Olive Garden Apologizes To Allofgarden.com, Blames IP Enforcement Bot For Legal Threat

from the mea-cappelini dept

You will hopefully recall the recent story we did on Darden, parent company of the Olive Garden restaurant chain, sending a legal threat letter to the man behind allofgarden.com, a site that reviews Olive Garden dishes, because the internet is a strange, strange place. At issues, according to the threat letter, was that allofgarden.com named Olive Garden in metatags in its reviews of the dishes, which you should already know is nothing remotely resembling trademark infringement or infringement upon any other types of intellectual property, either. With that in mind, Vincent Malone replied to the threat letter in a manner both well-informed of his own rights and one which demonstrated just how funny Malone is. After refusing to comply with the requests in the letter, he demanded a reply within nine days in limerick form.

His demands were not met exactly, but Darden has now responded to Malone, apologizing for the letter, promising no further action would be taken against him, blaming an IP enforcement bot for the letter, and sending him a $50 gift card. Sadly, none of this was delivered in the limerick form Malone had requested.

As apologies for this sort of thing go, this one is pretty good. It was apparently in further conversations outside of this letter that Malone was told of the bot, which may well be true but only demonstrates that too many companies play loose with the way they seek to enforce their rights. This story ends on a positive note only because Malone decided not to immediately back down out of fear of a much larger company, after all. It doesn't take too much imagination to suppose that there could be, or perhaps have been, instances we don't know about in which sites simply comply with these unreasonable demands instead of seeking limerick apologies as Malone had.

But if you thought I was going to leave you having read this post without a limerick to read, I can allay those concerns, as Malone himself decided to inform his readers of all of this in poetic form.

As of six thirty-five in the PMs
I've wrapped up my talks with the chieftains
They were misconstrued;
I'm not getting sued
And I needn't write out any ™s

Yes! An official who represents Darden
Has granted me a total pardon
We've reached resolution
I received absolution
For daring to print "olive garden"

The source of the problem was sought
And the sender-offender was caught!
That e-mail was provided
(If you wonder [as I did])
by a prodigious, litigious spam-bot.

My sole issue with Legal's retort
Was the prose of their written report
The demand was specific:
a reply via lim'rick
Well. At least I'm not going to court.

Bravo.

Filed Under: allofgarden, apologies, brand enforcement, olive garden, vincent malone
Companies: darden, mark monitor, olive garden

Media Organizations (Correctly) Worry That Rolling Stone Verdict Will Make Saying Sorry Actionable

from the that's-a-problem dept

We didn't cover anything about the whole bogus story that Rolling Stone published last year about campus rape at UVA, which it later had to retract and take down. The whole thing was something of a clusterfuck, but not directly relevant to what we write about here. Eventually, it led to a defamation case filed by UVA's former associate dean, Nicole Eramo, against Rolling Stone, which was pretty interesting and resulted in a somewhat surprising loss for Rolling Stone. As we've discussed plenty of times, winning a defamation lawsuit -- especially against a public figure -- is particularly difficult (and that's a good thing). The actions need to be particularly egregious. And, in this case, the jury decided that they were. I'm certainly not going to defend Rolling Stone and its ridiculously shoddy reporting, which seemed to be confirmation bias piled upon confirmation bias.

But as some quickly pointed out, the verdict could have some serious chilling effects on media organizations -- in part because the jury found that the originally updated version of the story -- as the details reported began to crumble -- and which included an editor's note apologizing for problems with the original reporting, was viewed by the jury as a republication, and, even worse, it was that "republication" that met the "actual malice" standpoint needed to get over the defamation bar.

This is problematic.

It was the original reporting that was bad. The apology was good. Yet, the way the jury ruled, Rolling Stone would have been better off not apologizing for the error and not adding the editor's note to the story. That seems crazy. And thus, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) and eight big media organizations (including the Washington Post, who was the publication that first exposed many of the problems in the Rolling Stone article) have filed an amicus brief with the court raising this issue (found via Eriq Gardner's excellent reporting at THREsq).

The argument is pretty straightforward. Creating a chilling effect on correcting stories and apologizing for errors is really, really bad.

Journalists have always had a commitment to ethical standards by assuming responsibility for their errors and setting the record straight. Being accountable to the public by updating stories as needed is one way to reassure readers that the news media are dedicated to accuracy in their reporting. As proof of the power of corrections and their contribution to reputable journalism, a 1998 study conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors found that 63 percent of newspaper readers “‘feel better’ about the quality of the news coverage” when there are corrections....

[....]

In the case of news published on the Internet, the news media can more quickly and meaningfully provide more in-depth modifications and updates than in the traditional print context. An explanation of a mistake can be made at any time in the same place as the original article, where the same audience is more likely to see it. In addition, “[d]igital publishing has made it possible for editors not only to scrub or enhance stories as they develop but also to pull back the curtain – to make sure readers see and understand what they’ve done.”...

[....]

Numerous high-profile examples show that the tradition that has developed in online journalism is to leave a controversial story on the website while noting the problems with it. Adding an explanation by no means indicates that the publishers are supporting, reaffirming, or republishing the facts of the original story. On the contrary, they are preserving the record of what was previously written while adding greater context

Indeed, this is the same policy we take at Techdirt. In the cases that we've made serious mistakes in our reporting, we leave up the original, but with a prominent correction and apology. That shouldn't be seen as a "republication" and an admission that the republication was malicious. That's clearly a bogus interpretation and very problematic. It's much, much worse to simply disappear an article with errors or problematic reporting, because that's hiding things, rather than being more open and transparent. We make fun of the publications that simply disappear such stories.

Because correcting false statements in an article, even short of retracting the entire article, will often be considered a mitigation of damages or evidence of lack of malice, responding to new information and posting updates are clearly encouraged by courts and seen as a positive act. Allowing the attachment of an editor’s note to the original article, which backs away from claims in that publication, to constitute a “republication” is thus inconsistent with clear public policy interests in encouraging greater explanation as stories develop.

Hopefully the court reconsiders this issue -- otherwise, one hopes that an appeals court, or even the Supreme Court will take up this issue on appeal down the road. Publications shouldn't be punished for admitting to mistakes. That would seem to go against all common sense.

Filed Under: apologies, corrections, defamation, nicole eramo
Companies: rcfp, rollingstone

How Not To Apologize: Detective Pat Cherry Of The NYPD's Joint Terrorism Task Force Edition

from the guys-this-totally-isn't-my-fault dept

Undercover cop (and former member of the FBI-NYPD Joint Terrorism Task Force) Patrick Cherry couldn't handle a civilian being uppity. So, he ranted and raved at an Uber driver, who had the temerity to suggest Detective Cherry signal his intention to park his vehicle (via a nonoffensive hand gesture), peppering his unrehearsed speech with obscenities and racial slurs.

Patrick Cherry may have been an elite detective (Commissioner Bill Bratton stripped him of his badge, gun and task force position after the incident), but he failed to arrive at one very obvious conclusion before he started slinging slurs and swear words: almost everyone carries a cellphone and almost every cellphone contains a camera. The entire incident was recorded by a passenger.

With this undeniable evidence that Detective Cherry is willing to abuse his position to threaten other drivers for questioning his driving skills/actions, the NYPD (and Cherry himself) had no option but to address it. As mentioned above, Commissioner Bratton kicked Cherry of the joint task force.

Of course, the detective's union boss felt compelled to blast Bratton for this "unprecedented punishment" in response to a "verbal discourtesy," perhaps inadvertently signalling that any punishment of NYPD detectives is "unprecedented." For reasons that only make sense to Detectives Endowment Association head Michael Palladino, he chose to compare this incident favorably to recent, high-profile officer-involved deaths.

"This is neither Ferguson nor Staten Island, but it is receiving equal attention."

Again, perhaps inadvertently signalling that any negative attention paid to his union's members is too much attention.

Commissioner Bratton fired back by stating the obvious.

"No good cop can watch that [video] without a wince," Bratton said when he announced Cherry's punishment. “That officer’s behavior reflected poorly on everyone who wears that uniform.”

The supposed state-of-emergency level of attention also forced Patrick Cherry to offer an apology for his behavior. But his "apology" deserves every scare quote appended to it.

"I apologize. I sincerely apologize," he said. "People shouldn't be treated that way. I let my emotions get the better of me and I was angry. My intention was to be courteous and then we got into an argument. There was no intention to berate or hurt deeply the driver."

It may not have been Cherry's "intention" to "berate or hurt deeply" the person on the other end of his rant, but that's what actually happened. Cherry may not always be angry and unhinged, but the video shows how little it takes to set him off. And if the video hadn't existed, Cherry would still be a badge-carrying member of an elite task force -- free to berate and hurt other citizens until outed on YouTube.

But then Cherry went on to blame his victim -- and for the lousiest reason: contempt of special FBI joint terrorism task force detective.

Cherry told the network he pulled over the Uber driver to "clarify the problem” and that the driver “got smart” when Cherry asked for his license and registration.

"When I walked up, I was uptight. I wanted to know what the problem was. What did I do that was so wrong that I had to get chastised?" Cherry said. "I felt his driving actions were discourteous and impolite and when he stopped he said, 'I'm not going to give you anything."'

All the driver asked was what he was being pulled over for. And Cherry refused to answer, choosing instead to berate the driver for not being a purebred American, among other things. If someone refuses to provide identification to an officer, it's well within their rights, unless the officer can give them a better reason than "because I said so." And if they are required to turn over identification, there are remedies for that, none of which involve banging on a vehicle and yelling at its driver.

Not only that, but being "discourteous and impolite" isn't a crime. If it was, New York City's jails would be even more well-stocked than they already are. It's just that some law enforcement officers believe it is, and will throw out a barrage of BS charges in hopes that one sticks.

This "apology" shows Cherry either isn't used to people questioning his authority or isn't capable of handling these situations with any amount of professionalism. His non-apology "apology" simply provides more evidence that Bratton's "unprecedented" decision to strip him of his badge and power was the correct thing to do.

The right way to apologize for an incident like this is to stop after you've admitted your actions were wrong and reflect badly on yourself and your position. Adding "but you have to understand, the guy was being a jerk" just makes you look like one of those people who routinely blame others for their own failings.

Filed Under: apologies, bill bratton, nypd, patrick cherry

St. Louis Police Claim It's Their 'First Amendment' Rights Not To Protect Football Players Who Supported Protestors

from the time-for-a-lesson-in-the-first-amendment dept

It's been pretty obvious that law enforcement in the St. Louis area has a rather tenuous grasp on the concept of the First Amendment. Obviously, they've done a fairly terrible job recognizing the right to "peaceably assemble" for quite some time, even having a court declare its "5 second rule" approach unconstitutional. They've also ignored the freedom of the press by repeatedly arresting journalists. And, remember, the local prosecutor has claimed that it was really all those people speaking out on social media who were to blame.

But it appears that the misunderstanding of the First Amendment has been taken to new, and even more ridiculous levels, following a brief show of support for the protestors by some players for the St. Louis Rams (the local NFL football franchise for you non-sportsball people). The Rams' wide receivers decided to all put their hands up -- the "hands up, don't shoot" gesture -- in support of Michael Brown and the protestors. It's a small, but meaningful gesture, showing they supported the protestors. And it shouldn't have been taken as anything more than that.

Instead, the St. Louis County police decided to respond... by suggesting that, because of this, the police would no longer protect the Rams. Here's the statement from the St. Louis Police Officers Association, quoting Jeff Roorda, the group's spokesperson, and a local politician (and ex-cop):

Roorda was incensed that the Rams and the NFL would tolerate such behavior and called it remarkably hypocritical. "All week long, the Rams and the NFL were on the phone with the St. Louis Police Department asking for assurances that the players and the fans would be kept safe from the violent protesters who had rioted, looted, and burned buildings in Ferguson. Our officers have been working 12 hour shifts for over a week, they had days off including Thanksgiving cancelled so that they could defend this community from those on the streets that perpetuate this myth that Michael Brown was executed by a brother police officer and then, as the players and their fans sit safely in their dome under the watchful protection of hundreds of St. Louis's finest, they take to the turf to call a now-exonerated officer a murderer, that is way out-of-bounds, to put it in football parlance," Roorda said.

"The SLPOA is calling for the players involved to be disciplined and for the Rams and the NFL to deliver a very public apology. Roorda said he planned to speak to the NFL and the Rams to voice his organization's displeasure tomorrow. He also plans to reach out to other police organizations in St. Louis and around the country to enlist their input on what the appropriate response from law enforcement should be. Roorda warned, "I know that there are those that will say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well I've got news for people who think that way, cops have first amendment rights too, and we plan to exercise ours. I'd remind the NFL and their players that it is not the violent thugs burning down buildings that buy their advertiser's products. It's cops and the good people of St. Louis and other NFL towns that do. Somebody needs to throw a flag on this play. If it's not the NFL and the Rams, then it'll be cops and their supporters."

As many have noted, this certainly sounds like Roorda saying that it's the police's "First Amendment" rights to look the other way should any threats come to the team or the stadium. Update: In the comments, many are arguing that this comment does not reflect the intent not to protect the Rams any more, but rather just to boycott the merchandise offered by advertisers. That's a reasonable interpretation of the comments, though it still seems like he's implying something deeper -- actually involving police response. Note the claim that Roorda is going to speak to other police forces on an "appropriate response.." Separately, Roorda specifically calls out the fact that the Rams had asked police for extra protection, which certainly implies that police would not be as interested in doing so if players keep supporting protestors. It seems clear to me -- though, clearly not to others -- that Roorda is suggesting that if you state a position that the police disagree with, the police will look for ways to punish you. That's troubling.

Of course, that's not how the First Amendment actually works. It's quite the opposite. As Sally Jenkins at the Washington Post points out, the reality is exactly the opposite. The First Amendment protects the public from government officials (including the police) from taking actions based on expression of members of the public. If anything, Roorda's implied threat violates the First Amendment, suggesting that the government will punish people for their expression.

To begin with, the First Amendment only protects free speech against government action. That’s all it does. It doesn’t protect the St. Louis players from NFL owners, or league commissioners, or talk radio hosts who disagree with them. But it does protect them from the government. So the person in danger of abusing the First Amendment here is not the football player with the edgy gesture in a public stadium. Or the NFL owner who might want to tell them to shut up to protect advertising. It’s the governmental agent — like, say, a cop — who seeks to punish someone for expressing certain views.

Of course, the First Amendment now also protects the press digging into Jeff Roorda's own background and reporting what they find. Like the time he was reprimanded for trying "to 'cover' for another police officer filing a report that contained false statements." Or how he's against body cameras because they "sometimes don't reflect exactly what happened" and saying that "cameras have been bad for law enforcement" because "it causes second guessing by the courts and the media." Roorda has also defended an officer who a surveillance video showed was assaulting a handcuffed suspect, claiming the officer was "only defending himself" and saying he was doing "as he's trained to do."

In fact, we actually wrote about that last story and posted the video. You can see it here: As we noted at the time, Roorda then lied about what's in the video. Roorda claimed that the officer was crouched down and the suspect started moving forward at him. But the video shows no such thing. Roorda further claimed that such videos should only be used when it helps the police view of things.

Meanwhile, the St. Louis County Police still seem to think that their First Amendment rights include pretending that the Rams apologized to them when they did not. The official Twitter feed and Facebook feed have both tried to argue that the Rams' COO, Kevin Demoff apologized to the police for the players' actions. On Facebook, they admit that Demoff didn't really apologize, but they still took it as an apology -- and then on Twitter tried to suggest that regretting "any offense that... officers may have taken" was actually an apology, based on their tortured reading of the dictionary: Except, of course, most people recognize that a "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" is not really an apology, and here it appears that Demoff didn't even go that far. But, still, the St. Louis police want to claim it was an apology. And, I guess, they believe that's their First Amendment right to misrepresent what was actually said to them...

Filed Under: apologies, first amendment, free speech, jeff roorda, police, protests, st. louis, st. louis rams
Companies: st. louis rams

New Use For Facebook: Apologizing To That Guy You Mugged Three Decades Ago

from the there's-an-app-for-that dept

If all you did was pay attention to headlines featuring everyone's favorite/most-hated social network, you would think that all Facebook was good for was being confusing about hate-speech, giving the government as much information about yourself as possible, and apparently being directly responsible for suicides. However, now that we're knee-deep in yet another holiday season, the hallmarks of which are consumer-on-consumer taser violence and having to argue with your crazy uncle over various family dinners that Barack Obama and George Bush Jr. probably aren't lizard-people from the planet Fascism here to steal our freedoms and freshly harvested apple pies, it's time that we had a nice story to warm the cockles of all our hearts.

This story of holiday cheer and goodwill towards all peoples begins auspiciously, with one man mugging another man for his bus pass on the steps of the American Museum of Natural History. That was over three decades ago, however. More recently, the mugger, a Michael Goodman, happened to come across his victim on Facebook.

"You may not remember this," Goodman wrote Soffel in the comments underneath the post, "but a long long time ago I walked up the steps of The Museum of Natural History one afternoon, trying to look like a tough guy to [somebody] & saw you standing there at the top of the steps, I walked up to you & (mugged) you for your bus pass. Finally I can say," he continued. "I"M VERY SORRY that you had to go through that crap that day long ago, I wish it had never happened but it did."

Claude Soffel, his victim, was every single bit as gracious as Goodman was contrite, responding directly to the Facebook post.

"Michael A. Goodman, clearly your a "bigger man" today. wow. Memory is a funny thing, I recognize your name now, as well. So, apology accepted. Interestingly, I have dedicated a large portion of my life to helping other men be the man they have always wanted to be, and moments like this one continue to fuel my faith that the battle may be uphill but so rewarding. Any man who draws aline for himself, "Today I step forward for myself, my family, and humanity" is a hero to me. So let us now, jointly, put this in its proper place, behind us."

Please try to remember, in a day when you will hear a lot of noise about how people never connect any longer, never talk, or don't regard one another as human beings: technology is what you make of it. Social media can bring us together in amazing ways, as this once perp/victim combo shows us. And, damn it, be nice to one another this holiday season!

Filed Under: apologies, social media
Companies: facebook

Ft. Worth Police Department Offers *Real* Apology For Its Assistance In The NHTSA's Blood/Saliva Sampling 'Survey'

from the more-than-I-expected dept

As we noted last week, the Fort Worth Police Dept. found itself on the receiving end of lots of criticism for its participation in a "voluntary" collection of blood and saliva samples for the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).

For one thing, having a squad of police officers flag you down and route you into a nearby parking space never feels "voluntary," no matter how easy it is to opt out once you're pulled over. For another, the paperwork signed by "volunteers" contained fine print that indicated consent had been assumed for the PD to "collect" information on the driver's state of intoxication with passive alcohol sensors.

After a local news report detailed the concerns of one citizen who consented to a breathalyzer (the NHTSA paid $50 for blood and $10 for saliva -- there was no compensation for submitting to a breathalyzer) because she felt it was the quickest way out of the "voluntary" collection, the Ft. Worth PD issued the following non-apology.

We apologize if any of our drivers and citizens were offended or inconvenienced by the NHTSA National Roadside Survey.

As I noted then, this apology was less than useless. This "apology" lays the blame at the feet of those who "felt" offended or inconvenienced by the voluntary-in-all-but-appearance sample collection. I suggested a more contrite apology that put the blame where it was due.

We apologize for the offensive and inconvenient "survey" we participated in.

I'm not suggesting the Fort Worth police chief reads Techdirt but here's the much better apology it issued via its Facebook page.

TO OUR CITIZENS:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hired off-duty Fort Worth Police officers to assist with the Roadside Survey by providing traffic safety and security of cash used to pay survey participants. This survey was intended to be voluntary and was conducted by NHTSA personnel.

We are reviewing the approval process for this survey’s utilization of FWPD off-duty officers not only to ensure that our policies and procedures were followed, but also to ensure that any off-duty job is in the absolute best interest of our citizens.

We realize this survey caused many of our citizens frustration and we apologize for our participation.

“I agree with our citizens concerns and I apologize for our participation. Any future Federal survey of this nature, which jeopardizes the public’s trust, will not be approved for the use of Fort Worth police.”

Chief Jeffrey Halstead

*** Please express your concern with this survey to the media relations office with the USDOT NHTSA - Kathryn Henry 202-366-6918; kathryn.henry@dot.gov

While it's too bad this moment of clarity didn't strike before the PD assisted the NHTSA in its voluntary DNA draws (which the agency claims is anonymized and yet volunteers had to sign a participation form?), it is good to see that it realizes how involuntary this looked to drivers who were flagged down by the assisting officers. It's also good to see the FWPD will steer clear of these questionable ventures in the future. Hopefully, this will also clue the PD in on how the imbalance of power between law enforcement and citizens often makes voluntary actions seem like anything but.

"Jeopardizing the public trust" is never smart, especially when the success of your work depends heavily on being perceived as trustworthy by the public. And trust isn't something that's easily earned back, not when the public perception of law enforcement as the "good guys" is steadily trending downwards.

Also of note: Chief Halstead may want to be careful about whose contact information he posts publicly. The NHTSA contact info may be publicly available but encouraging citizens to contact media relations representatives has been found to be an arrestable offense in other jurisdictions.

Filed Under: apologies, civil liberties, ft. worth police, nhtsa, police, surveys

'War Z' Game Producer Lists Non-Existent Features, Blames Customers' Eyesight And Overactive Imagination

from the self-immolation-as-'customer-service' dept

As has been discussed here many times, screwing up in public is rarely pleasant, but if the one screwing up takes fast, direct action to respond to the problem and handles complaints with the right blend of contrition and forthrightness, damage will remain minimal. Not only that, but considering that contrition and forthrightness are a rarity in an era where companies sue individuals for writing bad reviews, this sort of action often sees the erring person/company earning praise and new customers for taking the road less traveled.

For zombie-shooter "The War Z," everything that could be handled badly was, starting with a rushed development cycle that resulted in a game that underdelivered and overpromised. Things went from bad to worse when executive Sergey Titov decided to blame his games' issues on the now-angry customers.

The first misstep was releasing the game in beta state while still expecting customers to pay between $14.99-49.99 for the dubious privilege of traipsing around an underpopulated MMO with only the promise of more and better features somewhere down the road, most of which will require additional payment. Considering the game went from alpha to "worth actual money" in under two months (beta began on October 10th), the supposedly "worth paying for" version seemed a bit, well, unpolished, to say the least.

It seems that the description put on Steam was a touch… exaggerated, perhaps listing what the game is eventually planned to include, rather than what’s in there right now. And it didn’t even mention that the game is not yet beyond beta. Claiming to feature “areas between 100 to 400 square kilometers”, the game in fact currently only has one map, and it’s 72 square kilometers.* It listed itself as having private servers, which it does not. And it sold itself as having skills to buy with experience points, despite the game having no skills at all. An imaginary “hardcore mode” was listed, and it claimed the complete rubbish that 100 players could join a server when the limit is 50.

*According to PCGamesN, the actual size of the map is considerably less than that -- 9.7417 sq km.

Pretty much nothing was true other than you could, if you so desired, throw money away on a beta version masquerading as finished product. Naturally, customers were unhappy and took the the forums to express their displeasure. That's when executive producer Sergey Titov waded into the fray, offering the sort of apology that lays the blame at the feet of those being "apologized" at.

“We’ve taken steps to correct this and format information presented on our Steam Store page in a way so it provides more clear information about game features that are present in the Foundation Release and what to expect in the coming weeks.

We also want to extend our apologies to all players who misread infromation about game features.”

Rock, Paper, Shotgun suggests this might be a translation issue (ha!). Perhaps Titov meant "miswrote." Gamespy followed up on Titov's statement, giving the producer a chance to actually apologize for the missing features. No dice.

“I’m sure there’ll be people who will look into small details and will say “no I was mislead,” where in fact they imagined something to themselves without checking details first.”

RPS thoughtfully grabbed a screenshot of the empty promises for posterity, giving all of us a chance to "imagine" a set of features that aren't actually included in "The War Z."

Titov also added: hey, if you don't like it, go get a refund. Well, sure. That's what the process is for, even if getting a refund for digital purchases is about as fun as playing an insta-fail escort mission that involves herding story-dependent cats through a catnip-laced minefield.

So, naturally, people made attempts to get their money back, only to find out that the terms of service (whatever wasn't copied directly from the "League of Legends" terms of service) now contained language stating that agreeing to the TOS waived their right to a refund.

ONCE YOU AGREE TO THIS TERMS OF SERVICE AND THE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR THE GAME (THE "EULA") AND SERVICE FOR THE GAME COMMENCES, YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR A REFUND FOR ANY AMOUNTS OR OTHER CONSIDERATION PAID BY YOU FOR THE USE (OR FUTURE USE) OF THE GAME CLIENT OR THE SERVICE.

All of this added up to "The War Z" being removed from Steam and Steam itself is offering refunds to unhappy customers.

Because of these actions, Titov's reputation is currently being burned to the ground (often with Titov himself pouring the gasoline) and sown with salt, something that could have been avoided with an actual apology. Kotaku's roundup of news surrounding "The War Z" grows longer by the day, detailing further hole-digging by the producer, including asking forum users to "upvote" his game at Metacritic (where it currently carries a 1.5/10 rating) as well as preventing members of the game's Steam message board from detailing why they have quit the game.

All it would have taken is for the producer to state the game had been prematurely released and pulled it back until it could actually meet the specifications it posted. Or failing that, released with an altered, realistic set of features. Instead, Titov decided to accuse customers of "misunderstanding" a completely unambiguous features list.

Filed Under: apologies, blaming consumers, sergey titov, war z

More Anti-Youtube Whining: 'YouTube Complies With Our Takedown Requests Just To Make Us Look Bad'

from the youtube-doesn't-apologize-to-infringers,-you-whingeing-buffoons dept

Every so often you come across a conclusion so badly drawn it makes you wonder how the person got from point A to... well, not exactly point B but somewhere well past point B, off in an ethereal realm inhabited by the denizens of overly-complicated word problems and their constantly variable forms of transportation. ("If a premise leaves the train station [Point A] at 10AM riding a bicycle at 3 mph for the first hour and increasing speed by .25 mph every hour for the first four hours before decelerating at a rate inversely proportionate to the incline of the grade [17%], at what time will the bicyclist's speed be exactly 1/4 the average flight speed of the Africanized honey bee? Show your work.)

On even rarer occasions, you'll find this counterintuitive "conclusion" not only applauded for its immaculate "logic," but expounded upon as though it were the genesis of a world-breaking thesis. The obliqueness (and obtuseness) begins with a simple bit of rhetorical questioning by Larry Crane of Tape Op Magazine: "Why does Youtube apologize to people who have illegally uploaded my content?"

I politely asked Youtube to remove a song by my old band that someone had posted without permission. They took it down but then apologized "sorry about that" and ran my business name as if "blaming me" for removing content. Really? Wow. Pretty damn impartial, huh?

Before we get to the title question, let's deal with the rest of the post. You asked YouTube to remove a song and they complied. What's the problem again? Oh, right. They apologized. Hmm.

They also had the temerity to name the business that requested the takedown. What did you expect them to do? Just simply write "This video is no longer available" and be done with it? Of course they named who did it. Do you know why? It's not to "blame" you, which, as the party responsible for the takedown, the "blame" is wholly yours. No, it's to inform viewers and uploaders and other interested parties that this video was taken down to comply with a takedown request, which is something YouTube needs to do to retain its DMCA safe harbors.

The other reason the takedown party is listed is because, sometimes, in rare cases, the takedown isn't legit. Sometimes it's just a clerical error. Or maliciousness. Or a faulty algorithm. This way interested parties can contact the party listed if they feel the takedown is in error. Again, this is a rare occurrence, one that has only happened a handful of times. Like here, for example. And here. And here. And here. Oh, there's also this one. And this other time. Another rarity. Once-in-a-lifetime experience. Well below the expected margin of error. Nothing to see here either. Anomaly. Freak accident. Outlier. In short, it's a handy way to tell at a glance who took the video down and decide whether or not the takedown might be in error.

But, back to the big question: Why does YouTube apologize to the infringing uploader? Good question. But you'll never get an answer because that apology isn't for them. It's not for you, either. It's for the viewer who clicked play and got a dry slab of info rather than the tune/video he or she was expecting. YouTube doesn't apologize to infringing uploaders. They send notices to their account inboxes and email addresses informing them that a video is being removed by request of the rights holders and gently reminding them that if they don't knock this shit off, their account could be deleted.

I'm really not sure how anyone could read that screen and decide that YouTube is oh-so-sorry for being forced to end the uploader's infringement party because of a few rights-holding killjoys. This apology is for fans and potential fans -- the viewers who came here expecting to be entertained and instead got a face full of "NOTHING TO SEE HERE."

Let me ask you a question, Larry. What wording would you use? "YouTube is robbing this artist no longer. Praise Jeebus." "Sorry about all of our infringement, but we're really just a pirate site in corporate clothing." "Enjoy the silence." "'Enjoy the Silence has been removed due to a copyright claim by Warner Bros. Records."

This [waves black and white avatarial arms in the general direction of above] is ridiculous enough. It's just Google-hating in search of a point. But then, someone else decides "ridiculous enough" isn't ridiculous enough. Chris Castle adds some invaluable commentary:

Larry Crane of Tape OP Magazine highlights what must seem like a curious practice by YouTube. First thing--it's Google, so understand that they don't care at all what artists think. Having said that, it will not be surprising to know that YouTube has long employed a tactic that can be thought of as Chilling Effects Lite. acting out of enthusiasm for the artist's music. 

Google hate? Check. Moving on.

YouTube leverages the fact that most YouTube videos are embedded in a variety of places, including the artist’s own home page.

Why would an artist embed an infringing video on their own site, especially if they're considering sending a takedown notice? Do they just want their media page to have a sort of "going out of business look?"

This distribution was accomplished by the efforts of the artist or the artist's manager, or the artist's record company or by fans of the artist.

So: if the person who uploaded the infringing video is a fan, you'll reinstate the video? Because the funny thing about uploaders, they don't tend to upload stuff they hate. They're usually fans and they upload songs that aren't on Youtube yet, not to violate copyright laws, but to share music they like. In this example, Chris lists fans as victims of Google's evil "name-and-shame" policy which leaves dead-end embedded videos littering their site but simultaneously wants to chastise fans for uploading the videos without permission, possibly to place on their fan sites. Which is it? Fans = victims? Or fans = infringers who don't deserve the apologies they're not actually getting?

Now, I really didn't want to include this much text, but I'm afraid that if I edited it in any way, I'd be accused of cherry-picking in order to obscure Castle's point. So, here's the whole thing and I welcome you to figure out the point on your own.

When YouTube gets a take down notice that actually results in YouTube removing the video–usually because the poster hasn’t filed a counternotice (which in YouTube’s case can be essentially anything from the poster indicating a pulse)–YouTube isn’t satisfied to just remove the video. (This would cause the video to go dark everywhere it's embedded. Instead, YouTube takes it upon itself to post a notice to the World of Free that campitalizes on the efforts made by the artist and those working with the artist (including fans) to use those efforts to YouTube's benefit. How? YouTube uses the same embed codes to post a notice that YouTube had to actually comply with the law. If that notice comes from an artist’s record company or the music publisher of the recorded song, then everyone who has the video embedded suddenly has a messge “apologizing” due to the fact that YouTube controls what replaces the embeded video that was removed. That “apology” is then flashed across the Internet including the band’s own webpage if they have embedded any YouTube videos. YouTube then feeds that “story” to the Google press who dutifully report on the incident as manufactured news.

The gist of it, if it even contains a "gist," seems to be that YouTube complies with the law in a way that is most advantageous to it, PR-wise. That's what I'm picking up and I had to cross out nearly every other word to do it. The specifics, all strung together, add up to nothing at all, other than a whole lot of words being wasted in order to state: "I greatly dislike Google and its subsidiaries."

"The video goes dark at every location it's embedded" because... it's embedded. Castle even states as much. But somehow, this devious code trickery adds up to something evil. And why is it evil? Because sometimes these videos are embedded at the artists' own sites. And when the artist (or their representation) issues a takedown, it causes videos on the artists' sites to go dark. Leading us back to one of our original questions: what the hell is this hypothetical band (let's call them "The Victims") doing embedding videos if it's just going issue a takedown anyway? It's like some bizarre copyright-infected murder-suicide, only with the murderer pointing the gun at his own head first.

And as for all the other verbiage about Google feeding the press reports about nefarious takedowns by evil labels, etc. etc. etc.? You know who usually alerts bloggers and musos and "the press" about overreaching or ill-advised takedowns? The fans. The same fans who are "victimized" by YouTube's takedown policy and the same fans who are being denied an apology by your insistence on playing the victim after YouTube did EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED THEM TO and COMPLIED WITH THE LAW.

Larry, Chris: You two deserve each other. Even when YouTube does everything right, it's still somehow a screw job.

Filed Under: apologies, copyright, dmca, takedowns

Facebook Engineer Apologizes Via Reddit For Accidentally Blocking Imgur Across Facebook

from the web-3.0 dept

Here's an odd one. Yesterday, I saw that a top story in the technology subreddit was a claim that Facebook was blocking Imgur, the popular image hosting service (especially popular with Redditors, but which we use here as well). This screenshot was shown (hosted on Imgur, natch): A few hours later, however, an interesting comment popped up on the Reddit thread, from a user "fisherrider," who claimed to be a Facebook engineer taking responsibility for the situation. What's somewhat stunning is that when companies screw up something, you almost never get this level of honesty about the nature of what happened (especially directly from the person who screwed up):

Hey folks - so this is actually my fault. Literally, I'm the guy who accidentally blocked imgur for a brief period of time today. I'm really sorry. Some background: I'm an engineer who works on the system we use for catching malicious URLs. In the process of dealing with a bad URL that our automated defenses didn't catch, I ran into a rare bug that caused us to incorrectly block some legitimate URLs for a brief time. Right after I figured that out and removed the bad data, I reworked the UI so no one will get bit by the same issue in the future. As a form of apology that I'm sure is insufficient, here is a picture of my dog dressed up for the 4th of July: https://imgur.com/pR4mR

As some have noted, this really is a fantastic apology. It's not filtered through PR and actually seems to come from someone who sounds human -- which is pretty important in the midst of the Reddit faithful. But it should spread beyond just Reddit. When companies screw up, this is a pretty good lesson in how to respond. Admit to the screwup, be clear and honest about it, and explain what happened and what's been done to prevent it from happening again. And... don't let it near a PR person.

Filed Under: apologies, pr
Companies: facebook, imgur, reddit

Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes

from the could-do-better dept

So, yesterday, as you may have heard, we wrote about how a totally bogus DMCA takedown notice, coming from an "anti-piracy" firm called Armovore, deleted a key Techdirt blog post about SOPA/PIPA from Google's search results. That post apparently got some attention within Google, who kicked off an expedited review and reinstated our site and a few others. Soon after that, we got a couple emails from folks at Armovore, and they also posted some comments to the site, in which they apologized, and said that it was an "early" version of the technology. To their credit, they "accept full responsibility for the mistake" and insist that while that takedown was an automated keyword-based effort, they now only do manual takedowns. They even apologized that multiple people reached out to apologize.

Of course, the apology still involved a few statements that suggested they were upset we even wrote the story, saying it was too "one-sided." The first email from the company also suggested that we shouldn't be annoyed any more since the story was added back to Google (ignoring that it wasn't for a month). They also say they haven't made any money ("aside from a single donation") and the founder said via email: "I don't feel comfortable charging anyone for an unfinished product." That's interesting, because apparently while he doesn't feel comfortable charging, he didn't seem to have much of a problem issuing a whole bunch of bogus takedowns with it, apparently without manual review, despite signing a letter that promises, under penalty of perjury, that the takedowns are accurate.

All that said, everyone makes mistakes, and even though this one was pretty egregious and involved our own content on a key post being taken out of Google for over a month, we'll accept their apology and move on. I think it would be smart and reasonable for whoever is behind Armovore to make a public donation to Public Citizen and EFF, but that's up to them to decide.

I'll also note that our situation was obviously nowhere near as bad as the various domains that have been incorrectly seized and shut down by ICE with no due process, at the request of the RIAA and the MPAA... and those sites have yet to receive any apology. And, in some cases, the sites are still being held by the government, despite a requirement that the government either give the domains back or file for forfeiture (it's done neither). Those sites deserve an apology from the RIAA, the MPAA, ICE and the DOJ and haven't received any.

Finally, what this incident really shows is just how incredibly easy it is to suppress speech under today's copyright laws. Just the fact that an automated system was able to do this should be ringing alarm bells from here to DC and back about some pretty serious problems with today's DMCA takedown process that is a shoot first, ask questions later kind of operation (as we've now seen first hand). Not only should this be a clear warning that we should not be expanding such powers via something like SOPA or PIPA, where the penalties are much, much greater, but that we should revisit the whole idea of a system that allows content to be taken completely offline prior to any chance for those falsely accused to respond. We shouldn't be expanding copyright law, we should be rolling it back to prevent abuses like this, even if they are "mistakes." A system that allows mistakes like this is a broken system.

Filed Under: apologies, censorship, copyright, dmca, sopa, takedown
Companies: armovore, google, techdirt