD DVD ripping product, we've pointed out (multiple times) how it doesn't make much sense. The problem was that there are tons of much more effective DVD ripping products out there. Unlike RealDVD, they don't hobble the ripped copies. So, shutting down RealDVD doesn't do anything to stop piracy -- and if anything only increases it, as those who want to rip DVDs are more likely to just download one of those free products that don't encumber the resulting rip with more DRM. Thus, people will still be copying DVDs, and will do so in a way that is a lot more "piratable" than if the MPAA let RealDVD live.

So why is the MPAA doing what it's doing?

The EFF has stepped up with theory that makes a lot of sense: this has nothing to do with stopping piracy, and everything to do with controlling how innovation happens in the movie market. The movie studios that make up the MPAA believe that they own the movie business, and thus any innovation in the industry needs to come through them and get their approval. What Real is doing with RealDVD is ignoring the MPAA's "approval" process, and effectively taking the path of innovation out of the studios' hands.

If this sounds familiar, it's because this has what's been going on with almost all of the "anti-piracy" battles over the last decade. Napster wasn't so much about stopping piracy (which of course, didn't work in the slightest), but about the RIAA record labels freaking out that someone else (a college kid, no less) had established a much better and more efficient distribution mechanism without getting their approval and running it through their filter first.

Effectively, the Big Content players believe that they own their industries, and innovation should come from the top down through the paths that they choose. Thus, these sorts of lawsuits will continue until the management of these firms recognize that innovation is a bottom-up phenomenon. Or, the big firms go out of business. Whichever comes first.

Filed Under: control, lawsuits, piracy, realdvd
Companies: eff, mpaa, realnetworks

Judge Lets iPhone Antitrust Trial Move Forward

from the not-such-a-good-day-at-apple dept

Last year, we wrote about an antitrust lawsuit filed against Apple for sending an update that disabled, or "bricked," the iPhones of people who had changed the firmware to accept outside programs. While Apple tried to push for a dismissal of the lawsuit, a judge has denied the motion to dismiss and will let the case carry on. While a full-on antitrust finding seems unlikely, there are elements of the case that may get Apple into trouble down the road -- and it all comes back to Apple's Achilles' heel: its desire to control absolutely everything, even after you've bought it. Depending on how this case works out, Apple may discover that it (legally) needs to learn to loosen the strings a bit.

Filed Under: antitrust, bricking, control, iphone, lawsuits
Companies: apple

Is The iPhone App Kill Switch Really Such A Surprise?

from the this-is-Apple-we're-talking-about dept

There was a lot of fuss last week as some folks discovered a secret "kill switch" in iPhone software that allows Apple to retroactively "kill" an app that it allowed you to "buy" (but apparently, not really buy). Steve Jobs admitted over the weekend that the kill switch exists, with this gem:

"Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull."

Irresponsible? Really? That's why no other platform has a similar switch? Apparently, everyone else is irresponsible. The truth is more along the lines of this being a standard Steve Jobs offering, where he wants full control over how things are done -- even if it means removing apps you thought you had bought.

But the question is whether this is really a surprise or even a bad thing? While some are screaming "bloody murder" (or at least asking why people aren't screaming that), as others point out, if this is such a big deal, don't buy the iPhone. I agree that this isn't very smart on the part of Apple or Jobs. It certainly opens up an opportunity for competitors to point out that they don't maintain such a closed system, but it's hardly the end of the world. The more Apple makes decisions like this, the more likely people will be more open to alternatives that are coming to market -- and that's exactly what should happen. There's no "bloody murder" to scream. There's just a chance for the competition to come up with something better that doesn't give Steve Jobs the ability to pull a lever and make apps you thought you had bought disappear.

Filed Under: competition, control, iphone, kill switch
Companies: apple

Copyright Battles Are About Controlling New Technologies

from the seems-like-it dept

Copyright guru William Patry has a really interesting post remembering Harvey Schein, the man who oversaw the American launch of the Betamax VCR as head of Sony's American division. That was, of course, the product that produced the famous Sony decision upholding the legality of the VCR and its "record" button. The Betamax precedent is widely seen as a foundation of the modern consumer electronics industry because it gives manufacturers confidence that they can build useful media tools without worrying about liability should their customers use the tools to infringe copyright.

Patry mentions an aspect of the case that I hadn't realized before: MCA/Universal, the lead plaintiff, wasn't just worried that the VCR owners would tape shows rather than watching re-runs. It was also planning to release a laser disc technology called Disco Vision. MCA/Universal apparently worried that a successful Betamax VCR would have undercut the market for laser discs. Schein is quoted as saying "I don't think it was accidental that the company that took the lead in fighting the videocassette held all the patents on the videosdisc."

This will sound eerily familiar to anyone familiar with more recent copyright controversies. For more than three decades, Hollywood and the recording industry have consistently tried to use copyright law to stop any technology they didn't control. In 1992, the music industry persuaded Congress to mandate cumbersome DRM for digital audio formats, stunting the development of that technology. In 1998, the music industry unsuccessfully tried to sue the MP3 player out of existence. Also in 1998, at the behest of the copyright lobby Congress enacted the DMCA, which gave content creators unprecedented control over the design of technological devices. Hollywood has used the DMCA to effectively outlaw set-top boxes that act as DVD jukeboxes.

Of course, in every one of these cases, the copyright lobby's arguments have focused on the threat of "piracy." But when they've won, the practical result has been to give content creators the power to control the evolution of media devices. And when Hollywood and the record labels control technological progress, the results aren't pretty.

Filed Under: betamax, control, copyright, harvey schein, technology, vcr, william patry