Newt Gingrich: Merely Visiting An ISIS Or Al Qaeda Website Should Be A Felony

from the say-what-now? dept

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is making some news today for some silly remarks he made on Fox News last night in response to the attack last night in Nice, France. It comes right at the beginning of this video: All of the press -- for good reason -- is focusing on the first part of what he said, about deporting anyone "of Muslim background" (whatever that means) who "believes in Sharia." We'll skip over why this is totally clueless and unconstitutional, because plenty of other news sites are handling that.

Instead, we'll move on to the second craziest thing he said, right after that first statement, which is something that fits much more with Techdirt's usual themes: Gingrich then claims two ridiculous things, each only slightly less ridiculous than his first statement:

Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony and they should go to jail. Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felon. It should be closed down immediately. Our forces should be used to systematically destroy every internet based source...

He then goes on to note that if we can't take them off the internet, we should just kill them all. Which, you know, I'm sure won't anger any more people against us.

Either way, this is idiotic. Merely visiting a website should put you in jail? What if you're a journalist? Or a politician? Or a researcher trying to understand ISIS? That should be a felony? That's not how it works. This also assumes, idiotically, that merely reading a website about ISIS will make people side with ISIS. It's also not, at all, how the law works. Same with the second part about it being a felony to host such content. We're already seeing lawsuits against social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for hosting accounts from ISIS, and many are voluntarily taking down lots of those accounts. But making it a felony to keep them up? That's also not how the law works.

Reacting to a very real problem with stupid unconstitutional solutions suggests someone who has no clue what he's doing.

Filed Under: al qaeda, free speech, hosting, intermediary liability, isis, newt gingrich, sharia, websites

Romney, Santorum & Gingrich Sued For Patent Infringement Over Facebook Usage... Along With Millions Of FB Users

from the wow dept

I'm kind of wondering if Hollywood-based patent attorney and patent holder Frank Weyer is trying to turn the Republican presidential field anti-patent. Weyer, via his company EVERYMD, holds US Patent 7,644,122 concerning internet groups, which the USPTO granted in January of 2010 (but which goes back to a patent application filed in 1999, and then a continuation patent built off of that). To suggest the patent is broad is to state the extremely obvious. But, more or less, EVERYMD appears to be claiming that Facebook business accounts that offer home pages for members of a group (that also allow the ability to send messages/comments) infringes on the patent.

To make things even more insane, EVERYMD is suing Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as the three named defendants, and then every other Facebook business account holder as a (as yet unnamed) Doe account. Suing the three Republican Presidential candidates is clearly a publicity gambit here -- most likely an attempt to get Facebook itself to pay up. As the lawsuit makes clear, EVERYMD first went after Facebook, offering to sell it the patent. Facebook apparently wasn't interested -- and, instead, went to the USPTO requesting that it re-examine the patent. That re-exam process is not going well for EVERYMD. The USPTO issued a final rejection on all of the claims -- but EVERYMD is appealing.

It seems kind of silly to then go after Facebook's users -- and specifically three presidential candidates -- except as an attempt to try to embarrass Facebook into buying or licensing the patent before the USPTO kills it entirely. Or as an attempt to show these presidential candidates just how screwed up the patent system is today, though that seems unlikely. As Patently-O notes, Weyer has some history in using patents to go after companies for what seem like basic and obvious features.

To make this even more ridiculous, EVERYMD also claims that, back in January 2011, it opened up a "licensing program" through which anyone could buy a license to the patent at the "reduced price" of $500 per account, but no one took them up on this offer, which is no longer available. What a shock. Some company that no one has heard of suddenly puts up a page asking for $500 so you can keep running your Facebook page? Who would actually fork over money in such a situation? Even if this is not Weyer's intention, maybe this will actually wake up at least some of these Presidential candidates to how the patent system has strayed far from its intended purpose.

Filed Under: facebook pages, frank weyer, mitt romney, newt gingrich, patents, rick santorum
Companies: everymd, facebook

DailyDirt: To The Moon, Alice!

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The Earth's moon seems like a nice place to visit, but there are a surprising number of people who seem to want to go there permanently. Manned spaceflight has seen better days, but is it really time to invest in a moon colony now? The land is pretty cheap up there, and no one's making any more of it... but there's a tiny problem of getting there. Here are just a few more links about manned trips to the moon.

• Newt Gingrich's proposal to create a moon base by 2020 (excluding the 13,000 colonists part) was feasible in 2005 when George W. Bush had similar ideas, but now it could be a bit more difficult to accomplish in just 8 years. A new space race to the moon could see commercial space companies beating NASA to the lunar surface... (especially if vast amounts of unobtainium could be mined on the moon). [url]
• NASA isn't exactly sure when manned test flights of its Orion will begin, but it should happen by 2021. Unmanned test flights are scheduled for 2014, but the new rocket to take cargo/passengers 3,700 miles away from Earth hasn't been finalized yet. [url]
• What would space programs be like if the Apollo program never made it to the moon? Maybe there'd be a Russian/Soviet moon base or an international station on the moon -- or maybe the lunar surface would be covered with robots by now. [url]
• To discover more links on space exploration, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: apollo, lunar base, manned spaceflight, moon, newt gingrich, orion, space
Companies: nasa

Like Clockwork: Copyright Holders Mistakenly Freak Out About Presidential Candidates Using Their Music

from the again? dept

This seems to happen every four years like clockwork during Presidential elections. Some musician gets upset about a politician he or she disagrees with, making use of his or her music during campaign rallies. This time around the candidate is Newt Gingrich, and the upset musician is songwriter and member of the band Survivor, Frank Sullivan, who co-wrote the song "Eye of the Tiger" which Gingrich has apparently been using during presidential campaigns:

The complaint states that the violation it alleges is intentional since Gingrich is "sophisticated and knowledgeable" concerning copyright laws.

That strikes me as interesting, because I would have to assume that the campaign has paid for standard ASCAP performance license (either that or the locations they use almost certainly have such a license). And if that's true, then Sullivan has no case. If the venue has a license, they can play whatever they want. Full stop. "Eye of the Tiger" is registered to ASCAP, so that's all that's needed. The campaign doesn't need permission of the copyright holder. The Chicago Sun-Times goes into more detail, where Sullivan insists this isn't political, he just doesn't like the song being used without him getting paid. Perhaps he should check his ASCAP statement. If he's not getting paid, he might want to take it up with them.

That same article also notes that Sullivan co-owns the copyright along with his song writing partner/bandmate, Jim Peterik, who seems to both (sorta, kinda) like Gingrich and not like legal actions:

“My wife is a big fan,” Peterik said. “I’m becoming a fan of Newt Gingrich. He has a mind of his own. He’s not a talking head. Originally, I didn’t like him, but look at the competition. He’s looking better and better.”

Peterik is not a party to the suit that Sullivan filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago. They share the copyright, but tend to stay out of each other’s way when it comes to cracking down on infringers.

”I hate suits,” Peterik said. “I hate being in court. I avoid that meticulously. When I [heard about the lawsuit on the radio Monday} I said I’m not surprised, but I’m surprised.”

I say this every time something like this comes up, but even if politicians can make use of such songs without getting permission from the artists, thanks to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC performance licenses, it still surprises me that the campaigns don't seek out musicians who support them in the first place to get their "okay" just to avoid embarrassing situations like this. Either way, it seems almost certain that this lawsuit is going nowhere fast.

Filed Under: eye of the tiger, frank sullivan, newt gingrich, performance licenses, presidential campaigns, rallies, songs, survivor
Companies: ascap, rude music

NBC News Doesn't Understand Fair Use; Demands Mitt Romney Remove Ads That Use TV News Clips

from the oh-please dept

Here we go again. Four years ago, during the presidential campaign, we had CBS News threaten the McCain campaign for using some news footage clips in a campaign ad. And here we are, four years later, with NBC Universal demanding that the Romney campaign remove an ad it's using against Newt Gingrich, making use of old TV news footage. This strikes us as bizarre (and ridiculous) as it did four years ago. In many cases, these ads are likely to be considered fair use. But, secondly, is it really any harm to NBC News if Romney uses classic footage? I mean, the news reports are what NBC News had reported in the past. Essentially acting like it hadn't -- by trying to block the use of the footage -- just seems silly.

NBC, of course, wants to claim that this is about not having its newscasters be seen as "endorsing" a candidate. Again, however, that's ridiculous. No one is going to see these reports and think that the Tom Brokaw from the 90s was magically endorsing a candidate running for President today. I just can't see how or why NBC Universal would make this move. Not only does it make the company look petty, it also calls that much more attention to the ad that they thought they were going to kill.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, mitt romney, newt gingrich
Companies: nbc universal

Crowd Cheers Loudly As All Four GOP Candidates Say No To SOPA/PIPA

from the national-issue dept

It really was just a few weeks ago that a Hollywood lobbyist laughed at me (literally) when I suggested that SOPA/PIPA might become a national issue during the Presidential campaign. As he noted, copyright issues just aren't interesting outside of a small group of people. My, how things have changed. After this week's protests made front pages and top stories everywhere, it's not all that surprising that the candidates at the latest GOP debate were asked their opinion of the bills... and all four came out against them. Of course, this seems to fit with the new GOP positioning that they're the anti-SOPA/PIPA party (so sorry Lamar Smith...). Mediaite has the video: And here's a transcript of what each candidate said:

Gingrich: "You are asking a conservative about the economic interests of Hollywood? I am weighing it and thinking fondly of the many left wing people that I am so eager to protect. On the other hand, you have so many people that are technologically advanced such as Google and You Tube and Facebook that say this is totally going to mess up the Internet. The bill in its current form is written really badly and leads to a range of censorship that is totally unacceptable. I believe in freedom and think that we have a patent office, copyright law and if a company believes it has generally been infringed upon it has the right to sue. But the idea that we have the government start preemptively start censoring the Internet and corporations' economic interest is exactly the wrong thing to do."

Romney: "The law as written is far too expansive, far too intrusive and far too threatening of freedom of speech and information carried across the Internet. It would have a depressing impact on one of the fastest growing industries in America. I care deeply about intellectual content going across the Internet and if we can find a way to very narrowly go after those people who are pirating especially those offshore. But a very broad law that gives the government the power to start saying who can pass what to whom, I say no and I am standing for freedom."

Paul: "I am one of the first Republicans to oppose this law and so glad that sentiment has mellowed up here as Republicans have been on the wrong side of this issue and this is a good example on why its good to have someone who can look at civil liberties ... freedom and the constitution bring people together."

Santorum: "I do not support this law and believe it goes too far. But I will not agree with everyone that there isn't something that should be done to protect the intellectual content of people. The internet is not a free zone where anyone can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people. Particularly when we are talking about entities off shore. The idea that the government has no role to protect the intellectual property of this company, that's not right. The idea that anything goes on the Internet? Who has that idea. Property rights should be respected."

Santorum's answer is the weakest, obviously -- and isn't too surprising. Just recently he made a statement that was about how online activity should be regulated.

But, really the most interesting part of what happened was not the candidates answering the question, but the audience's response. When John King asked the question and gave a brief explanation of SOPA/PIPA... he also mentioned that CNN's parent company, Time Warner, supported the bill... and the crowd booed loudly. When the candidates -- particularly Gingrich and Paul -- made their claims, the crowd cheered loudly.

The people who are still brushing off the whole protest as "an internet thing" or (even more ridiculous) "a Google thing," still don't seem to realize. Pretty much the entire public has turned against these kinds of bills.

Filed Under: copyright, debate, gop, internet, mitt romney, newt gingrich, pipa, protect ip, republicans, rick santorum, ron paul, sopa

Newt Gingrich's Lawyer Displays Ignorance Of Both Twitter And The Law In Sending C&D

from the wow dept

It really was just a few weeks ago that we were told that lawyers knew better than to send a clueless cease-and-desist letter... and then we get this story. Apparently a group that is in favor of a certain law that Newt Gingrich opposes sent out a Twitter message that included the @newtgingrich username to stir up some interest in a petition they were working on. This is part of how you use Twitter to communicate with others and get attention from certain people. But apparently Gingrich's lawyer was upset that Gingrich's name was being "used" in a message in favor of a law Gingrich opposes, and sent a ridiculously bad cease-and-desist letter that the folks at the Citizen Media Law Project dubbed: "How to Make Your Client Look Bad, in Three Easy Steps."

First, the lawyer clearly didn't understand Twitter and how it works since using @newtgingrich is the equivalent of sending a public letter "Dear Newt Gingrich" -- which certainly wouldn't be an abuse of his name. Second, the lawyer not only didn't understand Section 230, but insisted that Tucows, the registrar behind the site that hosted the petition (and also republished the tweet) was somehow responsible for the content of the Twitter message: "continued display of the offending tweet 'can expose any and all involved parties (including Twitter, ContactPrivacy.com and/or TuCows) to substantial ongoing, and even personal liability.'" Of course, that's not even close to true. Then, on top of that, the lawyer basically tried to throw in claims on every law he could think up:

trademark infringement, violation of Gingrich's and Anuzis' publicity rights, false advertising, false designation of origin, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and contractual relations, common law and computer trespass (could Twitter trespass upon its own computer?), conversion, traditional fraud and wire fraud, breach of contract (i.e., Twitter's terms of service), violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and even RICO violations.

All for a Twitter message. Seriously. So, what was that about lawyers knowing better than to send bogus cease-and-desist letters?

Filed Under: cease and desist, newt gingrich, safe harbors, twitter