China Forbids The Use Of English Words In Mobile Games

from the not-as-crazy-as-it-looks dept

Techdirt has run many articles about China's direct assault on Internet freedom. Indeed, its attempts to muzzle online dissent are so all-encompassing you might think it has run out of things to censor. But you'd be wrong: China is now reining in games for mobile phones, as a post on Tech in Asia explains:

A little over a month ago, Chinese censorship bureau SAPPRFT announced new rules that require every mobile game launched in China to be pre-approved by SAPPRFT (already-launched games will have to get retroactive approval before the grace period ends in October). Before the rules had even gone into effect, developers and analysts alike were predicting things could be bad, and that the rules might dismantle China’s indie mobile gaming scene entirely.

Making sure games aren't seditious in any way might be expected, but there's a rather weird twist to this latest move:

One developer's rant has gone viral in the Chinese web after their game was supposedly rejected by SAPPRFT for containing English words. Not offensive English words, mind you, but completely innocuous ones like "mission start" and "warning." "I'm really fucking surprised," wrote the developer of the rejection.

Another developer confirmed that their game had been rejected for the same reason: including English words like "go" and "lucky." SAPPRFT's rules also forbid the use of traditional Chinese characters.

The use of English here is hardly subversive. The words in question form part of a global gaming language that has little to do with either the US or the UK. The ban on traditional Chinese characters, as opposed to the simplified ones that are generally used in China, is more understandable: Taiwan still uses the traditional form, so their inclusion might be seen as some kind of subliminal political statement.

The consequence is likely to be fewer games from smaller Chinese software companies, who are less able to meet the stringent new demands. As the Tech in Asia post rightly points out:

We could be facing a future where China's entire mobile game catalogue consists only of the games produced by powerful corporations like Tencent and Netease, with no room for startups and indies.

And that is probably the real reason for this latest move: big companies tend to be far more willing to toe the government line than smaller independents, since they have far more to lose. So, as with other apparently arbitrary moves, the latest unexpected clampdown by the Chinese government looks to be yet another example of its shrewd and subtle control of the online world.

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

Filed Under: censorship, china, english, mobile, mobile games, words

Paramount Pictures Thinks A Discussion Of GhostVPN Is Really A Pirate Link To The Movie Ghost

from the dmca-all-the-things!! dept

As you may remember, Viacom once sued YouTube for $1 billion dollars over video clips on the site. Right before the case was set to start, Viacom had to scramble and remove some of the alleged infringements from the complaints, because the company realized that Viacom employees had uploaded the clips as part of their marketing campaign. Suing YouTube over clips that you yourself uploaded is not a good look, and it's a big part of the reason why Viacom's arguments fell flat in court. Viacom owns Paramount Pictures, and it would appear that the "level of care" that the company takes in sending DMCA notices has not improved much over the years.

Torrentfreak has the latest round of ridiculously bad DMCA takedown notices coming from a major Hollywood studio. Whereas in the old days, we'd see takedowns occur based on a single word, it appears that here, Paramount has upgraded its auto-censorbot to use two words. Here it appears that anything that is vaguely associated with a movie, plus the word "utorrent" must automatically be wiped from the internet. Take, for example, this conversation on the utorrent forums about how to configure Cyberghost VPN. It's all pretty innocuous, but Paramount Pictures apparently hired one of these fly-by-night censorship outfits by the name of IP-Echelon to take it down, because clearly any use of the word "Ghost" and "utorrent" must be infringing -- even when "ghost" isn't even written out as a separate word. The Torrentfreak article has a number of similar situations, including one where someone said "imagine that" in a comment, and another where someone used the word "clueless" and Paramount/IP-Echelon insisted they were linking to infringing copies of the movies "Imagine That" and "Clueless." But that's clueless.

And, yes, it's certain that many of the other links in these notices were to actually infringing files. But just because you legitimately take down some links, it doesn't excuse trying to censor perfectly legitimate content.

Filed Under: dmca, forums, takedowns, vpn, words
Companies: ghostvpn, ip-echelon, paramount pictures

How To Use 'Intellectual Property' Properly

from the separating-the-content-from-the-ip dept

Okay, let's get this out there upfront: many people who read this site hate the term "intellectual property" and get very upset when anyone uses it. And we agree with many of the reasons behind this thought process. In the past, we've explored some of the alternatives, but none are really that great or useful. We admit that "intellectual property" is not a great term -- in large part because it implies something that just isn't there: mainly, economic concepts that apply to rivalrous goods but simply don't apply to non-rivalrous ones. Even so, for the most part, our response to this has been to try to use the specific name of the specific form -- i.e., copyright, patents, trademark, trade secrets, publicity rights, etc. -- rather than the generic term "intellectual property." But oftentimes that doesn't feel appropriate either. And, let's face it, most of the rest of the world still uses the term "intellectual property", and denying that is kind of silly.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I think the real issue is that there are two different ways to use the term, and only one is really valid. "Intellectual property" is a useful term, but only when it refers to the copyright, patent or trademark itself and not the underlying content, invention or mark. For one thing, the only reasonable arguments for how "intellectual property" has some characteristics of actual property are the ones based on this idea — e.g. a copyright is rivalrous as it is held by a specific person or group, and it functions in many ways like a piece of property (it can be bought and sold), but the underlying song (or movie, book, etc.) is not rivalrous. Describing a company that owns a variety of copyrights, patents and trademarks as having "a portfolio full of intellectual property" makes sense; saying a music pirate has "a hard drive full of stolen intellectual property" does not. Of course, both things are still artificial — the piece of intellectual property that is a copyright only exists because the law creates it — but at least it does exist as a rivalrous thing, whereas no amount of law or enforcement will ever succeed in making content itself rivalrous.

Unfortunately, many intellectual property system supporters and maximalists frequently confuse the two, and interchangeably switch around the underlying content/invention for the copyright/patent. It's why we see ridiculous things like car manufacturers arguing they still own some of your car, or DVD makers arguing they still own part of your DVD. It's the same thinking that leads to ridiculous reports that attribute all of the economic contribution of content, inventions and trademarks (even in grocery stores!) to "intellectual property" -- allowing them to falsely imply that the "intellectual property laws" are responsible, rather than the underlying content, inventions and marks.

So it's high time to call this out and make the clear distinction. If people are going to go on using the term "intellectual property" -- and they will -- then at least point out that the content or the invention or the logo or whatever are not the "property". The property is the artificial monopoly itself, granted by the government, in the form of the copyright, the patent or the trademark. Then, we can look more honestly at the actual contribution of those laws and at the true nature of ownership. If GM holds the copyright on the software in your car, it has no actual ownership stake in any part of your car. We should all agree on that. But it can still own the copyright on that software -- and it can do as it wants with that copyright. But the actual copy of the software (inasmuch as that's even a discrete thing that actually exists) remains yours.

I recognize that some will fight this and continue to insist that any use of the term "intellectual property" is a bad idea, but that's a losing battle. Let's admit that there are certain property-like aspects in the legal instruments by themselves, but reject the false notion -- often pushed by those abusing intellectual property laws -- that the underlying content, invention, trademark, etc. has any property-like rights itself.

Filed Under: copyright, intellectual property, patents, trademark, words

About Freaking Time: New York Times Will Finally Start Calling CIA Torture Practices 'Torture'

from the should-have-happened-long-ago dept

We've questioned in the past why Senators like Dianne Feinstein won't come out and admit that what the CIA did was torture. Even President Obama has used the word to explain the CIA's actions. Yet, beyond Senator Feinstein, there was one other major hold out: the NY Times refused to use that word. Until now. In a note from the executive editor of the Times, Dean Baquet, he says that the NY Times will finally be accurate and will describe the CIA's actions as torture:

[F]rom now on, The Times will use the word “torture” to describe incidents in which we know for sure that interrogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an effort to get information.

In explaining the change, Baquet insists that early on, not as much was known about the techniques used by the CIA, and that many with knowledge of the situation insisted that it didn't rise to the level of torture. Of course, that those with knowledge were often protecting themselves perhaps should have risen red flags for the Times. Baquet also notes that reporters at the paper urged editors to change their policy -- so kudos to those reporters.

That said, there is something troubling in this part of the rationale:

Meanwhile, the Justice Department, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, has made clear that it will not prosecute in connection with the interrogation program. The result is that today, the debate is focused less on whether the methods violated a statute or treaty provision and more on whether they worked – that is, whether they generated useful information that the government could not otherwise have obtained from prisoners. In that context, the disputed legal meaning of the word “torture” is secondary to the common meaning: the intentional infliction of pain to make someone talk.

In other words, in the past, whether or not it was torture actually mattered, because legally it might have resulted in prosecutions of people committing war crimes. Under US law, the US has to prosecute those engaged in torture. But now that the "powers that be" have made it clear it simply won't prosecute anyone, and thus it doesn't really matter legally if it's referred to as torture or not, the NY Times will finally call it what it is. That seems immensely troubling. It basically suggests the NY Times could have impacted an important debate, but chose to sit it out until it was much too late to matter.

So, yes, it's good that the NY Times is finally calling torture, torture, but it's a black mark on the paper that it didn't do so years ago.

Filed Under: cia, journalism, torture, torture report, words
Companies: ny times

DailyDirt: Technology Is Changing The Way We Talk Because Internetz, LOL

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Sometimes we can't even agree on the definitions of words, so it's not too hard to find examples of changes in communication technologies altering how we use words. Text messages on phones have made us lazy to spell words correctly or to spell out entire words or common phrases. Language is inherently flexible, and here are just a few ways some parts of our language have changed.

• Linguists are officially recognizing that "because" is being used in a new way and have dubbed it the "prepositional-because" when it is followed immediately by a noun. However, the prepositional-because isn't limited to being followed by a noun, it can also be followed by verbs, adjectives, interjections and adverbs. [url]
• In case you didn't know, the simple period as a punctuation mark can be used to indicate anger. Yes. It. Can. [url]
• The ubiquitous LOL is becoming nearly meaningless -- no one is really laughing (quietly or audibly). LOL can be used sarcastically to indicate something isn't funny or just whenever a person doesn't know what else to say... so it's the new "like, yeah, um, well, really" word. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: grammar, language, lol, meaning, messaging, prepositional-because, punctuation, text, words

DailyDirt: Can We At Least Agree On The Meanings Of Words?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are all kinds of silly arguments online, but perhaps the most common are arguments over the meanings of words. Some folks like to think that words should have static definitions, and all other usage is incorrect usage. Others don't care about the exact meaning of words, and they're not careful with their word choices... or they just make up new words to fit whatever they're trying to say. Language is funny; it evolves and changes -- and sometimes people are just wrong in how they choose their words. Here are just a few examples of word meanings that hopefully don't set off some crazy semantic arguments.

• Grammar nerds (or nazis) are fuming at a new definition of "literally" which actually makes the word into a synonym for "figuratively" -- so now people who previously used "literally" incorrectly can now point to the dictionary and say they're using the word correctly. Three different dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster, have added this informal definition as a way to use the word literally for emphasis or as hyperbole. [url]
• In the 1660s, the word terrific meant frightening or horrible, but by the late 1800s, it started to mean excellent or great. The English language actually has several examples of words that have become to mean the opposite of their original definitions. [url]
• Words aren't the only components of language that can evolve different meanings -- some punctuation marks have moved beyond their formerly limited roles. The word "slash" is now a new conjunction or conjunctive adverb. It used to be funny how punctuation could change the meaning of words.... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: conjunction, dictionary, grammar, language, literally, punctuation, semantics, slash, synonym, terrific, words

DailyDirt: More Than Words, Is All I Have To Say...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The meaning of words change all the time, and they may be changing faster than ever before. It's hard for traditional dictionaries to really keep up with new words, but linguists are trying to record and categorize all the sounds they're observing. It ain't easy, but it's interesting to keep track of all the ways our language changes as people around the world are increasingly connected. Here are just a few examples.

• Teenagers communicate in weird ways sometimes, making sounds that aren't words (but still have meaning). There's a difference between "duhhh" and "duhhyy" -- and you should be insulted by the latter. [url]
• Many terms of endearment are almost universal, like "baby" -- understandable in several different languages, but some cute names are not. Japanese women are commonly referred to as "an egg with eyes" as a compliment, but that doesn't quite translate well in English.... [url]
• According to some linguists, young women are the leaders of language fads that spread into everyday conversations. For example, Webster's New World College Dictionary (Fourth Edition) includes the use of "like" as a way to add emphasis -- as in "It's, like, hot." [url]
• Verbal profanities are stored in a different part of your brain than where most of your language skills reside, and cursing has been part of our language for centuries (if not longer). Some of the worst obscenities in Latin focus on body parts and sex, so it seems like the subject matter of curse words hasn't changed that much in a while. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: communication, cursing, dictionary, language, latin, linguistics, profanities, teenagers, terms, tone, verbal, words

DailyDirt: Making Up Words

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The English language creates new words all the time and steals words from other languages to bulk up its vocabulary. Maybe it's not fair to other languages, but then the consequences are that English grammar is highly irregular and correct spellings sometimes require knowledge of the word origins. Here are just a few interesting tidbits on creating new words.

• The usage of "OMG" apparently dates back as far as 1917 -- when Lord John Fisher used it in a letter to Winston Churchill. However, the Oxford English Dictionary only added OMG to its lexicon in 2011. [url]
• How many words exist in the English language? Unabridged dictionaries have hundreds of thousands of entries, but scientific estimates put it closer to a million. A 2011 Culturonomics paper suggests the English language is growing at a rate of about 8,500 new words per year, but that rate is actually slowing down. [url]
• Lingodroids are creating new words that humans might be able to use. Perhaps fittingly, these bots are generating a whole lot of new 4-letter words. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: culturonomics, english, language, lingodroids, omg, words

Apparently The Word 'Piracy' No Longer Sufficiently Derogatory For Entertainment Industry

from the what's-next? dept

We already wrote about the release this week of a highly misleading report about how many jobs "piracy" was going to "cost" Europe. However, a bunch of folks have been sending in the Reuters coverage of the announcement of the report, which included some fascinating comments from Agnete Haaland, the president of the International Actors' Federation, who argues that there needs to be an even stronger word for infringement than "piracy," claiming that the "pirate" connotation is too glamorous:

"We should change the word piracy," she told reporters at the unveiling of the report on Wednesday.

"To me, piracy is something adventurous, it makes you think about Johnny Depp. We all want to be a bit like Johnny Depp. But we're talking about a criminal act. We're talking about making it impossible to make a living from what you do," she said.

Ok. Pick your jaw up off the floor. First, this is stunning in that it's been the entertainment industry itself that pushed and popularized the term "piracy" for copyright infringement. They did so very deliberately in an attempt to demonize the act of infringement, presenting it as something much worse. That some have since taken that term and embraced it hardly changes that initial fact. Second, she's wrong about the fact that they're "talking about a criminal act." Yes, in some cases copyright infringement may be a criminal act, but in most cases the use of "piracy" these days refers to civil issues between two parties and not criminal acts at all.

Then again, given that this was a statement made in favor of a blatantly misleading report, perhaps it's not surprising that the speakers were blatantly misleading as well.

In the meantime, does anyone have any suggestions for Ms. Haaland on what we should call the act of copyright infringement?

Filed Under: agnete haaland, piracy, words

Internet Companies Pay Lip Service To Human Rights

from the actions-speak-louder-than-words dept

After all the controversy, and threats of Congressional action, over actions by companies like Yahoo and Google to appease foreign governments against what many consider basic human rights issues, various internet companies have agreed on a set of "guidelines" for how they deal with human rights issues. While it's nice that they're actually thinking about these issues, the guidelines on the whole are pretty weak and don't bind the companies to do anything. Basically, it just says that the companies will consider the human rights issues in their decision making. If anything, this seems like an attempt to just keep the government from legislating on the issues, and it may not be very successful on that front. The real test will be in seeing how these companies actually act, rather than what sorts of guidelines they've signed.

Filed Under: actions, china, human rights, internet companies, words
Companies: google, yahoo