Is There Really An Idea/Expression Dichotomy In Copyright?

from the it's-difficult-to-see dept

Copyright system defenders often trot out the commonly accepted wisdom that copyright does not protect "ideas" and that there's an important "idea/expression" dichotomy, where it's only the specific expression that's protected, not the ideas. However, the reality is that both individuals and courts seem to have a pretty difficult time distinguishing between the two, and always have. While perhaps there's some platonic ideal where it's easy to tell the difference between an idea and the expression of that idea, it's much harder in practice. Recent studies have shown how notoriously difficult this distinction is in practice, leading to serious questions about how copyright violates the First Amendment.

The latest example of this is the ruling banning the publication of the "modern" sequel to The Catcher in the Rye. If there really were a distinction between the idea and the expression, then a sequel would never be seen as infringing, unless it used significant text directly from the original. Yet, in this case, the ban on publication is making some wonder where that mythical idea/expression dichotomy really exists:

First, it exposes the lie that is perpetuated in the legal community that copyright laws don't protect "ideas", but rather only the "concrete expression" of ideas. In practicality, this statement is pure nonsense as evidenced by the fact that a copyrighted work seals in monopoly protections of "characters" and "derivative works" - even if such derivative works don't include any actual "copying" of cloned material from the underlying work.

For instance, if I feel that I have a far better script or storyline that utilizes the character of James Bond, but without utilizing any previous cloned image from a Bond film and without copying previously used dialogue beyond a minimal instance of "My name is Bond...James Bond." or "Shaken...not stirred.", I still would not be able to create it, because Ian Flemming's estate and/or Sony Pictures, etc. has a monopoly over the IDEA of James Bond.

I would argue that by protecting "derivative" works, copyright effectively asserts control over ideas - except for those envisioned at the most abstract levels.

I'm sure we'll get angry comments from some of the copyright defenders who are always quick to chide, but I'm curious how they can use the so-called idea/expression dichotomy as a defense against a First Amendment violation, when that dichotomy doesn't really seem to exist. Copyright system defenders, for years, have relied on the whole "idea/expression" split to explain away how copyright law can be compatible with the First Amendment's insistence that "no law" may be passed that inhibits freedom of speech. If you realize that said split doesn't really exist (or, at the very least, is not enforced by the courts), you have a big, big constitutional problem.

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?

from the help-me-out-here dept

It's interesting to see the logical pretzels that certain business execs will twist themselves into to defend a poor business model against one that customers enjoy much more. Take for example, the claim from cable firm Rainbow Media's CEO, Josh Sapan, that free video online somehow "insults" people who pay for cable:

"I do think it's important to be technologically progressive and responsive to what consumers want. But that's a different thing, in my mind, from creating bad habits," Sapan said in an interview. "To offer these shows for free ... It's almost insulting to the consumer who's paying money for it, because it says to that consumer, 'What are you doing?'"

Of course you could make the identical argument for any obsolete product. The telephone apparently "insulted" telegraphy purchasers. The airplane apparently "insulted" those who traveled by boat across the ocean. The printing press? Man, did that ever insult those monks who wrote out bibles by hand.

Honestly, it's yet another sign of the entitlement culture, where some seem to assume they're entitled to keep their business model, and it's somehow "insulting" to show their customers that there are better/cheaper/more efficient ways to get what they need.

58 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Myth Of Original Creators

from the creativity-is-built-upon-others-ideas dept

We recently wrote about how many different sources Shakespeare used in writing King Lear, some of which he apparently copied verbatim. However, it seems quite likely that what Shakespeare did with those words created something wholly unique and valuable (at least, it's withstood the tests of time). Yet, this idea that taking the works of others and doing something with them to make them new and wonderful seems to be an anathema to the "true believers" in copyright, who insist that creativity is about being wholly original, and almost never about building on the works of those who came before. Yet, there's almost no evidence to support this. Nearly any creative work can be shown to be built upon the works of those who came before (hell, even our own copyright law is copied from others').

Law professor Peter Friedman recently had a few interesting blog posts that helped highlight this. First, he noted that the very notion of an author as the originator of a new work is a relatively recent phenomenon, and part of the Romantic Movement. However, prior to that, the view was much more akin to what we're actually seeing today with online tools of creation: "creative endeavors are derivative and collaborative, that originality is not the product of isolated genius but of, well, remixing."

He then goes on to discuss the blues musician Robert Johnson -- considered by many to be the "quintessential" Blues musician. However, a recent study into Johnson's work suggest that his fame and renown is basically an accident of history. Some British musicians heard Johnson's music, and since they'd never heard it before, they credited him for it, even though he was mainly copying (and building on) the work of others:

Conceptions of Robert Johnson's work highlight the context dependent nature of notions of originality. Originality is yet another characteristic of copyrightability that is not always easy to delineate in actual contexts of creation. However, what might seem original to those in one context may not seem as original in other contexts. Consequently, within the context of African American audiences of the 1920s and 1930s, Johnson's work probably did not seem startlingly original in the way that it did to British and other musicians and audiences listening to Johnson's music, often in relative isolation, in the 1950s and 1960s. This later audience was largely removed from the original context of other music that was prevalent at the time Johnson produced his music or able to listen to a limited and likely biased sample of such music. For early African American blues listeners, what seemed original and interesting was very different that what seemed interesting and original to the largely white blues fans that were the major force behind the blues revival in the 1950s and 1960s. For the latter, romantic conceptions about the blues were closely tied to notions of authenticity that are often unsuited to musical creation in living musical traditions. As a result, what is perceived as original may depend in significant part on the contexts within which listeners hear music.

Friedman also points back to another recent post where he discusses the nature of content creation, based on a blog post by Rene Kita. In it, she points out that remixing and creating through collaboration and building on the works of others has always been the norm. It's what we do naturally. It's only in the last century or so, when we reached a means of recording, manufacturing and selling music -- which was limited to just those with the machinery and capital to do it, that copyright was suddenly brought out to "protect" such things.

But, today, with the rise of the internet, and the ability for anyone to perform those roles, we run smack dab into conflicting interests. People still want to create the way they always have, but the industry of the last century, that has relied on copyright law to make its product seem different and "original" freaks out about this ongoing content creation:

Culture is a conversation. Every act of culture is a reply to something, a restatement, correction, modification, reworking. Lawyers are constantly debating how much modfication is required to make a work legal. Thus, you may 'create' a new instance of The Blues(TM Martin Scorsese), by shuffling the notes and words around by a set amount. Shuffle too little and you're in trouble with the law. Shuffle too much and the purists start screaming rape. Still, artists are trained to recognize what is a new song and what a version and their publishing companies have experts to deal with these matters. And there we enter the crux of the matter:

Copyright law is corporate law. Or it used to be.

Previously, it took heavy investment to publish art, music, writing, so it was always done by companies and professionals. Today, squirting anything into a blog is an act of publishing. The legalese you signed by clicking when you started your blog forbids any use of copyrighted material that you don't own. Suddenly, instead of plain ordinary citizens entitled to sing "Poops, I did it again" or tape Brad Pitt's face in a toilet bowl onto a postcard to a friend, we are all professional artists required to Create Art from Scratch. Because we are no longer just having a conversation, in which we quote from everything we have seen and heard without any thought of Creation and Originality. Your piddling little blog is a Publishing Enterprise held to the same legal standards as Time Warner Inc, except that you do not have the funds to pay for any borrowings.

You have been muzzled.

This is why people are angry. Their normal modes of expression have been turned into a crime. They know they are only safe from prosecution because they are small fry - unless someone decides to make an example of you. Thus, any time you post some photoshoppery or a musical mash-up you risk having it summarily deleted and your account cancelled for criminal cultural activities.

It's nice to see more and more people recognizing and speaking out about these things. The idea that there is a single "author" or "creator" who deserves to get money any time anyone else builds upon his or her works is something that should be seen as increasingly ridiculous as people recognize that all works are created based on the works of others, and it's inherently silly to try to charge everyone to pay back each and every one of their influences in creating a new work.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Morons In A Hurry Can Raise Their Glasses Of Glenora Whisky Proudly Again

from the don't-spill-it dept

What is it with the silly food related trademark battles we keep hearing about lately? First there were Idaho potatoes, then lettuce, and now whisky. You see, the Scotch Whisky Association takes these things seriously. Already you can't call something Scotch (or Scotch Whisky) unless it was produced at a distillery in Scotland, but now it was trying to expand its control over the word "Glen" as well. There are, of course, a few very well known Scottish distilleries using "Glen" such as Glenlivet or Glenfiddich. So what was the problem? Well, in Glenville, Nova Scotia, Canada there's a whisky distillery called Glenora, who makes a single malt whisky under the name Glen Breton Rare whisky. The Scottish Whisky Association insisted this was a problem and confusing, even though the label on Glen Breton states quite clearly: "Canada's Only Single Malt Whisky." I think even the traditional "moron in a hurry" would recognize that it's from Canada, not Scotland.

It appears that some Canadian judges agree -- and have refused to hear the Scottish Whisky makers' appeal, meaning Glenora gets to keep the name. Of course, the other bit of irony, as pointed out by the anonymous person who submitted this: Nova Scotia actually means New Scotland.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is It So Difficult To Understand The Difference Between A Platform And A User?

from the head-scratcher dept

In the US, thanks to safe harbor rules in the DMCA and the CDA, courts will often toss out misdirected lawsuits that go after a service provider for the actions of a user. To be honest, I've always questioned why we need such safe harbors in the first place, since it should just be basic common sense that a service provider shouldn't be liable for the actions of a user. But, of course, common sense just isn't that common. This can be seen, first, in all the lawsuits that require incantations of the safe harbors to get them tossed out, but even worse, in foreign countries that have no such safe harbor laws. Take for example, a case in India, where Google India is being blamed for content written by bloggers on Blogger. First, Blogger is run by Google, not Google India, so the lawsuit is doubly misdirected -- but, more importantly, Google itself cannot be responsible for what someone writes using its tool. That's like suggesting that Bic is responsible for what you write with its pens. The case involves a guy who was upset about what some bloggers wrote about him -- so of course, he had to sue Google. What's amazing is that the judge seems to have initially bought this as reasonable. It barred Google from hosting any blog that "defamed" this guy. Google has responded by trying to explain the basics of the internet to the judge and how it's impossible for Google to figure out if someone is defaming someone else using its software.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Oh Look, Citizen Journalists Can Do Real Investigative Reporting

from the i-thought-that-was-impossible? dept

The newspaper people will tell you that if they are obliterated by the evil internets one of the big loses will be investigative journalism. If it hadn’t been for those gritty investigative journalists the newspaper hires there’d be no Watergate, no Whitewater Gate, no ‘Gates of any kind.

Of course, that’s just plain silly. Newspapers didn’t invent investigative journalism any more than they invented news or reporting news.

In fact, in this digital age where anyone willing to do the work can spill the beans to a massive audience, there is more reason than ever for independent investigators to step up to the plate. The folks at QuarryGirl, a blog dedicated to animal rights, have done just that.

Having been given a great deal of anecdotal proof that some food at Vegan restaurants around LA contained animal by-products, they decided to see if they could prove it. One might assume, as a bunch of bloggers with, potentially, no J-school experience whatsoever, they might make a hash of things. Instead, they made a plan:

Here's an outline of the plan:

• Locate a facility that has no traces of egg, casein or shellfish in which to perform the advanced tests
• Purchase anti-contamination equipment including industrial sterilization supplies, lab coats, uncontaminated bags, swabs, razor blades, gloves and floor coverings
• Obtain highly restricted industrial food testing "kits" only available to the food manufacturing industry
• Develop a regimented process to test each food item with the highest standards of inter-test cleanliness, ensuring that absolutely no food particles from one food item contaminate another
• Select a diverse set of menu items from 100% vegan-only restaurants throughout LA (with one exception, see later)
• Order the food for carry-out, and seal it in an airtight bag in its original packaging either inside, or very close to the point of purchase
• Transport the food items to the testing facility intact and sealed, and perform the tests within 48 hours of purchase, keeping them refrigerated until immediately before the test
• Develop a strict bracketing control, with a thorough analysis of the testing facility and equipment before testing: A negative control to ensure no pre-existing contamination, and a positive control test on a known-positive food product (containing all three target non-vegan items) to ensure that the tests do indicate positive results
• Conduct the test in absolute secrecy to ensure that no restaurant would know they were providing samples, and pose as regular customers ordering take-out food in a normal way, with no disclosure that the items would be used for a test.

So, we divided up the work between us, and dedicated a Friday evening, Saturday and Sunday as well as over $1,000 of our collective money to pulling off the most extensive scientific test that we know of to find out, once and for all, if samples of restaurant food are vegan or not.

Not sure about you, but that sounds like a pretty sound plan. Find out what happened here.

This is just one example of how the inevitable death of newspapers will simply not be the information apocalypse they’d like you to think it will be.

Dave Title is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Dave Title and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Canadian TV Station Selectively Issuing Copyright Takedowns?

from the if-you-say-what-we-like... dept

A couple people have sent in this story, where the Canadian TV station Business News Network is apparently issuing takedowns on certain videos that are clips from BNN shows. The copyright claims may be valid, but what's odd is that they seem to be targeted very specifically: only at those who posted clips of people pushing back against draconian copyright expansion legislation in Canada. Now, obviously, BNN has the legal right to protect its own copyrights, but there's something pretty sketchy when it selectively only takes down clips that show people fighting against copyright expansion. It certainly goes beyond the purpose of copyright, and shows how copyright is often used not as an incentive, but as a means of stifling speech.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Tosses Out Lori Drew Ruling

from the wow dept

The Lori Drew verdict finding her guilty of computer hacking because she may have broken MySpace's terms of service (without even having read them) was a classic example of prosecutors trying to stretch the law to punish someone who did something they didn't like, but which wasn't against the law. The implications of the ruling were quite troubling, in that they could turn almost anyone into a criminal if prosecutors wanted to charge them as such. For months, though, the judge in the case has been weighing whether or not to overturn the ruling. It's not clear why it took so long, but the judge has in fact acquitted Drew on the three charges she was found guilty of by the jury. This is good news all around. No matter what you think of Drew and what she did, prosecutors twisted the law in a way that would have set an amazingly dangerous precedent. It will be interesting to see if there's an appeal, but for now, this is undeniably good news.

57 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New Jersey Politician Adds Most GPS Devices To Driver Distractions To Ban

from the sigh dept

We've pointed out time and time again how silly it is for politicians to run around trying to ban each and every driver distraction, rather than just focusing on beefing up laws for reckless driving. There have been laws or proposals against driving while talking on a phone, texting, viewing a video screen, faxing, eating, shaving, playing video games and even having sex. And now, Comboman alerts us to a proposal in New Jersey to ban drivers from using GPS devices that require manual programming. Instead, drivers could only use those with voice control features. Next up? Who's going to ban adjusting the radio dial or the air conditioning?

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Blizzard The Latest To Kill Features, Call It An Upgrade

from the yeah,-that-doesn't-work dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in variations on the news that Blizzard has killed off LAN support for StarCraft II. The Buzz Saw points out that Blizzard seems to be taking the same old tactic of claiming that this removal of a feature is for the benefit of users, noting that this is "the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience." However, the company also does admit that it was a "difficult decision" and that a larger part of the reason may have been to "safeguard against piracy."

Either way, this seems like a move that's designed to backfire badly. It's all about taking away value, rather than adding value (or a reason to buy). LAN parties using StarCraft were a huge part of the appeal of the game -- and even though there were many pirated versions out there, it's part of what drove more people to buy the legitimate version. One thing that we've seen over and over again is that any business that focuses on "safeguarding against piracy" isn't focusing enough on providing unique value to customers. It's amazing that it still needs to be explained in this day and age, but you succeed in business by providing more positive value to customers, not in taking it away just because it doesn't fit with your business model.

70 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Even More eMusic Features Disabled?

from the anti-fan-is-not-a-good-thing dept

This is really unfortunate. eMusic used to be a great example of how treating customers right and with respect and trust could win over more customers -- but in the last month or so, it seems like the company is throwing all that out the window and pissing off customers left and right. Beyond the big price increase at the same time as signing its first major record label (bad PR to announce both together), the company has censored critics and removed the feature that let you redownload songs you'd purchased before, at your convenience. However, now we're hearing that there were a bunch of other features that were removed as well. An anonymous reader notes:

"July 1 was the first day in the Sony era over at eMusic. Despite published interviews with eMusic executives, FAQs on the eMusic web site and messages from eMusic employees on the eMusic forums attempting to clarify the new pricing structure, there were quite a few surprises. Some of the changes I've noticed (or read about in the forums) include:

• Certain tracks can only be downloaded with "paid" credits, not the free credits eMusic hands out for trial memberships.
• Individual track downloads disabled for tracks longer than 10 minutes - you must download the entire album
• Certain (popular) sub-10-minute tracks disabled for individual download
• No downloading individual discs in multi-disc sets
• Most new albums use 12-credit album pricing (very few reports of 6 or 9 credit album pricing)
• Many (a significant portion in the classical section at least) albums with fewer than 12 tracks cost 12 credits
• Many albums previously available on eMusic have been re-priced (in some cases, tracks available for 1 credit on June 30 now require 12 credits)

IMO, the fact that eMusic did such a poor job communicating these important changes suggests that they deliberately withheld (or downplayed) this information, possibly to keep from fueling the outrage generated from last month's Sony/pricing announcement."

This seems like an increasing disaster. Hopefully some of these changes are mistakes, rather than permanent. But the way this whole situation has been handled is going to make a terrific case study in how not to do PR. eMusic has turned from a company that customers really loved into one that many seem to hate... and it's happened in an incredibly short time frame. That's really unfortunate.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Another City Caught Lowering Yellow Light Times To Catch More Red Light Runners

from the yet-again dept

It's been shown repeatedly that redlight cameras don't appear to make intersections any safer, but they do act as a nice revenue generator for cities. In fact, at times it's such a tempting revenue generator that city officials cannot resist the urge to tamper with the timing of the lights to get more people running "red" lights that really should have been yellow. The latest such case, as pointed out by Jeff Nolan, happened in Arizona. According to regulations, the yellow light at a certain intersection was required to last 4.3 seconds: 4 seconds for the road being 40 mph and another 0.3 seconds due to the way the road curves. Yet, over 1,000 motorists were ticketed, in part because the traffic light had been adjusted so that the yellow light only lasted 3 seconds, 70% of the required length. Thanks to some enterprising motorists who timed the light and complained, those who were caught are getting back their money and having the citations removed from their record.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?

from the free-speech? dept

Last month, we wrote about a lawsuit from JD Salinger over an attempt to publish a "sequel" to Salinger's famous Catcher in the Rye written by Fredrik Colting under the pseudonym JD California. In a similar case, concerning a "parallel world" for Gone With the Wind, after an initial banning, the book was eventually allowed to be published. You might think that the district court would look at this and recognize that it goes against pretty much all common sense to ban this book... but you'd be wrong. After an initial injunction, the judge has now banned publication of the book.

Yes, you read that right. A US court has banned the publication of a book, even though the creative expression in the book is unique, and it merely uses characters from another book (which it doesn't even name the same). This is a sickening result for anyone who believes in the First Amendment, the true purpose of copyright law and basic creativity. It's difficult to see any reasonable justification for this ruling. Much of the ruling goes through the four factors of fair use, focusing a lot on why the new work is not a parody (which is why the judge says it's different than the Gone With the Wind/Wind Done Gone situation). This misses the larger point: the work is entirely new. It's not directly copying any actual expression. The real problem here is the idea that only "parody" can be considered fair use in these situations. There's simply no reasonable logic to support that.

The rest of the discussion on the four factors fair use test is rather troubling. Most specifically, the judge's analysis of the third prong, concerning "the amount of the copyrighted work" being used seems to go to great lengths to explain how the new book uses a great deal from the old book, but bases this on similarities between the way the character acts, not any actual copying of expression (other than the odd word or phrase, which would certainly seem to be minimal actual copying). Similarity (on purpose) is not copying. Stunningly, the judge even points out that the stories have similar arcs (which isn't surprising), but to claim that because of a similar story arc there's infringement is incredibly troubling for pretty much any writer. After all, people write stories with similar arcs all the time.

Finally, and perhaps most disturbing of all, is her finding on the fourth prong, concerning the impact on the market for the copyrighted work, she actually finds that this weighs against fair use. Again, the logic simply does not add up. The judge admits that it probably would not negatively impact the actual demand for Catcher in the Rye, she actually ignores the fact that the opposite would likely occur. If anything, it will drive more people to go out and buy copies of the original to read (or, more likely in many cases to re-read) to go along with this new book. The judge's reasoning is that this book would harm the market for an actual sequel, but again, that's difficult to square with reality. If JD Salinger announced he was writing a sequel... that would make tremendous news, and it would be quite clear that people would rush to get the "real" sequel. Even if he were to license it (which appears to be the judge's main concern) to someone else to write (which seems insanely unlikely given Salinger's actions to date), people would quickly learn of the "authorized" vs. "unauthorized" versions. It's difficult to see how it would harm the market at all.

This is a very troubling ruling that seems to go against the very basics of copyright law in many, many ways. Hopefully, the ruling does not stand for very long.

54 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jammie Thomas Decides To Appeal Constitutionality Of $1.92 Million Damages Award

from the and-away-we-go... dept

As we speculated earlier this week, given the silence from the Jammie Thomas camp since the $1.92 million verdict against her, we assumed she was gearing up for an appeal -- and that's now been confirmed. Thomas' lawyer has announced that Thomas has decided to appeal, questioning the constitutionality of the statutory damages awarded, which was the obvious attack point. It will be interesting to see who gets involved in actually managing the appeal.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Taiwan Regulators Tell Dell It Must Sell Mispriced Monitors At $15

from the ouch dept

Ever since e-commerce began there have been stories of mispriced items -- and following that, stories of the mad rush to buy the mispriced product (especially when it involves misplaced decimals, shrinking the price by orders of magnitude). In the US, at least, it's quite clear that such a mispricing need not be honored by the retailer, though public pressure often leads the retailer to offer something to those who tried to buy, just for the sake of PR. Given that, it's quite surprising to see Taiwan regulators tell Dell that it needs to honor the 140,000 monitors that were sold for about $15 each when they really were supposed to be $150. It's difficult to see how it makes sense to enforce the lower price. It was a clear mistake, and most of the orders were clearly only made due to the mistake.

69 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Real Problem For The Music Industry Is... Interest Rates?

from the say-what? dept

Cybeardjm points us to a story from Billboard about a claim from the head of PRS in the UK, noting that the real problem with the music industry today is low interest rates. You see, the way collections societies work is they collect money and hang onto it for a while before actually giving it out (if they give it out at all). During that time that they hold it, they hope to earn money on the interest, but with interest rates so low, apparently revenue is expected to be way down. The article points out:

But while overall revenues are being hit by falling CD sales and lower income from music in advertising, Porter said 80% of the decline can be blamed on interest rate cuts.

I'm assuming they just mean on the publishing side of the business, but it's worth noting this stat the next time you hear people complaining about how much songwriters are "hurt" by file sharing. If the impact of fluctuations in interest rates are a much bigger revenue concern, than the impact of file sharing really isn't that big. On top of that, any organization that bases expected revenue on something as variable and out of their direct control as interest rates is going to run into serious trouble pretty quickly.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Forget Suing Google, Now It's Craigslist That's A Target For Misplaced Lawsuit

from the no-surprise-really dept

It's been quite common for companies to sue Google when a competitor puts up an ad that references their own trademarks. This is misguided in any number of ways: first, as long as the ad itself is not confusing such that the reader (or a moron in a hurry reader) would think that the ad is from the original company rather than the competitor, there's not likely to be a trademark violation. More importantly, even if there is a trademark violation, it should not be Google's liability, since they're simply the service provider. The liability (if there is any) would be on whoever created the ad. Mostly, the courts have gotten this right -- though, sometimes they've gotten confused. Either way, those lawsuits keep getting filed.

And now, it appears, they're spreading. Dave Barnes alerts us to the news that a similar lawsuit has been filed against Craigslist. The lawsuit was originally filed in a Texas state court, but has been transferred to a federal court -- but not before the state court banned Craigslist from posting any more ads with those trademarked words. Considering that Craigslist does not pre-screen posts to its site, it's not at all clear how that's even possible. And, considering that trademarks only cover use in commerce in a specific context, it would be way too onerous to insist that Craigslist could not allow the phrases "Call First," "First Call Properties," or "Call Us First," in any context whatsoever.

Hopefully, the federal court is quick to dismiss Craigslist from the suit. Unfortunately, since trademark claims don't have a section 230 or DMCA safe harbor, it may be a little more involved than some other cases. But common sense, once again, dictates that Craigslist should not be the liable party here and should not be responsible for policing the text of posts. To make the claim even more ridiculous, since Craigslist doesn't charge for the ads in question, it's difficult to see how Craigslist could be found to have been using these words "in commerce." The lawsuit also alleges libel against Craigslist -- which should get thrown out quite quickly under section 230. It's too bad that the trademark claim might be a bit more involved.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Tehran Bureau Shows That If There's A Need, Reporting Will Get Done

from the it-happens dept

The rallying cry of newspaper old timers who insist that "reporting" will die off if newspapers go away, but that ignores the fact that, if there's a true need, reporting will find a way. Andy Roon points us to a story about The Tehran Bureau, a news publication about events in Iran... that is published out of a small house in suburban Massachusetts. It's a mostly volunteer effort, to be sure, but it has tremendously accurate and detailed info about what's going on in Iran from people who care about these things -- and the information is being quoted and referred to by major media organizations who don't actually have Tehran bureaus themselves. I'm not saying (even though some will falsely claim this) that this volunteer model is "the model" for news. I'm just pointing out -- once again -- that if there's a real need for reporting on a certain topic, it's amazing that motivated people will find a way to make it happen.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Google Quietly Kills Off Its Commentary Feature For News

from the time-to-try-something-different dept

Back in 2007, Google released a feature for its News service that let folks comment on news stories. However, there were some weird quirks to it (eg. you had to be somehow involved in the news articles in order to add your comments to them), so it's not really surprising that it didn't really get much use. It was an interesting idea, though, and the feature isn't devoid of merit. But there were other (and, ahem, better) ways for people to respond to the news, and the benefit of commenting via Google News didn't really solidify. So, as Google is wont to do recently, it shut down its news commentary feature, saying that the experiment had ended.

But what is the real lesson here for content platforms? Obviously, businesses shouldn't continue projects that are not generating enough interest. But besides that, this seems to be a case of assuming that "build-it-and-they-will-come" should work for a high traffic site like Google News. However, even when Google actively tried to get people to comment, people still didn't participate for the most part. The problem likely wasn't that people didn't want to comment on news items, but that they wanted to comment and respond in their own way -- on their own site, on their own terms. And Google News didn't really allow that -- and even made it difficult by requiring a step to verify the submitted comments. So it seems that the takeaway for other content platforms is to make it easy to create content (or commentary, in this case), but also, don't try to control or restrict users' content. Lessons that Google should probably have already learned from YouTube and Blogger?

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Insider Trading Suspected In The Pirate Bay Sale

from the getting-weirder-every-day dept

The whole story of the supposed sale of The Pirate Bay gets odder and odder as more news comes out. Beyond the questionable business model the new owners are discussing, now comes the news that trading in GGF shares were halted prior to the transaction due to suspected insider trading. There was an unexplained bump in trading the week before the sale was announced, leading to suspicion that people were trading on non-public news. This could create more problems for GGF. On top of that, the stock exchange GGF is listed on is apparently already threatening GGF for owning The Pirate Bay, noting that it "wants to make sure that the companies that are traded on the list are managing legitimate businesses." Given the conviction against the four people associated with The Pirate Bay, their assertion is that it's not a legitimate business. Honestly, the story is somewhat surreal and feels quite like the trial itself: a lot of people not really taking things seriously.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..