Parody Post About Sega Suing Its Fans Perfectly Lampoons Nintendo

from the slow-clap dept

We have long chronicled the aggressive IP enforcement tactics and behavior of video game giant Nintendo. There have been so many stories specifically about Nintendo's animosity towards its fans when those fans express their fandom by creating fan-games that any regular reader here will be familiar with at least some of them. While gaming company responses towards fan-games are certainly more of a spectrum than something black and white, Nintendo probably takes the crown for the least permissive gaming company for this sort of thing. So much so, in fact, that we highlighted its former chief rival, Sega, when it took the opposite tact with folks making Sonic the Hedgehog fan-games.

Well, someone out there took the time to create a parody news article about Sega doing a heel-turn on this in a way that seems mostly dedicated to skewering Nintendo for its aggressive, anti-fan behavior. The headline for the comedy post is, appropriately, "Sega Announces They Will Be Using Fan-Game Creators To Develop New Sonic Lawsuit."

Let's dive in.

Sega announced today that, after a down-period of creativity in its staple Sonic franchise, the company will be reaching out to fan game developers to create new and exciting lawsuits.

“For years, people have said that Sega’s Sonic games lack that magic from the original games, while fan games have become impressive standalone titles,” said Sonic team leader Takashi Iizuka. “We worked with fans to make Sonic Mania and then everybody was all like ‘oh I guess the fans are better than Sega at making their own game,’ so now we’re switching up the strategy, because fuck you guys. From now on, we have to go full Nintendo and sue these fuckers for every single penny they’ve got. These people have spent their own time and money creating beautiful, loving tributes to Sonic games, and they thought they could just get away with it. Sonic Team is honored to take these longtime fans, some of them even just kids, and drag them kicking and screaming behind bars where they belong.”

"Go full Nintendo." Sega and Nintendo have taken starkly different paths interacting with their most dedicated fans and this fictional post is essentially poking fun at the latter by satirizing what it would look like if Sega got aggressive. More to the point, it does a useful job of pointing out, given that all of this is not true and done for comedic purposes, that Nintendo could exert less control and allow its fans to express themselves if it wanted to. If Sega can do it, so can Nintendo.

But Nintendo doesn't want to do this. It values strict IP control over everything else, even as many argue doing so is against its own monetary interests.

Go to the link for one fun fictional comment from a Sega fan being put into the back of a squad car, but I couldn't let this post be written without including the final paragraph from the post, because it's just so, so good.

Despite the lawsuit, Sega admitted they were incredibly thankful for the fan designer's unique, exciting ideas for Sonic games that they could completely ignore for the next decade. They then announced their new game Werewolf Sonic 2: Sorry, Fuckers will be arriving in 2023.

While this is all quite funny, it's also frustrating trying to understand why in the world Nintendo is willing to endure being the butt of these particular jokes, not to mention the negative aspects of its reputation, just because it wants to squash its own fanbase. In nearly all cases, the company gains nothing and loses at least some measure of goodwill and respect. Put another way, if you took this parody article and replaced every reference to Sega with Nintendo, it wouldn't be that far off from reality.

Why a beloved gaming company wants that for itself is an open question.

Filed Under: fans, ip, ip enforcement, lawsuits, parody
Companies: nintendo, sega

Gibson Guitar Formalizes Its Hands-Off IP Enforcement Approach With Authorized Partnership Program

from the not-bad,-not-great dept

As I mentioned when we recently discussed Dean Guitars' pushback and counter-suit against Gibson Guitar's trademark lawsuit, Gibson CEO James Curleigh's vague declaration of a relaxed position on IP enforcement has calcified into something of an official corporate program. It's not all bad, but it's not all good either.

We'll start with the good. Gibson has decided to recognize that there are fans inspired by its designs who want to create their own guitars and even sell them on occasion. In recognition of this, Gibson is starting an "authorized partnership" program to allow those creators to build guitars without fear of legal threat.

The initial stages of the Program will see Gibson grant several boutique builders permission to create guitars based on the body shapes that it claims to own. The agreement involves specific terms set by Gibson, reports NewsChannel 5: chief among them that the boutique brands must acknowledge these shapes do indeed belong to Gibson.

“We’ve entered into some agreements with three or four boutique guitar companies, and basically, they actually love Gibson, and we actually love them,” Curleigh said in the interview. “We just have to have a conversation around where the lines are between shapes and names, etc. And what’s amazing is, as soon as we enter into those conversations, it leads to a collaborative, creative conversation. So it’s going to work basically, it’s essentially an agreement where they acknowledge: ‘Yup, these are your shapes,’ and we say, ‘you can use them.'”

While it's a step forward for Gibson to enable these companies to create and build off of the inspiration from Gibson, you can already see hints of that old protectionist attitude creeping back in. In order to enter into this sort of agreement, first these companies must bow at the alter of Gibson by acknowledging that it holds trademarks on many of its designs. While that may be something approaching SOP for these types of partnership or licensing agreements, the current legal battle with Dean Guitars puts this very much in question. Whether Gibson does in fact hold valid trademarks on its most treasured guitar designs is subject to the outcome of Dean's counter-suit, in which Dean attempts to invalidate many of those trademarks entirely.

Regardless, putting so much emphasis on the acknowledgement that Gibson has these valid trademarks feels like the vestigial remains of the company's old protectionist policies. And, while Curleigh insists that he isn't trying to build this as a revenue stream for Gibson, the agreements do also allow the company to control how many of these 3rd party guitars get sold and to demand royalty fees, so there's that.

Add to all of that that Curleigh isn't exactly giving up litigation as an option, too, and one wonders just how much a shift in company culture this is all going to be.

“My last resort, I can tell you as a leader, is always going to be legal. But if a company or a brand leaves us, or me, with no choice, I have to follow that direction,” the CEO continued. “I don’t want to, but part of our brand and our business is intellectual property, and kind of half of the value of some companies are in that. We have to preserve and protect [our trademarks], but I think we can do it in a way that’s not confrontational, it’s more collaborative.”

These types of subtle changes can indeed have outsized effects, but it's all in the follow through. Again, this is for sure a step in a positive direction for Gibson, which has traditionally been very protective of its perceived IP. What remains to be seen is if this is really the cultural change Curleigh promised.

Filed Under: guitars, ip enforcement, james curleigh, trademark
Companies: gibson, gibson guitar

Dean Guitar Counter-Sues Against Gibson Guitars, Attempts To Invalidate Several Trademarks

from the dis-chord dept

Earlier this month, we discussed how Gibson Guitar CEO James Curleigh had recently announced a shift in its IP enforcement strategy to try to be more permissive. That has since calcified into an actual formal plan, but we'll get into that more in a separate post because there is enough good and bad in it to be worth discussing. What kicked Curleigh's reveal, however, was backlash from a recent lawsuit filed by Gibson against Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, the parent owner of Dean Guitars. Dean sells several guitars that Gibson claims are trademark violations of its famed "flying v" and "explorer" body shapes. There are differences in the designs, to be clear, but there are also similarities. Even as Curleigh's plans for a more permissive IP attitude for Gibson go into effect, this lawsuit continues.

But not without Armadillo punching back, it seems. In response to the suit, Armadillo has decided to counter-sue with claims that Gibson's designs are not only too generic to be worthy of trademark protection, but also that Gibson's actions constitute interference with its legitimate business. We'll start with the trademarks.

The most potentially impactful aspect of the filings relates to the issue of the trademarks of the Flying V, Explorer and ES-335 body shapes. These marks were a key part of Gibson’s original counterfeiting claim, and as part of its defence, Armadillo is not only trying to prove that the claims are without merit, but crucially it also seeks to get the trademarks cancelled altogether.

“The above designs have been prominently used and promoted for years and, in some instances, decades,” the suit reads. “All the while, Gibson sat on its purported rights and failed to object.” The suit goes on to claim that Dean has invested millions of dollars promoting and marketing guitars with those shapes in that period, and as such, “some of Gibson’s accused trademarks are invalid because they are generic and/or incapable of serving as a source identifier for guitars”.

As the article points out, there is precedence for this. A decade ago, Fender lost the right to trademark several guitar designs that it had failed to protect, while Gibson itself fell victim to this same thing in the early 2000s. While some may point to this as being evidence that companies must aggressively protect their intellectual property, I would argue that such designs of guitars are not great source-identifiers for the public and probably shouldn't have been afforded trademark protection to begin with. Regardless, if Gibson once again allowed others to use variations of these designs, that point is moot, as the designs would have become generic in the marketplace.

As to the interference with Dean's business in the market, it seems that Gibson didn't only contact Dean about the alleged infringement, but dealers of guitars as well.

The suit cites the example of Carlino Guitars – a guitar shop in Medford, Massachusetts – which it claims was sent cease and desist letters by Gibson in April and May 2019. The letters allegedly demanded the removal of all Dean V and Z guitars from the shop’s website, accused them of being party to trademark infringement by stocking Dean instruments, and threatened the store with legal action if they didn’t comply.

The suit claims that based on “information and belief” that Gibson sent similar letters to other dealers and retailers, “with the intent of disruption Armadillo’s sales and contractual relationships”.

This is fairly aggressive on the part of Gibson, as these guitar dealers are stocking Dean guitars with the good faith understanding that they aren't selling counterfeit products. And, frankly, given Gibson's failure to protect their supposedly valid trademarks in the past, it sure reads as though Gibson jumped the gun on sending out these legal notices to dealers before getting its own lawsuit over the trademark claims adjudicated. With that move, Dean's counterclaim probably rests on how the court judges the trademark issue, which is an avenue of legal exposure that is unnecessary for Gibson to have endured. I'm a bit surprised the company's legal team wasn't more cautious.

In the end, because of Gibson's aggressive enforcement stance, even as the company is proclaiming a new era of relaxed IP enforcement, there is now the very real risk of the company losing its trademarks and incurring costs.

The counterclaim demands the cancellation of Gibson’s Flying V, Explorer and ES-335 body shape trademarks, and seeks the “maximum damages permitted by law” for the alleged interference caused by the company’s communication with Dean and Gibson dealers.

The outcome of this will be interesting, if only to see if Gibson will suffer one final blow for its previously aggressive trademark enforcement.

Filed Under: countersuit, guitars, ip enforcement, trademark
Companies: armadillo distribution enterprises, dean guitar, gibson guitar

Gibson Guitar Declares Shift In IP Enforcement After Most Recent Public Backlash

from the new-leadership dept

Our past posts on Gibson Guitar, the famed guitar-maker, have revealed roughly a decade of strict IP enforcement and other busuiness challenges. Between waffling on its support for SOPA and its own failures to properly innovate in a direction that met its customers' demand, never mind its odd legal trouble over "illegal" wood used in its guitars and the bankruptcy it underwent a few years back, we're not left with a picture of a well-oiled business. Despite that, emerging from bankruptcy, Gibson has continued its IP maximilist ways, most notably in the past few weeks with a lawsuit against the owner of Dean and Luna Guitars for trademark infringement and counterfeiting over several guitar body designs that the defendants claim aren't protectable.

There are two important aspects of that specific dispute to note here. First, the public backlash against Gibson over the lawsuit was firm and swift. Second, this specific dispute originated with cease and desist notices sent out by Gibson's legal team back in 2017. That is particularly notable as it was only in November of 2018 that Gibson brought on a new CEO, James Curleigh. In the wake of the backlash over the past few weeks, Curleigh has gone out of his way to promise the public that Gibson is going to quickly move on from its IP maximilist ways.

Regarding criticism Gibson has faced for its legal actions, the company said in a statement that the past few weeks “have provided a ‘real time’ opportunity to start making the pivot from less legal leverage to more industry collaboration, with appropriate levels of awareness.” Furthermore, the company clarified that the recent attention on the lawsuits in process stem from several years of legal action initiated prior to the new leadership, headed by CEO and President James “JC” Curleigh, arriving in November of 2018. With regard to the inherited and ongoing legal dynamic with Dean Guitars, Gibson says its team has made attempts to directly communicate to “avoid a prolonged legal battle.”

Said Curleigh, “I am proud of the progress we have made with our attention to quality, with the launch of the new collections, and with our renewed engagement to our Gibson authorized dealer base. At the same time, we acknowledge there are still legacy challenges to solve going forward, especially around brand protection and market solutions.”

On the one hand, it feels somewhat lame to let a company off the hook for filing a lawsuit two weeks ago just because the cease and desists were sent out two years prior to the current CEO's tenure. You're the CEO, dude. Tell the legal team to not file the suit if that's what you think it should do.

All that being said, the words coming out of Curleigh's mouth are the right ones, as are those coming from the Gibson PR team. It's gratifying to watch a company bow to public backlash over an overtly aggressive IP enforcement stance. And hearing the company use language that used to be reserved for the craft beer industry, back before that industry was similarly ravaged by IP enforcement, is encouraging.

He continued, “It is time to make the modern-day shift from confrontation towards collaboration, whilst still protecting our brands, and we are committed to making this happen starting now."

What remains is seeing just how Curleigh's Gibson Guitar wants to balance that equation. If he can shift the culture of the company towards one that is human and awesome, all while giving fans of Gibson guitars what they want, it could be a major win for a company that recently looked quite lost.

Filed Under: competition, counterfeiting, guitars, ip enforcement, james curleigh, trademark
Companies: gibson

Latest White House Intellectual Property Strategic Plan Much More Balanced & Reasonable

from the a-step-in-the-right-direction dept

The White House's "IP Enforcement Coordinator" (IPEC), often referred to as the IP Czar, Victoria Espinel, has released the administration's 2013 Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcement, which she's required to put out under the law that created her position, the ProIP Act. When the last report came out, in 2010, we noted that it wasn't as bad as we'd expected, though it still had some serious problems. The latest report is actually a decent improvement on that one, going much further in recognizing some of the problems many of us have with how these issues are handled. Even the announcement about the report is better. In 2010, even though the report is officially named above, the announcement about it called it the Joint Strategic Plan to Combat Intellectual Property Theft. This year, that inflammatory and misleading language is definitely toned down.

More importantly, there are a lot of good (and somewhat unexpected) things in the report, which shows that Espinel and her office have been paying attention to the concerns many of us have raised over the years, about how the one-sided focus on "piracy" was misleading and not actually helpful. The full report is worth a read, but let's highlight a few points. The report highlights a key point that we've made over and over again, that the best way to actually deal with "piracy" is through innovation, because when innovation is allow to flourish, solutions present themselves:

With respect to the online environment, the Administration believes that when Americans and people around the world are given real choices between legal and illegal options, the vast majority will want to choose the legal option. Accordingly, we encourage the further development and use of legitimate online services as an important part of an effective approach to reducing infringing activity. Today there are a myriad of legitimate ways to obtain music, video, books, games, software, and other entertainment and educational materials through a wide variety of business models. These include paying per use, paying per copy, and paying a fee for access to a collection of works; allowing customers to pay what they wish; and legitimate content that is available for free, including entertainment industry portals and artists and authors using systems to permit free distribution of their works under conditions that they choose.

We believe that legitimate goods, including digital goods, offer clear advantages over infringing ones regardless of price. Use of legitimate goods compensates artists, creators, and those who invest in bringing their works to the public, and provide incentives for future creation and distribution. In addition, legitimate goods are often of higher quality, come with express or implied warranties or guarantees of quality, offer customer services, and do not pose the same risk of viruses or malware. They may also include extra features not available with infringing content. And, increasingly, they may be more convenient and easier to find.

We support and will look for additional ways to encourage and facilitate efforts that will help expand the reach of legitimate alternatives to infringement, including through the development of copyright registries and online databases, micro-licensing arrangements, and other market-driven mechanisms to facilitate smooth and efficient access to content. We also encourage the work of the U.S. Copyright Office to update and improve the copyright registration and recordation system in ways that will facilitate licensing and encourage public-private partnerships.

To some extent, this may be overstating the playing field today with regards to where it should be, and fails to recognize the hurdles that are sometimes put up to prevent legal services from becoming truly convenient and powerful. But we have been moving in the right direction, and it's great to see the acknowledgement that innovation is the way forward, and holding back innovation with crazy licensing demands does more harm than good.

The paper also focuses heavily on increasing transparency and public outreach, which is important, since this topic has long been dominated by certain special interests:

The Administration strongly supports improved transparency in intellectual property enforcement policy-making and international negotiations.

That's good, but until the USTR actually gets on board with this (and recognizes that transparency is about sharing information to the public, not just listening to stakeholders) we still have a long way to go. The fact that the TPP (and likely TAFTA to follow it) is going to have large intellectual property sections negotiated in complete secrecy is a huge problem. If the IPEC wants to commit to true transparency, it needs to get the USTR on board. The fact that the report, elsewhere, celebrates the signing of ACTA (which was similarly negotiated with almost no transparency) as well as some very poorly designed trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea suggests that this is still a real problem, where the administration has, unfortunately, not yet changed its strategy, despite its claimed interest in transparency.

There's also a whole section on getting content creators much more familiar with fair use. Considering that fair use is often something that these kinds of documents ignore, this is really impressive.

Effective enforcement is critical to providing meaningful protection of intellectual property rights, but enforcement approaches should not discourage authors from building appropriately upon the works of others. We recognize the work that agencies across the U.S. Government are doing in the area of intellectual property education, and their efforts to increase and improve this work in the digital environment. This work includes efforts at the USPTO and the U.S. Copyright Office to help the general public better understand the Constitutional purpose and value of intellectual property laws, and the scope of both protections and exceptions in such laws.

The Administration believes, and the U.S. Copyright Office agrees, that authors (including visual artists, songwriters, filmmakers, and writers) would benefit from more guidance on the fair use doctrine. Fair use is a core principle of American copyright law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored fair use provisions in the Copyright Act as a key means of protecting free speech, and many courts across the land have upheld the application of fair use as an affirmative defense to infringement, in a wide variety of circumstances.

In order to make fair use more accessible to the authors of the 21st century, ease confusion about permissible uses, and thereby encourage the production of a greater variety of creative works, the U.S. Copyright Office, working in consultation with the Administration, will publish and maintain an index of major fair use decisions, including a summary of the holdings and some general questions and observations that may in turn guide those seeking to apply the decisions to their own situations.

The specifics here will matter, but the fact that they'll be pushing fair use, and not ignoring it or hiding it away, is definitely a step forward.

It's also worth noting a very different tone and choice of words in the paper than the usual biased choices. It repeatedly, correctly, refers to "infringement" rather than loaded terms like "piracy" and "theft." For most of the paper (there are a few exceptions) it focuses on the areas where real threats may exist: with counterfeit drugs (though, too often, we see that conflated with reimported legitimate drugs) and military parts. The paper really doesn't go into the usual hysterics you see from government documents about online copyright infringement, which is a welcome change.

As mentioned, there are still some issues with the plan. We already mentioned the support for ACTA, TPP and other USTR agreements that are questionable at best. It also talks up the DOJ's increasing efforts around enforcement, some of which have been quite concerning (Megaupload, anyone?) and increasing efforts for IP enforcement around the globe, which too often has meant having diplomats act as Hollywood's enforcers in other countries. The report spends a lot of time on "trade secret" enforcement, which is a big buzzword, especially with bigger companies. This is a dangerous red herring, where big companies are seeking laws and enforcement that often will be used to block disruptive innovators, but it's still better to focus on that rather than some other overhyped claims of copyright infringement.

It also highlights the Department of Commerce's absolutely awful report that counted all grocery store employees as having jobs because of "intellectual property." That report has been widely abused by maximalists to argue that we need stronger IP laws, when that's not what the report shows at all. This latest plan announces that this report will now be updated annually, and that it will "will calculate the number of jobs and the contribution to the GDP on an annual basis." I hope that they seriously improve their methodology in time for the next release.

On the whole, this report is a big step forward in both substance and tone. There are many points in there that I might quibble with, but given the kinds of documents that we're used to seeing come out of various governments when it comes to intellectual property issues, this one is quite well done. Combined with today's news about the FTC going after patent trolls, it actually seems like the administration may realize that "more, stronger intellectual property" and "greater enforcement at all costs" is not the same as effective strategies for promoting the progress of science and the useful arts.

Filed Under: administration, copyright, fair use, ip czar, ip enforcement, ipec, joint strategic plan, trade secrets, victoria espinel, white house

Justice Department Calls Megaupload Case A Success; Hands Out Cash To Cops To Do More Bogus Takedowns

from the shameful dept

Back in 2010, we wrote about Attorney General Eric Holder talking up how excited he was to create a special "IP Task Force" within the Justice Department. It was, effectively, an admission that he was happy to play Hollywood's business model protection officer on the public dime. Since then, of course, the DOJ has been involved in a fairly stunning set of disastrous attempts to "enforce" IP law -- including seizing and censoring two separate sites for over a year without real due process or evidence. Then there's the questionable attempt to deport a UK student for creating a web forum.

And, of course, the master of all screwups, the Megaupload case. Given all the info that's been released so far, you'd think that the DOJ would have a slam dunk against Megaupload -- but instead, the case has been a complete disaster for the DOJ, as every week we seem to hear about another error made in going after the company. Given how poorly the DOJ has come out in that case so far, you would think that Attorney General Holder wouldn't be highlighting it as a key example of a "success story" for his role as Hollywood's favorite inside man.

And yet... in a speech in which he talks about handing out cash to local police forces to become local versions of Hollywood's private police force, he uses Megaupload as a shining example of the success of this "Intellectual Property Theft Enforcement Program." Of course, you'd think that the top lawyer in the country would know better than to falsely call infringement theft, but apparently Holder's very good at taking Hollywood's talking points without bothering to understand the actual law. Otherwise, he wouldn't have had to "give up" in the Rojadirecta and Dajaz1 cases, after it became abundantly clear that the DOJ was about to lose big time, and could face serious problems for its actions. Instead... he just cheers on the various abuses and failings in the Megaupload case as if they were successful:

In this year alone, we have prosecuted a number of significant IP cases. For example, in January – in one of the largest criminal copyright cases in U.S. history – the Department indicted two corporations and seven individuals with operating an international organized criminal enterprise responsible for massive worldwide online piracy of numerous types of copyrighted works, through Megaupload.com and other related sites.

Indicted, yes. But pretty much everything after the indictment has been an unmitigated disaster. There was the illegal raid on Kim Dotcom's home, which used the wrong documentation. There was the illegal taking of evidence out of New Zealand without permission. There was the illegally obtained intelligence info on Dotcom's location. There was the ridiculous SWAT-ification of the raid team, which New Zealand officials now admit was both overkill and a mistake. Basically, pretty much every action by the DOJ in the case has been a disaster. And this is what Holder is cheering on as he hands out money for local cops to do more of the same? Really?

Filed Under: eric holder, ip enforcement, justice department, law enforcement, takedowns
Companies: megaupload

Congress Keeps Pushing Bad Copyright Bills: Senator Stabenow Wants To Expand Treasury/ICE To Go After 'Pirates'

from the it-never-ends dept

Update: Just as we published this, news came in that this amendment was rebuffed, but the point remains: Congress keeps trying to sneak in little favors to Hollywood every chance it gets.

Congress continues to show that it learned absolutely nothing from the SOPA/PIPA mess earlier this year. While we've been focused on the problematic IPAA bill in the House, which would create a high level IP Enforcement "deputy assistant" within the Commerce Department, over in the Senate, Debbie Stabenow is looking to create another such role in the Treasury Department. We just mentioned an effort by the Senate Finance Committee to actually make the Special 301 report useful by having it go after internet censorship... but according to Politico's Morning Tech, Senator Stabenow has very quietly introduced an amendment to that effort, which would increase the role of the Treasury Department as Hollywood's private police force:

A tweak by Sen. Debbie Stabenow made available last night would add to the trade bill her own measure, the Protect American Innovation Act. Among other things, the amendment would establish the position of "director of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement" at Treasury, while boosting the ability of Customs and ICE to find and seize infringing materials entering the country or to be exported.

Stabenow actually introduced this "Protect American Innovation Act" last year, in the midst of the fight over SOPA and PIPA, and very few people noticed, since all of the attention was on those two bills. But if you look at the details, it's just more of the same. It would increase the Treasury Department's role in intellectual property enforcement, first by establishing a "director of intellectual property rights enforcement" withing the Treasury. That position would be tasked with working closely with ICE -- and ICE would get its own new "coordinator of intellectual property enforcement." You remember ICE. Those are the folks famous for censoring websites based on no evidence, just the RIAA's say-so. Oh, and remember Dajaz1? That's one of those sites that ICE erroneously censored. One of that site's admins lives in Michigan -- Stabenow's home state. But, apparently, Stabenow would rather carry water for Hollywood than protect her own constituents from gross overreach by the US government.

Given how badly ICE screwed up that job, it's amazing that Stabenow wants to increase their authority. But that's what's happening. The bill defines "piracy" as "activities related to production of or trafficking in unauthorized copies or phonorecords of works protected under title 17, United States Code, or related laws." And we thought "piracy" was defined as "an act of criminal violence at sea." But, notice just how broad that text is there. Any production of "unauthorized copies" of works protected under the copyright act. Yeah, if you make a copy... the Treasury Department and ICE might be able to target you.

The bill also says that Treasury/ICE/Customs should get training in new technology for "detecting and identifying, at ports of entry... pirated goods." Given how broad this is, you could read this to mean that your phones, MP3 players and laptops may get scanned at the border for all of the music and movies you have. There was talk of such things in ACTA, but they were rejected when people spoke up -- and now they're back in a bill from Senator Debbie Stabenow who apparently slept through what happened in response to SOPA/PIPA and ACTA.

The bill also gives law enforcement within Treasury/ICE/Customs pretty broad powers, including issuing fines for importing "pirated" goods, and says that such fines "may not be mitigated" unless ordered by a court or "pursuant to regulations issued by the Commissioner." And such fines "may not be dismissed or vacated." In other words, if they catch you with pirated works, they may be required to issue fines. In fact, it says that the mitigation, dismissal or vacation of such fines can only happen for "extraordinary cases." Having a few unauthorized songs on your iPhone isn't extraordinary.

But wait... there's more. While the IPAA, as discussed, would increase US diplomatic efforts to push for IP enforcement abroad... and so would this bill, though in a different area. Rather than IP attaches, now ICE and Customs would be tasked with spreading Hollywood-style maximalism to other countries by increasing staffing to provide training and assistance to other countries in "detecting" such "pirated goods."

There are also a ton of small changes to copyright law, which would take quite a few hours to dig in and see what they actually do. As is typical of these kinds of bills, they don't tell you what the bill would actually now say -- they just say things like "strike from [phrase y] to [phrase x] and insert [random string of terms]." And, sometimes (including here), even these phrases then point you to other laws that you have to piece together as well. You have to sit down, pull up the original, figure out what's being taken out, what's being inserted and what it all means. There appear to be about a dozen such changes which we'll have to go through later, but it wouldn't surprise me to find more trouble in there.

For example, just a quick look at Section 143 of this bill might appear like a minor textual change. It says you have to add the following to a different bill (19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)(2)). What's that? Oh, it's the rules for the government forfeiting your property. And what's the text?

‘(G) it is a technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof the importation of which is prohibited under section 1201(a)(2) of title 17, United States Code.’.

Okay piece that back into the bill above, and you see that what it's actually doing is increasing the types of things that can be forfeited by ICE and Customs. But how so? Well, you have to jump over to section 1201(a) of Title 17, which is the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA.

When you sit back and parse it all together, you realize that they're now allowing ICE/Customs to forfeit any circumvention device. Considering how many "circumvention devices" you already own without realizing it, you should be concerned.

Either way, I'm sure there's more in there, but this is just a quick read, because, again, this effort was announced yesterday for markup today. And, yes, while Stabenow released this bill last year, it got little attention because no one thought it was going anywhere. To suddenly jump the line and try to attach it to a separate, important bill, shows the same sort of attempt to sneak through laws for Hollywood without public scrutiny.

Filed Under: congress, customs, debbie stabenow, ice, ip enforcement, piracy, senate, treasury

White House's New Report On Intellectual Property Enforcement Should Get A Copyright As A Creative Work Of Fiction

from the maybe-hollywood-can-make-the-movie dept

The 2008 ProIP Act put in place a number of problematic things, including (via a very sneaky backdoor method) the ability for the US government to directly censor websites (something many people thought was in SOPA but which is already a part of the law, according to a tenuous interpretation of the law by the Justice Department and Homeland Security). It also put in place the job of IP Enforcement Coordinator, officially known as IPEC, but more regularly called the Copyright Czar. The job isn't about more efficient or more effective IP. It's designed solely to push an agenda of greater enforcement as if that must be a good thing. While the current Copyright Czar, Victoria Espinel, actually has been very good in trying to hear from critics of expanded copyright enforcement, the nature of the job itself leaves her little room to do too much.

However, as part of the job, she releases an "annual report" on intellectual property enforcement. Now, as you hopefully know, content published by the federal government cannot be covered by copyright and is automatically in the public domain. But, reading through the newly released annual report (pdf and embedded below), it makes me wonder if we should make an exception here, as it appears to be, in large part, a work of fiction.

There are plenty of questionable things in the report, but I'm just going to focus on a few (we'd be here all day if I dug into even more of the report, but feel free to read and guffaw along with the entire report). Once again, the report seems to assume that "greater enforcement = good thing," despite a near total lack of evidence to support that position. In part, of course, this is the nature of the job itself, so the report has to slant in that direction. But there are some whoppers in the report. Let's dig into a few:

• "Improved transparency in intellectual property policy-makings and international negotiations." Wait, what?!? Yes, this is the same administration that has been the most secretive when it comes to negotiating IP laws and international agreements. SOPA came out of a secret backroom deal in which the tech industry and the public were entirely left out of the negotiations. That's why there was a public revolt over SOPA/PIPA.
  
  And, of course, ACTA and TPP negotiations have been significantly more secretive than traditional IP international agreements as negotiation via WIPO and the WTO. In those negotiations, positions are made publicly. With ACTA and TPP the US government has driven a policy of extreme secrecy, requiring special security clearance just to see drafts, and forbidding other countries from releasing reports. With TPP, the USTR has even agreed that the various documents surrounding the negotiations should be kept secret until four years after the agreement is completed and ratified. This is not transparency at all. It's the opposite of transparency. Saying you're transparent and actually being transparent are two different things.
  
  This is a point where the White House and IPEC in particular could be a lot more effective. It could revamp the entire Special 301 process to make that more transparent and less of a black box where the USTR basically "remixes" the complaints of Hollywood into a report shaming other countries. It could tell the USTR to release its positions and drafts for things like ACTA and TPP publicly so that the public (you know, the real stakeholders) can comment. It could call out the USTR for doing things like participating in an industry-sponsored dinner for negotiators, and partying in Hollywood with MPAA studio heads while kicking civil service organizations out of the hotel where they were meeting. But, instead, it pretends that there's more transparency? That's simply fictional.
  
  Patting itself on the back for including transparency when it's actually one of the most opaque administrations on such issues is simply ridiculous.



• What's not in the report. It's really quite stunning what's completely missing from the report. The omissions are quite telling, however. The report appears to completely skip over what happened with SOPA/PIPA. I mean, it's as if the widespread public backlash and outrage didn't happen at all. SOPA and PIPA are barely mentioned at all, and when they are, it's only to mention briefly how random parts of those bills (not the main parts) included little bits and pieces of the White House's legislative agenda on IP around "greater information sharing." How can a report on the state of IP enforcement completely leave out the biggest thing that's happened in IP enforcement in decades? The fact that the public has stood up and said enough is enough on greater expansion of making the government Hollywood's private business model protection service. That's a huge event and to completely ignore it is quite telling.
  
  Similarly, the report completely ignores last year's realization of the serious problems with Homeland Security's ICE's Operation in Our Sites, the program to seize and censor websites based on mere shreds of evidence. While the report does mention Operation In Our Sites multiple times, it's only to self-congratulate itself for such censorship. What it does not mention is that the program resulted in the wrongful seizure and censorship of sites based on faulty evidence, or the fact that it is still illegally censoring a few websites, despite not having filed for forfeiture, as required by the law.
  
  In fact, the report seems so ashamed of the November 2010 seizures -- which resulted in all three of the domains in question being seized -- is completely skipped over in the discussion. They discuss the seizures before that one (in the summer of 2010) as well as the operations in 2011 -- but the infamous November 2010 seizure round is simply being written out of history.
  
  I'd have a lot more respect for Espinel and IPEC if it would actually admit that they fucked up royally with some of these seizures, and then was willing to publicly explain what went wrong, why it went wrong and what the White House is doing to prevent such bogus seizures and censorship from ever occurring again. Instead? It just pretends it never happened at all. That's shameful behavior.



• "Voluntary best practices." The report talks up how there have been a variety of private sector "voluntary best practices" that were "facilitated by the IPEC." This includes things like the infamous "six strikes" plan that the ISPs have agreed to. While "private sector" solutions are good, what this leaves out is that the "facilitated by the IPEC" part was more about effectively threatening the ISPs that if they didn't come up with a plan, that it might show up in a law instead. Separately, the problem with "voluntary best practices" like this are that they really do seem to border on government-sponsored collusion. Getting all of the industry's largest players in a room to make agreements on who to do business with, who to censor and why... and without having it go through government review to avoid abuse? That's generally something the government used to be against. Why is it for collusion in these cases?



• "A data driven government." The report tries to suggest that the government is being more data driven, and less faith-based in its efforts, but that's belied by the fact that nowhere is any effort being made to empirically look at the effectiveness of this enforcement on "promoting the progress." Instead, the "data" the report talks about is the data on how they've taken the same budget and "turned it into a more than 33 percent increase in seizures, arrests, and investigations of counterfeit and pirated merchandise in FY 2010." But if those seizures, arrests and investigations are doing more harm than good, or are leading to false accusations, censorship and bogus (taxpayer-expensed) lawsuits, isn't that a problem? Shouldn't IPEC be exploring that?
  
  Separately, it notes that the federal government is conducting an "economic analysis." That's good, right? But it's not conducting an economic analysis on the effectiveness of this enforcement. Instead, it's conducting an economic study that, by the very setup of the study, is completely missing the point. It's actually designed to miss the point by starting with the assumption that greater IP is a good thing:

  At the request of the IPEC, the U S Government is for the first time conducting an economic analysis, led by DOC, the Economic and Statistics Administration (“ESA”), and the USPTO, working with chief economists across the Federal government, to identify the industries that most intensively produce intellectual property and to measure the importance of those industries to the U S economy This broad study will examine all sectors of our economy We believe that improved measurement of intellectual property linked to measurements of economic performance will help the U S Government understand the role and breadth of intellectual property in the American economy and will inform policy and resource decisions related to intellectual property enforcement

  And, no, I don't know why the report seems to do away with the grammatical icon known as "the period" at the end of sentences. Perhaps it was too expensive to license. Either way, notice that this study seems to assume, without evidence, that industries that "produce" intellectual property automatically require intellectual property laws and protectionism. Figuring out which industries produce a lot of intellectual property says nothing about whether or not those industries actually need intellectual property laws, or if those laws are helpful or harmful. When you set up to study something based on faulty assumptions, the end results will not be helpful.

All in all the report clearly tries to paint a rosy picture, but in leaving out the failures and being quite misleading in other parts, this really is a work of fiction, not reality.

Filed Under: copyright, enforcement, ip enforcement, ipec, victoria espinel, white house

US Begins Process Of Forcing Extreme IP Enforcement Across Africa

from the is-this-really-what-africa-needs? dept

We've noted a few times recently that over the last few years WIPO has at least appeared to be more receptive to views from developing nations that strict copyright and patent enforcement could do a lot more damage than good. There are actually tons of compelling economic evidence that developing countries are best off mostly ignoring IP laws as they grow. Hell, the US is example number one of a country that completely ignored foreign IP laws while it developed, much to its advantage. Of course, the US, which leads the developed countries these days, absolutely hates this concept and has taken a strong maximalist position that all countries must respect US IP laws (or go even further). A big part of the reason that ACTA was negotiated outside of WIPO was because WIPO was actually listening to countries like Brazil and India that were expressing concerns about over-enforcement and the harms it created.

However, WIPO itself has expressed concerns about this... but rather than working to convince the US that its approach is incorrect, it looks like WIPO may be going back in the other direction of supporting pure maximalism (i.e., the US agenda). Witness the ridiculous situation shaping up in Africa, where "WIPO" is organizing a "training" program about intellectual property that appears to have been entirely created by the US. It's scheduled to take place in South Africa in April, but it's strictly focused on enforcement and concepts that the US supports, rather than more reasoned issues about what countries in Africa actually need:

“It’s as if the last five years didn’t happen – no WIPO Development Agenda, no discussion on copyright limitations and exceptions, no proposals in favour of libraries and archives, education, blind and visually impaired people,” said Teresa Hackett, Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL). “But they did happen, and we will work to ensure that delegates attending the African IP Forum hear a diversity of opinion and perspective, and have the opportunity to debate these issues that are critically important to libraries in Africa and around the world.”

People discussing it note that this meeting doesn't appear to really be about effective intellectual property, but about setting the stage to force ACTA or ACTA-style agreements across Europe:

A particular concern of NGOs is that the conference will advance anti-counterfeiting legislation across Africa that will lead to damaging restrictions to the local populations and economies. They also raised alarm that the conference does not appear to include discussion on how to use the hard-won flexibilities that developing countries are allowed to employ so as not to apply IP rights if not in their national interest.

Furthermore, groups worried about this meeting note that the event is sponsored by private groups who have strong interests in greater IP enforcement, rather than the interests of what's best for various African nations. Among the sponsors is the International Chamber of Commerce's Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP). From that, it's pretty clear that the entire meeting's goals are suspect.

If there's going to be an effort by the international community to explore IP issues in Africa, the least they could do is acknowledge the fact that IP laws are supposed to be about what's best for the people, not what's best for big international corporations who want to maximize profit from African markets. But thanks to US involvement, that doesn't seem possible.

Filed Under: africa, extremes, ip enforcement, us, wipo
Companies: chamber of commerce

Senate Oversight Of IP Czar... Only Involves Entertainment Industry Execs

from the that's-oversight? dept

The ProIP Act added the role of the IP Enforcement Coordinator, a role that was filled by Victoria Espinel. We have been quite concerned that Espinel has viewed her role as protecting jobs in one particular industry (often at the expense of jobs and progress elsewhere) -- a concern that was not alleviated by Espinel's request for input on what she should focus on. That request made all sorts of assumptions about the impact of intellectual property infringement that were not actually supported by fact. Mike Arrington also reported recently on a meeting with Espinel where she made it clear that her role was to help the entertainment industry.

So, it's unfortunate, but hardly a surprise that the Senate's hearing on "oversight" of Espinel's work involves only people on the entertainment industry's side. The panel who will discuss Espinel's performance includes the CEO of Warner Bros., the CEO of the "Global IP Center" of the Chamber of Commerce (whose views on IP are positively neanderthal, complete with some of the most ridiculous studies), the CEO of Carlin America (a music publisher) and the president of the AFL-CIO, who has already done some horse trading to be an official representative of the RIAA's position.

Talk about regulatory capture. It's as if the Senate is admitting that the role of the IP Enforcement Coordinator is to be the entertainment industry's top cop, and her performance will be reviewed by the industry itself. The Constitution says that copyright and patents are for the purpose of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts." But that's not what Espinel is doing. She's protecting a particular industry, often at the expense of progress. To then have her review be done by such a one-sided panel of folks -- folks who are receiving extreme benefits from her role -- is just ridiculous.

Filed Under: congress, ip enforcement, ipec, oversight, proip, victoria espinel