What's New

Another Answer To Dealing With Piracy: Keep Creating Better Tools & Business Models
We've already discussed, a few times, how the tech/startup industry has repeatedly given the entertainment industry the "solution" to piracy, in the form of new tools, services and business models, which are helping many "compete with free" by offering something better... all without regulation. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry still seems to think that the only solution is to pass laws that try to do the impossible: stopping piracy. This is the wrong approach. They're not at all focused on revenue maximization, they're so obsessed with the idea that infringement represents a "loss," that they're missing out on the fact that they're missing tons of opportunities to make more money. Dante Cullari, the founder and CEO of Beat-Play (and a musician himself), has a post up on Music Think Tank, noting both the impossibility of stopping file sharing, and wondering why the industry doesn't embrace new solutions (like his, of course) that allow them to compete. He further notes that the solutions the industry are suggesting clearly show a lack of understanding of how people use the internet. Putting up a paywall? Good luck with that: To me it seems pointless to even bring up the prospect of a subscription service, or even a pay-as-you-go model as a viable solution for a future sustainable industry model. This is because the internet, now the basis of content consumption, is like a huge river of information. A paywall is like a little pebble being thrown into it. The water in the river has no trouble getting around the pebble. Paywalls will never solve the piracy problem, and damming up the whole river, as we’ve seen with SOPA, will not be easy, and most likely will never happen. Really though, I don’t think that the actual problem that the rights holders have with piracy is the copying, but rather it is the loss of revenue brought about by the copying that motivates the rights holders into action. They want to be rightly compensated for their work. Who wouldn’t? The problem is that the business model - the mechanism that they’ve chosen to help them receive compensation, is not only a little dated, but it has been proven ineffective in this new environment that is very different from the one we saw even 15 years ago. The rights holders need a new mechanism for compensation. It’s that simple. Why they’re trying to preserve the one they have, I really don’t know. But the sooner they accept the fact that it is broken and it’s time to get a new one, the happier they will be. Of course, plenty of us have been arguing for over a decade that it's better to recognize the reality of the market, and then use that to your own advantage. Perhaps early on there weren't enough tools and services to make such new business models a reality, but these days it's impossible to argue that such alternative revenue sources no longer exist. Beat-Play's model is based on using music from artists within brand-driven games (for example a Facebook skiing game, paid for by a ski apparel company, using a band's music), which lets fans hear free music, while also allowing companies to better track who their audience is. This really is an example of the "ads as content, content as ads" model we've discussed for years. I have no idea if Beat-Play will work. Execution matters quite a lot, of course, as does the willingness of those in the music industry to recognize that this is a viable path forward, but conceptually the idea makes some sense. It doesn't try to force consumers into a model they don't like. It doesn't try to be annoying or interruptive. It just tries to set up a system that lets fans do what they want, while also giving content creators a good way to get paid as well. That seems like a solution that's a lot more reasonable... and a lot more likely to lead to more revenue... than something like SOPA.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read

Trustwave Admits It Issued A Certificate To Allow Company To Run Man-In-The-Middle Attacks
We've pointed out for years that the whole structure of SSL certificate-based security is open to attack via man-in-the-middle attacks... if you can somehow get a certificate authority to grant you a fake certificate. Of course, the protection against that was supposed to be that a certificate authority wouldn't do that. But what if one did? Certificate authority Trustwave has admitted that it issued a certificate to a company that allowed it to issue "valid" certs for any server. Basically, it gave a company the ability to do any kind of man-in-the-middle attack it wanted on employees. Trustwave has admitted to all this after revoking the certificate. They insist that the structure was limited so that it could only be used internally on the network. But, while it was out there, it basically allowed this company to effectively spy on employee activities, allowing the company to do man-in-the-middle attacks, as employees logged into private ("encrypted") accounts from their own devices, and see what they were doing. Considering this certificate was issued for "loss prevention," it's not hard to guess how it was used. Either way, it's pretty scary that Trustwave would think it was a reasonable move to allow this kind of activity, no matter how carefully the company believes it was set up. In a world where people have perfectly valid reasons for using private personal internet services from the workplace, they should be able to trust that those connections are secure. Thanks to Trustwave's deal with this (unnamed) company, that was not the case. On top of that, there's no telling if other certificate authorities are doing the same thing elsewhere, significantly compromising SSL security. In the end, this is a significant reminder that certificate-based security systems have serious weaknesses, and that the certificate authorities might not always be trustworthy...Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read

DailyDirt: The Age Of Super Lightweight Stuff
Civilizations were previously categorized by the materials they used: copper, bronze, iron, steel, plastic, etc. The advancements in material science haven't quite had as much of an impact on society as they used to. Still, there are plenty of really cool materials now that didn't exist just a few decades ago. Here are just a few examples. A metallic lattice is the current record-holder for being the lightest solid material -- beating out aerogels and low-density foams. This material is made up of hollow struts (up to 500-microns wide, made from a nickel-phosphorous alloy) that form a 3D lattice that looks like tiny scaffolding. [url] Aerogels used to be the lowest-density solid material for many decades, and it has several practical applications. Aerogels generally have very low thermal conductivities, so they can be useful for anything from cryogenic insulation to insulating shoe insoles. [url] Common metals, like steel, contain metal grains that can move along grain boundaries, but these boundaries can be made immobile by adding defects such as small particles. Nanometals are made with really small grain boundary defects -- which can create super strong materials that are also lightweight. Material scientists are constantly working on making metal alloys and composites to further understand how these nanostructures can be created. [url] To discover more interesting science-related stuff, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url] � By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read

Judge Denies Injunction Against MP3 Reseller Due To Lack Of Irreparable Harm... But Says EMI's Arguments Compelling
I've said before that I'm skeptical of the idea behind ReDigi -- a seller of "used" mp3s. The company claims it has a system to make sure that if you sell a music file you own, that they then make sure it's deleted from your computer. This just seems dumb for a variety of reasons -- some economic, some technological and some legal. But, most of all, I just don't see people caring enough to make this a valid business. Either way, whether it's dumb or not, the RIAA couldn't let the company actually try something new... so, of course it sued, with EMI subsidiary Capitol Records taking the lead on the case. Somewhat surprisingly, the judge refused to issue the injunction, calling the case "fascinating" and noting that there were some serious issues to be dealt with concerning first sale rights around copyright (whether or not you can sell a product you bought that is covered by copyright). However, the judge also made it clear that he thinks that the record labels are likely to win in the end, saying that their arguments "look to be compelling." He just didn't issue the injunction because there was no evidence of irreparable harm if the site stayed up, as detailed in the transcript embedded below.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read

Brazilian Government Ordering Web Hosting Firms To Kill Domain Names They Don't Like
A lawyer I know passed along a letter from the Brazilian government to Sedo, a company that helps sell domains and also hosts parked domains (on which it puts some advertising), demanding that it take down a domain that it did not like. The text of the email is included below, but there are plenty of troubling things about the demand. First, the URL in question was an .eu domain, meaning that I can't see how the Brazilian government has any authority whatsoever. The URL did, however, suggest that it involved porn content related to Brazil (in that it has the word Brazil in it, as well as another word/phrase suggesting porn). Brazil could not like the fact that people have registered domains about Brazilian pornography, but I don't see how that gives the country any authority whatsoever to demand the domain be taken offline completely. And, yet, according to the letter: The registration and use of this domain name may lead users to believe that Brazil is a tourist attraction and pole of sexual activities, which interferes on the position and image of the country. Moreover, websites with pornographic contents on the Internet that makes direct and/or indirectly mention to the characteristics related with the Brazilian identity, such as colors of the flag, culture pictures and images of cities, sets as a crime, punishable by the Brazilian Penal Code, Federal Law n. 9.279/1996: The letter goes on to talk about child porn and how heinous it is -- but nothing in the domain, in any way, suggests child porn. It could pretty clearly be used for a legitimate adult porn website, but not child pornography. But the Brazilian government is having nothing of it, demanding that it be taken down: Through this letter, the Ministry of Tourism of Brazil requests that you provide a written assurance within the next seven (7) days that you will: 1. Immediately discontinue any and all use of the domain(s) 2. Immediately and permanently refrain from any use of the term that associates Brazil to the pornography on the Internet; 3. Remove any and all pornographic content or dissociate it with the Brazilian Identity or Brazil. This seems like a pretty big overreach by the Brazilian government on an issue that it has absolutely no jurisdiction over. Sedo did take down the site, but upon being contacted agreed to put it back up. I spoke to Jeremiah Johnston at Sedo who explained the company's policy on these issues -- noting that dealing with multiple geographies makes this quite a challenge, because they have to judge both legal and business issues in determining how to respond, and the company strives to be as transparent as possible. In the end, it uses a kind of notice-and-takedown system, as it did here, where it agrees to take down the domain, but alerts the domain holders and reviews the situation if people complain (as happened here). The Brazilian request was apparently a rather large request hitting on a bunch of different domain names, many of which were not .br domains, but some of which implied activity that was illegal -- and so Sedo had no problem taking those down. The issue here was that this domain got swept up in that effort. I still tend to think that the general request from Brazil was a pretty broad overreach itself, and worry about going after domain names simply for being domain names. The content on those sites may be a different issue, but in this case we were talking about domains for sale and/or parked domains, so it's not clear how much of a complaint Brazil really had.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read

According To Lamar Smith, Data Or Criticism From Anyone Who Doesn't Like SOPA Isn't Valid
We recently wrote about PolitiFact trashing Lamar Smith for the numbers he used in support of SOPA -- numbers that PolitiFact says grade out to "false." What I somehow missed was at the very end of that article, they ask Smith to respond to the charges that his argument was false. Amazingly, rather than respond to the actual data, Smith chose to instead attack one (of a few!) of the people that PolitiFact discussed the data with, Julian Sanchez: After we summarized much of this research, Smith objected to Sanchez as an expert, saying in an email that because Sanchez is opposed to the anti-online-piracy act, he "cannot provide an objective or unbiased analysis." He stood by his CNN.com statement, telling us: "Since the U.S. is the largest producer of (intellectual property) that is consumed around the world, one can surmise that a significant amount of that total value is taken from the U.S. economy." First of all, what? Considering that the numbers Smith used came from industry lobbyists in favor of the bill, doesn't that mean that Smith should be objecting to his own numbers? After all, the source of those numbers -- the Chamber of Commerce -- "cannot provide an objective or unbiased analysis." Or perhaps Smith thinks that only those in favor of SOPA can provide such an analysis. Either way, that statement is insane. Smith honestly seems to be saying that any information -- no matter how factual -- cannot be trusted if it comes from SOPA opponents. Why doesn't he have that same skepticism towards the data that the MPAA and Chamber of Commerce handed him? Furthermore, his decision to stick by his comments is doubly insane. The fact that the US is the largest producer of intellectual property that is consumed around the world... does not, in fact, mean that any counterfeiting is "the total value taken from the US economy." Is this guy serious? PolitiFact flat out points out that it's false, with data to back it up, and shows exactly how Smith is blatantly lying about the data... and Smith's response is to restate the error and insist that the thing already proven false must be true?!? Smith's constituents should demand better. Having an elected official who lives in a fantasy world where facts are ignored is not a good thing.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read

Evidence Shows That Megaupload Shutdown Had No Real Impact On Infringement
The first big analysis of what happened to file sharing via cyberlockers following the shutdown of Megaupload shows that there was no slowdown in file sharing -- it's just that the traffic moved elsewhere. The analysis, by Deepfield Networks, concludes that there was no significant drop off in file sharing in the US... but that it has become "staggeringly less efficient" from a network standpoint, because much of it moved to offshore locations over "expensive transatlantic links." This isn't a huge surprise. We've been pointing out for ages, that you can shut down as many sites as you can, and new options will always pop up. Shutting down sites has never worked, but for whatever reason, ICE and the MPAA/RIAA never seem to learn from their past mistakes.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read

Syrian President's Email Hacked... His Password Was 12345
Well, this is rather incredible. With the news that Anonymous hacked the offices of the Syrian President and dumped a ton of emails online... comes the news that the hack was insanely easy. Why? Because, apparently, the password was 12345. No joke. Of course, that's considered one of the worst passwords of all time. And, as pointed out by Lauren Weinstein, this is the exact same password that was immortalized by Dark Helmet (the original one, rather than our local Techdirt hero) as being the stupidest password he's ever heard -- and the "kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!" Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read

The Rise Of The 'Professional Amateur' And The Fall Of Gated, Exclusionary 'Clubs'
As the gatekeepers continue to see their carefully constructed walls crumbling, they have rushed to shore up the walls using any means at their disposal, whether it's legislation, lawsuits or simple exclusion. But those within the gates aren't much happier, despite the limitations imposed by the gatekeepers, and many are just as resistant to change as the legacy industries they work in. Tadhg Kelly at GamesBrief has delivered an excellent post explaining why it's so hard for the creators still working within the confines of these industries to embrace the future: Creative industries tend to be like clubs. You can get into the club in many ways, but all of them are equally difficult. You've put the time in, done the training, had the lucky breaks, struggled and finally made it. Once you are actually in the club then life is easier. You have a name, you are a part of a network and you work with a lot of the same people year in year out. Members rarely fall out of the club entirely... We are pros. We are "in". And we are aware that there are so many more people who are not "in" that would like to be. Perhaps they have an overly-romantic notion of what it's like but that's just how it is. All creative fields, from modern art through to advertising have that lustre because people like the idea of making things for a living. That last sentence is key. Even as the limitations and drawbacks of yoking your creative output to a major label or a large publishing house become more apparent, the lure remains nearly as strong, simply because for a long period of time, these legacy industries were the best option. But now they're not, and this threatens those still working within the system. [P]art of being "in" is the sense that the club can't get too big, and for many the internet is actually pushing to make the club smaller. Book publishers, for example, no longer offer much in the way of advances. Long-tail services like Netflix and Spotify have such huge libraries that every new artist is competing not just with their peers, but their antecedents also. Distribution may rise but prices fall. They feel squeezed by piracy. Though they dislike it, many who are "in" quietly believe that they have to keep many more people "out" in order to hold on to what remains. I don't mean executives etc. I mean established writers, musicians, game makers and so on. We live in a curious age where the freest of thinkers (artists of various stripes) are the ones that want to curtail freedom the most. The pressure to control the internet isn't simply studio execs and big content lobbyists. The pressure is also exerted by those on the inside, who aren't happy to see huge shifts in the gameplan or new blood being introduced. But even worse, they can't tell whether the gates are protecting them or trapping them. Those who are "in" also feel squeezed by something else: Democratisation of tools. It's bad enough that they have to deal with a loss of revenue, but a reduction of difficulty in getting into the club threatens to increase its size many times over. The future is a world awash with low-rent ebooks, GarageBand music and GameMaker-developed games. Quality will collapse, and there will be no future for the professional any more. This opinion is expressed quite often during discussions about legacy industries, that if the barriers are low enough, everyone's going to jump the fence and water down the creative field. To those in the club, it looks hopeless: set adrift in a sea of low-talent amateurs whose willingness to undercut the competition with massive amounts of cheap/free goods. But they fail to see the upside to the removal of barriers: In the startup world, the reduction of barriers is a great boon. You can, for example, assemble a small team and go create a tool that will change the world. As an individual you can create a blog that causes conversations and change. You can develop a game, make music, start a design agency, and all you need is a laptop. With the barriers to entry removed, the stage is set for a new breed of creators: the professional amateur. It's not amateur in the sense of a lack of diligence, nor is it professional in the sense of those who are "in". The forces of technology distribution and cheap or free tools creates a space for talent to do what talent wants to do. It creates a class of pro-amateur makers. A pro-amateur perhaps works on a project as a side-line to her day-job but she treats it seriously. Like any struggling writer, there is the work and the need to pay the rent. The difference is that the pro-amateur then takes her work and distributes it directly. She creates a book, an album, a TV series and just puts it out there. It only really costs her time to do it, and if it works it works. If not, she does something else. As has always been the case, making money in the creative world is hard. Most people cannot afford to do it as their only source of income. This isn't a new problem, although many of those on the inside of the "club" tend to portray it as such. But this new hybrid form of creator will be able to do things they can't, thanks to platforms and tools they embrace, rather than distrust. The magic of the internet is therefore this: It substitutes time spent getting into the club with time spent finding fans. Expertise with experience. Legitimacy with audience. Jargon with generosity. And for those with the talent to do it well come the rewards because niche audiences that blossom into tribes exist for almost anything you can think of. To coin a phrase (ha!), Connect with Fans and give them a Reason to Buy.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read

RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA
Remember all that talk of how the supporters of SOPA/PIPA were "humbled" by the protests of January 18th, and how they had learned their lessons about trying to push through a bill without actually involving the stakeholders? Remember the talk of how they hoped a new tone could be found in the debate? Yeah. Apparently someone forgot to send that memo to RIAA boss Cary Sherman, who has taken to the pages of the NY Times to lash out at those who fought against SOPA/PIPA, chalking the whole thing up to a massive "misinformation" campaign by Google and Wikipedia. The whole thing is chock full of ridiculous claims, so we might as well go through it bit by bit. THE digital tsunami that swept over the Capitol last month, forcing Congress to set aside legislation to combat the online piracy of American music, movies, books and other creative works, raised questions about how the democratic process functions in the digital age. Why yes, it did raise questions about the process by which the RIAA and MPAA write bills to regulate other industries without even letting those the bill would regulate have a seat at the table. It also raised questions about the way the RIAA and MPAA have successfully expanded copyright law in their own favor sixteen times in the last 35 years, by playing the moral panic game over and over again... and keeping any hint of reality out of the debate. What it showed was that the tools of communication finally allow the public speak up and that the users of the internet simply won't accept the RIAA and MPAA's version of protectionism and crony capitalism any more. But somehow, I don't think that's what Sherman meant... Policy makers had recognized a constitutional (and economic) imperative to protect American property from theft, to shield consumers from counterfeit products and fraud, and to combat foreign criminals who exploit technology to steal American ingenuity and jobs. Oh gosh. So much pure crap in a single sentence it's difficult to know where to start. First of all, copyright is not property. It's a government granted monopoly privilege over information. That's very different. Also, it's not theft when someone infringes... it's infringement. Using such bogus language has been the way that the RIAA has induced moral panics for years, but part of the point of the protests was that the public simply isn't buying it any more. Repeating the same tropes over again is just sad. Next, there is no "constitutional imperative" to pin secondary liability on innocent parties, to massively expand the nature of copyright law and the nature of enforcement. The only constitutional issue is that Congress has the right -- but not the requirement, to create copyright and patent law if (and only if) it promotes the progress (of science and the useful arts). That's got absolutely nothing to do with SOPA and PIPA, and it's ridiculous and obnoxious to suggest otherwise. Conflating copyright infringement with counterfeiting, as he does right after that, is a cheap trick that we've discussed countless times. Counterfeiting is a very different issue from copyright infringement. If Congress wants to address "shielding consumers from counterfeit products and fraud," then they should debate a bill that's narrowly focused on that particular issue. But that's not what they did here. SOPA and PIPA were much more focused on issues that had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting consumers. Finally, there is no such thing as "stealing ingenuity or jobs." Those are things you cannot steal. The RIAA may have been a master at creating moral panics in the past, but doubling down on the same failed strategy after it's been exposed is just kind of sad. I know Sherman has been at the RIAA for ages, but it's time to get a new playbook. The moral panic strategy in which you lie, conflate different issues, and present some massive problem without any evidence is simply not credible any more. They knew that music sales in the United States are less than half of what they were in 1999, when the file-sharing site Napster emerged, and that direct employment in the industry had fallen by more than half since then, to less than 10,000. What they might not have known -- because the RIAA never wants to admit this -- is that the overall music industry is growing, not shrinking. Sure, the dollar value of music sales has shrunk, and perhaps it's because of file sharing, but the overall music industry -- including things like concerts, licensing and publishing -- has continued to rise, quite significantly. More importantly, these are the parts of the business where artists actually keep a much larger percentage of the money -- meaning that artists are significantly better off today than they were in the past, contrary to what Sherman and the RIAA will tell you. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear that much of the decrease in music sales has to do with the unbundling of the CD, and the fact that people aren't forced to buy an $18 CD just to get the one or two songs they want. Overall, music transactions have grown tremendously. Even more important? The amount of music that is being created has exploded over the last decade. And, in the end, that's the key point of copyright law. It's supposed to encourage more creation of new content, and that's happening at an amazing rate. The RIAA's real problem is that a significant and growing portion of that is happening entirely outside of the RIAA labels. Finally, notice the careful use of "direct employment" rather than overall employment. That's because he's only talking about those employed by the major record labels -- which, at just 10,000, is a tiny blip. I'm actually kind of amazed he'd use this number, since it shows the ridiculousness of the MPAA's claim of 19 million jobs at stake. They're not. The RIAA is concerned about just the employment of a very small number of companies who simply refuse to adapt to a changing marketplace. Companies like Google, Facebook, eBay and others have created millions of new jobs over the last decade. And we should be worried about 10,000 jobs from a few giant conglomerates (many of which are owned by foreign companies or investors) because they refuse to adapt? Wow. Meanwhile, what the data really shows is that those who are actually involved in the creation of entertainment (not just gatekeeper roles like the RIAA) are seeing continued growth -- especially among independent artists, who have grown by over 43% in the past decade. Somehow Sherman left that part out. They studied the problem in all its dimensions, through multiple hearings. This is just flat out lying. There were no Congressional hearings on PIPA. At all. There was one hearing on SOPA -- in which the deck was completely stacked 5 to 1 in favor of the bill, with the "1" against being Google -- and not anyone representing the wider interests of the public, technology or the internet. To say that Congress studied the problem is simply false. In fact, I know this for a fact, because over the past few months I've met with dozens of members of Congress in both Houses, discussing these issues, and was told, repeatedly, that they had never seen or heard the basic numbers I was providing (despite the fact that most of them come from the government itself). While no legislation is perfect, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (or PIPA) was carefully devised, with nearly unanimous bipartisan support in the Senate, and its House counterpart, the Stop Online Piracy Act (or SOPA), was based on existing statutes and Supreme Court precedents. But at the 11th hour, a flood of e-mails and phone calls to Congress stopped the legislation in its tracks. Was this the result of democracy, or demagoguery? Both PIPA and SOPA may have been "carefully devised," but they were carefully devised by the MPAA, which handed the final bill to the politicians who introduced them. They were not carefully devised with the public in mind. Separately, the idea that these bills were stopped "at the 11th hour" is again a lie from someone who is hoping that people weren't paying attention. From the moment the predecessor of these bills, COICA, came out, there was a growing movement of internet users, innovators, legal experts, technologists, entrepreneurs, investors and many, many others speaking out against these bills. This continued to grow and grow as more people learned of the problems of these bills. The idea that this was some magic 11th hour outbreak of interest is historical revisionism. Misinformation may be a dirty trick, but it works. And the RIAA and Cary Sherman should know, as they've been experts in misinformation for decades, including in their support of SOPA and PIPA, which was very carefully planned out. Was there some misinformation on the other side? Sure, but most of that came from two factors: (1) The fact that the initial version of SOPA was such a massive and complete overreach, that even once the details of that bill were trimmed back, not everyone who had been made angry by the original bill realized this. Yes, it was too bad that not everyone realized what changes Lamar Smith made in December, but it's pretty ridiculous to claim that was part of a "misinformation campaign." Most of those claims were based on what the MPAA and RIAA had supported in the original bill and would have loved to have seen in the final. (2) The fact that there were millions upon millions of everyday people who spoke out against the bill. When that happens, some people are going to exaggerate or report false information. But the key arguments were absolutely true. And, really, the misinformation coming from the other side was different. It wasn't because of miscommunication, it was the direct and planned out strategy of the MPAA, RIAA and US Chamber of Commerce to directly mislead Congress and the press by presenting information in a manner that was flat out false. And if we're going to talk about misinformation campaigns (hey, he brought it up), should we take a look at the campaign by the RIAA to declare MP3 players illegal? Should we talk about their attempt to take away artists' rights by having a Congressional staffer sneak language into a bill overnight that would eliminate an artist's right to reclaim copyrights (done by the guy who is now number two at the RIAA and who joined the RIAA just months after doing this). Should we talk about the misinformation campaign against internet users, ISPs and just about anyone who didn't fall into line with the RIAA's view of the world concerning the internet? Consider, for example, the claim that SOPA and PIPA were “censorship,” a loaded and inflammatory term designed to evoke images of crackdowns on pro-democracy Web sites by China or Iran. No, censorship is the accurate term for what occurs when you shut down protected free speech. And that was the major concern. And it was made by well over 100 legal scholars, including by some of the most respected legal scholars in the country. Even the big legal scholar that the pro-SOPA forces rolled out admitted that SOPA and PIPA would cause protected speech to be censored. And it seems pretty damn hypocritical of Sherman to go on and on claiming that "censorship" is the wrong word, when he's the one using "theft" for infringement -- a direct falsification, unlike the use of censorship which is the proper word, as made clear by all those legal scholars. And, yes, comparing it to China and Iran was completely reasonable, because the method put forth by PIPA was identical to the method used to censor the web in those countries. It wasn't "misinformation." It was a very accurate concern. Since when is it censorship to shut down an operation that an American court, upon a thorough review of evidence, has determined to be illegal? When the police close down a store fencing stolen goods, it isn’t censorship, but when those stolen goods are fenced online, it is? Okay, speaking of misinformation... shutting down a store is one thing. Shutting down a website that involves all sorts of speech is completely different. And the courts have directly discussed this distinction many times. When a shutdown involves speech, different standards are used. Why Sherman would ignore that... well, that just speaks of the "dirty trick" of a misinformation campaign. Should we discuss the case of dajaz1? The website that was completely censored (yes, censored) by being taken down on the RIAA's say so, despite the fact that the copyright holders and labels were providing that site with the music. Should we talk about how that popular hip hop blog was completely shut down for over a year based on the RIAA's misinformation? Should we talk about how that site wasn't give its day in court? Should we talk about how the censorship lasted for over a year and all of the traffic and earnings that site lost out on because of the RIAA's misinformation? Should we talk about how, after the US government effectively admitted its mistake and gave back the domain (over a year later) without ever filing any charge, the RIAA (rather than apologizing) continued its misinformation campaign by insisting the site was guilty? Wikipedia, Google and others manufactured controversy by unfairly equating SOPA with censorship. They also argued misleadingly that the bills would have required Web sites to “monitor” what their users upload, conveniently ignoring provisions like the “No Duty to Monitor” section. More blatant misinformation. The concerns about these bills were raised by millions of internet users -- not companies. Google and Wikipedia jumped on board late in the game. Yes, their participation in the January 18th protests helped drive the point home, but they were stragglers in this debate, hardly the ones who "manufactured" anything. The protests were driven very much by people, not companies. Anyone suggesting otherwise has no idea what happened and is either ignorant... or conducting a blatant misinformation campaign. As for the "no duty to monitor" part -- this is another part of the bill that was blatantly dishonest. It included statements about how there was no duty to monitor... but then left open the possibility of liability or compliance costs for not doing enough, or not being proactive. Specifically, it would say things like, internet companies would be required to take "reasonable" steps to block access, but the only way it's determined what's "reasonable" is in court. So sites that want to keep themselves out of court might just go all the way to monitoring, just to protect themselves. It's a sneaky legislative trick -- one that Sherman is quite familiar with. Declare that the bill doesn't require something, but word the rest of the bill in such a way that sites feel compelled to do it anyway. The hyperbolic mistruths, presented on the home pages of some of the world’s most popular Web sites, amounted to an abuse of trust and a misuse of power. Oh, man. Don't make me laugh. Once again, this is coming from Cary Sherman -- the master of mistruths himself. And he's really claiming that Google and Wikipedia informing the world of a dangerous bill is an "abuse of trust"? Really?!? I'd argue it was the exact opposite. It was an effort to build trust. The public trusts Google and Wikipedia to look out for their best interests, and this was a way that those sites did so -- after many, many people had raised their own concerns about these bills. When Wikipedia and Google purport to be neutral sources of information, but then exploit their stature to present information that is not only not neutral but affirmatively incomplete and misleading, they are duping their users into accepting as truth what are merely self-serving political declarations. Oh, come on. Seriously? Has the RIAA or Sherman ever stated anything in a completely non-misleading way? Has it ever made a public statement that wasn't a self-serving political declaration? To accuse others of doing what the RIAA has perfected over the years is just ridiculous. As for the use of "neutral" here, it's a perfect example of how Sherman is being disgustingly and obnoxiously dishonest. Wikipedia's content is created from a neutral point of view, but that doesn't mean that as a community they can't speak out on an issue of interest. And the use of "neutral" in connection with Google is a clear shot at the whole net neutrality issue, which again is wholly unrelated to what happened here. To pretend that either company have used "neutral" in a manner to mean that both should shut up and stay mute as the RIAA teamed up with the MPAA to reshape the technological and legal framework of the internet is flat out preposterous. As it happens, the television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn’t take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case. That’s partly because “old media” draws a line between “news” and “editorial.” Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact. Actually, that's not true. Creative America, the astroturfing group set up by the MPAA, had tons of commercials in favor of SOPA and PIPA running on TV. Separately, while cable news totally ignored the SOPA/PIPA debate for a while, it wasn't because of any "line" between news and editorial. We heard from multiple journalists employed by some of the largest cable news channels saying that they were directly stopped from covering the SOPA/PIPA fight, because the higher ups didn't want to give any publicity to the large and growing opposition. The TV networks might not have "actively supported" the bills in terms of their coverage... but that's because (as Sherman well knows) these bills were sure shots. From the moment they were introduced, they were expected to sail through Congress. There was little need to promote their position. Instead, the networks "actively" suppressed any news of the opposition. And when Chris Hayes at MSNBC finally broke ranks and did the first major story about SOPA/PIPA... he gave the large majority of the time to NBC Universal General Counsel Rick Cotton, who used the time to spread a long list of misinformation. The violation of neutrality is a patent hypocrisy: these companies have long argued that Internet service providers (telecommunications and cable companies) had to be regulated under the doctrine of “net neutrality” because of their power as owners of the Internet pipes. But what the Google and Wikipedia blackout showed is that it’s the platforms that exercise the real power. Get enough of them to espouse Silicon Valley’s perspective, and tens of millions of Americans will get a one-sided view of whatever the issue may be, drowning out the other side. Sherman is either ignorant or lying here. Net neutrality has nothing to do with not expressing your opinion. It has to do with the nature of the internet and whether an intermediary can flat out block access to someone else's services (kinda like what the RIAA/MPAA wanted to do via SOPA/PIPA). It's incredibly dishonest to suggest that net neutrality means you can't express your opinion. The conventional wisdom is that the defeat of these bills shows the power of the digital commons. Sure, anybody could click on a link or tweet in outrage — but how many knew what they were supporting or opposing? Would they have cast their clicks if they knew they were supporting foreign criminals selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals to Americans? Was it SOPA they were opposed to, or censorship? And here, Sherman flat out insults the millions of people who spoke out against these bad bills, insisting they were all misinformed. This is why the RIAA is in so much trouble, mind you. It assumes the public is stupid. It assumes its customers are stupid thieves. It never tries to understand what they want or what they're saying. If the RIAA had real leadership, it might actually try to listen to the public. But that's not how Sherman does business. No doubt, some genuinely wanted to protect Americans against theft but were sincerely concerned about how the language in the bill might be interpreted. But others may simply believe that online music, books and movies should be free. And how many of those e-mails were from the same people who attacked the Web sites of the Department of Justice, the Motion Picture Association of America, my organization and others as retribution for the seizure of Megaupload, an international digital piracy operation? Indeed, it’s hackers like the group Anonymous that engage in real censorship when they stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree. Anonymous is a tiny group of people, and many, many of the people who were against SOPA and PIPA condemned their denial of service campaign. It's dirty politics to try to smear all of those opposed to these bills with some vigilantes venting about the Megaupload seizure. And while we're on the subject of Megaupload (hey, he brought it up), shouldn't we be discussing how it showed that SOPA/PIPA were unnecessary? Shouldn't we be discussing how, even if Megaupload was a bad actor, the indictment was dangerously broad in a way that is frightening tons of legitimate companies? Shouldn't we be discussing how many artists used Megaupload to store their own files, which are now lost? Shouldn't we be discussing how RIAA artists like Busta Rhymes spoke out in favor of Megaupload and against the RIAA's position? It seems like that would be a relevant discussion. Too bad Sherman won't get into that, huh? Perhaps the issues around Megaupload aren't as clear-cut as Sherman's misinformation campaign implies? Perhaps this is naive, but I’d like to believe that the companies that opposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to help come up with constructive alternatives. Oh, come on. For decades we have been coming up with constructive alternatives in the form of new services to help you adapt and make more money. And the RIAA's standard response is to sue them. The diversionary bill that they drafted, the OPEN Act, would do little to stop the illegal behavior and would not establish a workable framework, standards or remedies. While I have my reservations about the OPEN Act, nothing stated here is true. It would actually cause tremendous problems for sites that truly are dedicated to infringement and does, in fact, create a framework for stopping those sites. It has become clear that, at this point, neither SOPA, PIPA nor OPEN is a viable answer. We need to take a step back to seek fresh ideas and new approaches. Now you say this? After flat out lying, attacking and insulting everyone who fought against these bills? That's not exactly a way to extend an olive branch. We all share the goal of a safe and legal Internet. We need reason, not rhetoric, in discussing how to achieve it. There have been plenty of wide open discussions on this from those opposed to SOPA and PIPA. The folks from the RIAA are welcome to jump into debates here on Techdirt. Or they can go onto Reddit where many of the debates are happening as well. While these are open and there may be some hyperbole mixed in, on the whole there are lots of reasonable points being made. The problem is that we have yet to see any reason, whatsoever, from the RIAA and MPAA. This NY Times piece is a classic example. Eleven paragraphs of pure rhetoric and misinformation... and then at the end, a plea for an end to such tactics? Sorry, but it might help if you actually started dumping the misinformation and nasty rhetoric yourself. Then feel free to join the rest of us on the open internet where these discussions are already ongoing.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read

Slashdot return to top

The Lack of Scientific Philanthropy In Japan
ananyo writes "The University of Tokyo this week unveils the Japan's first institute named after a foreign donor: the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe. The announcement adds Norwegian philanthropist Fred Kavli's name, along with a US$7.5-million endowment, to one of Japan's most successful institutes. The new center marks a turning point for Japan: to date, the country's universities and research institutes have long had to make do with few philanthropic donations. Strict laws governing university finances, and the lack of a philanthropic tradition, have discouraged the gifts that serve Western institutions so well. To get around the laws, instead of handing the endowment over to the institute, the Kavli Foundation will continue to manage the sum, giving the institute the return on the funds." Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read

2012-02-09T08:00:00+00:00
TomTom Satnavs To Set Insurance Prices
nk497 writes "TomTom has signed a deal with an insurance firm that will see its satnavs used to monitor drivers. Fair Pay Insurance, part of Motaquote, will use monitoring systems built into the TomTom PRO 3100 to watch for sharp braking and badly managed turns, rewarding 'good' drivers with lower premiums and warning less skilled motorists when they aren't driving as they should. 'We've dispensed with generalization's and said to our customers, if you believe you're a good driver, we'll believe you and we'll even give you the benefit up front,' said Nigel Lombard of Fair Pay Insurance." Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read

2012-02-09T05:26:00+00:00
EPIC Sues FTC Over Google's Planned Privacy Changes
angry tapir writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, asking a court to force the agency to take action against Google over planned changes in the company's collection of personal data. EPIC, in briefs filed Wednesday, asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to require the FTC to enforce a 2011 privacy agreement between the agency and Google over the company's fumbled rollout of its Buzz social networking service." Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read

2012-02-09T04:54:00+00:00
What Scorpions Have To Teach Aircraft Designers
First time accepted submitter elloGov writes "The north African desert scorpion, Androctonus australis, is a hardy creature. Most animals that live in deserts dig burrows to protect themselves from the sand-laden wind. Not Androctonus, it usually toughs things out at the surface. Yet when the sand whips by at speeds that would strip paint away from steel, the scorpion is able to scurry off without apparent damage thanks to the unique structure of its carapace. Dr Han Zhiwu of Jilin University and colleagues have found that surface irregularities based on the scorpion's exoskeleton could substantially minimize atmospheric dust damage to aircraft." Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read

2012-02-09T03:00:00+00:00
The Science Fiction Effect
Harperdog writes "Laura Kahn has a lovely essay about the history of science fiction, and how science fiction can help explain concepts that are otherwise difficult for many...or perhaps, don't hold their interest. Interesting that Frankenstein is arguably the first time that science fiction appears. From Frankenstein to Jurassic Park, authors have been writing about 'mad scientists' messing around with life. Science fiction can be a powerful tool to influence society's views — one scientists should embrace." Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read

2012-02-09T01:00:00+00:00
The Zuckerberg Tax
Hugh Pickens writes "David S. Miller writes that when Facebook goes public later this year, Mark Zuckerberg plans to exercise stock options worth $5 billion of the $28 billion that his ownership stake will be worth and since the $5 billion he will receive will be treated as salary, Zuckerberg will have a tax bill of more than $2 billion making him, quite possibly, the largest taxpayer in history. But how much income tax will Zuckerberg pay on the rest of his stock that he won't immediately sell? Nothing, nada, zilch. He can simply use his stock as collateral to borrow against his tremendous wealth and avoid all tax. That's what Lawrence J. Ellison, the chief executive of Oracle, did, reportedly borrowing more than a billion dollars against his Oracle shares to buy one of the most expensive yachts in the world. Or consider the case of Steven P. Jobs who never sold a single share of Apple after he rejoined the company in 1997, and therefore never paying a penny of tax on the over $2 billion of Apple stock he held at his death. Now Jobs' widow can sell those shares without paying any income tax on the appreciation before his death — only on the increase in value from the time of his death to the time of the sale — because our tax system is based on the concept of "realization." Individuals are not taxed until they actually sell property and realize their gains and the solution to the problem is called mark-to-market taxation. According to Miller, mark-to-market would only affect individuals who were undeniably, extraordinarily rich, only publicly traded stock would be marked to market, and a mark-to-market system of taxation on the top one-tenth of 1 percent would raise hundreds of billions of dollars of new revenue over the next 10 years." Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read

2012-02-09T00:16:00+00:00
Jedi Master's Hand-Made Lightsaber Stolen
First time accepted submitter psiogen writes "Flynn Michael, an instructor at New York Jedi, an organization that teaches 'practical knowledge of how to use a lightsaber, left his custom-crafted blade for only a few imperial minutes, but when he returned, it was gone. Fromthe article:'“Who steals somebody’s lightsaber? It’s like stealing someone’s toy out of the sandbox,” said Michael, the founder of New York Jedi, a stage combat performance group. “I finally got my uber custom saber, and then some jerk walks out with it."'" Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read

2012-02-08T23:52:00+00:00
US Air Force Buys iPads To Replace Flight Bags
redletterdave writes "Following the precedent set by commercial airliners, the U.S. Air Force plans to buy up to 18,000 iPads for its Air Mobility Command (AMC), replacing heavy flight bags with light and efficient Apple iPad 2s for the crews that fly cargo aircraft. The devices will reportedly be used by the crews on the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster aircraft. There are several benefits to using electronic flight bags instead of physical versions. For one, the iPad can instantly update charts electronically, while the AMC would require flying charts get reprinted every 28 days to stay up-to-date. By cutting publication printing and distribution costs, and exchanging 70 pounds of paper for a 1.3-pound iPad, the Air Force can save some serious cash, including more than $1.2 million worth of fuel per year." Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read

2012-02-08T23:31:00+00:00
Selling Used MP3s Found Legal In America
bs0d3 writes "After some litigation; ReDigi, a site where people can sell used MP3's has been found legal in America. One of the key decisions the judge had to make was whether MP3's were material objects or not. 'Material objects' are not subject to the distribution right stipulated in "17 USC 106(3)" which protects the sale of intellectual property copies. If MP3's are material objects than the resale of them is guaranteed legal under the first sale' exception in 17 USC 109. Capitol Records tried to argue that they were material objects under one law and not under the other. Today the judge has sided with the first-sale doctrine, which means he is seeing these as material objects." Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read

2012-02-08T22:50:00+00:00
If You're Fat, Broke, and Smoking, Blame Language
First time accepted submitter derekmead writes "A Yale researcher says that culture differences how much money we save, how well we take care of ourselves, and other behavior indicative of taking the long view, are all based on language. His study argues that the way a language's syntax refers to the future (PDF) affects how its speakers perceive the future. For example, English and Greek make strong distinctions between the present and the future, while German doesn't, while English and Greek speakers are statistically poorer and in worse health than Germans. (The study includes a broader swath of languages/nationalities, but that's a start.)" Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read

2012-02-08T22:28:00+00:00