How Java's Inherent Verboseness May Mess Up Fair Use For APIs

from the this-whole-case-is-fucked-up dept

The latest round of the Oracle/Google API copyright lawsuit has been an attention grabber to say the least. There's plenty of absurdity to go around, but in reading through the coverage and commentary, it became clear that part of the problem is actually in the nature of Java as a statically typed, verbose language. To me, the crux of the case has been in the fact that non-technical people don't seem to get that software and APIs are different things. They don't get that an API is more like a map or a menu, rather than the actual stuff itself. The API is basically just explaining how to get information, not what the information itself actually is.

But this distinction is lost on people who aren't very technical. Sarah Jeong, whose coverage of this case on both Twitter and Motherboard has been phenomenal, wrote a great piece last week calling out this distinction:

The problem with Oracle v. Google is that everyone actually affected by the case knows what an API is, but the whole affair is being decided by people who don’t, from the normals in the jury box to the normals at the Supreme Court—which declined to hear the case in 2015, on the advice of the normals at the Solicitor General’s office, who perhaps did not grasp exactly how software works.

In fact, during the jury selection process, it appears that an effort was made to make sure no one even remotely technical got onto the jury. So much for a jury of your peers, right?

But, a further point drove home for me just how messed up this whole thing is -- along with the recognition that part of the problem is in just how verbose Java is. Last week, one of the witnesses in the case was a top Android programmer, Dan Bornstein, who was actually asked to write some code on a white board, to show what "declaring code" is, as compared to the actual implementation code. While no photos are allowed in the courtroom, EFF's Parker Higgins (who also has been known to guest post here on occasion), did his best to recreate what Bornstein drew:

Here's my artist's rendition of the Bornstein sketch. Not perfect, but his handwriting and drawing aren't better. pic.twitter.com/aNu8ZAyXMP

— Parker Higgins ☔ (@xor) May 13, 2016

In response to this, on Twitter, programmer Aviv Ovadya, showed what the same thing would look like in Python, rather than Java:

@xor Translated to Python. Usually Java's verboseness just makes code a pain to write; now it may also mess up law. pic.twitter.com/WzOmcyRwyU

— Aviv (@metaviv) May 14, 2016

And the even clearer, side-by-side version:

@sarahjeong @xor Actual side by side version of the Java vs. Python versions for the court whiteboarding pic.twitter.com/Dd58egcaF2

— Aviv (@metaviv) May 14, 2016

Python is a dynamically typed language, rather than statically typed, meaning that the declaring code is much more concise, and much more obviously a specification of what's needed, rather than code designed to do something directly. In the Java version, if you don't have a fair bit of experience with programming, the difference between the declaring code and the implementation is not that clear. It looks pretty similar. That's why it's probably no surprise that in asking the Supreme Court to reject hearing this case, the Solicitor General of the US wrote:

Nothing about the declaring code at issue here materially distinguishes it from other computer code

As we pointed out at the time, this is just wrong. The declaring code explains the interface for communicating with computer code. The implementation is actual computer code. They're not the same. But in Java... they look pretty similar because Java is so verbose, and requires much more detailed declaring code. In the Python version, the differences are much, much clearer, and you can see how the declaring code is basically just a specification for something you want, rather than a bit of creative coding to do something new.

And thus, what we're left with is the fact that, in part because of how Java works, the declaring code looks too much like regular code and that confuses the hell out of basically anyone who's not a programmer. Remember how, in the first version of this trial, Judge William Alsup first had to teach himself Java to understand why an API should not be covered by copyright? Unfortunately, the appeals court justices (and Supreme Court Justices) did no such thing, and couldn't understand the inherent difference here, sending the case back to Judge Alsup's courtroom.

And, now, even with it being "fact" that APIs are covered by copyright in certain cases in the 9th Circuit (hopefully other courts have a chance to fix this at some point soon...), we're still facing the same kind of argument.

Technically, this round for the trial is supposed to focus solely on whether or not Google's use of the Java APIs is "fair use" under copyright law. But that has made for some weird discussions in the trial, because you don't need fair use if there's no copyright in the first place. And since many people involved were operating under the (reasonable!) assumption that there was no copyright in the API, it's made for some weird discussions in the trial, where everyone has to dance around the copyrightability question. In fact, there's been some discussion between the judge and the two companies over whether or not the jury should even be informed about the results of the first case and the subsequent appeals process.

In the end, it's creating a very messy case, and a big part of that mess is because code is confusing to non-techie folks, and Java's inherent design appears to make it even more confusing -- which does not bode well for copyright and APIs going forward. And that could create a really big mess in the software world. Lots of people who dislike Java have claimed for a long time that it is inherently awful, in part because of how verbose it is. But perhaps they didn't realize that factor might wreck some important concepts in software development far beyond just Java programming itself.

Filed Under: apis, copyright, declaring code, java, languages, programming, python, verboseness
Companies: google, oracle

Daily Deal: Pure Python Hacker Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

class DailyDeal(object):

  def __init__(self):
  
    self.Deal =         "The Pure Python Hacker Bundle"
    self.Description =  "Six courses with over 45 hours of instruction."
                            
    self.Topics =       ["Basics", "Websites & Apps", "Bash Scripting", "More"]

    self.OrigPrice =    454
    self.SalePrice =    49   # That's $49, or 89% off the original price
    
  def BuyNow(self):
    
    print "Get it today from Techdirt Deals »"


# We earn a portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals.
# The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal, online course, programming, python

Python Trademark At Risk In Europe: Python Software Foundation Appeals For Help

from the whoops,-that-was-careless dept

The open source programming language Python -- named after the British comedy series "Monty Python" -- became popular in the 1990s, along with two other languages beginning with "P": Perl and PHP. Later, they formed a crucial part of the famous "LAMP" stack -- the GNU/Linux operating system + Apache Web server + MySQL database + Python/Perl/PHP as scripting languages -- that underpinned many of the most successful startups from this time.

Today, Python is used by some of the biggest names in computing, including Google, so you might assume things like trademarks were sorted out years ago. But this posting by Van Lindberg, Chairman of the Python Software Foundation, reveals that's not the case everywhere:

There is a company in the UK that is trying to trademark the use of the term "Python" for all software, services, servers... pretty much anything having to do with a computer. Specifically, it is the company that got a hold on the python.co.uk domain 13 years ago. At that time we weren't looking a lot at trademark issues, and so we didn't get that domain.

Given the rather unplanned way that free software projects have arisen and grown, it's perhaps not such a surprise that crucial domains and trademarks weren't always applied for in every jurisdiction -- after all, coders just want to code, and open source projects generally don't have any resources to pay someone to handle all the boring legal stuff. And so it often gets neglected, as here. Lindberg explains why that wasn't a problem until now:

This hasn't been an issue since then because the python.co.uk domain has, for most of its life, just forwarded its traffic on to the parent companies, veber.co.uk and pobox.co.uk. Unfortunately, Veber has decided that they want to start using the name "Python" for their server products.

We contacted the owners of python.co.uk repeatedly and tried to discuss the matter with them. They blew us off and responded by filing the community trademark application claiming the exclusive right to use "Python" for software, servers, and web services -- everywhere in Europe.

That would obviously represent a real problem for the Python language there. The Python Software Foundation is therefore opposing the community trademark application, and submitting its own. But to succeed, it needs evidence that it has been using the name for many years, and should therefore be granted the trademark. Here's what it would like:

According to our London counsel, some of the best pieces of evidence we can submit to the European trademark office are official letters from well-known companies "using PYTHON branded software in various member states of the EU" so that we can "obtain independent witness statements from them attesting to the trade origin significance of the PYTHON mark in connection with the software and related goods/services." We also need evidence of use throughout the EU.

The post goes on to list a variety of ways in which Python users, particularly those in Europe, can help bolster the Python Software Foundation's case and obtain the trademark in question. The good news is that communities based around free software like Python are likely to have a huge pool of people willing and able to help in these circumstances by providing evidence that throughout Europe, and for over two decades, "Python" has always meant the free software language. However, to avoid similar incidents, and similar mad rushes to gather the required evidence, it would probably be a good idea if other open source projects checked that they had registered all the obvious Web sites and trademarks.

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

Filed Under: europe, python, software, trademark, trademark abuse

Google's Copyright Crackdown Punishes Author For Torrenting His Own Book

from the too-aggressive dept

Over the years, we've pointed out repeatedly a massive Achilles Heel for Google: its often dreadful customer service. Trying to communicate with Google can often be like facing a giant white monolith, rather than any sort of human being. More recently, we've been concerned about Google's willingness to be overly aggressive in "enforcing" copyright, in an effort to keep Hollywood (and Hollywood's supporters in government) off its back. Combine those two issues, and you've got quite a story... such as the one from Techdirt reader Cody Jackson.

A few years ago, Jackson, while deployed in Iraq, wrote a book about Python (the programming language) called Start Programming with Python. He decided to give away the book for free, as a "thank you" to the open source community which, he notes, has provided him with tremendous value over the years. He has always made the book available for free, and linked to various sources where you can get it. At the same time, he's offered people the option to support him via donation. He also made a little bit of money via Google AdSense ads on his site.

Last week, he was contacted by a Google bot, telling him that AdSense had been disabled. Why? Because they claimed he was distributing copyrighted content illegally. The email, which I've seen, notes that his account has been disabled for the following reason:

Violation explanation

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: As stated in our program policies, AdSense publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on sites involved in the distribution of copyrighted materials. This includes hosting copyrighted files on your site, as well as providing links for or driving traffic to sites that contain copyrighted material. More information about this policy can be found in our help center ( http://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=105956 ).

To be honest, Google's terms here make no sense. Basically EVERY website "contains copyrighted material." Based on what Google sent to Jackson, no one could link to any website if they wanted to run AdSense. Google has a number of really good copyright lawyers, but they must have let this one slip by. I'm sure Google means "unauthorized" or "infringing" copyrighted material, but that's not what it says.

Either way, it seems ridiculous and serious overkill to suggest that any links to a site that carries infringing content -- even if the link is to legitimate content -- should be deemed a terms of service violation. The email provides one link as an "example page" of the kind of problems they're talking about. That page is the one where Jackson announces that he's put up a torrent of the 2nd edition of his book, and points people to The Pirate Bay and Demonoid to get it. Remember, this is his own book, which he's published himself and is giving away for free... on purpose.

You could argue that Google's terms here are overbroad and perhaps they're within those rules. But saying that you can't link to legitimate content that you yourself released on the Pirate Bay could have a real chilling effect for those who choose to put their own works on such sites.

Jackson reached out to Google for more information, explaining to them the situation, pointing out that he's the author and publisher, and that the work is published under a Creative Commons BY-SA license, and thus all copies on The Pirate Bay are perfectly legal and authorized. Google told him it would review the account... and then sent the following:

Thank you for providing us with additional information about your site. However, after thoroughly reviewing python-ebook.blogspot.com and taking your feedback into consideration, we're unable to re-enable ad serving to your site at this time, as your site appears to still be in violation.

If you'd like to have your site reconsidered for participation in the AdSense program, please review our program policies (https://www.google.com/adsense/policies) and make any necessary changes to your webpages. For more information regarding your policy issue, please visit https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=113061.

Confused about this after reading through everything and still not seeing any violation, he removed the links to the torrent files, even though it made perfect sense to him to keep them up. As he noted to me via email: "The torrent was one of the first ways that I had made my book available, since that is where the technical people are likely to hang out. I figured a torrent file on the most popular torrent site was a no-brainer."

So he, once again, responded to the Google bot, this time after removing the links... and he still got back the exact same message. The current post (and, again, this was a post that Google specifically called out as an "example" of a problem page) still mentions The Pirate Bay and Demonoid, but has no links (and even when it did have links, they were authorized!). And yet, Google's AdSense team still insists that he's violating AdSense's inscrutable terms. They won't explain why. They won't seem to actually comprehend what he's saying. They just block.

For what it's worth, we hear from Google haters all the time that it somehow refuses to take down Ads on "pirate sites." This experience seems to suggest the exact opposite: that Google is overly aggressive in trying to block ads showing up in any way, shape or form, near sites that it has deemed to be problematic, even if the content is 100% guaranteed legal and authorized. Combine that with Google's horrendous customer service-by-bot, and you have an unfortunate situation where an author is being punished for doing something perfectly legal and can't seem to find a human at Google who will actually take the time to understand what's going on.

These are the reasons why we get so nervous when Google cranks up its "automation" at the insistence of Hollywood. The collateral damage is very real.

Filed Under: adsense, bots, cody jackson, copyright, crackdown, creative commons, customer service, ebook, python
Companies: google