As We're Told That No New Social Media App Can Make It, TikTok Surpasses Facebook Downloads & YouTube Watch Time

from the huh,-look-at-that dept

While I am concerned about the power wielded by giant tech companies and am interested in creating more competition, I'm always a little perplexed by the arguments that people make that, somehow, the "big four" companies of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple are so dominant that no new competitor can ever catch up to them. It's one thing to point to similar articles about Myspace that totally dismissed Facebook as a possible competitor to that platform, but it's another thing altogether to see new social media apps... actually doing pretty well.

TikTok really only launched in 2017 (yes, there were some predecessors, but what we now think of as TikTok was launched in 2017, and really only took off after purchasing Musical.ly in late 2018), by which point we were already told that Facebook and Google had locked down the market entirely. Hell, remember the original FTC complaint against Facebook didn't even mention TikTok? And then the amended complaint (after the initial one was tossed) barely mentions it and only does so to insist that it's somehow different.

But, last month it came out that in 2020, TikTok was downloaded more than Facebook. Now, you could maybe try to make the argument that this is because everyone already has Facebook on their phones, but it still is noteworthy. Perhaps even more noteworthy is another report noting that TikTok has overtaken YouTube in average watch time in both the US and UK.

That report does note that YouTube still has more viewers, and thus greater overall time watched, but on a per user basis, users are spending more time on TikTok than YouTube.

There can still be reasonable concerns about practices from the big companies, if they're shown to be suppressing competition. But it seems harder and harder to buy the line that it's "impossible" for there to be new entrants in the market these days. Because that's clearly not the case.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, downloads, new entrants, social media
Companies: facebook, tiktok, youtube

Despite RIAA's Claim That YouTube-dl Is Infringing, Journalists Use It All The Time

from the substantial-non-infringing-uses dept

A few weeks ago we had a story about the RIAA getting GitHub to remove YouTube-dl using a bizarre form of copyright takedown. The RIAA claimed that the tool violated rules against circumventing DRM. Over at Freedom of the Press Foundation, Parker Higgins has highlighted how often this tool is used legitimately for journalism purposes, which is important. Under the Betamax standard, tools with substantial non-infringing uses should not run afoul of copyright law. Higgins' writeup is reposted here with permission.

The popular free software project “YouTube-dl” was removed from GitHub following a legal notice from the Recording Industry Association of America claiming it violates U.S. copyright law. According to the RIAA, the tool's “clear purpose” includes reproducing and distributing “music videos and sound recordings... without authorization.”

In fact, YouTube-dl is a powerful general purpose media tool that allows users to make local copies of media from a very broad range of sites. That versatility has secured it a place in the toolkits of many reporters, newsroom developers, and archivists. For now, the code remains available to download through YouTube-dl's own site, but the disruption of its development hub and the RIAA saber-rattling jeopardizes both the future of the software and the myriad journalistic workflows that depend on it.

Numerous reporters told Freedom of the Press Foundation that they rely on YouTube-dl when reporting on extremist or controversial content. &Oslashyvind Bye Skille, a journalist who has used YouTube-dl at the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and as a fact checker with Faktisk.no, said, “I have also used it to secure a good quality copy of video content from YouTube, Twitter, etc., in case the content gets taken down when we start reporting on it.” Skille pointed to a specific instance of videos connected to the terrorist murder of a Norwegian woman in Morocco. “Downloading the content does not necessarily mean we will re-publish it, but it is often important to secure it for documentation and further internal investigations.”

Justin Ling, a freelance investigative reporter who often covers security and extremism for outlets including Foreign Policy and VICE News, described the scenario of reporting on the rise of conspiracy theories as the relevant posts face removal and bans. YouTube “has been a crucial hub for QAnon organizing and propaganda: I've often used YouTube-dl to store those videos for my own benefit. Good thing, too, as YouTube often, without warning, mass-removes that sort of content, which can be ruinous for those of us using those YouTube accounts to trace the spread of these conspiracies.”

In other cases, local copies are necessary to conduct more rigorous analysis than is possible online, and journalists turn to YouTube-dl for the highest quality copy of the video available. John Bolger, a software developer and systems administrator who does freelance and data journalism, recounted the experience of reporting an award-winning investigation as the News Editor of the college paper the Hunter Envoy in 2012. In that story, the Envoy used video evidence to contradict official reports denying a police presence at an on-campus Occupy Wall Street protest.

“In order to reach my conclusions about the NYPD’s involvement... I had to watch this video hundreds of times—in slow motion, zoomed in, and looping over critical moments—in order to analyze the video I had to watch and manipulate it in ways that are just not possible” using the web interface. YouTube-dl is one effective method for downloading the video at the maximum possible resolution.

Jake, a member of the Chicago-based transparency group Lucy Parsons Labs, uses YouTube-dl to save copies of recorded incidents involving police use of force or abusive behavior. Once copied, the videos can be stored in an archive or modified before publication, such as by blurring the faces of bystanders or victims. “We have sometimes been able to take a closer look at individual frames after downloading with YouTube-dl to identify officers when they are not wearing their badges intentionally or obfuscating them with things to avoid accountability.”

One misinformation researcher told Freedom of the Press Foundation about using YouTube-dl to create a baseline for machine learning models developed to do automated real-time fact-checking. “While our production systems are designed to be used on live video streams, it's not feasible to test on live video. YouTube-dl allows us to greatly increase the speed of our research development and allow us to be able to actually test our software on a day-to-day basis, not just when politicians happen to have a speech.”

Similarly, a number of reporters described using YouTube-dl for nuts-and-bolts workflows such as transcribing videos they’re covering. Jeremy Gray, a data scientist with The Globe and Mail, described a Slack tool he provides to journalists to allow them to automatically transcribe their own interviews and, until Friday, to transcribe YouTube videos from a URL. “It used YouTube-dl, and now that part is broken.” Another journalist, who works at a “small-ish public media newsroom,” described a common situation where a reporter needs “a recording of a public meeting for a story but is on deadline and doesn’t want the hassle of recording the parts they want it in real time or wants the full file for something like AI transcription.”

That same journalist described how YouTube-dl helps address the challenge of incorporating user-generated content on-air. In the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, their newsroom began expansive continuous coverage and sought to include photos and videos that locals had recorded. “We are scrupulous about making sure we get permission (and the person granting it actually owns the copyright), but especially right after an earthquake asking people to send the video to us specifically can be a much bigger ask than just allowing us to use it (if they even have a recording, which they probably don’t for a livestream), so often after getting permission I’d just download it straight from social media to transcode for TV.”

That use case is common. Reporters frequently need high-fidelity copies of video or audio tracks for publication or reporting. Ling, the freelance security reporter, said he also uses YouTube-dl to “get the best audio quality” when downloading copies of press conferences or news events “to grab snippets of audio for use in podcasts or radio work.”

Finally, numerous reporters described using YouTube-dl to download copies of their own works. Freedom of the Press Foundation has previously worked to help writers preserve portfolio copies of their articles, and to help full news archives stay online when the outlet itself is under threat. YouTube-dl plays an important role in that ecosystem as well.

GitHub has not publicly commented on its removal of one of its most popular repositories. Clearly, YouTube-dl in particular and the ability to download and manipulate online videos in general are an important part of the work of journalism and contemporary media literacy. Given the important role that YouTube-dl plays in public interest reporting and archiving, the RIAA’s efforts to have the tool removed represent an extraordinary overreach with the possibility for dramatic unforeseen consequences. We urge RIAA to reconsider its threat, and GitHub to reinstate the account in full.

Filed Under: circumvention, copyright, dmca 1201, downloads, journalism, non-infringing uses, youtube-dl
Companies: riaa, youtube

The GDPR Is A Wide Open Vulnerability For Identity Fraud And Scams

from the how-does-this-help-privacy-again? dept

We've spent the last year and a half or so pointing out that, while it may have been well-intentioned, there are all sorts of consequences -- whether intended or not -- to the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), including giving more power to the giant internet companies (when many argued the GDPR was necessary to curb their power), censorship of media, and a way for the rich and famous to harass people. But, of course, some might argue that those are worthy trade-offs if it did a better job protecting people's privacy.

About that... Last year, we pointed out that one consequence of the GDPR was that, in making it easy to "download" your data, it could open up serious privacy consequences for anyone who has their accounts hacked. In that story, we talked about someone having their Spotify account hacked, and having all the data downloaded -- a situation that might not be that impactful. However, last week, at Black Hat, James Pavur, a PhD student at Oxford, explained how he exploited the GDPR to access a ton of private info about his fiancee.

In a presentation at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas James Pavur, a PhD student at Oxford University who usually specialises in satellite hacking, explained how he was able to game the GDPR system to get all kinds of useful information on his fiancée, including credit card and social security numbers, passwords, and even her mother's maiden name.

"Privacy laws, like any other infosecurity control, have exploitable vulnerabilities," he said. "If we'd look at these vulnerabilities before the law was enacted, we could pick up on them."

In other words, in giving more "protection" over data, the EU has also opened up a new vulnerability. Here's how it worked:

Over the space of two months Pavur sent out 150 GDPR requests in his fiancée's name, asking for all and any data on her. In all, 72 per cent of companies replied back, and 83 companies said that they had information on her.

Interestingly, five per cent of responses, mainly from large US companies, said that they weren’t liable to GDPR rules. They may be in for a rude shock if they have a meaningful presence in the EU and come before the courts.

Of the responses, 24 per cent simply accepted an email address and phone number as proof of identity and sent over any files they had on his fiancée. A further 16 per cent requested easily forged ID information and 3 per cent took the rather extreme step of simply deleting her accounts.

That last one is kind of fascinating. What companies delete the accounts of people making a GDPR request? At least some of the companies required login info, but Pavur noted that in one case, he told the company he'd forgotten the login... and they gave him the data anyway.

"An organisation she had never heard of, and never interacted with, had some of the most sensitive data about her," he said. "GDPR provided a pretext for anyone in the world to collect that information."

This could be fixed, and one could argue that companies handing out this info without real proof of ID are, themselves, in violation of the GDPR. But, given that the GDPR is so strict -- you have a very short time frame to return the info or face massive fines), the incentive structure is designed to ignore those formalities and just fork over the information -- even if it's right into the hands of a scammer.

Filed Under: data, downloads, fraud, gdpr, privacy

Once Again, GDPR Is A Potential Privacy Nightmare: Amazon Sends 1,700 Voice Recordings To The Wrong User In GDPR Request

from the privacy? dept

Back in September, we wrote about how the GDPR could actually undermine privacy, when Jean Young noted that, when someone hacked into her Spotify account, they were able to download her entire data history. And now there's another example of the privacy implications: Amazon recently responded to a GDPR data export request by sending 1,700 voice recordings... to the wrong user.

Following the passage of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, any EU resident may demand a company send them the entirety of the data collected about them through both internet services and hardware products like an Alexa-equipped Echo smart speaker. One German user, under the alias “Martin Schneider,” did just that in August of this year. What he got back from Amazon, however, were thousands of Alexa voice recordings, which was strange considering he didn’t own an Alexa device.

Upon listening to the files, Schneider discovered they were the recordings of another Alexa user. After failing to get in contact with Amazon about the issue, the man brought the files to c’t, where reporters were able to piece together who the Alexa user was. Among the files were commands to control Spotify, the person’s home thermostat, and alarms. There were also recordings that indicated the Alexa user also owned a Fire TV, and that they had a spouse who appeared to live in the home.

There are, of course, many different ways of thinking about this. On the whole, it's a good thing that companies are giving users more access to data, and allowing them to not just see what's being held, but to download it as well (it would be nice if things were more standardized, and it would enable easier shifting between services, but... baby steps). But, it also needs to be recognized that this creates new privacy challenges.

This isn't necessarily good or bad, but is a useful reminder that, contrary to what many GDPR supporters will tell you, the GDPR itself doesn't actually do much to "protect" your privacy, and could make your data even more vulnerable. Again, there are potentially good reasons for this, but way too many people keep insisting that the GDPR is about protecting privacy, and it is important to understand where and how it fails in that regard, and how it could even make much of your data more vulnerable.

Filed Under: data, downloads, echo, gdpr, privacy, voice recordings
Companies: amazon

Apple Didn't Delete That Guys iTunes Movies, But What Happened Still Shows The Insanity Of Copyright

from the different-but-still-bad dept

Last week we, like many others, wrote about the story of Anders G da Silva, who had complained on Twitter about how Apple had disappeared three movies he had purchased, and its customer service seemed to do little more than offer him some rental credits. There was lots of discussion about the ridiculousness -- and potential deceptive practices -- of offering a "buy" button if you couldn't actually back up the "purchase" promise.

Some more details are coming out about the situation with da Silva, and some are arguing that everyone got the original story wrong and it was incorrect to blame Apple here. However, looking over the details, what actually happened may be slightly different, but it's still totally messed up. Apple didn't just stop offering the films. What happened was that da Silva moved from Australia to Canada, and apparently then wished to redownload the movies he had purchased. It was that region change that evidently caused the problem. Because copyright holders get ridiculously overprotective of regional licenses, Apple can only offer some content in some regions -- and it warns you that if you move you may not be able to re-download films that you "purchased" in another region (even though it promises you can hang onto anything you've already downloaded).

And, here the situation is slightly more confusing because Apple actually does offer the same three movies -- Cars, Cars 2 and The Grand Budapest Hotel -- in both Australia and Canada, but apparently they may not be the identical "versions" of the film, as they may be slightly altered depending on the region.

And while this may be marginally better than completely removing his "purchased" films, it's still absolutely ridiculous. The CNET article linked above is sympathetic to the idea that Apple has to go to extreme lengths such as these to prevent "region hopping," and says that da Silva is just an "edge case" that "fell into a licensing crack." But, again, that's nonsense. This is digital content that he "purchased" using a "buy" button. It shouldn't matter where he is at some later date. He should still get access to those original files. That's what a purchase means. The fact that this might possibly in some cases mean that (OH MY GOSH!) someone in Canada can access a movie released in Australia when they're actually in Canada, well, uh, that seems like an "edge case" that a movie studio and Apple should deal with, rather than screwing over legitimate purchasers.

But, alas, we're left with yet another example of the insanity driven by excessive copyright, in which copyright holders get so overly focused on the notion of "control" that they feel the need to control absolutely everything -- including making sure that no wayward Canadians might (GASP!) purchase and download a movie meant for Australians. It's this overwhelming, obsessive desire to "control" each and every use that messes with so many people's lives -- including da Silva's -- and makes sure that the public has almost no respect at all for copyright. Give up a little control, and let the edge cases go, and maybe people wouldn't be so quick to condemn copyright for removing their own rights so frequently.

Filed Under: copyright, downloads, drm, itunes, licensing, ownership, regional restrictions
Companies: apple

Disney Fixes Its Sketchy DVD Rental License, Wins Injunction Against Redbox Over Digital Downloads

from the copyright-as-blocking-innovation dept

Earlier this year we wrote about Disney's silly lawsuit against Redbox. If you don't recall, Redbox, whose main business was renting DVDs out of kiosks started also offering digital download codes that could be purchased at their kiosks. What Redbox did, was it would buy Disney "combo packs" (that came with both a DVD and a download code) and would offer up just the slip of paper with the code out of its kiosks. This seems like perfectly reasonable first sale rights. A legitimate code was purchased, and then resold.

When we wrote about the case back in February, it involved the court smacking down Disney, and even saying that the company was engaged in "copyright misuse" in overclaiming what copyright allowed the company to do. Later in that ruling, the court also rejected Disney's claim that Redbox was in breach of a contract by saying that the text Disney prints on the box (at the time: "codes are not for sale or transfer") was not actually a contract. Of course, as we noted at the time, the court's language made it clear that slightly different language could fix this. From the ruling:

The phrase “Codes are not for sale or transfer” cannot constitute a shrink wrap contract because, like the box at issue in Norcia, Disney’s Combo Pack box makes no suggestion that opening the box constitutes acceptance of any further license restrictions.... Although Disney seeks to analogize its Combo Pack packaging and language to the packaging and terms in Lexmark, the comparison is inapt. The thorough boxtop license language in Lexmark not only provided consumers with specific notice of the existence of a license and explicitly stated that opening the package would constitute acceptance, but also set forth the full terms of the agreement, including the nature of the consideration provided, and described a post-purchase mechanism for rejecting the license. Here, in contrast, Disney relies solely upon the phrase “Codes are not for sale or transfer” to carry all of that weight. Unlike the box-top language in Lexmark, Disney’s phrase does not identify the existence of a license offer in the first instance, let alone identify the nature of any consideration, specify any means of acceptance, or indicate that the consumer’s decision to open the box will constitute assent. In the absence of any such indications that an offer was being made, Redbox’s silence cannot reasonably be interpreted as assent to a restrictive license.

So my prediction following that was: "this almost certainly means that Disney is quickly reprinting the packaging on all its Combo Pack DVDs to make this language more legalistic to match the Lexmark standard."

And... bingo. That's exactly what happened. In a new ruling, the court has now granted a preliminary injunction against Redbox all because of the new "contract" language Disney has put on its DVDs (though amusingly, in a footnote, the court notes "Disney does not concede that the changes were necessary.")

Disney subsequently changed the language on its Combo Pack boxes, changed the download sites’ Terms of Use, and amended its Complaint. Disney’s Combo Pack packaging for the movie Black Panther is the first to reflect changes implemented after this Court’s denial of Disney’s first motion for a preliminary injunction. The front of Black Panther Combo Pack boxes indicates that the Combo Packs include a “Digital Code.” The back of the boxes state, in some of the largest print displayed, “Digital Code Included*[.]” The asterisk directs the reader to a discrete text box at the bottom of the package, which states, in smaller, allcapitalized text, “Digital code redemption requires prior acceptance of licence terms and conditions. Codes only for personal use by recipient of this combination package or family member. Digital movie code . . . subject to expiration after May 15, 2023.” Smaller type in a more central, fine print-type section of the packaging reads, “The digital code contained in this package may not be sold separately and may be redeemed only by the recipient of this combination package or a family member. Visit MoviesAnywhere.com, RedeemDigitalMovie.com, and disneytermsofuse.com for code redemption and other applicable terms and conditions.” The paper Code insert within the Combo Pack contains a similar statement and also reads, “This digital code is part of a combination package and may not be sold separately,” and “Digital code redemption is subject to prior acceptance of license terms and conditions.”

It actually goes on from there. Basically, in response to the earlier ruling, Disney slapped legal warnings and language basically everywhere possible. Some of us would suggest that this -- again -- represents clear copyright abuse, trying to use copyright in restraint of first sale, but the court notes that under the Lexmark standard, it's all groovy. The court does still seem a bit perturbed at Disney's actions, and has a somewhat fascinating discussion on the differences between shrinkwrap, clickwrap, and other types of agreements (while arguing that Disney is arguing things that are not accurate about what constitutes a contract), but does conclude that with Disney pasting legalese everywhere, Redbox is on notice:

At this stage, the court need not make a determination whether Combo Pack purchasers enter into a shrinkwrap, clickwrap, or other type of agreement, nor precisely delineate the terms of any such agreement. It appears from the record currently before the court that neither Redbox nor any other Combo Pack purchaser could (or did) reasonably believe that, notwithstanding the Black Panther licensing language on the box itself, the Combo Pack included unrestricted ownership rights to any digital content.... Because Redbox did not obtain an ownership right to any digital content when it purchased Combo Packs, Disney has adequately shown that it is likely to succeed on its claim that Redbox encouraged Redbox customers to infringe Disney’s copyrights by redeeming Codes in violation of the license terms set forth on the redemption sites.

As in the earlier ruling, the court is not impressed by Redbox's First Sale argument, noting that it was basically killed off due to the awful ReDigi ruling that killed off reselling MP3s.

This is, of course, silly. Everyone recognizes that Redbox has every right to buy physical DVDs and then resell them. In what world does it make sense that it can't also buy up a piece of paper with a download code and resell that as well? Apparently, the one we live in. I've seen some copyright extremists online cheering on this ruling, which is not surprising, but ridiculous. Cheering on a ruling like this is cheering on monopolistic practices that limit innovation and the spread of culture.

Filed Under: clickwrap, contracts, copyright, downloads, dvd rentals, first sale, licenses, movies, rentals, shrinkwrap
Companies: disney, redbox

Patent Troll Sues Netflix, Soundcloud, Vimeo And More For Allowing Offline Viewing

from the but-the-patent-system-encourage-innovation,-right? dept

Joe Mullin over at Ars Technica has the story of a patent troll, Blackbird Technologies, which was founded by (of course) two patent attorneys to buy up patents and shakedown companies with legal threats. Blackbird Technologies has now sued Netflix, Soundcloud, Vimeo and a variety of other companies over US Patent 7,174,362, issued in 2007 (filed for in 2000) on a "method and system for supplying products from pre-stored digital data in response to demands transmitted via computer network."

Specifically, the lawsuits are targeting various "download to consume offline" features on various content websites. Netflix, of course, just famously launched that long-requested feature, which is useful in cases where people have slow or no internet access (e.g., taking your laptop on an airplane without internet access). If anyone thinks that this kind of feature was developed because of this patent, they're being delusional. And that's especially true because the patent itself isn't even about downloading content from the network for offline viewing. Instead, it's actually about someone ordering some content over the internet, having that content automatically burned to a CD-ROM and having that CD-R shipped off to the person. As Mullin notes, the true irony here, is that the guy who got the patent in the first place, Sungil Lee, may have been inspired by Netflix, which already had a very popular business shipping DVD's ordered online to customers:

Context is important when looking at Lee's patent. It's extremely unlikely an inventor writing up the idea of a web-based system for creating and shipping CD-Rs, in the year 2000, was not acutely aware of Netflix—whose DVDs-in-the-mail business had begun blowing up. If there was any copying at all, it was Lee copying Netflix's idea. But in the upside-down world of patent trolls, it's Blackbird who gets to claim the mantle of defending innovation, while it accuses Netflix of being the copycat.

And the thing is, even the idea of having content written automatically to CD-Rs was hardly new in 2000. This patent never should have been granted. I remember back in 1998, when I was working for a company that did electronic distribution of software being pitched by multiple companies that were working on similar solutions, and even seeing a demonstration of one such company at COMDEX in the fall of 1998 (if I remember correctly, to demonstrate how it worked they burned me a copy of Internet Explorer 5) which had just been released. So this patent never should have been granted in the first place. On top of that, to sue companies for doing the obvious thing of offering downloads for offline viewing is a clear abuse of the patent system.

The lawsuits were filed in Delaware, which has become the "new East Texas" in recent years due to a series of patent troll friendly rulings. Every time we hear stories about how patent trolling is on the decline, we see stories like this, suggesting patent trolling is still a huge problem and still a huge cost on innovation, rather than a boon to innovation.

Filed Under: downloads, offline viewing, patent trolls, patents, streaming
Companies: blackbird technologies, netflix, soundcloud, vimeo

Elsevier Says Downloading And Content-Mining Licensed Copies Of Research Papers 'Could Be Considered' Stealing

from the gotta-protect-that-39%-profit-margin dept

Elsevier has pretty much established itself as the most hated company in the world of academic publishing, a fact demonstrated most recently when all the editors and editorial board resigned from one of its top journals to set up their own, open access rival. A blog post by the statistician Chris H.J. Hartgerink shows that Elsevier is still an innovator when it comes to making life hard for academics. Hartgerink's work at Tilburg University in the Netherlands concerns detecting potentially problematic research that might involve data fabrication -- obviously an important issue for the academic world. A key technique he is employing is content mining -- essentially bringing together large bodies of text and data in order to extract interesting facts from them:

I am trying to extract test results, figures, tables, and other information reported in papers throughout the majority of the psychology literature. As such, I need the research papers published in psychology that I can mine for these data. To this end, I started 'bulk' downloading research papers from, for instance, [Elsevier's] Sciencedirect. I was doing this for scholarly purposes and took into account potential server load by limiting the amount of papers I downloaded per minute to 9. I had no intention to redistribute the downloaded materials, had legal access to them because my university pays a subscription, and I only wanted to extract facts from these papers.

He spread out the downloads over ten days so as not to hammer Elsevier's servers -- which in any case are doubtless pretty beefy given the 39% profit margin the company enjoys:

I downloaded approximately 30GB of data from Sciencedirect in approximately 10 days. This boils down to a server load of 35KB/s, 0.0021GB/min, 0.125GB/h, 3GB/day.

Elsevier's response to this super-considerate researcher is a classic:

Approximately two weeks after I started downloading psychology research papers, Elsevier notified my university that this was a violation of the access contract, that this could be considered stealing of content, and that they wanted it to stop. My librarian explicitly instructed me to stop downloading (which I did immediately), otherwise Elsevier would cut all access to Sciencedirect for my university.

There are clear parallels with the situation that Aaron Schwarz found himself in, but with a key difference. Elsevier is not only stopping Hartgerink from carrying out his research, but threatening to cut off all access to the company's journals and books for everyone working at Tilburg University if he tries to continue. Alicia Wise, Elsevier's Director of Access & Policy, added the following comment on Hartgerink's blog post:

We are happy for you to text mind content that we publish via the ScienceDirect API, but not via screen scraping.

When she was asked why it was necessary to use the API, rather than simply downloading articles, she replied:

The reason that we require miners to use the API is so that we can meet their needs AND ALSO the needs of our human users who can continue to read, search and download articles and not have their service interrupted in any way.

But that doesn't make any sense when Hartgerink had taken such pains to avoid any such adverse affects. Moreover, another commenter noted that Elsevier’s API often fails to work, rendering it useless for content mining. Even when it does work:

In many cases the API returns only metadata in the XML, compared to the fulltext PDF I can access on the website. Simply downloading the paper via the normal web service for readers is easy -- much easier than using the API.

What is really at stake here is control. Elsevier wants to be acknowledged as the undisputed gatekeeper for all possible uses of the research it publishes -- most of which was paid for by the public through taxes. And as far as the company is concerned, daring to use that knowledge in new ways without additional permission is simply "stealing."

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

Filed Under: chris hartgerink, downloads, knowledge, research
Companies: elsevier

Netflix Keeps Losing Mainstream Movies, Informs Users They Should Be Ok With That Because Of Adam Sandler

from the painful-evolution dept

As broadcaster licensing squeezes Netflix ever tighter, you've probably noticed that the streaming company continues to lose higher-end, popular television and film content at an annoying rate. The latest such shift occurred when Netflix last week refused to extend its licensing agreement with Epix, resulting in Netflix customers losing access to mainstream films like Hunger Games: Catching Fire, World War Z and The Wolf of Wall Street. Epix then proceeded to strike a deal with both Hulu and Amazon, who'll now be carrying those titles instead.

Such deals are at the heart of Netflix's permission culture dilemma, where the company is at the whims of broadcast licensing, often tied to a cable industry (Comcast/NBC) that intends to directly harm Netflix. These copyright gardens, built under the illusion of control, increasingly fracture content availability, confusing customers as they try to find a service that has most of the content they're looking for. Unfortunately, in many instances these customers then wind up finding that piracy is easier than decoding and running this availability gauntlet, where shows appear and disappear daily as deals are struck or cancelled.

And while Netflix's catalog of mainstream, high-end fare may be looking relatively skimpy these days, the company penned a blog post informing customers they really shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about that. Why? Because Netflix is busy working on creating an additional array of original content that may or may not be any good:

"We hear from our members that you wish we had newer movies. So do we. Studio licensing practices means it often takes more than a year before consumers can watch a theatrically released movie when and how they want. Just like we’ve changed the game for TV watchers by releasing entire seasons around the world at the same time, we have begun making movies that will premiere on Netflix globally and in some cases, simultaneously in theaters. It will take us time to build a robust slate of original movies, but we’re hard at work on it with such great stars and directors as Brad Pitt, Ricky Gervais, Judd Apatow, Angelina Jolie, Sofia Coppola and Adam Sandler."

And yes, while some Netflix content (House of Cards, Bloodlines and hopefully soon one of my favorites, Black Mirror) is great, it's not entirely clear that more Adam Sandler movies are the answer for users frustrated at the growing lack of popular options in Netflix's B-grade heavy content catalog. And while licensing does certainly hamstring Netflix, in this instance both Hulu and Amazon didn't find Epix's asking price too severe, meaning that Netflix made a judgement call and decided this content was content that its customers can live without.

At the moment, Netflix is focused on international expansion (200 countries by year's end), disrupting stale movie release windows, and original content. That's respectable, and it's likely the right path toward independence long-term from the noose of tightening broadcaster copyright. But at the same time Netflix's core catalog and satisfied customer base still relies on a certain threshold of quality content. As such, Netflix has to walk a fine line between giving consumers what they want, and trying to navigate the permissions culture tightrope dictated by broadcasters.

Netflix also has to walk the minefield of explaining all of this to consumers who just want the latest and greatest content and options and don't care about the details. For example, Amazon recently announced it would be letting users download content for streaming at a later date (albeit via Amazon's heavily DRM'd system). That's an appealing solution for usage-capped customers, but Netflix last week stated it wouldn't be following suit, claiming that offline downloads would prove too confusing for customers:

"I think it’s something that lots of people ask for. We’ll see if it’s something lots of people will use. Undoubtedly it adds considerable complexity to your life with Amazon Prime – you have to remember that you want to download this thing. It’s not going to be instant, you have to have the right storage on your device, you have to manage it, and I’m just not sure people are actually that compelled to do that, and that it’s worth providing that level of complexity.”

Of course that's crap: letting people store a local copy of a film isn't remotely complex. What's complex is explaining to consumers why such functionality would likely cost Netflix significantly more in copyright licensing fees and layers of mandated DRM deployment. As we've noted previously, Netflix is still transitioning from a DVD rental business governed by the first sale doctrine, to a streaming business governed by the permission winds of countless fickle media empires. Communicating the costs of that transition to consumers clearly and honestly certainly isn't easy, but much like its Qwickster snafu of a few years back, it's entirely possible that Netflix could be pushing too far, too fast.

Filed Under: copyright, culture, downloads, licensing, movies
Companies: epix, netflix

Prince Gives Away Someone Else's Artistic Efforts, Gets Sued

from the BUT...-will-he-learn-anything-from-this-experience? dept

If there's one thing Prince has made clear over the years, it's this: don't mess with Prince's intellectual property.

This holds true even if:

1. it's only links to bootleg concert recordings.
2. it's only a 6-second Vine captured at a Prince concert
3. it's Prince's cover of someone else's song he's now claiming to "own"
4. it's only your toddler dancing to a Prince song for all of 29 recorded seconds
5. it's just a cover version of a Prince song, which as Prince so wisely noted, completely destroys the original and removes it from everyone's consciousness/internet FOREVER
6. it's a puppet likeness of him
7. it's any photo of him or his album covers

Don't mess with the Prince of IP unless you're an intellectual property lawyer or have several on retainer. This is what Prince has taught us. Now, he's teaching us to do as he says, not as he does.

Prince handed out someone else's music for free, which would normally be considered copyright infringement. But the lawsuit against him, brought by the manager of the artist whose music was given away, doesn't make that assertion. Instead, it alleges intentional interference with a pre-existing contract -- namely the one signed by the plaintiff (talent scout Jolene Cherry) and Prince's partner in free album giveaways, Judith Hill.

According to the complaint filed in L.A. Superior Court on Friday, Hill signed an exclusive recording agreement with a joint venture between Sony and The Cherry Party after appearing on The Voice in 2013. Cherry, a talent scout who takes credit for discovering Lady Gaga, says her relationship with Sony was later restructured and that The Cherry Party became a successor-in-interest to rights under the recording agreement.

Hill signed a contract with Cherry, then asked if she could make an album with Prince. Cherry rejected the request and followed up with a warning to Hill that working with Prince would violate their contract -- a warning Hill ignored. Prince and Hill collaborated on an album and proceeded to give it all away.

Included in this gratis album are songs allegedly written by Hill's co-writers and previously recorded for The Cherry Group. The lawsuit claims Prince's actions have basically made Hill's Cherry Group/Sony Records debut album all but unreleasable. Despite Hill's willing participation in both the recording and the free giveaway, she is not named as a co-defendant.

In very closely related news, Hill is currently suing Cherry for allegedly botching a contract with Sony Records, as well as for harming the singer's reputation by altering a previously-recorded track to make it sound like a love song to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un. (That last half of the previous sentence is most assuredly not made up.)

Underneath everything else, there's the simple fact that Prince's IP-protectionism is apparently applied on a case-by-case basis. If it's even tangentially related to him, it's off limits. If it's someone else's (Hill's co-writers, Cherry Party), it can be given away freely. If nothing else, this situation will hopefully result in "purple with hypocrisy" joining "green with envy" in the annals of American idioms.

Filed Under: contracts, downloads, intellectual property, jolene cherry, judith hill, music, prince
Companies: sony