Max Mosley Continues His Quixotic And Misguided Quest: Sues Google For Still Finding Photos He Doesn't Like

from the not-him-again dept

Oh Max Mosley. The guy who's basically guaranteed that the press keeps writing about the "sex party" pictures involving him and five sex workers that were leaked to the press years ago. Mosley has basically dedicated his life to reminding the public about those pictures by fighting a ridiculous war to blame everyone for those pictures existing on the internet. He's actually won a few lawsuits against Google, in which the company has been told to do the impossible: make the photos of him disappear. Now he's decided to sue the company yet again, this time in the UK (he's already sued in France and Germany). Mosley's really big win over the original newspaper, News of the World, was mostly over the fact that they called it a "Nazi sex party" and he insists that the party wasn't Nazi-themed (an area of some sensitivity, as Max's father was friends with Hitler).

This case is not directly related to the recent "right to be forgotten" situation in the EU, but might be considered a close cousin of it. It's still based on the ridiculous assertion that the fact that some of these pictures are still online can be blamed on Google. Mosley, apparently, is not big on understanding how the internet works. And he's not above stretching the rulings in the courts:

His lawyers said the case concerned "the ability of individuals within the UK to enforce their rights against the large corporations that control access to the internet". The statement added: "It seeks to compel Google to stop gathering and publishing images that the English high court decided in 2008 were unlawful in the landmark privacy case Mosley v News Group Newspapers."

Except that Google is not the one "gathering and publishing" the images. And the images were not determined to be "unlawful" as a whole, just in the context of the situation in which they were published. But, still, Mosley has decided that Google is the clear enemy:

"Adherence to the rule of law is essential to any society. This must include compliance with the decisions of the courts. As the gateway to the internet, Google makes enormous profits and has great influence, so I have not taken this action lightly. But Google should operate within the law rather than according to rules it makes itself. It cannot be allowed to ignore judgments in our courts."

Except, of course, Google is not "ignoring" the law. It is doing what it does: searching the internet and helping people find what they're looking for that is on the internet. Still, Mosley has tons of money and appears to want to spend it all making sure that the sex party keeps popping up in the news over and over again. If he'd just let this story die, it basically would have disappeared years ago. But through his own actions he keeps making it news again and again and again. Even the BBC appears to be trying to explain to Mosley pretty directly how the Streisand Effect works...

Filed Under: max mosley, search engines, secondary liability, streisand effect, uk
Companies: google

MPAA Issues Overly Broad Takedown Of Little Used Reddit Film Community; Creates Much Bigger Reddit Film Community

from the do-they-have-any-streisand-movies-available? dept

Oh that wacky MPAA. Earlier this week, TorrentFreak noted that the MPAA issued a massively overbroad DMCA takedown to Google, asking it to remove an entire subreddit from its search results. The subreddit in question was r/FullLengthFilms, which really wasn't that popular. It's not difficult to guess why the MPAA wanted this community gone, though it is a bit odd that the MPAA thinks that just because it finds one link to a potentially infringing movie that it thinks an entire subreddit should disappear down the search engine memory hole. If that's the criteria, a lot of the internet would go missing. Google didn't take it out of its search results, but the resulting publicity from the bogus takedown attempt... suddenly made r/FullLengthFilms a hell of a lot more popular. One of the mods for the subreddit points out that he'd long considered it to be a dead subreddit, but now it was suddenly booming again. There are a bunch of new subscribers, plenty of new mods and a bunch of new films -- and, yes, many of them are perfectly legal and authorized. I wonder if there are any movies that star Barbra Streisand linked from the subreddit...

Filed Under: dmca takedown, full length films, streisand effect, subreddit
Companies: google, mpaa, reddit

Taxi Drivers In Europe 'Protest' Uber, Creating Astounding Media Attention, Massive Jump In Signups

from the best-promotion-uber-could-get dept

As you may have heard, cab drivers across Europe did the European-thing to protest the rise of disruptive services like Uber: they went on strike, snarling traffic in many European cities. Uber long ago learned that every attack on its service is a fantastic promotional opportunity, but this "strike" may have been the best by far. In other words, it appears to have completely backfired on the strikers, with Uber signups in London jumping an astounding 850%. Basically, the "protests" have pissed off people at cab drivers and made them more aware of Uber. I don't see how that benefits the cab drivers.

In fact, Uber had been hovering around the 100th most popular app in the UK over the past few weeks, but it has suddenly jumped to number 3. This may be the least successful mass protest in history. Not only does it fail to accomplish any of its goals, it appears to have massively helped those it was targeted against. As the EU's Neelie Kroes points out, this is really part of a debate about the wider sharing economy, and the recognition that innovators are building new and disruptive services that are, quite frequently, much better for the public, even if they may be disruptive to existing businesses and employees.

But denying reality and trying to break the machines doesn't work. Ever. And, as in this case, sometimes it actually benefits those they're fighting against.

Filed Under: attention, cab drivers, disruption, europe, london, protests, streisand effect, taxi drivers, uk
Companies: uber

State AG Tries To Order Removal Of Public Records From Journalist's Blog, Resulting In Records Being Posted Everywhere

from the my-god...-it's-full-of-files dept

Georgia state Attorney General Sam Olens recently decided to play hardball with a journalism student who published certain documents at the Society for Professional Journalists blog network. Needless to say, it backfired. (via Jim Romenesko)

First off, University of Georgia student David Schick made a public records request for documents concerning names of candidates for his university's president, as part of an investigation into the school's Georgia Perimeter College's $16 million budget shortfall. According to Schick, the obfuscation began there. The published part Olens objected to is only four of the 700 pages Schick ended up with -- but he had to fight hard to get anything at all.

First, the school charged him $2,963 to forward him emails. When he got a volunteer lawyer who threatened to sue, the price tag was knocked down to $291. But then administrators printed out each email and then re-scanned them – which meant Schick couldn't search them for keywords.

Schick is still awaiting a decision for his lawsuit brought against the Georgia Board of Regents University System of Georgia for "failing to produce public records." In the meantime, he published what he has acquired, which drew the attention of the State AG.

According to Olens, the information (which was released as part of a public records request) wasn't supposed to be made public.

"The four pages of documents," says the motion Olens' office filed last Wednesday, "contain the names of a number of individuals who applied for the position of president at one of the Board of Regents' colleges or universities. None of these individuals was selected as a finalist for the position for which they applied."

So, rather than deal with the entity which (allegedly) "improperly released" the information to the student, Olens went after the student instead, using a little attempted prior restraint. News of this bullying behavior spread quickly -- as did the offending documents themselves.

Michael Koretksky, another blogger for the SPJ, posted 21 pages (including the four Olens was seeking to take down) at his blog and encouraged others to do the same. Many others did, including the president of the Society of Professional Journalists, David Cuillier.

Olens says the names should not have been released, so the student must take them down. Sorry, Mr. AG, but you can't do that. There's something called case law (e.g., Pentagon Papers), and we in America don't care much for prior restraint (or post restraint, for that matter).

Also, the idea that candidates for university president should be secret is silly, and unfortunately more states are incorporating this exemption into their public record laws. A shame when it involves something so important. We need to push back against efforts to make that process hidden from public view.

With the documents being quickly spread around the internet, Olens either realized a) fighting this would require all-day sessions at the courthouse or b) he looked completely, ridiculously thuggish because he has decided to withdraw his legally unsupportable request.

There's nothing like a little bad publicity to make would-be censors rethink their tactics. Obviously, the Board of Regents University System of Georgia needs to have a little more thrown its way considering its own uncooperativeness during this process. Maybe the lawsuit will provide the extra push it needs to stop treating members of the public with such complete disdain. The fact that it would take the time to print out and rescan documents simply to prevent them from being searchable indicates that its public records response team completely resents transparency -- much like so many other entities at all levels of government.

Filed Under: david schick, freedom of information, georgia, public records, sam olens, streisand effect
Companies: society for professional journalists

'Lawyer' For Wang-Handled Santa Tries To Stifle Reports About Santa's Wang-Handling

from the everybody-wang-chung-tonight dept

If there is one single lesson to be learned from the Streisand Effect, it's that the cover up is always worse than the crime. This comes into play often when people or companies turn to their legal teams to stifle news and speech about their transgressions. What ends up happening is that news about the original sin spreads in supercharged fashion by being in the news twice while simultaneously making the attempted speech-stifler look all the more evil and/or petty. We saw this when media members went after parody Twitter accounts, when professional sports leagues attempted to stifle documentaries about how dangerous their sport is, and when famous people have attempted to erase online reports of their less-than-stellar acts. So, what's worse than someone attempting to stifle speech by threatening legal action via their attorneys? How about when there is no attorney and the legal threat comes from the subject of the articles impersonating an attorney?

Hey, everyone, it's Christmas time, which in various cities apparently means that there is something called SantaCon where a bunch of people with too much time on their hands occasionally dress up as Kris Kringle and then start drinking heavily with others dressed like Santa. Sometimes those Santa-clones have a bit too much of the old Irish eggnog and attempt to get their North Pole cleansed in public by the woman who agrees to date said Santa-clone. And then, sometimes, that Santa-clone gets embarrassed and an online news publication (in this case, Gawker) gets a letter threatening legal action if the post is not taken down. The letter was signed by a Tyler Van Buren, Esq. (Esq. means practicing lawyer -- and also that you're pompous), and it included this threat:

My client is a successful New York business man who was simply trying to get home with his girlfriend who had a little bit too much to drink while at SantaCon. The articles that have been posted are extremely hurtful, derogatory, and are simply a defamation of character. The accusations being made have no merit and no basis and are not only inappropriate, but damaging for my client and his girlfriend's reputation and their respective careers.

I am drafting up a lawsuit as we speak and I will pursue several charges against the Huffington Post for the untrue, damaging, and hurtful article that has been posted about my client and his girlfriend. Unless this article is removed within the next 24 hours I fully expect to seek damages for my client and his girlfriend. I imagine that this is something your legal team does not want to deal with, but I have been retained by my client and I am fully prepared to seek corrective actions.

Please give me a call at [REDACTED] at any time to discuss this matter or confirm that the posting will be removed.

Regards,

Tyler Van Buren, Esq.

Here's where this gets fun. Gawker, being the hilariously antagonistic fun-bags they are, decided to do a little digging on Tyler Van Buren, Esq. What they came up with is initially quite confusing. Checking the Google+ page associated with the email account from which they got the threat, as well as searches for Van Buren's name in LinkedIn, suggest Van Buren is not a lawyer at all. Instead, he's almost certainly a biology graduate from UCSD who works as a Specialty Pharmaceuticals Analyst for Cowen & Company, headquartered in New York City. Checks in various states' directories of attorneys also did not turn up a Tyler Van Buren.

So what's the deal? Gawker then reveals their final card:

Lastly, while we initially didn't post a second (since removed) video from "Peeping John" Wilson's Instagram page showing a much clearer image of Tyler Van Buren, Esq.'s client, we now feel it's worth a closer look:

That sure looks like the same dude to me. Which means that the Santa getting a handy and Tyler Van Buren are likely the same person and Van Buren misrepresented himself as an attorney threatening legal action. That's going to be a problem, since New York law is pretty clear that you're not allowed to do that. Impersonating a lawyer is a fairly serious offense. So I guess we'll have to open up a new category in our Streisand Effect Hall Of Fame for people who not only made their situations worse by going legal, but may actually have brought legal action on themselves as a result. Golf claps for you, Santa jerk!

Filed Under: impersonating a lawyer, new york, santacon, streisand effect, tyler van buren

United Airlines Nearly Kills Pet, Aims For Streisand Glory Instead Of Paying Vet Bill

from the bad-airline!--bad! dept

As the saying goes, there are many ways to skin a Streisand effect. Wait, no, that's not right, but the point is that attempts at silencing speech resulting in an explosion of that speech are quite varied. From railing against parody Twitter accounts, to attempts to silence negative online reviews, to professional sports leagues trying to keep documentaries from going live, it seems we all have something to learn from Senorita Streisand and her icy wrath.

But few such lessons include puppies, such as this one that reader IAsimov alerts us to, in which United Airlines nearly killed an owner's beloved dog and agreed to pay her vet bills, but only if she signed a non-disclosure agreement. Janet Sinclair brought her pets, Sedona the greyhound and Alika the cat, on a cross-country trip using UA's "PetSafe" program, which makes several promises about how the animals will be treated and what type of conditions they'll be exposed to. It would appear, to put it mildly, that the airline failed to keep their promises.

But, according to Sinclair, her pets were not safe. In fact, she says, the comfort stop nearly killed them. As she sat in her window seat looking out onto the tarmac of George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Sinclair says she saw a cargo employee kick Sedona’s crate six times to shove it under the shade of the plane’s wing instead of gently moving it there.

Urged by a fellow passenger, Sinclair began documenting what was happening to her animals. The video she recorded periodically shows her pets left outside, not in a temperature-controlled vehicle. According to the National Weather Service, the high in Houston that day was 94 degrees. When they touched down in Boston, Sinclair said her dog was barely alive.

"Sedona’s entire crate was filled with blood, feces, urine," Sinclair said. "Sedona was in full heat stroke. All of the blankets were filled with blood. She was urinating and defecating blood. She was dying, literally, right in front of me."

Sedona, fortunately, did not die, and the dog was taken to a vet, who was able to bring the dog back to health. The bill for the vet's work was $2,700, for three days in intensive care to treat heat stroke. Her vet was quite clear in stating that the condition of the dog was not due to any preexisting conditions, despite what United Airlines originally claimed, and was solely the result of the dog's treatment during the flight. The airline offered to pay the bill...but only if Sinclair agreed not to tell anyone what good dog-killers they are. Sinclair declined.

"The only reason I’m doing this interview is because I didn’t sign that, and I won’t sign it," she said, referring to the nondisclosure agreement. "I still want to be reimbursed," she said. "But I’m not going to be quiet."

And now the story is going viral, because the combination of a massive company behaving this way and the inclusion of a dog suffering horrible conditions is the kind of thing internet outrage was made for. My guess? You will still have turkey leftovers in your fridge when UA agrees to pay the vet bill without an NDA. Too bad the damage will have already been done.

Filed Under: confidentiality agreement, gag, janet sinclair, pets, petsafe, streisand effect
Companies: united airlines

Sports Radio Blowhard Blowhards After Parody Twitter Account

from the take-a-joke dept

Look, I get it, if you're a celebrity or organization of any stature and you were busy looking at yourself in the mirror when God was handing out sense of humor, a parody Twitter account might seem like a royal pain in the ass. Or almost-Royal, as in the case of Pippa Middleton, who tried to go all John Grisham on a parody account that appeared to enjoy poking fun at a book she wrote. As for organizations, you may recall that the Olympics did its best impression of itself by getting Twitter to take down a parody account. The problem is that these heavy-handed attempts at keeping people from engaging in time-honored tradition of mocking stuff on the internet has a tendency to backfire, streisanding the mocking like a combo-multiplyer in the world's funniest fighting game.

But getting egg on your face for this kind of thing doesn't actually require going legal. No, you can make yourself look silly while simultaneously drawing more attention to that of which you're vexed with just your everyday threats. Take for instance Mike Francesa, best known for his sports talk radio show, on which he performs his best caricature of a sports talk radio host. He was understandably miffed when The Daily News used a tweet from a Twitter account set up to parody Francesa, complete with his over-the-top East Coast drawl. His choice of response? To lose his mind and threaten to expose "the names and professions" of the people behind the silly parody Twitter account.

Here's the problem. First, everyone who isn't a duck-billed platypus high on ether knows the handle in question is a parody account. The text of the tweet makes it obvious to anyone who isn't even familiar with Francesa. Secondly, all this threat does, broadcast on his own show in New York, is draw even more attention to the tweet in question, the parody account, and anything the guys behind it might put out later. Thirdly, all this really accomplishes is to make Francesa look like a humorless blowhard who can't take a little gentle ribbing. That ain't New York tough, Mike. And, finally, the threat itself sucks. Promising to out people for who they are and what they do for a living, when you've already admitted they're just everyday guys, is about as terrifying as a poodle with a cough. All that would do is bring these guys even more attention.

And he's not just limiting his criticism to those guys, but he's attacking Twitter as well:

Twitter, which is gonna go public here next month, has gotta do something about the process of people's names being able to be used without their say so. OK? You can't control what the people say. This account's in my name.

Of course, that ignores that Twitter actually has just such a policy, though it's arguable whether or not the parody account fully complies with the policy requirements. Still, it's impossible to look at that account or any single one of its tweets and not realize it's a parody account.

I expected more from a media veteran, but I guess I'll just sit back and wait for the next chapter in this story, which will surely be titled: 2 Anonymous People Get Famous Because Mike Francesa Made It So. Of course, next up, perhaps he'll take on the guy who created a hilarious parody of Mike Francesa if he were on the air in 1776 at the start of the Revolutionary War. Does YouTube "gotta do something" too?

Filed Under: anonymity, free speech, mike francesa, parody, streisand effect, twitter

Copyright As Censorship Again: Game Developer Takes Down Scathing YouTube Review

from the and-all-hell-breaks-loose dept

All weekend long folks have been submitting variations on this story of how a company called Wild Games Studio had issued a copyright takedown on an apparently scathing review of one of its games, called Day One: Garry's Incident, done on YouTube by popular gaming reviewer TotalBiscuit (whose name is apparently John Bain in real life). A bunch of articles have been written about this, but the best, by far, is the video explanation Total Biscuit put up himself about the situation. It's about 14 minutes long (7 minutes if you use HTML 5 and speed things up), but well worth it: This video is great on so many levels. First, it explains the basics of the situation and why it's a pure abuse of copyright law. Second, it shows how the head of Wild Games Studio, named "Stephane," both gave him permission (giving him a code for the game, as well as stating publicly that people are free to "make YouTubes" of the game) and then lied about it all, by claiming the takedown was "because Total Biscuit has no right to make advertising revenues with our license." That's legally wrong on so many levels. First of all, not only did Stephane pretty clearly give permission for all this to happen, fair use is pretty clear here as well. The use was for reporting and criticism. Furthermore, TotalBiscuit highlights a bunch of other monetized videos involving the same game that Wild Games Studio did not take down.

But, from there, TotalBiscuit's video gets even more impressive. He doesn't just Streisand Effect Wild Games Studio, calling more attention to the content that the company tried to censor, but he digs into a bunch of other shady practices by the company, including (badly) astroturfing reviews, and accusations that they tried to pump up their Kickstarter campaign (for the same game) by (1) having the CEO of the company pledge $10,000 upfront, and (2) having others pledge high amounts and withdraw them later (suggesting that it was just to make it look like there was momentum for the campaign).

TotalBiscuit doesn't stop there. Next up he calls out YouTube for having a system like this, where censorship can occur so easily based on wholly bogus copyright claims. He points out that YouTube needs to do more to not allow these kinds of things to happen. Of course, YouTube is in a tough spot, seeing as they're also getting slammed by the legacy entertainment industry for not making it even easier to block content on the site.

Finally, he promises that any ad revenue earned from both the video above and the original one that was taken down, will be donated to the EFF, because the EFF remains awesome and continues to fight against such abuse.

After all of this, Wild Games Studio's "Stephane" says that "after seeing all the negative impact today we decided to withdraw our complaint to YouTube." That's an incredibly weak response. It's the equivalent of "if you were offended, I apologize." It's not taking responsibility for the blatant censorship or other abusive behaviors.

And yet there are still some people out there who insist that copyright is never used to censor.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, fair use, review, streisand effect, totalbiscuit, youtube
Companies: wild games studio

Thai Airways Tries To Cover Logo On Crashed Plane, Gets Egg On Face Instead

from the the-cover-up-is-always-worse-than-the-crime dept

There's a saying that goes: the coverup is always worse than the crime. It's a sort of catchall phrase that can be applied to the Streisand Effect for the way in which a group's inability to assume proper responsibility vaults their transgression into the limelight in a way it otherwise would not have, while simultaneously causing them to look petty, callous, or devious. The point is, as most of us adults have learned, that when you're caught doing something wrong your best bet is to readily accept the blame and begin working on rebuilding your brand. If you don't, you look like a jerk.

Speaking of which, Thai Airways is suddenly looking like a jerk. The airline seems to have a problem keeping the landing gear working on its planes as of late. After a crash in Hong Kong two weeks ago, another Thai Airways Airbus plane suffered faulty landing gear and injured 14 people when it skidded onto a Bangkok runway. Then, because apparently the company is run by junior high school children, they sent a crew out to the plane to hastily paint over the company logo on the tail-section, even as the rest of the plane was garbed in easy-to-identify company colors.

Today, the plane was seen resting on grass next to the runway with its evacuation slides still deployed and the Thai Airways name and logo hastily covered up.

The move to black-out the logo may have been a response to last night's incident coming less than two weeks after 20 passengers were injured when a Thai Airways flight hit severe turbulence as it was descending to Hong Kong's airport. Although the logo was unable to be seen, the plane's airline colours were unmistakable and easily compared to Thai Airways jets taking off or landing in the vicinity, which happens quite a bit in Bangkok.

If this all seems eerily familiar, it's because you used to pull this exact same move... when you were five years old. You know what I'm talking about: you're wrist deep in the chocolate cake mom cooked for your sister, she catches you in the act, and you put your hands over your eyes. Ah ha, problem solved! If you can't see her, she obviously can't see you!

Except it doesn't work like that of course and now the news is filled with reports of Thai Airways trying to shirk their responsibility for yet another crash with the kind of move Sesame Street teaches you not to pull. Enjoy that Streisanding, folks! Think about how many more people now know not to fly your planes!

Filed Under: coverup, plane crash, streisand effect, thai airways, trademark
Companies: thai airways

The NFL Will Feel The Streisand Effect After Pressuring ESPN To Pull Out Of Frontline Documentary

from the personal-foul,-silencing-critics dept

It never ceases to amaze me how businesses just can’t seem to understand the Streisand Effect, or its sister phenomenon, the cover up is always worse than the crime. Whether it’s small groups like a bunch of straight pride people that seek to silence what was essentially their own strange words, hugely famous celebrities, members of Congress, or even major television networks, the hits keep on coming.

But my ears perk up particularly when an otherwise massively successful company who should know better feels the Streisand slap down. Take the NFL for instance, which is currently suffering under reports that it pressured ESPN to pull out of a partnership in a PBS Frontline documentary on how the NFL has turned a blind eye to players suffering concussions, dementia, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy. According to all parties, it started out so well.

“[PBS’s] Aronson-Rath said that until last Friday, there had been no hint of trouble between “Frontline” and ESPN. She said that “Frontline” had worked “in lock step” with Vince Doria, ESPN’s senior vice president and director of news, and Dwayne Bray, senior coordinating producer in ESPN’s news-gathering unit.”

So, what happened on that Friday that caused ESPN to suddenly pull out of the partnership, which would have resulted in shared profits from the documentary? Well, during the previous week, the NFL hosted a meeting with ESPN’s President John Skipper that has been described as “combative.” The NFL, which is currently facing a class-action lawsuit from thousands of former players over the way it dealt with head-trauma and related injuries, is obviously not pleased about the documentary. Roger Goodell, league commissioner, was reportedly particularly upset that ESPN was working on the film in conjunction with its filmmakers. While Greg Aiello, NFL spokesman, insists that they did not ask ESPN to pull out of the project, it’s rather easy to connect the dots when ESPN did just that almost immediately after the meeting and without any discernible business reason.

And discernible business reason other than ESPN pays the NFL roughly $1 billion to broadcast the wildly successful Monday Night Football, an absolute cash cow for the Disney-owned station. In other words, the NFL told ESPN to bail on the project and they complied. Why? Because ESPN isn’t in the journalism business. Despite what they’d like you to think, they’re a marketing company, with any faux journalism done strictly to build up their televised sports products. That’s fine for them, but there’s a problem for the NFL.

That problem is that this story is now everywhere. Deadspin, the NY Times, all over the place. What was once a PBS documentary that might have been lightly covered by ESPN (though not too much, since it doesn’t hurt its own programming that way) has now been driven into the public discourse in typical Streisand-fashion. And, as always seems the case, everyone gets smeared except the actual documentary they want to silence. The NFL looks both meddlesome and as if it has something to hide, ESPN is all the more revealed to be a non-journalistic enterprise, rather than the journalistic one it pretends to be, and the Frontline documentary is getting a ton of attention.

Bang up job of keeping quiet how violent football is, NFL guys!

Filed Under: documentary, football, frontline, head trauma, streisand effect
Companies: espn, nfl, pbs