Tomorrow: Internet Freedom Experts Team Up For A Giant Reddit AMA

from the join-us dept

All day tomorrow, Wednesday, October 24, a bunch of people heavily involved in internet freedom causes -- from the SOPA fight to the Declaration for Internet Freedom to work around cybersecurity and the fight against ACTA/TPP are all teaming up for a giant Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything -- or, basically, a big Q&A session). I'm included as one of the folks taking part, but there are plenty of much more interesting people involved, including Alexis Ohanian (Reddit, HipMunk, Breadpig), Ben Huh (Cheezburger), Michael Geist (Canadian copyright expert), along with people from EFF, Public Knowledge, Public Citizen, Open Media, ACLU and a bunch of others as well. It's basically going to go all day, starting from 9am ET. So stop by, ask some questions, and talk about internet freedom... Update: The link to the AMA.

Filed Under: alexis ohanian, ama, ask me anything, ben huh, copyright, internet freedom, michael geist, sopa
Companies: reddit

Canada Post Claims Copyright Over Postal Codes, Meets Resistance

from the it's-precedent-setting-time dept

A few years ago, we wrote about the UK's Royal Mail using a dubious copyright claim to bully a website into shutting down because it offered postal code data. In that case, the company chose not to fight the claim—and yet not long afterwards, UK officials decided to free up postal code data. Now, Michael Geist reports that a similar conflict is brewing in Canada—except this time, the company is fighting back:

Canada Post has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Geolytica, which operates GeoCoder.ca, a website that provides several geocoding services including free access to a crowdsourced compiled database of Canadian postal codes. Canada Post argues that it is the exclusive copyright holder of all Canadian postal codes and claims that GeoCoder appropriated the database and made unauthorized reproductions.

GeoCoder, which is being represented by CIPPIC, filed its statement of defence yesterday (I am on the CIPPIC Advisory Board but have not been involved in the case other than providing a referral to CIPPIC when contacted by GeoCoder's founder). The defence explains how GeoCoder managed to compile a postal code database by using crowdsource techniques without any reliance on Canada Post's database. The site created street address look-up service in 2004 with users often including a postal code within their query. The site retained the postal code information and gradually developed its own database with the postal codes (a system not unlike many marketers that similarly develop databases by compiling this information).

GeoCoder is putting forth a huge array of defenses. They point out that postal codes, as facts, should not be copyrightable, that Canada Post's copyright claim over the database itself is questionable, that even if such copyright exists their crowdsourced database is not infringing, that free postal code data is in the public interest, and that Canada Post's complaint represents anti-competitive copyright misuse. As such, this will prove to be a test case for a bunch of legal questions that have yet to be fully answered by Canadian courts.

Ultimately, attempting to control postal codes makes no sense. Making it harder for people to utilize them and build services around them just decimates their purpose, and speeds their path to irrelevance in a world with lots of much better and more accessible location data—not to mention a world where physical locations and permanent addresses matter less and less for many purposes. It also seems entirely unfair: since postal codes are required for all sorts of things, including most interactions with the government, how can Canada Post (a state-owned corporation) restrict access to them? All these arguments and more are likely to be raised, and could attract some interesting interveners to the case. This will definitely be a trial to watch.

Filed Under: canada, crowdsourcing, databases, michael geist, postal codes
Companies: canada post

Workshop Audience Barred From 'Demonstrating' Approval Of Michael Geist's ACTA Takedown

from the this-is-openness? dept

Although ACTA has now been referred by the European Commission to the European Court of Justice, it continues its passage through the various committees of the European Parliament, each of which will provide input on the final decision of whether to ratify ACTA or not. The first of these took place last week, when the International Trade (INTA) committee had a preliminary ACTA workshop. This included hearing from external experts, one of whom was Michael Geist, well known to Techdirt readers.

It will come as no surprise to learn that his ten-minute speech succeeded in distilling the key flaws of ACTA in a highly-accessible way that left the treaty's supporters desperately trying to undo the damage to their arguments for the rest of the day -- and failing.

You can either watch the video (embedded above), or read the text -- they offer perhaps the best summary of ACTA's problems so far, and are highly recommended. Since some of the points he made have been discussed elsewhere, I'll focus here on the issues he covered that haven't received so much attention.

After summarizing his views as "ACTA’s harm greatly exceeds its potential benefits", Geist broke down his analysis into three parts: the process, substance and likely effectiveness of ACTA. On the process, he made this great point that hasn't been brought out much before:

All countries and stakeholders benefit from a well-functioning international intellectual property governance model led by WIPO and the WTO. Ratification of ACTA will undermine the authority of those institutions, causing immeasurable harm to the development of global IP norms. ACTA countries avoided WIPO due to gridlock concerns, but ratifying ACTA would perversely increase the likelihood of gridlock. For those countries participating in ACTA, the successful completion of the plurilateral model will only increase the incentives to by-pass WIPO as a forum for challenging, global issues. For those countries outside of ACTA, the relevance of WIPO will gradually diminish, as achieving consensus on their concerns may prove increasingly difficult.

That is, if ACTA is ratified it will harm a wide range of global bodies because of its go-it-alone approach. Of course, for the leading signatories -- the US and the EU -- that's a feature, not a bug, since they were finding it increasingly hard to impose their one-sided plans on global institutions where the rising BRICS economies were beginning to assert themselves.

As far as ACTA's substance is concerned:

The net effect of these provisions [that signatories "may" implement] is to open the door to statutory damages, detain in-transit goods, disclose information to rights holders, create criminal provisions for unauthorized camcording, and require Internet providers to disclose information about their subscribers.

While it is true that ACTA parties will not be required to implement these provisions in order to be compliant with the agreement, there will be considerable pressure to reinterpret these provisions as mandatory rather than permissive. Indeed, it is already happening as the IIPA, a rights holder lobby group, has recommended placing ACTA countries such as Greece, Spain, Romania, Latvia, Switzerland, Canada, and Mexico on the USTR piracy watch list for failing to include optional ACTA provisions in their domestic laws.

This is a crucial point. Defenders of ACTA emphasize that many of the worst provisions, detailed above, are optional -- signatories are not obliged to implement them. But as Geist points out, "may" has a habit of turning into "must", and he cites concrete evidence that the USTR is already working to make that happen.

In the same section, Geist also shows why claims that ACTA does not go beyond TRIPS are simply not true:

Unlike comparable international intellectual property agreements that have identified the need for balance and proportionality, ACTA is almost single-minded in its focus on increasing enforcement powers. ACTA Article 9 removes safeguards, ACTA Article 11 removes the proportionality provision found in the TRIPS equivalent, and ACTA Article 18 does not include rules for compensation in cases of wrongful detentions.

Finally, in the effectiveness section, he underlines the key failing of ACTA:

ACTA supporters may have believed that an agreement could best be achieved by bringing together a "coalition of the willing", but by limiting ACTA to predominantly developed world countries that are not typically associated with being major sources of counterfeit product, the agreement is seemingly designed to fail.

Geist's speech was greeted with rapturous applause by the vast majority of the 600 people who were present at the workshop -- an unusually large number for such meetings. One person who was visibly annoyed by this warm reception was the workshop's chairman, Vital Moreira, who declared:

you are not here to demonstrate; from now on, I will not allow any demonstration. Those who will infringe this rule will be kindly asked to leave the room.

That's rather rich, since he opened the session by claiming that the high attendance at the workshop "bears witness not only to the importance of this file, but also to the openness and transparency of this parliament, which in my view is second to none." Clearly, that openness only goes so far. The pointed contrast between his first and second thoughts on the subject can be enjoyed in the video below. Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: acta, eu, free speech, inta, michael geist

Hungarian Copyright Treaty Author Insists That Those Who Don't Like Anti-Circumvention Clauses Are 'Hatred-Driven' Maoists

from the ah,-language-choices dept

For nearly all of the history of copyright law, the law itself has been designed by and for a certain group of middlemen -- even as it was officially supposed to be about creating incentives for the creation of new, quality content. For this reason, copyright law has changed radically over the past three centuries, as those middlemen repeatedly strove to ratchet up and increase their monopoly rents. However, with the introduction of the internet and the personal computer, something unfortunate happened to the middlemen. They discovered that suddenly this cozy process of middlemen and politicians constantly ratcheting up monopoly protections ran into a bit of a speedbump: that ratcheting up interfered with the daily lives of millions of people online.

Because of that, over the past few years, a growing group of people have become increasingly vocal, in pointing out that the true purpose of copyright law should be to make sure it actually does increase the incentives for the creation of new works, rather than taking it on faith (and the sworn word of the middlemen). This has upset the middlemen greatly -- for historically they faced little to no opposition to their ongoing efforts to continually increase the monopoly rights granted to them.

Now facing serious opposition to these efforts for the first time, it appears that some of those involved in the cozy process of constantly ratcheting up copyright law (in one direction only) have decided that rather than present evidence as to why this is actually needed, they will simply break out two favorite mechanisms of the copyright maximalist arsenal: scream about "international obligations" over and over again... and when that fails, start the name calling.

Both are evident in an angry rant from Dr. Mihaly Ficsor, the President of the Hungarian Copyright Experts Council, and a former Assistant Director General of WIPO (i.e., the "old boys club" of folks who ratchet up copyright at every turn possible, based on faith alone, but not evidence of its need). Dr. Ficsor is particularly peeved at Michael Geist, for pushing back on the demands of other countries to radically change Canada's copyright laws. Dr. Fiscor's rant was posted to the blog of Barry Sookman, a Canadian copyright lawyer and lobbyist for the recording industry who has been a strong defender of secretive processes like ACTA negotiations and other attempts to change Canadian copyright laws on the whims of foreign middlemen, rather than any evidence of necessity.

I had thought that perhaps Dr. Ficsor's response would raise substantive issues concerning changes to copyright law, or perhaps (and this would be wonderful) present the actual evidence of why such changes are necessary. Tragically, there is none of that. It is blind faith-based pronouncements instead -- insisting that it's necessary because it's necessary, and then falling back on the mantra of "international obligations" for pretty much every other issue. Even on the one claim that he makes which he insists is substantive (that, despite not clearly saying so, these treaties do in fact require anti-circumvention clauses), he seems to purposely misrepresent history, pretending that he didn't lose this battle over a decade ago already.

At the end, it moves on to the pure insult phase:

I am sure that the policy makers of Canada do not allow being misled and frightened by the noisy group of these "free-access" "revolutionaries" (I hope so since, here in the former "socialist" countries of Central and Eastern Europe, we have had quite bad experience of certain "free access" "revolutionary" collectivist systems constrained on us for several decades). I am sure that they will not let Canada to become an isolated hostage and victim of demagogue campaigns organized in the hatred-driven style of Maoist Guards as during that other brilliant "cultural revolution."

Now, if you're at all familiar with the Maoist Cultural Revolution, to compare that to those who are simply pushing for their own consumer rights on copyright issues or asking for actual evidence of the need for increasingly draconian copyright system changes, is downright ridiculous and insulting. No one is acting as a revolutionary, demanding "free access" or any sort of "Maoist" revolution. To make such a claim is pure ignorance. While some may disagree with the position Geist and others have taken, they have presented a position based on consumer and individual rights and an understanding of basic legal principles and economics. You can disagree with the conclusions, but to mischaracterize them in such a ridiculous manner raises all sorts of questions about what the copyright "old guard" has to hide. If they cannot respond to basic questions with actual evidence or actual answers, and instead resort to name calling like Dr. Ficsor does above, it seems only reasonable to conclude that there is no evidence to support their position. And when hundreds of thousands of Canadians spoke up to point out the emperor has no clothes, perhaps it's not surprising that the emperor would lash out in anger, but it simply demonstrates how the "faith-based" nature of those pushing for ever more stringent copyright laws means that they cannot engage in reasoned debate on a position that has no reason behind it.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, lobbyists, michael geist, mihaly ficsor, trade agreements, wipo

Can The Public Be Heard On Copyright Issues?

from the one-hopes... dept

When it comes to copyright law, it's no secret that politicians tend to listen almost entirely to lobbyists, and pay no attention at all to the feelings of the public. There are a few different reasons for this (and, certainly it depends on each politician). In some cases, it's basic corruption. You listen to the folks who fund your campaign, and the entertainment industry can be a major contributor to elections. However, I think a bigger issue is that many politicians really do believe that the industry representatives best represent the needs of cultural society. This might be because they get starstruck in meeting rockstars and movie stars that the entertainment industry occasionally parades around, or it might be because they just don't know where else to turn to on these issues -- and simply assume that "who would know better the impact of copyright than those who seem to rely on the system."

For years, a growing number of folks have worked hard to try to amplify the public's voice on these issues. They've been trying to make it clear that greater copyright isn't an unequivocal "good thing" and that it has many real and significant downsides as well. The internet has been an amazing tool in making this happen, but it's still not enough. In the US, for example, I can count on the fingers of one hand how many politicians actually recognize the downsides to over protection from copyright... and still have enough fingers to wag at the rest of our elected officials. The situation in Canada appears to be just slightly better, however. Michael Geist deserves a lot of the credit for that. He was the one who rallied the public the last few years when Canadian politicians tried to rush through draconian copyright changes to the system, pushed directly by US copyright interests.

While some Canadian politicians appear to have recognized some of the issues, that doesn't mean most still aren't under the false belief that more copyright is good, and what the industry reps claim is "good" is actually good for the public. So, as the Canadian gov't has begun a consultation over new copyright laws, Geist is trying to make sure that the public's voice is actually heard this time. He's launched a website called Speak Out On Copyright that tries to track the online discussion (from all over the internet) on copyright issues and help the public become much more involved in the consultation process. He's also kicked it off with his own response to the consultation, which is well worth a read.

It's still an uphill battle. The recording industry has said that they thought the bill that died last year, which so many had protested as being way too draconian, was actually too tame and did not go far enough. They've asked for the moon -- including anti-circumvention clauses, three strikes and copyright term extension. And most politicians will still hear their voice the loudest, and think that it's representative. But maybe, just maybe, the actual public -- the real people impacted by these things -- can get their voice heard in a way that has a real impact and prevents new laws that don't serve the public, don't encourage more creativity and serve only to prop-up and protect one industry's old and obsolete business model.

Is it enough to make a difference? The fact that it actually exists is already a difference. It may not stop those powerful, connected and well-funded lobbyists from pushing through bad legislation, but hopefully the voice of the public will actually at least play a role in what happens.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, michael geist, public

The Conference Board Of Canada Recalls Three IP Reports; Admits Plagiarism

from the wow dept

Earlier this week, we noted the massive problems with a recent set of reports put out by The Conference Board of Canada about intellectual property in Canada. Based on highly questionable research with parts of it apparently copy/pasted from lobbyist reports, the whole thing was a mess, and a significant drain on The Conference Board of Canada's credibility as an impartial analyst on these sorts of issues. Michael Geist has been leading the charge in exposing these reports for what they are, and I recently agreed to team up with Geist (really: back him up by saying "yeah, what he said!" over and over again) in a debate with the Conference Board organized by the Mesh guys. Except... while waiting for The Conference Board to respond to the offer to debate, something quite surprising happened: the Conference Board of Canada has recalled all three IP reports and put out a statement reading:

The Conference Board of Canada has recalled three reports: Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Economy; National Innovation Performance and Intellectual Property Rights: A Comparative Analysis; and Intellectual Property Rights--Creating Value and Stimulating Investment. An internal review has determined that these reports did not follow the high quality research standards of The Conference Board of Canada.

Separately, the CEO of The Conference Board of Canada has supposedly admitted the report was plagiarized. Kudos to Michael Geist for his relentless following of this story, and making sure it got the attention it deserved... and kudos to The Conference Board of Canada for actually backing down (despite first defending the credibility of the report) once it realized how problematic it was. However, it is disappointing that it took massive publicity to get the company to recognize and admit the mistake. It's troubling that it would have put out lobbyist talking points in cut-and-paste fashion in the first place... and it makes you wonder if it's happened with other reports from The Conference Board of Canada. In the meantime, I guess this means I'm not flying to Toronto any time soon...

Filed Under: copyright, intellectual property, michael geist, plagiarism, recall, reports
Companies: the conference board of canada

How Canada Fought Bad Copyright Law: Showing Why Copyright Law Matters

from the sit-back-and-watch dept

You may recall, just about a year ago, there was suddenly a bunch of news over the possibility of Canada introducing its own version of the US's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). To the surprise of both the entertainment industry (who helped craft the law) and the politicians who were pushing it, the opposition to this law was incredibly successful in getting its message out. Starting with calls on various blogs and Facebook groups, kicked off by law professor Michael Geist, the issue became a big one throughout the media. The politicians who promised the entertainment industry that they would pass this law tried to delay the introduction, assuming that the opposition, while loud, was thin and would fade away. They were wrong. The issue continued to get attention, and when the law was finally introduced, the opposition, across the board, was widespread and strong. It wasn't just a fringe issue among "internet activists." It was something that people from all over the economy saw as a fundamental issue worth fighting for.

But why?

For years, copyright (and wider intellectual property) law has been considered to be sort of inside baseball, something that only lawyers and the entertainment industry cared about. But that's been changing. There are a variety of reasons for why this happened and why copyright is considered a key issue for so many people in so many parts of the economy. Michael Geist has now put together a film that tries to examine that question. After first discussing how the issue became such a big deal, Geist interviews a number of Canadian copyfighters to get a sense of why copyright is an issue worth fighting about: Not surprisingly, Geist has also made the movie available in a variety of different formats so people can do what they want with it, including remixing or re-editing it. There's the full version (seen above), an annotated version, a version for subtitling, or you can download the full movie via BitTorrent at either Mininova or Vuze. Unless, of course, you live somewhere where they claim that BitTorrent is evil and must be blocked.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, michael geist

Canadian DMCA Hide And Seek -- With Bonus Wikipedia Edits

from the where'd-it-go--now dept

Despite the expectations that the new Canadian DMCA would be released Wednesday, it appears that the bill's introduction has been delayed as the guy behind it, Jim Prentice, figures out what to do. Some reports note that Prentice apparently promised the recording industry that the bill would be introduced before the summer, which seems fairly ridiculous. Why should he promise one industry anything -- especially when there's so much consumer and business opposition to the bill? In the meantime, though, while not introducing the bill, it does appear that folks in Prentice's office have been busy scrubbing Wikipedia to make sure this controversy isn't on Prentice's page.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, dmca, jim prentice, michael geist, wikipedia

It's Baaaaaack. Canadian DMCA On The Way

from the if-you-wait-long-enough,-maybe-people-will-forget dept

You may recall that last fall, Michael Geist notified the world that the Canadian government was about to announce a Canadian version of the DMCA, that was effectively a Hollywood wishlist of unnecessary copyright controls. The politician in charge of pushing this through, Jim Prentice, thought that he could get it approved quietly with no one noticing -- figuring that copyright is a boring subject that no one cares about. He was wrong. Thanks to Geist shining some sunlight on the bill, tens of thousands of individuals suddenly became quite vocal in opposition to the bill -- and even a bunch of big Canadian companies came out against the bill. Prentice delayed the bill, insisting that he would listen to consumer and business concerns... though there were never any open hearings or public discussions.

Instead, it looks like Prentice made a very minor change in the bill (allowing "time shifting") and then has waited for a convenient time to re-release the bill. It's expected that the bill will once again be introduced this coming Wednesday (just before Prentice is set to leave town). Once again, Michael Geist has all the details including what the likely talking points are in support of the bill... and why they're totally bogus. It sounds like Prentice is going to stick to the entirely false claim that Canada needs to approve this bill to meet its "international obligations" as found in various treaties it's signed. This is a common trick used by the entertainment industry and politicians to justify bad legislation. But, as Geist notes, Canada already is in compliance with the treaty in question. It's too bad Canada didn't follow the lead of other countries in standing up for the rights of its consumers.

In the meantime, as Geist notes, Prentice seems to think that this particular bill will sneak through again without much opposition. It's surprising that he thinks that, given what happened last time. But, if he's going to think people forget things that quickly, perhaps its time for Canadian citizens to make it clear that they don't forget, and they don't appreciate Prentice selling out their basic rights to folks in Hollywood who are too lazy to update their obsolete business models.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, dmca, jim prentice, michael geist