All Streisand Effects Considered
from the drive-time-radio dept
The Streisand Effect is getting a bit more coverage these days. After the Associated Press mentioned it the other day, I got to sit down and talk with Robert Siegel for today's "All Things Considered" where we discussed The Streisand Effect starting with the Wikileaks case and moving on to some other cases where the Effect clearly made an appearance. If this keeps up, maybe we can look forward to a day when lawyers think twice about trying to force perfectly legitimate content offline.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
by Anonymous Coward on Feb 29th, 2008 @ 8:23pm
Wishful thinking. Unless the laws are changed, they're gonna do whatever is legal. Even then you have to wonder about some.
It all come back to Congress (for the US). As long as only millionaires can effectively run, not much is going to change.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Kevin Poulsen on Feb 29th, 2008 @ 9:21pm
I heard you on my drive home. Nicely done.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Charming Charlie on Mar 1st, 2008 @ 12:11am
Who coined the term "Streisand Effect?" Until now I had never seen it outside this site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by publius on Mar 1st, 2008 @ 2:33am
The rich irony is that if Streisand litigates for defamation it would only serve to highlight and further establish this phenomenon. Well done.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
nice one mike by mike allen on Mar 1st, 2008 @ 2:51am
Heard the broadcast on your link great to charming charlie click the blue bits in the article jeeeez.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Moogle on Mar 1st, 2008 @ 6:05am
Well, sure, lawyers can do what's legal, and even what isn't. The point is that what they do will not necessarily accomplish what they want.
"Do" entails suing people, making a stink, etc. Removing something from the public eye isn't something you can do, it's a possible and as we're seeing somewhat unlikely outcome of what someone can "do".
It's very important to realize that the legal system has no say about what's right or wrong. It can only attempt to influence behavior by attaching more results to an action. In this case, there's not much point to changing a law, because the attempted behavior by lawyers had the worst possible outcome for their client in this case - news agencies all over the world are talking ABOUT wikileaks.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
npr not working by rstr5105 on Mar 1st, 2008 @ 8:05am
Hey mike, tried to listen to you on NPR.ORG and for some reason the stream won't start. Anyone got a good mirror for this?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Kudos by Saygin(?) on Mar 1st, 2008 @ 8:18am
Mike,
Heard the interview on ATC last night. Excellent! Kudos on the recognition and your ongoing insightful analysis at Techdirt.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by John Vore on Mar 1st, 2008 @ 9:31am
I'm not a lawyer, but I've paid a lot of money to lawyers to cover intellectual property, from trademark to copyright to a patent attempt.
The basics, as I understand them are this: if you don't actively protect your intellectual property, if someone comes in and steals something, in court you can lose the case. "Use it or lose it," is, to my understanding the "rule," here. So while these incidents may seem trivial to outsiders, the way i.p. works in the United States makes it necessary to go after trivial stuff in order to avoid having to fight a major battle later on.
This isn't to say that there aren't other reasons at work--and it does not address Ms. Streisand's concern. She's a public figure--and there's the key on that tangent: "public"--meaning she goes on stage to make money. And she has people who manage her public image. I doubt any of them live in her home, and I doubt her home is someplace where she rakes in the dollars.
We need to think through all of these ideas very thoroughly as our technologies become more and more ubiquitous...in the least, we need to adjust our expectations and realize that in the now-future, everyone is a potential public figure just waiting to happen...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Mike on Mar 1st, 2008 @ 10:57am
The basics, as I understand them are this: if you don't actively protect your intellectual property, if someone comes in and steals something, in court you can lose the case. "Use it or lose it," is, to my understanding the "rule," here.
There are a few points here. First off, the Streisand Effect isn't just about intellectual property claims. In fact most recent examples (such as the wikileaks case) are not. Second, as I was just discussing the other day, the "use it or lose it" claim is not quite accurate.
First, it does not apply to copyright or patents. The only area where it sort of applies is trademark. But the issue there isn't that you *have* to sue everyone (or threaten to sue everyone) but that you need to make reasonable efforts to prevent the mark from becoming generic. That doesn't mean suing everyone.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Your Answer by erstazi on Mar 1st, 2008 @ 1:46pm
This should be your answer: TheStreisandEffect.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Lucretious on Mar 2nd, 2008 @ 7:26am
odd that the term still hasn't made it into Wikipedia. C'mon guys, lets get the ball rolling on this one.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Mike on Mar 2nd, 2008 @ 9:17am
odd that the term still hasn't made it into Wikipedia. C'mon guys, lets get the ball rolling on this one.
Uh. It's been on Wikipedia for quite some time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
That's the first result if you do a google search. The history suggests someone created it in 2006.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Kudos by Anonymous Coward on Mar 2nd, 2008 @ 12:02pm
Likewise, mike, all things considered is an excellent distribution platform for the term. And the term functions well as a solid codification of the idea, which in turn solidifies people's understanding of the term and the effect. Way to go in creating an idea which will live on long after you, and heres to hoping you can create more! And here's to hoping it ends up as the trendy word of the year alongside truthiness et al
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by ehrichweiss on Mar 2nd, 2008 @ 2:36pm
She couldn't do anything about it anyway, and besides she should be more than aware of the tag with her name on it because it's named after one of her attempts to silence someone; obviously it failed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Lucretious on Mar 3rd, 2008 @ 3:51am
Uh. It's been on Wikipedia for quite some time:
wtf was I entering then?
*shrugs*
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Awesome! by Killer_Tofu on Mar 3rd, 2008 @ 5:59am
Mike, very glad to hear you got onto NPR.
Go figure its just a hair after I got back into listening to CDs on my way home.
Thank you for the link.
Will listen to it later this morning.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Heh. by bshock on Mar 3rd, 2008 @ 9:27am
Lawyers thinking twice. That's a good one. You should definitely explore a career in humor.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by bshock, Bite Me on Mar 3rd, 2008 @ 11:12am
You think lawyers file lawsuits for the fun of it? Most lawyers advise their clients not to go to court because we know that it usually isn't worth it. Some clients don't listen.
Why blame a lawyer when they are just following their clients wishes?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm way behind by Joseph Durnal on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 8:45am
good interview :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment