Paul Alan Levy writes "The county tax assessor in Charleston, West Virginia, has sued a local tech company that had the audacity to post public tax maps from the entire state of West Virginia on its web site. The company obtained the maps under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for a total charge of $20 for 28000 maps (the actual cost of copying electronic files to CDs). The tax assessor complains that she stands to lose the profit she makes by selling paper tax maps at $8 per sheet. Why should you care? If the county tax assesor wins her case, it could affect other Web sites and bloggers that make public government records available on the Internet." Apparently, what some people have a different idea of what "public" information means than others... especially when the government stands to profit from that information. While government documents cannot be covered by copyright, apparently some gov't officials feel that preventing their ability to profit off of that public data is illegal.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We're in New York City today making a couple of exciting announcements that I wanted to share with everyone. First up, we're launching a new offering as part of the Techdirt Insight Community called Smart Dossiers. As it stands today, it's quite difficult for companies to get good, knowledgeable analysis of companies, both private and public. In the financial sector, you get some coverage from "professional" analysts, but 65% of companies are considered "undercovered" with 35% having no coverage at all (according to a Reuters profile). And, all of those focus solely on the financial side, rather than understanding a company as a potential customer, partner or competitor.

With that in mind, we knew that the members of the Techdirt Insight Community were uniquely qualified to help solve that wide gap in the marketplace, and we've set up the Smart Dossiers offering in response. Companies can now get a SWOT (strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats) analysis on any company they'd like, with a minimum number of guaranteed perspectives from qualified, proven experts in the Techdirt Insight Community. Those experts are competing to provide the best possible analysis, continually ensuring quality analysis. Imagine being able to get a detailed, quick, analysis from multiple different people who have experience and knowledge about a specific sector. Actually, there's no need to imagine it, you can do it, right now. There are a variety of Smart Dossier packages available depending on what your company needs, starting as low as $995.

On top of this, we're also thrilled to be announcing a partnership with Thomson Financial, allowing Techdirt to distribute research from the Techdirt Insight Community (including Smart Dossiers) through Thomson's leading platform for providing research and analysis. Thomson offers deep real-time and after market research to thousands of institutional and business customers in 70 countries via professional subscription networks, including First Call and Investext, and we're thrilled to be a part of that system. As Keith Ackerman, Thomson Financial's Global Head of Next Generation Research, said:

"Thomson Financial views the addition of the Techdirt offering into its portfolio of research as significant. Our financial services and corporate clients have increasingly asked for and are spending more for insights, custom surveys and other kinds of research emanating from the use of expert networks and other types of social media. Accordingly, Techdirt and other high quality alternative research firms that feature these capabilities and research outputs are an important part of Thomson Financial's product strategy."

We're announcing both of these at O'Reilly's brand new Money:Tech event in New York, which looks like it will be very exciting. If you happen to be at the event, please make sure you say hello! Otherwise, if you happen to need a quick and useful detailed analysis of any company, check out Smart Dossiers today. Finally, if you think you have what it takes to provide this kind of analysis to companies around the world, please apply today!

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

There may be nobody that knows the excitement of joining the hot-Internet-company-du jour better than Udi Manber: Chief Scientist at Yahoo, 1998-2002; CEO of A9.com, 2002-2006 (A9 was hot for a minute or two, right?); VP Engineering at Google, 2006-present. Udi's resume exemplifies the aspirations of many a talented computer scientist and/or software engineer, all hoping to work for the next bright star in the Silicon Valley sky. And Udi is probably just one of many who have successfully leapt from one hot, cool company to the next. The New York Times thoughtfully considers the consequences of this pattern in light of the proposed Microsoft-Yahoo merger.

It is indeed unlikely that a combination of these two giants would be very appealing to those finicky tech workers who are looking for the next big thing. However, it's been awhile since either Microsoft or Yahoo has been the next big thing, and yet neither have shown much trouble filling their ranks; clearly plenty of workers are content to have a well-paying job at a stable company. It is also probable that some employee attrition would follow on the heels of a completed merger. But this is not the case of start-up being acquired, where the start-up company's technology is often in the early stages of development and the buyer is paying as much for a smart, ambitious team as it is for the lines of code that have been written. In fact, part of Microsoft's plan may be to trim the fat beyond the 1,000 layoffs already announced by Yahoo, and some of those jumping ship may simply be sparing the efforts of the executioner's blade.

The human resources challenges associated with the evolution of a company from hot stuff to yesterday's news have already been priced in to this deal. Those challenges are certainly correlated with Yahoo's underperformance over the past few years and, subsequently, to the price of its stock. And Microsoft has no doubt considered how these challenges might continue or be aggravated by a merger; their offer reflects such considerations. Yahoo is a mature brand with a very large audience and, recruiting and retention problems notwithstanding, Microsoft believes that they can wring greater profits out of those assets than Yahoo's own management has been able to. Don't expect MicroHoo to become an exciting upstart that appeals to the likes of Udi, but don't expect that this fact will deter Microsoft from pressing forward with their plans.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Remember back in December, the EU, Canada and Japan suddenly agreed not to side with Antigua in the longstanding dispute over the US's online gambling ban violating free trade agreements? It was pretty clear that the US had cut some sort of deal with these countries (who had previously indicated they would side with Antigua). In order to understand what happened, a freelance writer named Ed Brayton filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get the actual agreement between the countries. And, as The Agitator points out, the US Trade Representative has denied the request, claiming that the agreement is classified, as it's a matter of national security. Yes. The US gov't is actually claiming that an agreement over online gambling between two countries is a matter of national security. Perhaps this really shouldn't be such a huge surprise. Remember, the law that was past to ban online gambling was hidden as part of a law to protect our ports. Clearly, the EU, Canada and Japan had to side with the US against Antigua to protect our ports.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

While you have to register a trademark or a patent (and go through an approval process) with the Patent and Trademark Office, the same is not true for copyright. Thanks to changes in copyright law a while back, any new creative work automatically receives a copyright, once created. However, you can still register the work, with the main benefit of doing so is the ability to sue for infringement. Also, registering a copyright soon after the work is produced (and prior to someone infringing) opens up more possibilities in terms of the damages that you could sue for, if the content is infringed. That said, in an age of widespread content creation, very few individuals bother to register their copyright. I'd argue this is for a very good reason: that the benefits to doing so are quite small and many people aren't that concerned about the copyright on the works they create. However, some think this is a problem, and are proposing, as a solution, that we privatize the copyright registration system in the same way that the domain name registration system has been privatized (which has worked out just great, right?).

The main reasoning is that if private entities were in charge of handling copyright registrations, they'd have incentives to convince people that it would be worth their while to register their copyrights. In practice, this would be a huge disaster, however. The expansion of copyright has already taken its toll on our culture's ability to produce new content without liability, and if everyone is registering every random thing that they do online, expect the situation to get much, much worse. Think of the "patent troll" problem, but an order of magnitude worse. It would only serve to get more people thinking (incorrectly) about protecting content, rather than sharing content and helping to create more content. It would stifle creativity and content creation by setting up incentives for the opposite: for hoarding and limiting any use of content beyond the creator's use.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We were surprised that even Apple was forced by the movie industry to delay the release of online movie downloads until a month after the DVD release. This seemed totally pointless and self-defeating by the movie industry (though, hardly the first time that's happened). However, it looks like Cablevision has discovered an interesting workaround to this "window" between releases: it's launching a video-on-demand (VOD) system that will let you watch movies the day they're released on DVD. The trick? You need to actually buy the DVD first, via Cablevision. Then, while you're waiting for the physical DVD to arrive in the mail, you're free to watch the movie via the VOD offering. Of course, this sounds something like what the original MP3.com used to do, allowing people to access MP3s of CDs they just bought, while they wait for the CD to arrive. And, as I'm sure many of you remember, the entertainment industry sued MP3.com and actually won that lawsuit. While there was some questionable reasoning in the decision, MP3.com was unable to appeal, due to some quirks of the legal system. Has it really taken 8-years for the entertainment industry to start to come around to this idea? Perhaps not. Apparently, only a very few titles are available on Cablevision's new service.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

eBay has been making some changes lately that aren't sitting well with eBay sellers. First, it announced fee changes that initially were promoted as "lower fees," but the details showed were only lower for goods that didn't sell. The fees on sold goods were actually higher. Now, the company has banned sellers from giving "negative" feedback on buyers. This is quite an interesting move. Years back, eBay was often held up as the epitome of user feedback/rating systems. However, over the years, problems have cropped up, leading to questions about how effective the system really is, as it's often been gamed. A specific complaint is that many buyers are afraid to leave negative feedback, as a seller can retaliate and provide a similarly negative response to the buyers. The hope, then, is that by not allowing negative feedback, buyers can start being more honest about sellers. Of course, from the sellers' standpoint, it also means it's much more likely that buyers can now be problematic, without worrying about a response. eBay claims that it will now personally handle complaints from sellers about problem buyers -- which seems like a pretty big undertaking for the company. Either way, there does seem to be something silly in having a company offer a feedback system if you can only say positive things.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Microsoft has a decently long history of exaggerating the impacts of copyright infringement on its business, even as there's a fair bit of evidence that the company has benefited greatly from lax enforcement of copyright. However, now the company has taken to exaggerating what copyright law actually says up in Canada. Michael Geist does a nice job picking apart a recent Microsoft-penned editorial claiming that copyright law in Canada just isn't strong enough. Even better, he does so using examples of Microsoft's own actions to prove the company wrong. For example, the editorial claimed that current Canadian copyright law didn't protect a content creator from someone using their content for commercial purposes. Yet, as Geist points out, Microsoft itself won just such a lawsuit a year ago, trumpeting the results in a press release. Perhaps Microsoft saw how the movie industry was able to lie about existing copyright law in Canada -- which convinced politicians to pass unnecessary new legislation -- and figured that Canadian politicians seem mighty gullible on the subject.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Whenever reports come out about e-voting machine vulnerabilities, a common response from the various e-voting companies is that to exploit any of those vulnerabilities, someone would have to spend a significant amount of time with the e-voting machine, undoubtedly raising suspicions. That might be true on election day, but what about before election day? Back in 2006, Ed Felten randomly noticed that in the days before election day, he came across a bunch of e-voting machines just stored in a hallway, waiting for election day. This should have made people concerned, and convinced them to better protect these machines. Yet, here we are on Super Tuesday, and Ed Felten has a post noting that, once again, it was easy to come across totally unattended e-voting machines. He notes that he stood next to one batch of machines for 15 minutes, plenty of time to have mucked with the machine (not that he did), and not a single person came by. Is it any wonder that these e-voting machines are undermining confidence in our elections?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Back in December, Alibaba, the Chinese search engine also known as Yahoo China, lost a lawsuit from the recording industry, claiming that the search engine facilitated the downloading of unauthorized content. It's no secret that part of the reason why Alibaba and Baidu have been able to succeed in China is that they're pretty blatant in helping people find content to download. What was strange, though, was at the same time that Yahoo/Alibaba was found guilty, Baidu was found not guilty of copyright infringement, upholding an earlier decision. However, despite having lost the case, it appears that the major record labels have simply turned around and sued Baidu yet again for copyright infringement. Unfortunately, the Reuters writeup doesn't get into the history of the earlier cases (one of which ended just over a month ago) to explain why the labels can simply turn around and sue again, despite having just lost a nearly identical case.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story