WIPO Says Websites In Its Pirate Database Don't Deserve Due Process Because 'They Know What They're Doing'

from the they-know-what-they're-doing dept

You may recall that, recently, I posted on WIPO's bizarre decision to host a database of "pirate" sites that it would share with advertisers, encouraging them to block ads from appearing on any of the sites in the "Building Respect for Intellectual Property" (BRIP) database. As we noted in our original post, previous attempts at such databases showed how problematic they could be, as they almost always swept up perfectly legal sites, and they provided no due process, no checks and balances or anything of the like. I also had a list of questions about this for WIPO, which I noted were unanswered at the time of posting. WIPO actually did get back to me, but we'll get to that.

First, I wanted to point to a Twitter thread by New Zealand internet lawyer Rick Shera, who, in response to the news of the BRIP database, gave a real world example of how such databases create real harms for internet services through false accusations with no due process. Here's a lightly edited part of Shera's tweetstorm (the full thing is longer, but you get the point). After describing how the database is set up, he tells a story relating to one of his own clients:

WIPO does not disclose who the “Authorized Contributors” are, but, according to TorrentFreak, they are expected to be a mix of law enforcement, and industry groups such as MPAA and RIAA. Which reminds me of what happened to my client Mega a few years ago. In 2014 a UK-based online brand management agency NetNames published “Behind the Cyberlocker Door: A report on how shadowy cyberlocker businesses use credit card companies to make millions" commissioned by Digital Citizens Alliance, a US rightsholder lobby group.

Mega was included in the report as a “cyberlocker”, without being given any opportunity to comment or rebut. Even by the report’s own criteria, Mega’s inclusion was patently incorrect.

But don’t take my word for it. Mega commissioned Olswang, one of the leading IP, media and IT law firms in the UK, which in turn had Grant Thornton in New Zealand analyse Mega’s systems. Olswang concluded the NetNames report was clearly false and defamatory. NetNames and Digital Citizens Alliance of course refused to withdraw the report and, at that early stage in its operation, it was uneconomic for Mega to take defamation action in the UK.

But it’s what happened next that provides a salutary lesson on the dangers of copyright guilt on accusation. The NetNames report was picked up by US Senator Patrick Leahy, who, also without the courtesy of checking with Mega, wrote to Visa and MasterCard encouraging them to cease providing payment services to anyone listed in the report. Here’s his letter to MasterCard.

The NetNames report was picked up by US Senator Leahy, who, also without the courtesy of checking with Mega, wrote to Visa and MasterCard encouraging them to cease providing payment services to anyone listed in the report. Here’s his letter to MasterCard. pic.twitter.com/26nV1pMWgU

— Rick Shera (@lawgeeknz) July 24, 2019

Visa and MasterCard blacklisted Mega, again, without notice. That resulted in PayPal ceasing service literally overnight. This despite the fact that PayPal had itself conducted exhaustive due diligence on Mega before giving it a clean bill of health just months earlier. Mega is not a cyberlocker. It complies with NZ and with European and US copyright laws. It is one of a handful of companies in NZ that publish a transparency report. Naturally, as a privacy protective business, it has put a huge effort into GDPR compliance. It has excellent relationships with law enforcement agencies worldwide operating under its takedown guidance policy.

And yet a spurious report, commissioned by a non accountable industry backed lobby group, was able to run roughshod over all that. If Mega was not so well supported by its users and stakeholders, that false accusation would have driven it out of business. This is the danger in WIPO encouraging advertisers to cease service based on unsubstantiated allegations by non publicly accountable third parties. The allegations alone, which may be false, as they were for Mega, can kill a business.

That's a great example of the kind of mistake that is quite often made. We highlighted some other examples in our original post. Also, it's important to note that early innovations in new spaces often appear to be infringing. Imagine a similar rule in the time before the Supreme Court ruled that the VCR was perfectly legal. If retail shops relied on a "list" from the MPAA on what they shouldn't stock, it certainly would have meant they never would have sold VCRs (the same VCRs that helped drive the home video market, which quickly surpassed the box office market and saved Hollywood in the 1980s).

Back to WIPO's list, however. I had reached out to them before my story went up -- and they responded saying they'd be happy to set up someone for me to talk to, though that email was sent right around the time my original story went out. I told them I was hoping to do a follow up story and would like to speak to someone there. After a number of emails back and forth, WIPO eventually told me that since this database is "under formal discussion by WIPO member states at a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Enforcement" in early September, WIPO felt that it was best not to comment until after it's too late for it to matter and after the member states have discussed it. That strikes me as odd.

However, a WIPO employee, Jeremy Thille, decided to come into our comments and take it upon himself to give, as he called it, "WIPO's reply." Thille is a web developer, who notes that he helped build the database. I am quite sure that Thille thought he was being helpful here -- and, he actually was being super helpful in revealing WIPO's complete and utter disgust for basic due process on issues that impact speech and innovation. Most tellingly, he responded to my question about whether or not sites are notified that they're being put in this database that can literally put them out of business by saying:

No. They know what they're doing.

This isn't a surprise. In two decades of doing work in and around the copyright space, this attitude is pervasive. It ignores, of course, that throughout all of this time, those in legacy industries are often way too quick to declare something, or some tool or service, "dedicated to infringement," when it is not. It ignores that making mistakes here have massive impacts on both free expression and innovation. This is especially galling given that WIPO is a part of the UN and the UN is supposed to be bound by the principles of free expression in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To brush off such blatant censorship without any due process as "they know what they did" is astoundingly cavalier.

Other parts of Thille's responses (er... "WIPO's reply") are equally enlightening, if not surprising. He argues that there really aren't any problems with WIPO keeping such a censorship database, because it's all really maintained by member countries:

The BRIP platform is merely a central repository for national authorities such as HADOPI in France, AGCOM in Italy, or Roskomnadzor in Russia.

These authorities are governmental and they declare websites as infringing, as they legally have the power to do so. We don't have this power, so we don't add or remove anything from the database.

He leaves out the earlier statements that industry representatives get to take part as well. He also leaves out the, uh, rather checkered history of some of the agencies he names in censoring the internet. Remember, when the company that Hadopi employed to run its copyright enforcement program decided that the DNS address 127.0.0.1 was a pirate site? (For the non-technically savvy, 127.0.0.1 is your own local machine). Or how about the time that Roskomnadzor used its copyright naughty list to shut down an entire news site. AGCOM? Remember how they ordered a user-generated-content platform blocked throughout Italy based on claims of 11 infringing works, and then ignored the fact that the site quickly removed all 11 works when informed?

Odd that the three examples of "trusted" government agencies that WIPO uses as examples for its database all have histories littered with problematic sites and censorship. Seems like, maybe, something WIPO should have considered, rather than merely assuming that if a government says "kill this site" that it must "know what they did."

Thille also passes the buck on WIPO's database, noting that while WIPO won't remove stuff, it will be left up to those problematic trusted authorities to create any due process. Though, he is candid that basically, any site in the database is fucked:

If they have been flagged by their national supreme internet authority, it will be difficult to contest, but here again, this is a process we have noting to do with. Displeased websites will have to try and contact their national authority directly, as they alone can remove a website/domain from their list in the BRIP database. Technically, we could of course remove a website from an official list, but legally we absolutely can't.

That's fascinating. Given just how hard all of the industry reps have been fighting over the years to argue that the maintainer of a website should have liability for what's in it, it does seem just slightly ironic for WIPO and the industry to team up on a database while insisting they have no liability whatsoever for putting companies into it incorrectly, even if it cuts of free expression or innovation.

Thille further clarifies -- as we expected -- that there is literally no way for the public, or even an NGO, to check the database and review it for accuracy. So it's a hidden, secretive database, put together by organizations that have a troubled history of censorship, that will be used to starve sites out of existence, and there is no due process, no transparency, no way to review, no way to appeal. But it's all cool because, WIPO believes, those sites "know what they're doing."

Of course, as we saw with Mega, yes, those sites know that they're complying with the law. And it didn't matter.

I asked WIPO whether or not it would like to comment on Thille's clarifications, suggesting that as an organization pushing such a database, it would probably be in their interest to have a better response to these questions. WIPO declined to respond and has provided no additional comment. It seems like the kind of thing that might help member states have a more informed discussion at their meeting September 2 - 4, at which there will be a discussion on "recent activities" regarding the BRIP database.

Unfortunately, responding to pesky journalists asking silly questions about censorship and due process is not on the agenda. I guess, the best you can say about WIPO and this database is... "they know what they're doing."

Filed Under: accusations, brip, copyright, database, due process, free speech, infringement, innovation, wipo
Companies: mega, wipo

Author Solutions' Rep: People Complaining About Our Scammy 'Services' Are Engaged In 'Racketeering'

from the i-can-count-the-facts-Eric-knows-on-one-stump dept

Before we get into this unintentionally hilarious response from an Author Solutions' rep (via Nate Hoffelder), we'll need a little background on the company itself.

Author Solutions Inc. is a "self-publishing" company currently doing business with several major publishers, while acting more like a severely abusive vanity press than an actual self-publishing service. Acquired by Pearson in 2012, ASI has assembled a stable of "self-publishing" and print-on-demand services, including Author House, xlibris, iUniverse and Trafford. Other publishers have outsourced self-publishing work to ASI under a variety of names.

Like the other self-publishing divisions of trade publishers (LifeWay’s Cross Books, Thomas Nelson’s West Bow Press, Harlequin’s Dell’Arte Press [which, unlike other ventures of this sort, produced a furore upon its introduction and had to change its name], Hay House’s Balboa Press, and Writer’s Digest’sAbbott Press), Archway Publishing is outsourced to Author Solutions Inc. [Simon & Schuster] is the biggest fish ASI has landed so far.

ASI's main business, by far, is selling services (most of them useless) to authors. Selling books is almost an accidental byproduct.

[I]n 2011, ASI generated about 63% of its revenue from what it calls publishing and marketing services and 37% from distribution services.

Because of this, ASI doesn't do much repeat business.

Since its launch, ASI has published 170,000 titles from 140,000 authors...

Compare those numbers with Smashwords, a well-respected self-publishing service.

The site, which has published about 127,000 titles by 44,000 writers, is projected to double its revenues this year.

Why doesn't ASI have this sort of repeat business? Because it's basically a scam. Hopeful authors sign up for the pricey services (the average author spends $5,000 -- and sells only 150 books), only to realize too late that ASI is only interested in selling stuff to the author, rather than selling books to customers.

Despite the fact that a "starter" package runs about $1,200-$2,000, ASI doesn't even provide copy editing. This is probably due to the fact that over three-quarters of its workforce is in the Philippines. Not that ASI hasn't tried to make some corrections. It's just that when it does, it only makes things worse.

Enjoy this quote from a class action lawsuit filed against ASI.

“Author Solutions also fails to take diligent care of its authors’ works, making numerous and egregious publisher errors – errors made by the publisher, not the author. These errors include errors on book covers, in addition to various typographical and formatting errors. In fact, Author Solutions profits from its own mistakes. Aggressive sales techniques ensure that these errors are corrected only for a fee of several hundred dollars. Even though, as a matter of policy, Author Solutions promises to correct publisher errors for free, it rarely does.”

On the "plus" side, ASI will charge authors a premium to handle these "impossible" tasks.

But with Archway [outsourced to ASI] authors will be saved the strenuous effort of uploading the ebook to various ebookstores, hiring their own cover designer and layout expert, and they will also be saved the grueling efforts needed to create a POD book via CreateSpace or Lightning source.

In exchange for a measly 2 grand, Archway will also provide a novelist with services which are far too difficult for authors to do for themselves, like copyright registration and buying an ISBN, as well as desperately necessary services like registering for a LOC Control Number.

As is noted in the lawsuit, ASI screws around with royalties.

The complaint also alleges that Author Solutions's royalty practices are either misleading or not properly paid out, with even some authors listed as bestsellers on Amazon, the complaint states, told they have no reported sales, and, that it is difficult if not impossible to get a correct sales accounting.

ASI also has problems handing out refunds. Shaming ASI publicly tends to shake loose the refund, but this often means a company rep will show up at the site of the public shaming to make sad noises about the author's decision to discuss this publicly. (As though withholding a refund was the path of true gentility...)

Now that you know what ASI is up to, witness this beauty of a response to an author who turned down ASI's (d/b/a iUniverse) unsolicited sales pitch.

An author ["Kevin"] received a marketing letter from iUniverse [You can read the whole thing in its self-promoting glory at this link.] Upon discovering the company behind the pitch, the author sent the following email back.

Ugh, I didn’t realize this was iUniverse under another name. I’ll pass thanks. I’ve heard nothing but horror stories about how little authors get and how you people upsell for next to nothing in return.

In response to his "Thanks, but I'd rather slice my own eyeballs" email, Kevin got this bizarre burst of defensiveness from Eric Emlinger, "Publishing Consultant" for Author Solutions.

Hello Kevin,

Such horror stories are from websites that are being sued for racketeering, their [sic] essentially hiring people to write bad reviews about big companies. I don’t expect you to believe me, all I can tell you is the facts. We’ve been in business for 15 years, published over 91,000 books, we have an A with the Better Business Bureau, we are regulated by the FCC, and our company is a part of the Penguin Random House group. Many of my authors have even returned in recent months to publish their second and third book. I hope we hear from you again.

Take a good look at the terminology tossed about carelessly in this word salad and ask yourself if this is the kind of person you'd trust with a manuscript. To start with, telling someone only the "facts" generally means you've brought a few with you. This response seems awfully light on those.

With all the (linked) background provided above, I can only assume Techdirt has moved into "racketeering" territory, something normally associated with New Jersey sanitation companies and frustrated g-men. ASI isn't suing anyone, least of all for "racketeering." It may be upset that sites like Ripoff Report and Writer Beware are loaded with bad reviews of its terrible service but, to date, it hasn't sued anyone or any site over negative reviews. To do so would only make the situation worse.

An "A" with the Better Business Bureau only means ASI's dues are paid up. Consumers would be thrilled to have an independent source for companies' reputations, but the BBB isn't up to the task. As author David Gaughran points out in the comments, the BBB system is so easily gamed that a consumer interest group managed to secure an "A" rating from the Los Angeles Better Business Bureau for terrorist organization Hamas.

As for being regulated by the FCC, I have no idea where Eric is going with this. He presumably means the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), but even so, thousands of businesses are "regulated" by the Commission and dozens of them routinely abuse their customers.

And finally, ASI (iUniverse) may be part of the "Penguin Random House group," but that indicates nothing more than Emilinger's willingness to throw names around in order to give his company an air of legitimacy. No surprise there, but the real disappointment is so many respected publishers have outsourced their self-publishing efforts to borderline scam artists like ASI who farm out their authors' work to cheap labor in the Philippines.

The large publishing houses should know better, but they're still treating self-published writers as nothing more than an endless string of benchwarmers who should be happy to receive bottom of the barrel "service" from a company that makes more money from selling to authors than selling stuff from authors. The equation is completely backwards, but it handily reinforces the publishers' view that authors need them more than they need authors. And as long as they hold that view, ASI will continue dragging the publishing houses' reputations through the mud.

Filed Under: accusations, self-publishing
Companies: author solutions

NZ Copyright Tribunal: Accusations Are Presumed Infringement, Despite Denials

from the guilt-upon-accusation dept

A few weeks ago, we noted that the first "three strikes" case of infringement in New Zealand was set to go to the Copyright Tribunal (an earlier case was dropped after the recording industry (RIANZ) realized it had screwed up). The Tribunal has now issued its first ruling, demanding that the accused pay a grand total of $616.57 NZ (about $515 US). The person was accused of downloading and sharing Rihanna's Man Down twice, and Hot Chelle Rae's Tonight Tonight once. The tribunal noted that the first song retailed for $2.39 and the latter at $1.79, so it doubled the first one, and started with $6.57 (all NZ dollars). Then it added $50 to pay for infringement notices being sent out. Another $200 covers the fee that RIANZ paid to bring the case, and then it tacked on a "deterrent sum" of $360 -- or $120 per song. Add it all up and you've got $616.57.

The full ruling is a bit odd, but highlights the ridiculousness of NZ's three strikes law. The Tribunal notes that, since this is the first such ruling, it was going to explain each point carefully, and it did. But the really crazy stuff is that it notes that, under the law, it basically has to assume that the accusations mean guilt. The accused responded by admitting only to downloading Man Down a single time, and guessing that the second time had to do with a problem with uTorrent. She denies entirely that she or anyone in her household downloaded the other song.

"The letter outlines three separate infringements recorded on an internet connection in my name. The first song downloaded was a song called man down by rihanna. I accept responsibility for this. I downloaded this song unaware that in doing so from this site was illegal. When this song was downloaded to my computer; a whole utorrent program downloaded onto my computer [W]hen I turned my computer on it said that the song was still downloading and maybe that caused the song to register twice as it being downloaded? l'm unsure if this is possible or not but don't know why it shows that I would try to download the same song twice.

l kept receiving a pop up notice saying it seems like utorrent is already running but not responding, please close all utorrent processes and try again ... I figured out how to delete the song that was still trying to download but still couldn't figure out how to delete the whole program until just recently when I got someone to look at it as after I received the letter, i assumed having this program on my computer was causing the warning regarding downloading?

When I received the letter warning me of the download and consequences and that it was illegal, I didn't challenge the letter as I took responsibility for my actions and realised I was in the wrong and took it as a warning and didn't do it again.

I would never intentionally do anything illegal and you can see this from my criminal record as it is clean. I didn't realise that it was illegal and I apologise sincerely for this mistake and have removed it from my computer.

In regards to the song 'tonight tonight' by Hot Chelle Rae being downloaded, I can't claim responsibility for this as it wasn't done by myself or anyone in this household but if I find the person responsible for downloading this through my internet then I will definitely enforce the consequences behind doing so."

So, basically, of the three strikes, she admits to one, suggests the other one, if done, was completely by accident, and vehemently denies the final download. The Tribunal basically ignores all that and says that, under the law, an accusation is as good as guilt unless you provide evidence of innocence -- and then says she failed to do so. Think about that for a second. You need to prove a negative here -- which seems close to impossible, but that's what the law apparently requires.

The Act creates a presumption that each incidence of file sharing identified in an infringement notice constitutes an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work identified. An account holder may submit evidence that this presumption does not apply, or give reasons why it should not apply. In this case, the Respondent has not provided any evidence that the presumption should not apply. In fact, she acknowledges that at least some manner of infringement has taken place and has apologised for this.

You would think that admitting honestly to that single download might make the Tribunal wonder if perhaps the other two accusations were inaccurate, but instead it take it as proof that "some manner of infringement" has taken place, so it can assume that the accusations were all accurate. The Tribunal basically throws up its hands and says that since there is "insufficient evidence" it just assumes "guilty."

There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to make detailed findings on these factual issues. That is the nature of a decision being made on the papers. On the basis of the information available to it, however, together with the statutory presumption that each incidence of file sharing identified in an infringement notice constitutes an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work, the Tribunal is satisfied that file sharing took place via the Respondent's internet account as alleged.

In the normal world, "insufficient evidence" means that you're presumed innocent, not guilty. But this is copyright law we're talking about, where the normal rules don't apply.

If there's any silver lining to the ruling, it's that the Tribunal did not go as far as RIANZ wanted. It had argued that the accused should have to pay a lot more than the cost of purchasing the track for that initial cost, because (it argued) any upload could be shared multiple times. The Tribunal rejects that idea, saying that it is "not relevant" to the cost issue, though it may be relevant concerning deterrence. On the issue of deterrence, the Tribunal more or less sticks its finger in the air and picks $120.

RIANZ tried to argue that the deterrence fee should be high, because it insisted the downloading of three songs (really only two songs) was clearly "flagrant." Why? Well, because she used uTorrent! Therefore, she must be a serial infringer.

The fact that the account holder had BitTorrent protocol (uTorrent version 2.2.0) software installed on her computer. It notes that the locating downloading, installing and configuring of such software is a deliberate act and does not occur without direct action on behalf of a computer user.

The fact that uTorrent is perfectly legal and has significant non-infringing uses is not something that the RIANZ cares to concede. RIANZ also claimed that three whole downloads proves "flagrancy." Oh, and they insist that she "took no action to alter her behavior" -- again as an argument for flagrancy. Of course, the woman argues that she did, in fact, change her behavior. Either way the Tribunal notes that these arguments have nothing to do with flagrancy, since they'll automatically apply to just about anyone who shows up in front of the panel.

On the whole, it seems doubtful that this is going to suddenly make people start buying music again, but why let that get in the way of shaking down some music fans?

Filed Under: accusations, copyright, new zealand, three strikes, tribunal
Companies: rianz

Indian Court Orders 104 Sites Censored Based On The Say So Of The Indian Music Industry

from the censorship-by-any-other-name dept

Torrentfreak notes the interesting timing on this one. Just as MPAA boss Chris Dodd was in India talking up the importance of stricter copyright laws (like SOPA), an Indian court ordered a SOPA-like block of 104 sites that were declared as "dedicated to infringement" by the Indian Music Industry (IMI). What's interesting is that as you look down the list of blocked sites, they include many that appear to focus on movies, not music -- so it's not clear why IMI gets to decide what's infringing and what's not.

Reading some of the details, it's pretty clear that the sites in question were not given a chance to present their side in court. In fact, it appears that even the IMI bosses admit that they haven't yet proved that all of those sites are infringing:

Taking the sites to court is not humanly feasible: when we went after one site, we got the impression that the owner was in the US, based out of the Bahamas, and it was very difficult to get him to respond. Our person has to pose as an advertiser before the owner came on an email, and we eventually found that it was a young kid in Rajkot, and the entire process took six months. Going after 104 sites – can you imagine the effort, the time and the money spent in chasing this? The better route is to establish comprehensively that each ofthese 104 sites is pirating content, and we’re doing that – as a body and not a company – and it’s easier to interact with the ISP now.

In other words, shoot first, deal with the fallout of incorrect censorship later.

Not surprisingly, the head of the IFPI (the international RIAA) cheered on this result:

“This decision is a victory for the rule of law online and a blow to those illegal businesses that want to build revenues by violating the rights of others,” said IFPI CEO Frances Moore in a statement.

But in a clear signal that for the music and movie industries even the toughest of anti-piracy measures are never enough, Moore says that current developments are a good start.

“The court ruled that blocking is a proportionate and effective way to tackle website piracy,” Moore noted, adding that the Indian government should now “build on this progress” by advancing further legislation to tackle digital piracy.

The situation here seems extreme and disproportionate. Not only have the serious problems with DNS and IP blocking been described concerning internet security, but it's pretty clear that efforts like this don't work. There are already reports of sites from the list reappearing under different domain names, and all the court order is doing is spreading the game of whac-a-mole. Amusingly, the same Indian music exec who made the claim above about how it's impossible to actually track down these sites, later (in the same interview) admits he doesn't want to shut down these sites, because they have a "passion for music" and he'd like to work out deals with them. Of course, getting a court order to block access to their existing sites is a funny way to say "hey, I'd like to work with you."

Filed Under: accusations, censorship, copyright, dns blocking, due process, india, ip blocking, sopa
Companies: imi

Big Time Music Producer Sues Artists For Defamation For Suggesting He Copies Their Songs

from the ah,-legal-fights dept

THREsq has a story about the quick, legal trigger finger of one Lukasz "Dr. Luke" Gottwald, who apparently has produced a bunch of pop hits from the likes of Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Ke$ha, Avril Lavigne and Kelly Clarkson. It seems that lots of people online have noticed that some of the songs sound similar to other songs, and as people do these days, they've created mashups showing the similarities. Dr. Luke has decided that the best strategy to take when certain artists have spoken out publicly about their beliefs that certain songs were copied is to sue them for defamation.

Now, I actually agree with Dr. Luke that many of these accusations are crazy:

"These days, anyone can put two songs up and make a mash-up by changing the key of this one and say, 'Oh, these songs are similar.' A lot of things are similar. But you don�t get sued for being similar. It needs to be the same thing. Almost doesn�t count. Close but no cigar. People are suing for close. There are standard chord progressions that everyone uses. There are plenty of songs that are really similar and they never sued each other. We are a very litigious society today. You can fall on the sidewalk and sue the city."

He's right. And, of course, there are lots of highly viral YouTube videos about similar general chord progressions in a ton of songs, such as the one about Pachelbel's Canon: And yet... as much as I agree in general that the claims of copying (or more directly, of infringement) are overblown, the fact that he goes legal first with defamation claims really seems like a strategically questionable move. All it's doing is calling that much more attention to the allegations themselves and leading more people to wonder if there is actual copying going on. He could have easily stuck with the claim that lots of songs have the same chord progression and that's not infringement.

Filed Under: accusations, copying, defamation, dr. luke

Confused Musician Threatens Google, Blog Because Her Works Are Found Elsewhere On The Internet

from the there-are-ignorant-people-on-all-sides-of-this-debate dept

If you look hard enough, on any side of a big debate, you can find people who are really ignorant, but not afraid to speak their minds. And, yes, this certainly includes those who are concerned about what has become of copyright law. You may recall that writer Mark Helprin wrote an entire book based on taking a few dumb comments from Techdirt out of context, and pretending that they were representative of the views of those who think copyright law has some serious problems. So, you have to be careful not to take a few ignorant comments and extrapolate further viewpoints on a particular subject. Still, sometimes, you come across an example of someone who is so willfully ignorant that it's difficult to know how to respond.

Take, for example, the ordeal that the site Torrentfreak recently went through, with famed 60s session musician Carol Kaye, who apparently doesn't quite understand how BitTorrent (or, potentially, the internet) works. Somehow, she got it into her head that Torrentfreak -- which is just a blog that writes about this stuff -- was distributing her works in an unauthorized manner. Of course, as a blog site that doesn't distribute any files, nothing could be further from the truth -- and the Torrentfreak folks tried to politely explain this to Ms. Kaye. They even went so far as to offer to contact the admins of certain torrent tracker sites about removing links to the files she was concerned about.

Rather than admit her mistake (and maybe even thank them for their help) she sent a series of increasingly angry emails, such as the following:

You're a liar, a pirate, and a thief and a no-body -- you're coming down buddy, don't give me that run-around BS! Whoever you are, you're THIEF AND A DELIBERATE PIRATE!

So much for helping. She also had her friends start emailing the TorrentFreak folks with similarly misguided emails. I'm reminded of a rather angry Hollywood lawyer who has blogged repeatedly bizarre (and totally false) claims about me -- saying that I (seriously) command an army of hackers who will vehemently attack any musician or songwriter who dares to disagree with me. Perhaps some readers here get a bit aggressive in responding to questionable statements made by musicians/songwriters, but you can always find some people who go too far -- on either side, as the experience of TorrentFreak demonstrates.

In the case of Carol Kaye, however, it looks like this isn't the only time she's been confused about how the internet works. Some folks note that on her own website is a statement suggesting that she thinks Google is responsible for unauthorized access to her content, and she's expecting the FTC to fix that:

Please do not download any of my books/CDs from Google. I filed FTC Complaint #25172648 against Google for those illegal downloads, don't be a pirate!

It might help if Ms. Kaye spoke to someone who could explain to her that Google is not the liable party here -- and the FTC isn't going to suddenly make Google liable just because Ms. Kaye is confused about how the internet works. But, then again, she might just accuse anyone who tries to help her of being a "thief." Clearly, Ms. Kaye is angry about some of her content being available in an unauthorized manner online, and seems uninterested in actually understanding how the content got there or what she can legitimately do in response. It's really too bad.

Filed Under: accusations, carol kaye, copyright, file sharing

Questions Raised About Logo Artist Who Was Accused Of 'Stealing' From Himself

from the look-again dept

Well, well, well... a few folks have been sending in some of the investigations that have been going on concerning the logo designer, Jon Engle, who caused a big stir on a variety of sites (including ours) by claiming that he was being accused of infringing on his own logo artwork. However, as more people started investigating the matter, his story has become increasingly suspect, both with certain elements not adding up, and additional evidence suggesting that Engle himself may have, in fact, used images from others in the logos he had uploaded to sites. There are also some other claims that Engle had absolutely nothing to do with some of the logos that he said he designed. However, as the public scrutiny of Engle's story is spreading, Engle's reputation is taking a big hit -- showing how the damage done to one's own reputation by plagiarism can be punitive, even without invoking copyright law. Reputation is a scarce good... destroying it by lying and duping a bunch of folks is going to come back to bite you.

Filed Under: accusations, copyright, jon engle, logos, reputation

Designer Threatened With Copyright Infringement Claims... On His Own Work

from the hurray-for-copyright dept

A whole bunch of people have been submitting this story all weekend, about how designer Jon Engle is is accused of copyright infringement for his own designs. The site is down right now, but Google cache has it. Basically, the story is that a stock art site claims that it owns the copyright on 65 logos that this guy created for clients -- and is demanding he pay $275 for each one (which is actually somewhat low, given what they could demand). He's not sure how the images got on the stock art site, but it looks like someone just took the images of logos from a showcase site, removed the text, and uploaded the icons themselves. He explained this to them, but instead of an embarrassed apology:

When I refused to pay the bill they hired a law firm specializing in copyright infringement. The attorney called and offered a settlement of $18,000. How is that any different than the bill? I refuse to pay THEM for work I created. That is the epitomy of ridiculous. The attorney didn't like my response. He threatened to sue. I say BRING IT ON! I have no doubt I can win in court.

So what did the lawyers do? They started going after all of Engle's clients, telling them that their images infringe on its copyright and that Engle is "being investigated for copyright infringement."

However, the new tactic I discovered this morning is so much harder to fight. They are calling or emailing every one of my clients they can find. They inform the client that I'm being investigated for copyright infringement and that the logo I designed for them may have been stolen from their client. After discovering my ban from Design Outpost I began contacting clients to see exactly who they've been in touch with. So far, I've heard back from three. In every case so far my client is furious with me. They took the lawyer's warning at face value without bothering to contact me. I understand their reaction to an extent. I'm sure they're worried that they may be sued as well for using 'stolen' artwork and the best thing they can do is distance themselves from me.

I feel like this is nothing more than an underhanded campaign meant to demoralize me and destroy my reputation. If you read through their website you can see they work on contingency. This means they don't get paid if their client doesn't get paid. I've also made it very clear there's no way in hell that I'll ever pay up. I'll declare bankruptcy and go to work for McDonald's before that happens. Are they thinking they can beat me into submission? Do they think I'll agree to a settlement to make it all go away? Guess again. I have the truth on my side and I will NEVER pay a rip-off artist or their extortionist lawyers.

Nice to see copyright law "protecting" the artist again.

Filed Under: accusations, copyright, design, jon engle