O:9:"magpierss":18:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:20:{i:0;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:11:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:55:"Less Well Known Musicians Embracing 'Pay What You Want'";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Michael Masnick";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080620/1132211463.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080620/1132211463.shtml";s:11:"description";s:4767:"It still amuses me how often when we talk about specific music business models, defenders of the old system rush in to explain why any particular example is an exception. For years, we showed examples of less well known musicians embracing these kinds of new business models, critics would complain that they might work for unknown musicians who have "nothing to lose" and need attention more than anything else, but it would never ever work for a big star who has too much to lose. Then, of course, we talked about big time musicians like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails embracing these kinds of models, and the critics said "well, sure, it works for them with their well recognized name, but it would never work for unknown artists." Hell, someone said that just yesterday in response to a post here, leading another commenter to jokingly (I hope) coin the phrase "Masnick's Law", which is loosely defined as

"in any conversation about musicians doing something different to achieve fame and/or fortune someone will inevitably attempt to make the argument that 'it only worked for them because they are big/small and it will never work for someone who is the opposite,' no matter how much evidence to the contrary might be readily available."

I might expand on that definition a bit to have it go beyond just big/small. People will keep looking for excuses why each example is an exception, (big/small just being an easy such reason) to the point that they'll eventually miss the fact that all of those exceptions are the rule.

Anyway, based on all of this, it will be interesting to see how Girl Talk's new album does. Girl Talk is a one man DJ once mentioned (positively) in Congress as an example of why traditional copyright laws might not make sense anymore. With the release of his latest album, he's decided to use a Radiohead-style model, with a few improvements. That is, rather than just a pure "give it away and pray," he's giving people an additional reason to buy -- though I think he could still put together a better model. His is set up so you can pay what you want (including nothing at all) and get 320 kbps MP3 files, but if you pay over $5, he offers FLAC files as well, and at $10 you'll also get a copy of the physical CD when it comes out. If you pay $0, he does ask that you fill out a little survey explaining why. There still are some problems with this model (it's still a little too much like a give it away and pray model), but overall, it's quite similar to Radiohead's experiment.

Now, of course, all the folks who insisted that Radiohead's model would never work for a relatively obscure musician are supposed to now insist that this model won't work at all for Girl Talk, right? But what happens if Girl Talk is actually happy with the results, whether in direct payment amounts or in the fact that it gets him more publicity? Will they finally admit that the model isn't just an exception?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:36:"small-musicians,-big-musicians-alike";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080620/1132211463";}s:7:"summary";s:4767:"It still amuses me how often when we talk about specific music business models, defenders of the old system rush in to explain why any particular example is an exception. For years, we showed examples of less well known musicians embracing these kinds of new business models, critics would complain that they might work for unknown musicians who have "nothing to lose" and need attention more than anything else, but it would never ever work for a big star who has too much to lose. Then, of course, we talked about big time musicians like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails embracing these kinds of models, and the critics said "well, sure, it works for them with their well recognized name, but it would never work for unknown artists." Hell, someone said that just yesterday in response to a post here, leading another commenter to jokingly (I hope) coin the phrase "Masnick's Law", which is loosely defined as

"in any conversation about musicians doing something different to achieve fame and/or fortune someone will inevitably attempt to make the argument that 'it only worked for them because they are big/small and it will never work for someone who is the opposite,' no matter how much evidence to the contrary might be readily available."

";}i:1;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:32:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:64:"The March Of Mobile Phone Progress Isn't Always Smooth Or Direct";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:7:"Tom Lee";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080618/1201241445.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080618/1201241445.shtml";s:11:"description";s:4382:"

Tim Wu is discouraged. Writing in Slate last week, the telecom expert lamented the terms he's facing as an aspiring iPhone 2 owner: a two-year AT&T contract thanks to the handset's newfound inability to be unlocked and a move toward a more conventional subsidized handset model. Wu sees this as emblematic of a shift in the mobile industry:

The fact that someone like me is switching to AT&T is a sign of the times in the telephone world. The wireless industry was once and is still sometimes called a "poster child for competition." That kind of talk needs to end.

He's right -- but then, that kind of talk shouldn't have been started in the first place. The mobile market was defined by long contracts, locked handsets and a lack of prepaid options long before Apple arrived on the scene. Now it appears that it'll remain that way long after Apple.

Admittedly, this is a disappointment. Many looked at Apple's choice of a second-rate carrier -- one they could bully around -- as a sign that everything was about to change. Finally a handset manufacturer had arisen that was powerful enough to break the industry's self-serving revenue model and empower consumers! With the recent declaration of the iPhone 2's retreat toward conventional industry shadiness, those counting on Apple's benevolent technological dictatorship have found themselves disappointed (as they have before, and no doubt will again). They were fooling themselves anyway: did anyone really think Apple was going to tolerate phone unlocking forever?

But the outlook isn't all grim. As Wu notes, the Google-led Open Handset Alliance is trying to follow in Apple's footsteps with its own game-changing, must-have handsets -- only this time there seems to be a more expressly ideological slant to the effort. And Verizon's Open Development Initiative, while less than perfect, is perhaps even more encouraging in that it shows the industry has begun to acknowledge the market's need for more flexibility in data services.

And that's the real reason for hope: the march of progress. Anyone who tries to paint the mobile industry as the picture of efficient market competition is either in denial or deeply dishonest. But wireless services will inevitably become more important and more available, whether thanks to WiMAX, revived municipal wifi projects (now without capital costs, thanks to the magic of bankruptcy!), spectrum freed by digital broadcasting, or some other wireless technology. The mobile carriers haven't been great at competing amongst themselves, but you can bet they'll begin responding once consumers have reasonable alternatives.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:10:"be-patient";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080618/1201241445";}s:7:"summary";s:4382:"

The fact that someone like me is switching to AT&T is a sign of the times in the telephone world. The wireless industry was once and is still sometimes called a "poster child for competition." That kind of talk needs to end.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:2;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:51:36 PST";s:5:"title";s:85:"Wi-LAN Sues RIM: Two Canadian Firms Duke Out Patent Fight... In East Texas, Of Course";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Michael Masnick";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080620/1324141465.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080620/1324141465.shtml";s:11:"description";s:3337:"Turns out that Canadian patent holders love East Texas just as much as American companies. The news today covers how Canadian wireless patent holder Wi-LAN has now sued RIM in East Texas, concerning patents on mobile handheld devices. RIM is also a Canadian company (and also heavily involved in patent disputes). Isn't it great to see two Canadian firms choosing East Texas as the best place to fight over patents?

Wi-LAN is a company that we've discussed in the past. It worked on some technologies for wireless networks, but was unable to successfully market products commercially. In other words, it failed in the market. So, instead, it started focusing on aggressively enforcing its patent portfolio, suing a ton of companies who did anything wirelessly. As with so many public companies that turn into patent hoarders these days, it also has a very vocal and active set of day traders who will defend it to no end (see the comments on that link above).

RIM, of course, is also a well known company that we've written about many times. The maker of the super popular Blackberry wireless device, it became an aggressive filer of patent infringement lawsuits. That, in turn, led some patent holders from a non-practicing entity called NTP to sue RIM over some other patents -- eventually leading to a $612.5 million payout by RIM (despite the fact that NTP's patents were found to be invalid).

This latest case seems like it ties together so many different stories. You've got a failed business trying to use its patents to hold back the company that won; it's got Wi-LAN who has been aggressively trying to tax just about every wireless innovation with its patents; it's got RIM, who has been on both sides of a ton of questionable patent lawsuits; and it all takes place in East Texas. Who could ask for anything more?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:14:"ah,-east-texas";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080620/1324141465";}s:7:"summary";s:3337:"Turns out that Canadian patent holders love East Texas just as much as American companies. The news today covers how Canadian wireless patent holder Wi-LAN has now sued RIM in East Texas, concerning patents on mobile handheld devices. RIM is also a Canadian company (and also heavily involved in patent disputes). Isn't it great to see two Canadian firms choosing East Texas as the best place to fight over patents?

Wi-LAN is a company that we've discussed in the past. It worked on some technologies for wireless networks, but was unable to successfully market products commercially. In other words, it failed in the market. So, instead, it started focusing on aggressively enforcing its patent portfolio, suing a ton of companies who did anything wirelessly. As with so many public companies that turn into patent hoarders these days, it also has a very vocal and active set of day traders who will defend it to no end (see the comments on that link above).

RIM, of course, is also a well known company that we've written about many times. The maker of the super popular Blackberry wireless device, it became an aggressive filer of patent infringement lawsuits. That, in turn, led some patent holders from a non-practicing entity called NTP to sue RIM over some other patents -- eventually leading to a $612.5 million payout by RIM (despite the fact that NTP's patents were found to be invalid).

This latest case seems like it ties together so many different stories. You've got a failed business trying to use its patents to hold back the company that won; it's got Wi-LAN who has been aggressively trying to tax just about every wireless innovation with its patents; it's got RIM, who has been on both sides of a ton of questionable patent lawsuits; and it all takes place in East Texas. Who could ask for anything more?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:3;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:14:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:68:"Why The 'Third Party Doctrine' Undermines Online Privacy Protections";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:11:"Timothy Lee";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080530/2014171272.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080530/2014171272.shtml";s:11:"description";s:5092:"

There's been an interesting discussion going on between my colleague Jim Harper and legal scholar Orrin Kerr about the third party doctrine, the legal principle that, in effect, you lose your Fourth Amendment rights when you relinquish information to a third party. The doctrine has become increasingly important with the rise of modern technology because we now entrust a host of private data -- including our email, cell phone calling data, credit card transactions, and more -- to private companies, and the third party doctrine would seem to suggest that Fourth Amendment protections would not extend to such information. A couple of weeks ago, Kerr posted a draft paper defending the doctrine, arguing that it brings clarity and simplicity to privacy law and avoids the need for "a complex framework of sui generis rules." Jim strongly disagrees with Kerr, arguing that the third party doctrine was always misguided and that recent technological changes have simply made these flaws more evident.

Jim points out that when the Fourth Amendment was drafted, the vast majority of peoples' private activities occurred inside the home, and so it made sense to make the home focus of Fourth Amendment protections. But as people began conducting more and more of their lives outside of the home, with telephones, email, credit cards, and so forth, using the four walls of the home as the boundary for Fourth Amendment protection made less and less sense. And indeed, that's precisely what the Supreme Court recognized in the famous 1967 case of Katz v. United States, which held that the Fourth Amendment applied to wiretapping of public pay phones because the Fourth Amendment protects "people, not places." The same principle ought to apply to our emails, credit card transactions, and other data of a private nature: what matters is not where the data is located or who has custody over it, but whether the subject of surveillance had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his use of that data.

Kerr responded that "the real judges and Justices that make the rules" have recently shown greater sympathy for Kerr's view of the Fourth Amendment as a narrow doctrine of criminal procedure rather than a broad charter for protecting peoples' privacy. I agree with Jim that this isn't really responsive to his argument. Whether judges currently do see things Kerr's way tells us little about whether they ought to view them that way. Judges have gotten the Fourth Amendment wrong in the past. After all, Katz overruled Olmstead v. United States, a decision that had allowed warrantless wiretapping almost four decades earlier. So the fact that the courts have not yet extended Fourth Amendment protections to email or other digital records doesn't prove that a future court won't recognize that such information is as crucial to personal privacy as paper records and phone calls. Sticking with the third party doctrine would make the Fourth Amendment less and less relevant as technology changes because more and more private information to be held by third parties. If we want the Fourth Amendment to continue to be an effective protection for peoples' privacy, and I think we do, it needs to be continuously updated to reflect changing technological realities.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:16:"fourth-amendment";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080530/2014171272";}s:7:"summary";s:5092:"

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:4;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:41:33 PST";s:5:"title";s:68:"Blast From The Past: Oh Look, New Business Models Didn't Require DRM";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Michael Masnick";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080612/0101311386.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080612/0101311386.shtml";s:11:"description";s:2298:"Sometimes it's fun to look back on predictions from a few years back. lavi d writes in to point out a 2001 Microsoft press release that he came across while looking for something else. The press release touts new DRM technologies coming out of Microsoft, which is amusing if you know anything about Microsoft's history with DRM. But the really key part of the press release was a VP from the record label EMI insisting:

"Nearly all the new media business models require a robust DRM solution to be successful. Microsoft's continued innovation and commitment to quality sound in Windows Media is helping us develop profitable new ways of connecting music fans with the artists they love."

And how did that turn out? Well, as we're increasingly discovering, very few new media business models require any sort of DRM, and in fact, DRM seems to damage business models a lot more than it helps them. And, Microsoft's forays into the space have hardly done very much in helping musicians develop "profitable new ways" to connect music fans to artists.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:23:"thank-goodness-for-that";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080612/0101311386";}s:7:"summary";s:2298:"Sometimes it's fun to look back on predictions from a few years back. lavi d writes in to point out a 2001 Microsoft press release that he came across while looking for something else. The press release touts new DRM technologies coming out of Microsoft, which is amusing if you know anything about Microsoft's history with DRM. But the really key part of the press release was a VP from the record label EMI insisting:

"Nearly all the new media business models require a robust DRM solution to be successful. Microsoft's continued innovation and commitment to quality sound in Windows Media is helping us develop profitable new ways of connecting music fans with the artists they love."

";}i:5;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:05:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:57:"Readers Want Context and Organization, Not Just 'Content'";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:11:"Timothy Lee";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080609/1105121347.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080609/1105121347.shtml";s:11:"description";s:4712:"

I wrote last fall that the New York Times was finally starting to get the web, and I think the Washington Post is in the same category of taking the web a lot more seriously than it did a few years ago. But although the biggest newspapers are now taking the challenge seriously, they still have work to do. Case in point: the Washington, DC, area had a big storm a while back, and Scott Karp went to the Washington Post website expecting (reasonably enough) to find information about it. Unfortunately, despite being a DC-based publication, the Post's home page had very little information about the storm. Indeed, the home page wouldn't have mentioned it at all if there didn't happen to be a story on the most-read articles list. Unfortunately it was a formulaic story from the print edition that was great for a non-Washingtonian who doesn't know anything about the storm, but it's not terribly useful to a Washingtonian who can see the storm happening outside his window. What locals need is detailed, real-time information. After seeing nothing relevant on the WaPo's website, he went over to Google, typed in "power outages in northern virginia," and the first hit was a page from Dominion Electric showing power outages around its service region. Karp went back to the Post's website, and after more searching finally found a blog focusing on DC area weather—precisely the sort of thing that the Post ought to be making more prominently displayed during major weather events.

I think there are a couple of lessons to be learned from this. First, as Mike has said before, good content is often less important than useful services like organizing and filtering information. The Post had the content Karp wanted -- an up-to-date blog and links to useful resources -- but because its website was poorly organized, he wasn't able to find it easily. Some newspapers claim that Google lives parasitically off of other content producers, but I think this is a good illustration of why that's not true; there was plenty of content out there, but without Google, Karp might not have been able to find it. The other problem is that for all of the Post's progress it still seems to regard itself largely as a newspaper that happens to publish its articles on the web, rather than a general media company that happens to publish a paper edition. Sometimes a traditional newspaper article is the best way to cover a story, but often (as in this case) it's not. The Post, like a lot newspaper outlets, still seems to put too much emphasis on its print content, even in circumstances were a shorter, timelier, and more densely-linked story would be more useful to readers.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:19:"web-as-afterthought";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080609/1105121347";}s:7:"summary";s:4712:"

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:6;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:24:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:82:"Canadian Real Estate Site Wants To Remain Unusable; Threatens Those Who Improve It";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Michael Masnick";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080618/0007541438.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080618/0007541438.shtml";s:11:"description";s:2311:"In the past, we've written about various organizations who break out the lawyers immediately when someone else makes their own poorly designed sites work better. This has happened with sites like the Ellis Island site and a movie theater chain in the UK. In both cases, some folks who got fed up with the poorly designed official site stepped up and created a better interface to the data hidden within. That same situation appears to be happening in Canada. Joe writes in to let us know that the Multiple Listing Service in Canada (which is basically the core database listing homes for sale) has a poorly designed website. Some enterprising individuals in Toronto made a much nicer interface, creating a mashup that pulled in other data (such as Google maps info). Rather than, say, recognize how useful the better interface was and talk to the developers about how MLS could use that work themselves, it sent a cease and desist, forcing the site to shut down. The site's creators were doing this as a hobby to improve the usefulness of MLS's data. And now it's gone. That's no way to run a business.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:11:"this-again?";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080618/0007541438";}s:7:"summary";s:2311:"In the past, we've written about various organizations who break out the lawyers immediately when someone else makes their own poorly designed sites work better. This has happened with sites like the Ellis Island site and a movie theater chain in the UK. In both cases, some folks who got fed up with the poorly designed official site stepped up and created a better interface to the data hidden within. That same situation appears to be happening in Canada. Joe writes in to let us know that the Multiple Listing Service in Canada (which is basically the core database listing homes for sale) has a poorly designed website. Some enterprising individuals in Toronto made a much nicer interface, creating a mashup that pulled in other data (such as Google maps info). Rather than, say, recognize how useful the better interface was and talk to the developers about how MLS could use that work themselves, it sent a cease and desist, forcing the site to shut down. The site's creators were doing this as a hobby to improve the usefulness of MLS's data. And now it's gone. That's no way to run a business.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:7;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:41:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:56:"Associated Press: Well, Now That That's All Done With...";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Michael Masnick";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080619/2322461461.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080619/2322461461.shtml";s:11:"description";s:4644:"The Associated Press "conversation" with bloggers keeps getting more bizarre. Yesterday, it met with the guy that Rogers Cadenhead from the Drudge Retort asked to represent him in dealing with the AP. This was the guy that the AP falsely suggested was going to help them set up "guidelines" for bloggers. That was never true. He was merely there to represent Cadenhead's side of the story. And the result? A statement from the AP saying that the matter is now closed. Seriously. No details. No "conversation." Just wiping its hands of the whole thing:

In response to questions about the use of Associated Press content on the Drudge Retort web site, the AP was able to provide additional information to the operator of the site, Rogers Cadenhead, on Thursday. That information was aimed at enabling Mr. Cadenhead to bring the contributed content on his site into conformance with the policy he earlier set for his contributors. Both parties consider the matter closed.

In addition, the AP has had a constructive exchange of views this week with a number of interested parties in the blogging community about the relationship between news providers and bloggers and that dialogue will continue. The resolution of this matter illustrates that the interests of bloggers can be served while still respecting the intellectual property rights of news providers.

Let's unpack this a bit. First off, and most importantly, I'm quite happy that the AP and Cadenhead have worked out their differences. It's never any fun to be on the receiving end of a legal threat -- and the most important thing of all was making sure that the situation was settled. However, the rest of the AP's statement is troublesome.

First, for an organization claiming that it wants to be a part of the conversation (and some have noted that "conversations" rarely begin with a legal threat), never actually coming out and talking in public seems quite problematic. So far, the public communication from the AP has been (1) identical cut-and-pasted comments on a number of blogs, (2) a couple of quotes given to reporters, (3) possibly some private discussions with unnamed bloggers, and (4) a private meeting with a representative for the Drudge Retort. There wasn't a single attempt to have a public discussion. There's no explanation of the resulting "agreement" or how it might impact other bloggers who quote the AP. There isn't even a single indication from the AP that it recognizes why so many people are upset.

That's not a resolution. That's denial.

Update: Rogers Cadenhead has posted his thoughts on the discussion with the Associated Press, and while he does seem relieved that his involvement is now cleared, he doesn't seem optimistic about the future:

If AP's guidelines end up like the ones they shared with me, we're headed for a Napster-style battle on the issue of fair use.

In other words, so much for the "conversation" that the AP has supposedly been having. It still won't acknowledge what fair use clearly allows and it still won't admit that it was wrong -- or openly discuss its position in public.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:21:"hey,-wait-a-second...";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080619/2322461461";}s:7:"summary";s:4644:"The Associated Press "conversation" with bloggers keeps getting more bizarre. Yesterday, it met with the guy that Rogers Cadenhead from the Drudge Retort asked to represent him in dealing with the AP. This was the guy that the AP falsely suggested was going to help them set up "guidelines" for bloggers. That was never true. He was merely there to represent Cadenhead's side of the story. And the result? A statement from the AP saying that the matter is now closed. Seriously. No details. No "conversation." Just wiping its hands of the whole thing:

In response to questions about the use of Associated Press content on the Drudge Retort web site, the AP was able to provide additional information to the operator of the site, Rogers Cadenhead, on Thursday. That information was aimed at enabling Mr. Cadenhead to bring the contributed content on his site into conformance with the policy he earlier set for his contributors. Both parties consider the matter closed.

In addition, the AP has had a constructive exchange of views this week with a number of interested parties in the blogging community about the relationship between news providers and bloggers and that dialogue will continue. The resolution of this matter illustrates that the interests of bloggers can be served while still respecting the intellectual property rights of news providers.

If AP's guidelines end up like the ones they shared with me, we're headed for a Napster-style battle on the issue of fair use.

";}i:8;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:01:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:56:"Our Congress Has Failed Us: Gives In On Telecom Immunity";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Michael Masnick";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080619/2145281459.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080619/2145281459.shtml";s:11:"description";s:3882:"We mentioned the rumored "compromise" bill concerning telecom immunity earlier this week, and now it appears that leaders of both the House and the Senate have agreed to wording in the bill which will be brought to the floor today. From the sound of it, it's exactly what we feared: Congress has effectively given in to the administration, allowing it to grant immunity to any telco. Apparently, all that talk about not allowing the worst of this bill to go through was just talk. It's difficult to know where to begin in reviewing this "deal." It's hardly a compromise -- it's a get out of jail free card.

To summarize: it appears quite likely that various telcos broke a very clear law in providing wiretaps to the government without a warrant (as required under FISA). Despite what you might hear, this has nothing to do with emergency wiretaps where there wasn't time to go the warrants. Under existing law, in such cases, it's possible to get the wiretap and get the warrant within a few days. However, in many cases, it appears no warrant was ever sought. The fact that the telcos approved these wiretaps is almost certainly against the law -- and it seems that it should obviously be tried in a court of law to determine that specifically.

However, under this new law, Congress has basically given the President (who ordered the wiretaps in the first place, and doesn't want these trials to go forward since they may reveal that he broke the law too) "get out of jail free" cards he can hand to each telco, saying that since he told them that the wiretaps were legal, the lawsuits no longer can proceed. Basically, this puts the President above the law, lets him avoid trials that might prove that his activities broke the law and to reward telcos who broke the law at his command.

Even worse, the bill basically grants the administration the right to keep on spying without getting warrants. Intelligence agencies will be able to demand various communications providers hand over communications without court approval and without naming the target, so long as they claim that the communications are "reasonably believed to involve a non-American who is outside the country." Seems rather wide open for abuse doesn't it?

This whole thing is fairly stunning, considering that it's an opposition Congress facing off against a weak administration. Yet Congress basically gave the President exactly what he wanted, and made a mockery of the checks and balances our government was supposed to include. This is allowing a President to say the law is whatever he says is the law, while destroying basic due process and civil liberties along the way.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:22:"no-checks,-no-balances";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080619/2145281459";}s:7:"summary";s:3882:"We mentioned the rumored "compromise" bill concerning telecom immunity earlier this week, and now it appears that leaders of both the House and the Senate have agreed to wording in the bill which will be brought to the floor today. From the sound of it, it's exactly what we feared: Congress has effectively given in to the administration, allowing it to grant immunity to any telco. Apparently, all that talk about not allowing the worst of this bill to go through was just talk. It's difficult to know where to begin in reviewing this "deal." It's hardly a compromise -- it's a get out of jail free card.

To summarize: it appears quite likely that various telcos broke a very clear law in providing wiretaps to the government without a warrant (as required under FISA). Despite what you might hear, this has nothing to do with emergency wiretaps where there wasn't time to go the warrants. Under existing law, in such cases, it's possible to get the wiretap and get the warrant within a few days. However, in many cases, it appears no warrant was ever sought. The fact that the telcos approved these wiretaps is almost certainly against the law -- and it seems that it should obviously be tried in a court of law to determine that specifically.

However, under this new law, Congress has basically given the President (who ordered the wiretaps in the first place, and doesn't want these trials to go forward since they may reveal that he broke the law too) "get out of jail free" cards he can hand to each telco, saying that since he told them that the wiretaps were legal, the lawsuits no longer can proceed. Basically, this puts the President above the law, lets him avoid trials that might prove that his activities broke the law and to reward telcos who broke the law at his command.

Even worse, the bill basically grants the administration the right to keep on spying without getting warrants. Intelligence agencies will be able to demand various communications providers hand over communications without court approval and without naming the target, so long as they claim that the communications are "reasonably believed to involve a non-American who is outside the country." Seems rather wide open for abuse doesn't it?

This whole thing is fairly stunning, considering that it's an opposition Congress facing off against a weak administration. Yet Congress basically gave the President exactly what he wanted, and made a mockery of the checks and balances our government was supposed to include. This is allowing a President to say the law is whatever he says is the law, while destroying basic due process and civil liberties along the way.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:9;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:42:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:50:"LA Times Embarrasses Itself With Kozinski Coverage";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:11:"Timothy Lee";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080614/1348591407.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080614/1348591407.shtml";s:11:"description";s:4998:"Last week we wrote about the hoopla surrounding some racy images and videos Judge Kozinski had accidentally made public on his personal web server. This week, it was announced that a panel of federal judges will be investigating Kozinski's conduct. I don't understand why an investigation is needed because it's pretty clear what happened, and that Kozinski did nothing wrong. My colleague Jim Harper links to a defense of Kozinski by Larry Lessig. I share Lessig's conclusion that the treatment of Kozinski has been disgraceful, but I don't think the analogy Lessig uses is especially apt. Lessig analogizes the situation to a man who climbs into Kozinski's den through a poorly-secured window and makes copies of the materials he finds within Kozinski's house. He also uses the term "hack" to describe the process of accessing Kozinski's files. I don't think this is quite right. It was a public web server; the files were readily available without a password to anyone who went looking for them. What was done to Kozinski was unsavory, but it wasn't illegal, and it's not analogous to breaking and entering.

A better analogy is dumpster diving. What happened was the digital equilvalent of somebody combing through Kozinski's trash and discovering an issue of Playboy. No respectable respectable newspaper would publish a front-page story about finding porn in a federal judge's trash. It's no more newsworthy that Kozinski inadvertently made some racy images available on his personal website. Kozinski's wife, Marcy Tiffany, wrote a letter about the affair that's well worth reading in full. She claims (and others agree) that the files were unearthed by an attorney with a grudge against Kozinski, who obtained the files months ago and has been shopping them around to different newspapers ever since. The LA Times apparently had this story months ago, but waited until Kozinski had finished the grueling work of impaneling a jury for a big obscenity case (it's hard to find a dozen people willing to watch hours of defecation and bestiality videos) before putting the story on its front page.

Even worse, the LA Times coverage appears designed to cast the material on Kozinski's computer in the worst possible light. For example, it describes one video as depicting "a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal." This description prompted a number of follow-up reports, including one in the San Francisco Chronicle, to describe the contents of the video as "bestiality," despite the fact that the video in question obviously doesn't depict bestiality. (The Chronicle story was here, but the word "bestiality" has since been deleted) The LA Times really ought to apologize to Judge Kozinski for needlessly dragging his reputation through the mud.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:23:"digital-dumpster-diving";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080614/1348591407";}s:7:"summary";s:4998:"Last week we wrote about the hoopla surrounding some racy images and videos Judge Kozinski had accidentally made public on his personal web server. This week, it was announced that a panel of federal judges will be investigating Kozinski's conduct. I don't understand why an investigation is needed because it's pretty clear what happened, and that Kozinski did nothing wrong. My colleague Jim Harper links to a defense of Kozinski by Larry Lessig. I share Lessig's conclusion that the treatment of Kozinski has been disgraceful, but I don't think the analogy Lessig uses is especially apt. Lessig analogizes the situation to a man who climbs into Kozinski's den through a poorly-secured window and makes copies of the materials he finds within Kozinski's house. He also uses the term "hack" to describe the process of accessing Kozinski's files. I don't think this is quite right. It was a public web server; the files were readily available without a password to anyone who went looking for them. What was done to Kozinski was unsavory, but it wasn't illegal, and it's not analogous to breaking and entering.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:10;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:11:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:90:"Overly Optimistic: Analysts Predict Cellular Broadband To Surpass Copper Broadband By 2010";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Michael Masnick";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080613/0226451400.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080613/0226451400.shtml";s:11:"description";s:2958:"There's just something about new wireless technologies that seems to make analysts over-estimate their impact. I still remember when people were talking about how GPRS was going to be a real DSL replacement. GPRS, of course, was an incredibly unreliable and ridiculously slow update on GSM wireless technology. Yet, before it was used, there were stories predicting how it would be a wireless revolution. And then people started using it. And pretty much the same thing has happened with each advance in cellular technology. I remember people saying that EDGE, EV-DO, and HSDPA (all network upgrades) were going to be good enough to replace DSL or cable modems. Yet, even though EV-DO and HSDPA get decent speeds (still much slower than your average DSL or cable), the real problem is how these networks simply don't have the capacity to be a real home broadband replacement. That's why all of the contracts have ridiculous limits, suggesting you can't do very much with them, and often placing exceptionally low usage caps on the services.

Of course, don't tell that to the analysts, who can't resist making the same exact prediction about cellular broadband replacing home broadband. The latest such report is focused on the UK, and says that cellular based broadband for computers will surpass DSL or cable as the primary connection for users by 2010. That's not very far in the future. Now, certainly, mobile technology has improved greatly over the years, and there's still plenty more to come. However, the only really consistency in the mobile world is that many analysts over-estimate both the speed with which these new networks are adopted and the quality of these mobile networks. It would certainly be great, if true, but consider me skeptical.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:11:"yeah,-right";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080613/0226451400";}s:7:"summary";s:2958:"There's just something about new wireless technologies that seems to make analysts over-estimate their impact. I still remember when people were talking about how GPRS was going to be a real DSL replacement. GPRS, of course, was an incredibly unreliable and ridiculously slow update on GSM wireless technology. Yet, before it was used, there were stories predicting how it would be a wireless revolution. And then people started using it. And pretty much the same thing has happened with each advance in cellular technology. I remember people saying that EDGE, EV-DO, and HSDPA (all network upgrades) were going to be good enough to replace DSL or cable modems. Yet, even though EV-DO and HSDPA get decent speeds (still much slower than your average DSL or cable), the real problem is how these networks simply don't have the capacity to be a real home broadband replacement. That's why all of the contracts have ridiculous limits, suggesting you can't do very much with them, and often placing exceptionally low usage caps on the services.

Of course, don't tell that to the analysts, who can't resist making the same exact prediction about cellular broadband replacing home broadband. The latest such report is focused on the UK, and says that cellular based broadband for computers will surpass DSL or cable as the primary connection for users by 2010. That's not very far in the future. Now, certainly, mobile technology has improved greatly over the years, and there's still plenty more to come. However, the only really consistency in the mobile world is that many analysts over-estimate both the speed with which these new networks are adopted and the quality of these mobile networks. It would certainly be great, if true, but consider me skeptical.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:11;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:55:12 PST";s:5:"title";s:68:"AP Quotes Blogger In Discussing Bloggers Quoting AP; Hilarity Ensues";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Michael Masnick";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080619/2203451460.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080619/2203451460.shtml";s:11:"description";s:2621:"The ongoing ridiculous situation brewing between bloggers and the Associated Press has now taken a turn towards the enjoyably hilarious. We had already mentioned the fact that, despite the AP's complaints that bloggers quoting less than 100 words were violating fair use, the AP had a long history of quoting more than 100 words from bloggers -- and not even linking back to the original blog. Now, in a bit of ultimate irony, the AP's own article about this brouhaha quoted (without linking) twenty-two words from TechCrunch. That's 18 words more than the supposed four word "limit" the AP has suggested. With an ironic chance that wide, TechCrunch's Michael Arrington couldn't resist, and asked his lawyer to send a DMCA takedown notice to the Associated Press, along with a bill for $12.50 (directly off the AP's own pricing schedule). He admits that it's ridiculous, but that's what his actions are designed to present. By law, the AP should be required to takedown the content before filing a response -- though, since it's filing the response to itself, then perhaps it won't need to takedown the content. Either way, this helps illustrate the insanity of the entire situation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:16:"i-want-my-$12.50";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080619/2203451460";}s:7:"summary";s:2621:"The ongoing ridiculous situation brewing between bloggers and the Associated Press has now taken a turn towards the enjoyably hilarious. We had already mentioned the fact that, despite the AP's complaints that bloggers quoting less than 100 words were violating fair use, the AP had a long history of quoting more than 100 words from bloggers -- and not even linking back to the original blog. Now, in a bit of ultimate irony, the AP's own article about this brouhaha quoted (without linking) twenty-two words from TechCrunch. That's 18 words more than the supposed four word "limit" the AP has suggested. With an ironic chance that wide, TechCrunch's Michael Arrington couldn't resist, and asked his lawyer to send a DMCA takedown notice to the Associated Press, along with a bill for $12.50 (directly off the AP's own pricing schedule). He admits that it's ridiculous, but that's what his actions are designed to present. By law, the AP should be required to takedown the content before filing a response -- though, since it's filing the response to itself, then perhaps it won't need to takedown the content. Either way, this helps illustrate the insanity of the entire situation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:12;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:41:08 PST";s:5:"title";s:68:"Korea Using Copyright Law To Crack Down On Protests It Doesn't Like?";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Michael Masnick";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080618/1139371444.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080618/1139371444.shtml";s:11:"description";s:2110:"Copyright law, by its nature, is an abuse of free speech. Many, of course, consider it to be a reasonable restriction on free speech -- but any time you open that door, you open up the possibility that copyright will be abused in a way to prevent other types of free speech. For example, Techdirt reader cram writes in to point out that Korean officials have arrested the CEO of a video streaming website, charging him with copyright infringement, noting that the site encouraged people to upload copyrighted works by giving uploaders a share of money earned. However, many are suggesting that copyright infringement charges have little to do with the real reason behind the arrest -- as the guy arrested also runs another site that has helped publicize videos protesting Korean policies on importing US beef. Well, no matter what they think of imports on US beef, now they know what happens when they import US-mandated copyright law.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:23:"misuse-of-copyright-law";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080618/1139371444";}s:7:"summary";s:2110:"Copyright law, by its nature, is an abuse of free speech. Many, of course, consider it to be a reasonable restriction on free speech -- but any time you open that door, you open up the possibility that copyright will be abused in a way to prevent other types of free speech. For example, Techdirt reader cram writes in to point out that Korean officials have arrested the CEO of a video streaming website, charging him with copyright infringement, noting that the site encouraged people to upload copyrighted works by giving uploaders a share of money earned. However, many are suggesting that copyright infringement charges have little to do with the real reason behind the arrest -- as the guy arrested also runs another site that has helped publicize videos protesting Korean policies on importing US beef. Well, no matter what they think of imports on US beef, now they know what happens when they import US-mandated copyright law.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:13;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:34:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:88:"Kentucky Agrees To Stop Selectively Blocking State Employees From Reading Critical Blogs";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Michael Masnick";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080618/0028271441.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080618/0028271441.shtml";s:11:"description";s:2190:"A couple of years ago, we wrote about the fact that the state of Kentucky had started blocking certain political blogs from the computers of state employees. The interesting part was that the state was only blocking blogs that were critical of state officials. The group Public Citizen filed a lawsuit saying that the selective blocking was a First Amendment violation. It looks like that issue won't get settled in court any time soon, as a new administration in Kentucky has decided that it is changing that policy and won't block critical sites, leading Public Citizen to drop the lawsuit.

Of course, without a court ruling, it's now not clear if the original actions were legal -- and there's nothing to stop a future administration from reversing the policy yet again. In the meantime, what kind of politician actually thinks it's a good thing to block out those who disagree with them rather than hear what they have to say? Talk about sticking your head in the sand...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:45:"hearing-what-your-critics-say-is-a-good-thing";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080618/0028271441";}s:7:"summary";s:2190:"A couple of years ago, we wrote about the fact that the state of Kentucky had started blocking certain political blogs from the computers of state employees. The interesting part was that the state was only blocking blogs that were critical of state officials. The group Public Citizen filed a lawsuit saying that the selective blocking was a First Amendment violation. It looks like that issue won't get settled in court any time soon, as a new administration in Kentucky has decided that it is changing that policy and won't block critical sites, leading Public Citizen to drop the lawsuit.

Of course, without a court ruling, it's now not clear if the original actions were legal -- and there's nothing to stop a future administration from reversing the policy yet again. In the meantime, what kind of politician actually thinks it's a good thing to block out those who disagree with them rather than hear what they have to say? Talk about sticking your head in the sand...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:14;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:48:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:52:"OLPC Learning That Ideas Are Easy, Execution Is Hard";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:11:"Timothy Lee";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080606/1737181337.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080606/1737181337.shtml";s:11:"description";s:3708:"

Business Week has an in-depth write-up about the One Laptop Per Child project's first deployments in developing countries. The original plan called for building 150 million laptops by the end of 2008; it now looks like they'll be lucky to ship a million before the end of the year. It appears that a big part of the problem is that Nicholas Negroponte and his team underestimated the support requirements for the laptops. Getting laptops into the hands of poor children is good, but it's a lot better if the laptops come with training for teachers and support personnel on how to use them effectively. OLPC may have hoped to build a laptop that was so easy to use that little support was required, but the countries writing the checks don't appear to have bought the argument. Nigeria, for example, backed out of a previous commitment to buy a million laptops from OLPC, opting for Intel's Classmate PC instead. Intel's superior support was cited as the major reason for the decision.

This highlights what was so ridiculous about Negroponte's demand that other companies stop offering competing low-cost laptops. Negroponte deserves credit for pioneering the concept of producing cheap laptops for poor children, but coming up with the idea is, relatively speaking, the easy part. What's far more difficult is the execution. Technical wizardry is an important part of that, to be sure, but probably even more important are the logistical details: keeping the project on time and under budget and ensuring that the shipping project has adequate support. There are a million ways for things to go wrong, which is why it's a good to have a bunch of different organizations working on the problem in parallel. By his own admission, Negroponte is more a visionary than a strong manager, which is precisely why he should have welcomed the entry of a company with Intel's logistical prowess into the market. It may not be as personally satisfying for him to have a for-profit company finish the job he started, but if the goal is to help poor children, then he should be happy to see them being offered more options.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:11:"competition";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080606/1737181337";}s:7:"summary";s:3708:"

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:15;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:15:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:57:"How Does Taking Away A Popular Feature 'Improve Netflix'?";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Michael Masnick";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080619/0915391456.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080619/0915391456.shtml";s:11:"description";s:2600:"I am not currently a Netflix customer, but one of the features of the service that I thought was quite useful (and I know plenty of people who use it actively) was the "profiles" feature that let a single family/household set up separate queues of movies they wanted. So, for example, a husband, wife and kids could each get their own list of movies with separate logins, rather than having to manage a single queue. This made the service a lot more useful for a household. And yet... Netflix is eliminating the feature, and doing so with the bizarre Orwellian explanation:

Why? While it may be disappointing to see this feature go away, this change will help us to continue to improve the Netflix website for all our customers.

Can someone explain how eliminating a feature that many people use improves the Netflix website? You see, Netflix, if you're going to remove a feature and say that the website is better because of it, it would actually help if you explained how or why it's better (i.e., you're replacing that feature with something better). To simply say that removing a well-liked feature makes the website better without any further explanation, you're basically calling your customers stupid because you think they'll believe what's clearly bogus.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:14:"please-explain";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080619/0915391456";}s:7:"summary";s:2600:"I am not currently a Netflix customer, but one of the features of the service that I thought was quite useful (and I know plenty of people who use it actively) was the "profiles" feature that let a single family/household set up separate queues of movies they wanted. So, for example, a husband, wife and kids could each get their own list of movies with separate logins, rather than having to manage a single queue. This made the service a lot more useful for a household. And yet... Netflix is eliminating the feature, and doing so with the bizarre Orwellian explanation:

Why? While it may be disappointing to see this feature go away, this change will help us to continue to improve the Netflix website for all our customers.

";}i:16;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:37:00 PST";s:5:"title";s:33:"How The GPL Defangs Patent Trolls";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:11:"Timothy Lee";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080613/0705261402.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080613/0705261402.shtml";s:11:"description";s:3248:"

Last week, Red Hat settled an abusive patent lawsuit brought by a company called FireStar software. Way back in 2006, I discussed the patent in question, which covers some rather broad and obvious software concepts. It looks like Red Hat has settled the lawsuit in a way that extends patent protection to the entire free software community.

Why would a patent troll agree to this? Don Marti explains how the GPL strengthened Red Hat's bargaining position. In a normal patent licensing negotiation, the patent troll would demand a per-user license fee that would be passed along to the vendor's customers. But the GPL specifically prohibits Red Hat from doing this; if Red Hat agreed to pay per-user royalties, it would be in violation of the GPL and would lose the right to distribute the software at all. That put Red Hat in a strong negotiating position because Firestar knew Red Hat wasn't bluffing. In Don Marti's apt metaphor, a patent troll suing a free software company is like "robbing a store where the safe is on a time lock" -- the victim couldn't give him the goods if he wanted to. As a result, FireStar's only option was to grant Red Hat a patent license that covered not only Red Hat but everyone in the free software community whose products are derived from Red Hat's. Obviously, that greatly reduces FireStar's potential patent trolling profits, because it can't shake down all of Red Hat's competitors. This gives patent trolls a powerful incentive to focus on shaking down proprietary software companies, and leave free software vendors alone.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:10:"department";s:14:"mutual-defense";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:59:"http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080613/0705261402";}s:7:"summary";s:3248:"

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

";}i:17;a:9:{s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:19:41 PST";s:5:"title";s:42:"On The Criminality Of WiFi Piggybacking...";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:15:"Michael Masnick";}s:4:"link";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080619/0934321457.shtml";s:4:"guid";s:54:"http://techdirt.com/articles/20080619/0934321457.shtml";s:11:"description";s:2977:"It's been many, many years since we first asked the question of whether or not piggybacking on an open WiFi network was a crime. Since then, we've seen plenty of people arrested, and wide ranging discussions on the ethics of WiFi piggybacking -- with various ethicists noting that simply using an open WiFi network doesn't seem unethical, assuming you don't significantly slow down the connection by uploading or downloading large files. However, we still see people falsely referring to it as "theft".

The latest comes in a short column for Time Magazine, where the author admits that he was a WiFi "thief" for many years in his old apartment. In the article, he claims that it is against the law, noting one of the stories of someone being arrested, while quoting Title 1