We've seen way too many bad DMCA takedown notices over the years, but this latest one may be the most ridiculous yet. A lawyer representing the Air Force has issued a takedown notice on an advertisement that the Air Force released publicly about its cyberdefense initiatives. There are so many things wrong with this, it's difficult to know where to start. First off, the Air Force was using this as an advertisement that they wanted displayed as widely as possible. In fact, the Air Force specifically sent the ad to sites like Wired asking them to run it. Second, and more importantly, as a government-produced content, it is not covered by copyright, and therefore not subject to the DMCA. Third, even the Air Force's own website notes that the video states: "Information presented on the Air Force Recruiting website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." Fourth, Wired notes that the Air Force's marketing chief, who sent Wired the video in the first place, has no clue that the DMCA takedown notice was issued and doesn't understand why it happened. Wired eventually discovered that a law firm representing the Air Force sent the takedown notice -- and is violating the law in doing so. In a takedown notice, you need to swear, under threat of perjury, that you either have the copyright or represent those who do and that the content is infringing. It would certainly appear, under that basis, that the lawyer issuing the letter may have perjured herself, issuing a false DMCA takedown notice. Of course, as a lawyer, you would think she would know that.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We've seen way too many bad DMCA takedown notices over the years, but this latest one may be the most ridiculous yet. A lawyer representing the Air Force has issued a takedown notice on an advertisement that the Air Force released publicly about its cyberdefense initiatives. There are so many things wrong with this, it's difficult to know where to start. First off, the Air Force was using this as an advertisement that they wanted displayed as widely as possible. In fact, the Air Force specifically sent the ad to sites like Wired asking them to run it. Second, and more importantly, as a government-produced content, it is not covered by copyright, and therefore not subject to the DMCA. Third, even the Air Force's own website notes that the video states: "Information presented on the Air Force Recruiting website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." Fourth, Wired notes that the Air Force's marketing chief, who sent Wired the video in the first place, has no clue that the DMCA takedown notice was issued and doesn't understand why it happened. Wired eventually discovered that a law firm representing the Air Force sent the takedown notice -- and is violating the law in doing so. In a takedown notice, you need to swear, under threat of perjury, that you either have the copyright or represent those who do and that the content is infringing. It would certainly appear, under that basis, that the lawyer issuing the letter may have perjured herself, issuing a false DMCA takedown notice. Of course, as a lawyer, you would think she would know that.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Jim Lippard points out that a site called Rate My Cop is generating some controversy from Arizona police departments who apparently consider the site an invasion of officers' privacy. The site doesn't have pictures, addresses, or other personal information on the site. It only lists officers' names and the department they work for. But this is still too much for the Tempe police department. "If everybody went home everyday and you had the whole world ranking your job, we do make mistakes, but other days we do great things," said one Tempe police officer. I've have a lot more sympathy for the guy if this wasn't true of a ton of other professions. When I do a stupid blog post, you guys all leave comments saying so. Most restaurants and retail business have complaint cards so customers can complain about bad service. There are a ton of sites where consumers rate hotels, bands, restaurants, books, and a ton of other stuff -- such as rating teachers (although some people do want to make that illegal too). The big difference is that police officers have the force of law behind them, so they need to be held to a higher standard than other professions. The worst thing my blog posts can do is annoy our readers and hurt Techdirt's traffic. When a police officer screws up, the result can be innocent people being harrassed, humiliated, arrested, injured or killed. The cops who do those things are a small minority, obviously. But that's precisely why we need sites like this to help bring some public attention to the few bad apples who are out there.

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

Jim Lippard points out that a site called Rate My Cop is generating some controversy from Arizona police departments who apparently consider the site an invasion of officers' privacy. The site doesn't have pictures, addresses, or other personal information on the site. It only lists officers' names and the department they work for. But this is still too much for the Tempe police department. "If everybody went home everyday and you had the whole world ranking your job, we do make mistakes, but other days we do great things," said one Tempe police officer. I've have a lot more sympathy for the guy if this wasn't true of a ton of other professions. When I do a stupid blog post, you guys all leave comments saying so. Most restaurants and retail business have complaint cards so customers can complain about bad service. There are a ton of sites where consumers rate hotels, bands, restaurants, books, and a ton of other stuff -- such as rating teachers (although some people do want to make that illegal too). The big difference is that police officers have the force of law behind them, so they need to be held to a higher standard than other professions. The worst thing my blog posts can do is annoy our readers and hurt Techdirt's traffic. When a police officer screws up, the result can be innocent people being harrassed, humiliated, arrested, injured or killed. The cops who do those things are a small minority, obviously. But that's precisely why we need sites like this to help bring some public attention to the few bad apples who are out there.

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

The Olympic Committee is rather infamous for its ability to convince governments to pass special intellectual property laws just to protect the Olympics. However, it appears as though the folks involved with the Olympics don't take others' IP rights so seriously. Slashdot points out that it appears the Beijing Olympics website has copied a flash game designed by someone else. So, apparently, not only does the Olympics want extra special rights concerning its own efforts, it wants to ignore the already existing copyrights of others. While I find it silly to even try to protect copyright on a simple game like this, it does say something an organization like the Olympics is so keen on over-protecting its own rights while ignoring them for others.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Olympic Committee is rather infamous for its ability to convince governments to pass special intellectual property laws just to protect the Olympics. However, it appears as though the folks involved with the Olympics don't take others' IP rights so seriously. Slashdot points out that it appears the Beijing Olympics website has copied a flash game designed by someone else. So, apparently, not only does the Olympics want extra special rights concerning its own efforts, it wants to ignore the already existing copyrights of others. While I find it silly to even try to protect copyright on a simple game like this, it does say something an organization like the Olympics is so keen on over-protecting its own rights while ignoring them for others.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

FCC chair Kevin Martin is well-known as a good friend to telco companies -- but that friendship has never extended to cable companies. That's why it's rather amusing to see him try to act tough against Comcast, suggesting last Friday that the FCC doesn't look kindly on Comcast's traffic shaping practices while just a year ago, he was telling AT&T that the FCC wouldn't stop them from doing the same thing, if AT&T decided it was necessary "for business reasons." Can anyone give a reasonable explanation (other than outright favoritism) for why Martin would hold cable companies to a different standard than telcos?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Here's a roundup of movie-download services -- Apple TV, Vudu, Movielink, Unbox -- all of which have unperformed expectations. This won't come as a surprise to Techdirt readers, as we've panned these products before. And the reasons they've flopped are frankly pretty obvious: high prices, restrictive DRM, and no easy way to move videos to the device of your choice. I won't re-hash those arguments, but I think it's interesting to compare the anemic development of the digital video marketplace with the rapid development of digital audio a decade ago. The fundamental difference is that Hollywood kept a tight grip on the digital video market, while the DMCA didn't come along soon enough to give the music industry control over digital music. They tried to outlaw the MP3 player, but because there was no DRM involved, they lost in court, and the result was the flowering of innovation that led to the iPod and other MP3-based devices.

There's still something of a mystery here, though: most video download services are not just bad but spectacularly bad. For example, Hollywood sunk $100 million into Movielink before giving up and selling the whole mess to BlockBuster for $20 million. Even assuming that Hollywood wants to limit how its content is used, it's obviously not in their interests to make things this crippled. So what's going on? I think a key insight is offered by an excellent paper that Columbia law professor Tim Wu wrote a couple of years ago called "Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Decentralized Decisions." Wu's basic insight is that too much centralization of control over any one part of the economy can lead to poor decision-making. In an extreme case, such as Soviet Russia, a government can try to run a whole economy by central planning. But the same principle applies on smaller scales. The modern cell phone industry, with half a dozen competitors, is evolving a lot more rapidly than the old Ma Bell monopoly used to. And on the other hand, there's a lot more innovation going on in the open Internet than locked-down networks of cell phone companies. (Apple doesn't seem about to change the walled garden wireless model.)

The same principle applies to the digital video marketplace. Right now, Hollywood has veto power over innovations in the video space. They've made some dumb mistakes, like charging too much and mandating the use of DRM. Unfortunately, thanks to the DMCA, competition hasn't had a chance to kick in. People can't route around Hollywood by using DVD-ripping software the way they routed around the record labels in the 1990s using CD rippers. So if somebody has a great idea for a digital video product, they have to go begging to Hollywood before they can implement it. But Hollywood isn't run by technologists, so they make bad decisions. And because nobody else is allowed to enter the market without their permission, the whole world suffers for it.

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

Last month, we wrote about the plan by a variety of UK-based ISPs to use all of your clickstream data to target ads to you as you surfed. That is, if you were surfing a golf site and then went and checked CNN, the system would still know that you liked golf and might serve up golf ads on CNN. At least that's the benign version of it. There are some serious questions raised by this. First of all, many people are likely to be uncomfortable with the idea that their ISP is watching what they do and then using it to target ads. Even worse, the company that the ISPs were partnering with to do all of this had previously been known as a spyware firm.

Phorm is now aggressively defending its reputation, insisting once again that it will keep all of the data it collects anonymized. However, while it says this and explains how it will try to anonymize the data, the company fails to address the fact that just about every time a company has tried to create an anonymized data set, it doesn't take long for someone to de-anonymize it. The company just assumes that it really can keep the data anonymous, when there are serious doubts as to whether or not that's really possible.

To its credit, the company isn't ignoring some of the complaints and has just done interviews with both the BBC and The Register to answer some of the concerns raised. Thankfully, both interviews do probe fairly deeply and ask some tough questions, and the Phorm execs answer each question directly. They claim that they were never "spyware" providers, only adware, but admit that the definition got blurred, which was why (they claim) they got out of the business. That sounds good until you look at some of the details about the company's former products, and the fact that it made a rather nasty rootkit injector.

That said, the execs do answer a bunch of questions about the privacy issues, noting that they're being audited by two separate firms to ensure they live up to the privacy promises. The clickstream data is immediately deleted and all the profiling is done at the ISP, not by Phorm, who is merely serving up the ads based on the profile kicked back by the ISP. While it's good to see the execs from Phorm willing to answer these questions, the company's history and the entire concept of what's being done still seems rather questionable. Phorm's insistence that this will actually decrease advertising seems like little consolation (and difficult to believe).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Slashdot points to a great Bruce Schneier article debunking the idea that "transparency" is better than privacy. People like David Brin argue that technological change is rapidly making the concept of privacy obsolete, and that instead of lamenting this fact, we should make sure that everyone, including the government, is subject to increased "transparency." But Schneier does a great job of explaining what's wrong with this theory: the less power you have, the more important your privacy is to you. If the government knows everything about you, and you know everything about the government, that's not a fair trade. The government can use its increased knowledge to coerce you in a variety of ways that you're not going to like. But even if you know about everything the government is doing, you're not going to have the power to stop it from doing things you don't like. Reduced privacy for everyone increases the power of those who already have power, and increases the vulnerability of those without power.

The other problem is that in the real world, accepting less privacy for ordinary citizens isn't going to lead to increased transparency in government. Government officials who might want to put more cameras up on public streets are not going to want cameras installed in police headquarters. The Bush administration wants our electronic communications to be more "transparent" to NSA eavesdropping, but they haven't reciprocated by giving us information about how those eavesdropping programs work. It's a mistake to equate government transparency with reduced privacy for private citizens because transparency of government activities and privacy for ordinary citizens are both ways of limiting the ability of the government to violate our rights.

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