EU Blocks 'Brexit Beer' Trademark, First As 'Offensive', Then As Non-Distinctive

from the any-means-possible dept

Brexit, as most of you will know, is still a full on mess. And, frankly, it's been a mess since the historic vote was taken and the British public rode a wave of nationalism draped in false promises to decide to economically scuttle their own country. In the nearly three years since, the British government has managed to put on an impressive performance piece on dysfunctional government, managing to refuse to agree on how to actually implement the will of their own people.

At the same time that all of this has been going on, some opportunistic folks have been attempting to cash in on the Brexit story by trademarking the term, without even having a plan for how to use those marks. As we've pointed out in past posts, this sort of attempt to cash in is fully annoying, but not illegal. Which makes it sort of strange to watch the EU throw everything against the wall just to see what's sticky enough to deny a UK brewer his trademark for Brexit Beer.

Upon first reviewing the application, the EU's IPO denied it on the insane grounds that the term "Brexit" is offensive.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (Euipo) denied a trademark for a ‘Brexit’ energy beverage back in 2016 after ruling the term was too ‘offensive’ to put on a can. An official had felt ‘citizens across the EU would be deeply offended’ and it would ‘undermine the weight of an expression denoting a seminal moment in the history of the European Union.’

The two men that owned the brewery were understandably confused when told they couldn't have a trademark because a term thrown around their own country with reckless abandon was too offensive. It sure looked for all the world like the EU simply didn't want to put its stamp of approval on the term "Brexit" due to its own political distaste for it. That sure makes more sense than the odd claim that 'Brexit' is going to offend people if given trademark status.

So the brewery appealed... and was denied again. Only this time, the excuse was that the term "Brexit" was not distinctive.

This time the Grand Board ruled the word ‘Brexit’ was not ‘distinctive’ enough rather than being offensive, which it rejected. It ruled in its final judgement: ‘The term “Brexit” denotes a sovereign political decision, taken legally and has no negative moral connotations; it is not a provocation or incitement to crime or disorder.

But how does this make any more sense? As we've said, it's annoying when corporate interests attempt to cash in on pop and political culture with trademark law, but it's not against trademark law to do so. And a "Brexit Beer" certainly would be distinctive in the alcohol industry. The craft beer industry in particular has made an industry culture out of playfully referencing all sorts of things with their names and labels. I could see all kinds of creative ways for a "Brexit Beer" to be distinctive.

Again, this has the look and feel of the EU making these decisions for political reasons outside the purpose of trademark law. While we don't spend much effort around here arguing for more trademarks, it's worth pointing out when government bodies reject those trademarks improperly as well.

Filed Under: beer, brexit, eu ipo, ipo, trademark

UK Begins Absolutely Bonkers 'Education' Of Grade Schoolers About Intellectual Property And Piracy

from the hey-teacher-leave-those-kids-alone dept

Several years ago, a music industry transplant into Parliament, Mike Weatherley, made a glorious push to get the government to invade primary schools in the country to teach them that piracy is the worst thing in the world and intellectual property laws are super cool. Children as young as seven years old would be subjected to "educational information" provided by the government on the "proper" use of the internet. This was not the first attempt at pushing copyright propaganda on kids. In fact, we've reported on many of these, going all the way back to 2003 -- and many of the programs have been mockable, including the infamous Captain Copyright.

You would think that maybe those producing this propaganda would realize that it basically always is a flop as kids are smart enough to see through it -- and that their attempts to be cool and hip tend to come off as insane. But... the UK has pushed forward with this plan, and you have no fucking idea how insane it actually is.

Part of the education features a fictitious cartoon band called Nancy and the Meerkats. With help from their manager, they learn key copyright insights and this week several new videos were published, BBC points out.

The videos try to explain concepts including copyright, trademarks, and how people can protect the things they’ve created. Interestingly, the videos themselves use names of existing musicians, with puns such as Ed Shealing, Justin Beaver, and the evil Kitty Perry. Even Nancy and the Meerkats appears to be a play on the classic 1970s cartoon series Josie and the Pussycats, featuring a pop band of the same name.

As TorrentFreak points out, the inclusion of a parody of Ed Sheeran is more than a bit eyebrow-raising, considering just how open to and grateful for piracy and filesharing Sheeran has been. For the government to hijack his likeness for a parody that takes the opposite view is, at the very least, uncouth. If it seems odd that a series of videos extolling the virtues of intellectual property rights makes such liberal use of parody to play on well-known entertainment stars, well, just take a look at the government's video trying to explain parody and fair use and picture a bunch of first-through-fifth graders taking this all in.

Beyond how vomit-inducing the video is generally, one wonders just how closely the message in the video overlaps with actual UK law. While UK law is more stringent on free speech when it comes to so-called "insulting" speech, it seems far too simple an explanation to state that any parody that is found insulting would be illegal. Let's say, for instance, that Ed Sheeran considers this parody depiction of him, complete with an anti-piracy message that comes off as the opposite of his own, is insulting. Is the UK's IPO really saying that its own video suddenly becomes illegal?

Now, while the videos generally tread upon long-debunked ground...

After the Meerkats found out that people were downloading their tracks from pirate sites and became outraged, their manager Big Joe explained that file-sharing is just the same as stealing a CD from a physical store.

“In a way, all those people who downloaded free copies are doing the same thing as walking out of the shop with a CD and forgetting to go the till,” he says.

“What these sites are doing is sometimes called piracy. It not only affects music but also videos, books, and movies.If someone owns the copyright to something, well, it is stealing. Simple as that,” Big Joe adds.

...there is also some almost hilarious over-statements on the importance of this messaging and intellectual property as a whole. For instance, were you aware that the reason it's so important to teach 7 year olds about copyright and trademark is because navigating intellectual property is a full-blown "life skill?"

According to Catherine Davies of IPO’s education outreach department, knowledge about key intellectual property issues is a “life skill” nowadays.

“In today’s digital environment, even very young people are IP consumers, accessing online digital content independently and regularly,” she tells the BBC. “A basic understanding of IP and a respect for others’ IP rights is therefore a key life skill.”

It's enough to make you wonder if this is all just another example of a parody of those that push intellectual property rights education on school-aged children -- so ham-fisted is the execution and so wildly overstated is its importance.

Ultimately, we can likely rest easy, because children even as young as seven are far too smart and resourceful, not to mention critical in terms of entertainment, as to consider these videos to be anything other than the obvious propaganda that they are. One nearly hopes that some of these children will create their own parodies and put them up on that dangerous internet thing they've been warned about, with hopefully as much mean-spirit as their little psyches can conjure.

Filed Under: copyright, elementary school, fair use, ipo, kids, lessons, parody, propaganda, uk

Why Is The UK's Intellectual Property Office Praising National Portrait Gallery's Copyfraud Claims Over Public Domain Images?

from the wtf? dept

The other day I saw the following tweet and was very confused: That's a tweet from the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) asking how does the UK's National Portrait Gallery in London "manage the copyright of national treasures like Shakespeare?" My initial response, of course, was "Wait, Shakespeare is in the bloody public domain, you don't have any copyright to manage!" It seems rather easy to manage "the copyright" of Shakespeare when there is none. But it turns out the link is... even worse. It's to a blog post on the IPO website eagerly praising the National Portrait Gallery for engaging in out-and-out copyright fraud. You'd think that the Intellectual Property Office would recognize this, but it does not.

The tweet was doubly misleading, also, because it's not the works of William Shakespeare, but rather a portrait of William Shakespeare. The IPO then explains that the National Portrait Gallery is doing a brisk business licensing these public domain images, noting that:

According to the gallery’s most recent statistics – the top five individual portraits licensed from its website are, in descending order: William Shakespeare, Richard III, Queen Elizabeth 1, King John and King Henry V.

Obviously, all of those portraits were created centuries ago -- and are in the public domain. So why is the National Portrait Gallery licensing them at all? Well, I'm pretty sure this goes back to an issue we've written about quite some time ago. While in the US the caselaw is clear that merely digitizing public domain images does not create a new copyright, the National Portrait Gallery in London has always taken the opposite view. Back in 2009, we wrote about this very same museum threatening Wikimedia Commons for posting scans of high resolution images of public domain works that were downloaded from the NPG's website.

But, here's the thing: just a few months ago, we wrote that the UK Intellectual Property Office (the same organization as above) had declared that scans of public domain works are also in the public domain in Europe (including the UK... for now at least). Here's what the UK's IPO said just months ago about copyright on scans of public domain images:

However, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own 'intellectual creation'. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as 'original'. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.

And, then, just months later, it's praising the National Portrait Gallery for falsely claiming copyright on such images and on then fraudulently profiting by licensing those images based on copyrights it doesn't hold? And the IPO's whole focus seems to be on just how much money can be made here. Read this and try not to feel sick:

Online availability and easy access to images and other data are crucial aspects of modern museum and library curation. Huge databases of valuable information are available. Users need to know where to find these resources and how to use them without infringing copyright. Museums and libraries are developing strategies to improve access for researchers, to give access to businesses users who want to develop their own intellectual property (IP) by using cultural resources and develop their own brands and merchandising.

Mathew Bailey, Rights and Images Manager at the National Portrait Gallery, balances the high wire between providing public access to our shared national assets and the need to encourage, develop and supply the creative economy with legally certain, quantifiable, marketable IP. The commodity he deals in – our heroes – couldn’t be more volatile.

Then, to make matters even stupider, the UK's Intellectual Property Office notes that no one has any idea who created any of these top portraits:

It’s no accident the names of the artists who painted the UK’s top five portraits are uncertain - King John looks like he’s just sat on a thistle, whereas Richard III only half fills his canvas. The lives of Richard III, King John and Henry V were all dramatised by Shakespeare during the reign of Elizabeth I. She was an image conscious monarch in the first age of mass communication and Shakespeare was her blockbuster dramatist. Shakespeare’s narratives add value and are the real reason why he, Richard, Elizabeth, John and Henry are still top of the portrait pops.

It didn't occur to Dan Anthony, who wrote this article, to recognize the absurdity of the fact that the National Portrait Gallery is claiming a copyright in works where it doesn't even know the name of the artists who created those works? Holy crap. How does the UK IPO find these people?

Oh, and then the article ends with this:

All images © National Portrait Gallery, London.

Bloody hell. They are not. They're in the public domain. Here's Shakespeare's portrait: You can find it, accurately listed as being in the public domain over at Wikipedia. Dan Anthony at the UK IPO is incredibly misinformed, and he should ask his own colleagues, who just months ago made it clear that such images were in the public domain, before posting such ridiculousness on the IPO's website.

Filed Under: copyfraud, copyright, ipo, licensing, national portrait gallery, portraits, public domain, scanning, uk, william shakespeare

As UK Piracy Falls To Record Lows, Government Still Wants To Put Pirates In Jail For 10 Years

from the maybe-there's-another-way dept

Last fall, our think tank, the Copia Institute, released a paper, The Carrot or the Stick? which detailed how innovation in the form of convenient, appealing and reasonably priced legal content streaming services appeared to be the most powerful tool in reducing piracy. The report looked at a number of different data sources and situations in multiple different countries. And what we found, over and over again, was pretty straightforward: ratcheting up enforcement or punishment did not work -- or, if it did work, it only worked exceptionally briefly. However, by introducing good, convenient authorized services, piracy rates fell, like off a cliff. We saw this pattern repeated over and over again.

And yet... instead of seeing policymakers and legacy content companies pursue strategies to encourage more innovation and more competition in authorized services, they continually focus on enforcement and punishment. This makes no sense at all. Take the situation in the UK, for example. Last week, the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) came out with a report noting that piracy in the UK had dropped significantly in the wake of authorized streaming services like Spotify and Netflix entering the market. The full report is worth reading and pretty clearly suggests -- as our own report last year did -- that having good authorized services in place is the best way to reduce piracy.

The IPO’s report, carried out by research group Kantar Media, suggested a strong link between the rise of such services and falling piracy. 80pc of music listeners now use exclusively legal means, up from 74pc a year ago

This is all great and consistent with what we found in basically every country we looked at. But that's why it's equally troubling that, rather than supporting that innovative ecosystem that is successfully diminishing piracy, the UK's IPO has moved forward with its ridiculous plan to jail pirates for 10 years. As we described in great detail a few months ago, the IPO's support of 10-year prison sentences for copyright infringement was not only based on no actual data, and pulled out of thin air, but it directly contradicted numerous studies on the deterrence effect of longer prison sentences.

I spoke to people at the IPO (many of whom are quite reasonable) after the recommendation came out, and they insisted that the 10-year prison sentence would only be used for "true criminals" and not just people sharing files online. They apparently also promised Open Rights Group that the specifics would be clarified in the final bill so as not to target ordinary people file sharing online -- but that's not what happened:

Partly in an attempt to deal with headlines that this was “10 years for filesharing", the IPO has rewritten the definition of criminal liability. They told us during meetings that the new definition would make it very clear that ordinary internet users - including filesharers - would not be targeted, and raising the penalty would also mean narrowing its application to real criminals. Unfortunately the final draft appears to be as bad or worse than the original, with a very low threshold of “having a reason to believe” that the right holder will be exposed to “a risk of loss”.

So, what the hell is going on at the IPO over there? They have clear research showing that a massively effective way to reduce piracy is to get more good, convenient authorized services. And they have no research backing up the idea that increased prison sentences will reduce infringement. And yet, which one have they doubled down on?

This is why people have so little respect for copyright law and why we so often refer to it as "faith-based" policy making. The evidence clearly points in one directly, and the powers that be, instead, go in the other direction, against all the evidence, because some people "feel" that piracy must be punished to make it stop.

Filed Under: carrot, competition, copyright, enforcement, innovation, ipo, piracy, stick, uk

UK Gov't Pushing For 10-Year Jail Sentences For Copyright Infringement Based On ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

from the faith-based-policy dept

For many years, we've pointed out that so much policymaking around copyright law is what we'd argue to be purely "faith-based." The fact that there is little to no actual evidence that stronger copyright protections lead to better outcomes for the public, the economy or for society is ignored by people who just know it must be true. And the constant assertions about extending and expanding copyright always seem to come from this same faith-based positioning. An exploration into the empirical basis for copyright law finds that there basically is none and the reason we have copyright is because a couple of centuries ago some people thought it was a good idea, and no one's really bothered to check since then.

One of the most ridiculous examples of this "faith-based" reasoning is the belief, among many, that the way to stop widespread copyright infringement is just to increase the punishment for those who are caught. Sure, you can understand the armchair economists' reasoning here: if you increase the punishment, you're increasing the "cost," which should decrease the activity. But, that's just wrong on many, many levels. First, let's take a step out of the copyright realm and into the criminal justice realm. After vastly expanding punishment (via things like "three strikes" laws), many, many people (even those who supported such programs) are now admitting that long sentences don't actually do much to deter crime. While there were some studies in the 80s and 90s suggesting long sentences reduce crime, more recent (and much more thorough) studies have basically rejected that view. A recent survey of many studies in the area found little support for the idea that longer sentences deter criminal activity.

A bunch of other, even more recent, studies agree. A massive report from the University of Toronto goes through the history of the support for harsher sentencing, and a ton of historical and modern research, and concludes:

At this point, we think it is fair to say that we know of no reputable criminologist who has looked carefully at the overall body of research literature on “deterrence through sentencing” who believes that crime rates will be reduced, through deterrence, by raising the severity of sentences handed down in criminal courts.

The evidence supporting this conclusion has been accumulating for decades. In the 1970s, thoughtful reviewers were cautious in their conclusions, suggesting only that the deterrent impact of harsh sentences had not been adequately demonstrated. More recently, we, and others, have been more definitive in our conclusions: crime is not deterred, generally, by harsher sentences.

Another major study, from two years ago, by the National Research Council more or less says the same thing: "the evidence base demonstrates that lengthy prison sentences are ineffective as a crime control measure." Another recent research report, which also delves deeply into the arguments from the 70s and 80s now concludes: "The empirical work of the past thirty-five years has presented evidence that some of the deterrence we thought that we were likely to get was not, in fact, forthcoming.... " Hell, even the National Institute of Justice, the "evaluation" agency that's a part of the US Justice Department (which regularly pushes for harsher punishment) says directly on its website:

Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.

Laws and policies designed to deter crime are ineffective partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes. Seeing a police officer with handcuffs and a radio is more likely to influence a criminal’s behavior than passing a new law increasing penalties.

That same page further notes that "sending an offender to prison isn't a very effective way to deter crime."

At this point, you have to be willfully ignoring the evidence to argue that throwing people in jail for a long time is a way to deter crime. The reasons why the simple theory at the top of this post is wrong are that (1) most people committing crimes don't expect to get caught and (2) many people who are committing crimes don't even know what punishment might be, or vastly misunderstand the likely punishment.

Okay, so let's jump back into the copyright world. For reasons that are beyond comprehension, the UK government has announced plans to try to put copyright infringers in jail for 10 years. The UK's Intellectual Property Office recently released a report, following a consultation on this issue, in which it clearly supports a 10-year sentence for infringement, arguing:

The UK is frequently cited as the world leader in IP enforcement, and as Minister for IP I want to do everything I can to preserve this standing. The provision of a maximum ten year sentence is designed to send a clear message to criminals that exploiting the intellectual property of others online without their permission not acceptable.

The report also states, unequivocally:

The Government believes that online offences should be treated no less seriously than their physical counterparts. Harmonising these will provide a deterrent effect to criminals and, where criminality continues, provide for tangible punitive action.

Notice, of course, that there is no citation for this view. And, also, the fact that it clearly contradicts a ton of empirical research, as discussed above. Perhaps noticing the same thing, Kieren McCarthy at the Register sent a FOIA request to the Intellectual Property Office asking them where the 10 year maximum sentence idea came from. The answer? The IPO just made it up based on... nothing.

Such information was derived from our analysis of the evidence and opinion provided to us by a wide spectrum of interested parties, over the consultation period.

No empirical understanding of the issues of punishment and deterrence. No actual understanding of the issues. Just a bunch of people gave us their opinions, and we just plucked 10 years out of thin air. And, of course, as McCarthy notes, even that line above is clearly untruthful, since the vast, vast majority of the submissions provided to the IPO opposed the 10-year sentence proposal, which the IPO then stuck with anyway. In the IPO's response to McCarthy, it also cited a couple of studies concerning copyright, but both of those studies advise against such an increase in sentencing.

So it appears that the Intellectual Property Office is focused on increasing criminal penalties for copyright infringement to 10 years in jail based on proactively and willfully ignoring the empirical evidence both in the criminal justice world and in the copyright world.

And then they wonder why the public doesn't respect copyright law?

Filed Under: copyright, deterrence, evidence based, facts, faith based, ipo, jail terms, punishment, sentencing, uk

UK Intellectual Property Office Plays Up Imaginary 'Toxic' Claim In Grabbing Food Pretending To Be From Somewhere Else

from the grab,-go-and-exaggerate dept

When it comes to regulatory enforcement, agencies are often at a loss to try and spin actions as somehow being positive. Often such seizures are seen as petty and overreaching acts focusing on business protectionism or the shutting down threats to tax revenue (permanently in some cases) by regular people, meaning that getting public support for them can be an uphill struggle. Alcohol taxes are so unpopular that it's the origin behind one of the most popular sports in the US – NASCAR. Thus it's tempting to try and upsell things by stretching claims beyond all credulity, as the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) departments did recently.

Facebook followers of the IPO were confronted with this story just recently: "Campaign cracks down on toxic fake alcohol" screams the headline, with the comment that thousands of liters were seized in Operation OPSON (a name that looks like it was short for "operation poison"). A serious bust of dangerous goods clearly, and clearly the agencies are doing a great job protecting the country, so share it and back to cat pictures.

Or you could actually read the article itself, and find the story isn't quite as portrayed, and no cyanide-filled bottles cosplaying as spirituous liquors were annihilated by brave officials. For that matter, not only is OPSON not a veiled reference to poison, it's not even a priority. At the head of "notes to editors," Operation OPSON is described quite differently:

"Operation OPSON, jointly run by Interpol and Europol, began in 2011 to tackle the criminal production and sale of counterfeit 'protected food name' products, such as gorgonzola or champagne. It is now an international project that regularly sees the seizure of hundreds of tonnes of fake and substandard food."

That's right, international police agencies are running an operation to seize food not because they are bad, dangerous, or harmful, but because they weren't made in an approved locale. While some are fairly evident and obvious, such as lamb or beef labelled "scotch" or "welsh," others are less-so. A Cornish pasty made in Devon or Derbyshire isn't actually a Cornish pasty, because it wasn't made in Cornwall. Likewise if you were to make Feta cheese, you can't actually call it Feta, unless the sheep/goat milk came from Greece. Even Belgium has wanted in on the act for its chocolate industry.

The food is fake (and presumed sub-standard) not because it's not that food, but because the place that made it wasn't within a certain circle on a map, even if it's absolutely identical and indistinguishable from the same product made inside that circle. This was never more evident than in 2007, when the protections around "Newcastle Brown Ale" were lifted… because the Scottish & Newcastle brewery wanted to move outside the circle.

But what of the toxic alcohol seized by the gallon? Well, like the goods themselves, it's not what it appears. The 2,421.5 liters grabbed by authorities are in their own words mostly "...for fake or fiscal infringing wines and spirits." Not because they were dangerous, but because of tax evasion, or trademark violations. So where's the "toxic" issue in the headline?

The poison comes from a raid in Derbyshire, where:

"There was little of the finished product or the raw materials (Coolex screenwash) in the unit but a large quantity of bottles, tops and boxes."

Never mind, because:

"A small amount of the finished product was identified, and on examination was found to contain high levels of iso-propanol. Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) causes intense drunkenness, is often used in cleaning chemicals."

The question is, was that actually the finished product, or one that was put aside because it had those high levels? Moreover, it's not exactly the most toxic, as the LD50 (lethal dose) for a rat orally is 5045 mg per kilogram. Compare with, say, ethanol ("good" alcohol), at 3450 mg per kilogram of mouse. Probably why even their expert, Visiting Professor at the University of Reading, Tony Hines had to say:

"...even at low levels, a 'couple of doubles' will cause dizziness, low blood pressure, abdominal pain and nausea."

Not exactly "toxic" though, or all that different from regular booze, let's be fair. In fact, the major difference is that isopropyl alcohol is just more potent than ethanol. So, to drive home the seriousness of this, they close with the following paragraph.

"In 2012, methanol poisoning from fake vodka resulted in the deaths of 50 people in the Czech Republic. In 2014, 2 men were sentenced to life imprisonment for their part in this tragedy, and many others sentenced to 14 to 20 years for their part. Eighty survivors were blinded as a result of consuming the poison."

Not to be flippant about it (the incident has killed 51), but this was an incident that happened 30 months ago 1500 km away. It even used a different chemical (methanol), so its inclusion is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand, and is there solely to try and justify tax and trademark-based raids and seizures as being about safety, and pump up the "shareability" factor by giving them a excuse to hang "toxic" in the headline.

Now, don't get me wrong, tainted and unsafe goods are bad, there's no doubt about that. Yet if you're going to try and play up a safety angle, then you really have to have a safety problem to hang your hat on. The vodka made from screenwash might be disturbing to some, but "toxic fake alcohol" is pushing it, when even if every drop of vodka they seized (171.1 liters) that year were high in isopropyl alcohol, it's only 7% of the total seized. And yet we know they didn't grab anywhere near that amount, because more than 240 bottles of the stuff is hardly "little of the finished product," a description which would seem to me to indicate a dozen liters or less. And since they found only empties, it means it's already gone out, so they've not really "cracked down" on it either.

Overall, the only toxic thing seems to be the press release, and then only for any journalist sloppy enough to regurgitate it without bothering to read it. That's probably why, on Twitter, where pushback, feedback and replies are harder to bury, there's absolutely no mention of "toxic" at all.

That's because when it comes to poisonous, nothing beats hyperbolic government press releases for leaving good will stone dead.

Filed Under: bis, exaggeration, food, geographical indication, ipo, seizing, seizures, toxic, uk

City Of London Police Fail And Censor Their Way To A Lot More UK Taxpayer Money

from the censor-your-way-to-the-top dept

We've written plenty about the City of London Police and its Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU), which despite an official jurisdiction covering a square mile of London, has made it clear that it considers itself Hollywood's private police force worldwide when it comes to stopping copyright infringement online. PIPCU has basically been a bumbling, censoring mess from the beginning. A year ago, it started ordering domain registrars to kill off websites with no court order and no legal basis -- demands that actually violated ICANN's policies. For registrars that ignored those baseless, bogus censorship demands, PIPCU started sending ridiculous threats claiming that they were engaged in criminal behavior. Of course, PIPCU's understanding of both the internet and "criminal" laws is suspect. The head of the unit, Adrian Leppard, claims that "the Tor" is "90% of the internet" and "is a risk to society." Another top officer, Andy Fyfe, somehow believes that if PIPCU isn't running around censoring sites there would be anarchy online.

Of course, it's not just crazy statements and bogus threats. PIPCU is actually causing real damage. It has built a secret pirate blacklist over which there is no transparency, no due process and no appeal. On some of those sites, it is injecting advertisements that are mockably ridiculous (though the injections are potentially illegal in their own right). Much more troubling is that PIPCU has been completely shutting down websites and privacy services with no legal basis at all. And, when they did actually arrest someone -- claiming "industrial scale" infringement -- the eventual details were so weak that the case was completely dropped in a matter of weeks.

Given the Keystone e-Cops nature of the City of London Police's PIPCU, you'd think that, maybe, just maybe, it would be time to disband PIPCU and let the City of London Police get back to protecting London's banks (its other main pasttime). Instead, the UK government has just given PIPCU a raise, dumping £3 million of UK taxpayer money into the group to continue its bumbling, censoring, technologically clueless ways. While I'm sure this makes some increasingly obsolete gatekeepers happy, it's hard to see how this helps content creators or the public in any way at all.

Filed Under: censorship, city of london police, copyright, copyright cops, infringement, ipo, pipcu, uk

Adding Condoleezza Rice To Dropbox's Board Seems Incredibly Tone Deaf Following NSA Concerns

from the it's-a-competitve-market dept

Dropbox is probably the most well-known of the cloud storage providers out there, and it's angling for an IPO. As such, it recently made some changes in its management, including a bit of news that is getting a fair bit of attention: adding Condoleezza Rice to its board. Rice's consulting firm has apparently been advising the company for the past year, and the announcement says that the former Secretary of State will help Dropbox navigate "international expansion and privacy" issues. While she's certainly qualified to help with international issues, it's the privacy issues that are raising significant concern among many.

“As a country, we are having a great national conversation and debate about exactly how to manage privacy concerns,” Rice says about her new position. “I look forward to helping Dropbox navigate it.”

Except, of course, a big part of that "great national conversation" are revelations that involve warrantless spying -- and Rice was a big part of enabling that warrantless spying. When she was Secretary of State, she defended the warrantless wiretapping program by saying:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended Bush's actions, telling "Fox News Sunday" the president had authorized the National Security Agency "to collect information on a limited number of people with connections to al Qaeda."

Except, as we've learned from various leaks since then, the definitions that were used of "limited" and "connections to al Qaeda" in the sentence above are not the same definitions most English speakers would use. The program was not very limited and the necessary connections were barely present. Besides, to this day, no one has given a reasonable explanation for why a warrant shouldn't be used in such situations anyway. If there really are a limited number of people they want info on who have connections to al Qaeda, getting a warrant should be easy enough.

Furthermore, Rice also authorized the NSA to spy on the UN Security Council to find out what they were thinking about the US going to war in Iraq back in 2003.

President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office telephones and monitor private email accounts of members of the United Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the way for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.

Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know how delegates were going to vote. Rice did not immediately return a call for comment.

As for Dropbox, there have certainly been quite a few concerns about how private your data is on the site. When the first slides about PRISM came out, it was noted that Dropbox was about to become a part of the program. And while the fears about PRISM are greatly overstated, Dropbox has been fighting against public perception over this for some time. Dropbox's CEO, Drew Houston, spoke out against the NSA's efforts at the State of the Net conference back in January, and the company recently changed its privacy policies to address concerns about NSA spying. The company has also taken a strong stand saying that it will protect users' data against blanket government requests and backdoors.

Those were all good moves, that should have calmed many people's fears -- but to then appoint Rice to the board, and have her handling "privacy" issues basically blasts a major hole in that. I'm less inclined than some to simply assume this means bad things for Dropbox's privacy efforts in general. But from a public perception standpoint, this move does come across as exceptionally tone deaf by Dropbox. People are already raising concerns, and a basic Twitter search shows a bunch of people both raising concerns and looking for alternatives to Dropbox. And, of course, someone has already set up an entire website about why people should drop Dropbox over this move.

At a time when people around the globe are increasingly worried about American tech firms having too close a connection to the intelligence community, a move like this seems like a huge public relations disaster. While Rice may be perfectly qualified to hold the role and to help Dropbox with the issues it needs help with, it's hard not to believe that there would be others with less baggage who could handle the job just as well.

Filed Under: condoleeza rice, international expansion, ipo, nsa, privacy, surveillance, warrantless wiretaps
Companies: dropbox