What To Do When You Can't Publish Nighttime Photos Of The Eiffel Tower
No comment.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Segway guards public parks and copyright
David Bollier is sad to have found another example of copyright overreaching.
"Now comes word from the Chicago Reader (January 28; subscribers only) that the managers of Chicago's Millennium Park require a permit and payment of a fee in order to take photos in a Chicago park. In a story by Ben Joravsky, “The Bean Police,” we learn that Warren Wimmer was trying to take a picture of Cloud Gate, a massive sclupture knoown known locally as “The Bean,” when two security guards on Segways cruised up to him and asked if he had a permit – “a permit that lets you take pictures of the park.”...
Wimmer hit upon a familiar Chicago resolution: he slipped the guard $20. He then spent another 15 minutes shooting photos, and left...
When the Chicago Reader approached Ed Uhlir, the project director for Millennium Park, to ask about all this, his press assistant responded:
“The copyrights for the enhancements in Millennium Park [i.e., the Bean, the band shell, the fountain, gardens and other features] are owned by the artist who created them. As such, anyone reproducing the works, especially for commercial purposes, needs the permission of that artist.” The press aide also said, “Artists are increasingly sophisticated about copyrights and this is standard practice for today’s artists….This was not the case years ago.”
So there you have it: even some of our most obviously public places are not really public any more; they are private property. I can only imagine what's coming next – making micro-payments via wireless devices for glimpses of public landmarks? Why not -- the city could use the money, right? What I want to know is whether the artists and architects involved have paid everyone who has every flitted across their creative consciousness. A sad story. The market pathology clearly goes deeper than most of us had imagined. This is not the way to revive our public spaces or make cities convivial places to be."
"Now comes word from the Chicago Reader (January 28; subscribers only) that the managers of Chicago's Millennium Park require a permit and payment of a fee in order to take photos in a Chicago park. In a story by Ben Joravsky, “The Bean Police,” we learn that Warren Wimmer was trying to take a picture of Cloud Gate, a massive sclupture knoown known locally as “The Bean,” when two security guards on Segways cruised up to him and asked if he had a permit – “a permit that lets you take pictures of the park.”...
Wimmer hit upon a familiar Chicago resolution: he slipped the guard $20. He then spent another 15 minutes shooting photos, and left...
When the Chicago Reader approached Ed Uhlir, the project director for Millennium Park, to ask about all this, his press assistant responded:
“The copyrights for the enhancements in Millennium Park [i.e., the Bean, the band shell, the fountain, gardens and other features] are owned by the artist who created them. As such, anyone reproducing the works, especially for commercial purposes, needs the permission of that artist.” The press aide also said, “Artists are increasingly sophisticated about copyrights and this is standard practice for today’s artists….This was not the case years ago.”
So there you have it: even some of our most obviously public places are not really public any more; they are private property. I can only imagine what's coming next – making micro-payments via wireless devices for glimpses of public landmarks? Why not -- the city could use the money, right? What I want to know is whether the artists and architects involved have paid everyone who has every flitted across their creative consciousness. A sad story. The market pathology clearly goes deeper than most of us had imagined. This is not the way to revive our public spaces or make cities convivial places to be."
Post predicts Grokster loss in SCOTUS
David Post is predicting that Grokster is going to lose their case against MGM at the Supreme Court.
And Donna has a few things to say about the RIAA suing dead people.
And Donna has a few things to say about the RIAA suing dead people.
Harry Potter and the Army
I missed this story in the Sunday Times this week. J.K. Rowling's lawyer is considering what to do about a US Army maintenance magazine.
"The magazine, The Preventive Maintenance Monthly, includes a cartoon character called Topper, a boy wizard, who attends Mogmarts school of magic. Harry Potter, Rowling?s boy wizard creation, attends the Hogwarts school of magic.
In the magazine, army officials are given a lesson from Professor Rumbledoore and his staff, a name strikingly similar to Rowling?s Professor Dumbledore. Other characters in the magazine include professors McDonagal and Snappy, and a Miss Ranger. The Harry Potter books feature professors McGonagall and Snape and Hermione Granger."
All the Harry Potter legal cases have been interesting stories in themselves, as have those related to Lord of the Rings, Winnie the Pooh , Peter Pan and lots more. My children love the Harry Potter books and I have to say I enjoy reading them aloud and experiencing the kids' captivation with Rowling's magical world. The youngest is particularly tuned into the occasional slapstick humour and loves the Hagrid character. His spontaneous and infectious giggling at times has us all in stitches with laughter that has a magic all of its own.
"The magazine, The Preventive Maintenance Monthly, includes a cartoon character called Topper, a boy wizard, who attends Mogmarts school of magic. Harry Potter, Rowling?s boy wizard creation, attends the Hogwarts school of magic.
In the magazine, army officials are given a lesson from Professor Rumbledoore and his staff, a name strikingly similar to Rowling?s Professor Dumbledore. Other characters in the magazine include professors McDonagal and Snappy, and a Miss Ranger. The Harry Potter books feature professors McGonagall and Snape and Hermione Granger."
All the Harry Potter legal cases have been interesting stories in themselves, as have those related to Lord of the Rings, Winnie the Pooh , Peter Pan and lots more. My children love the Harry Potter books and I have to say I enjoy reading them aloud and experiencing the kids' captivation with Rowling's magical world. The youngest is particularly tuned into the occasional slapstick humour and loves the Hagrid character. His spontaneous and infectious giggling at times has us all in stitches with laughter that has a magic all of its own.
P2P suits in Israel
The trend towards suing individuals for using P2P networks for infringing copyright seems to have reached Israel. The journalist has apparently found someone, "A.", who claims to have about 25000 illegal files on his machine, who is scared he might be sued. Copying the files to CD/DVD and deleting them off his computer hard disk is not going to provide him with any defense if he gets caught.
"Don't you ever feel that you are stealing the songs you download?
A.: "To tell you the truth, no. About 80 percent of what I download is independent music by artists who are signed with labels that are not well known, and I tend to think and want to believe that the artists who create this music are interested in having as many people as possible listen to their work. I don't listen to Madonna or M People and things like that." "
"Don't you ever feel that you are stealing the songs you download?
A.: "To tell you the truth, no. About 80 percent of what I download is independent music by artists who are signed with labels that are not well known, and I tend to think and want to believe that the artists who create this music are interested in having as many people as possible listen to their work. I don't listen to Madonna or M People and things like that." "
NYT on Grokster PR battle
THe NYT have an accessible story on the PR difficulties both sides have in the MGM v Grokster case. Lots of quotes from the usual suspects.
"So many of the issues that we deal with are really abstruse, And yet they touch a whole segment of the public that we want to reach out to." Wendy Selzer, EFF.
"People knew they couldn't steal a video tape out of Blockbuster," Dan Glickman, MPAA.
The MPAA seem to have an easier message to sell but are still up against the greedy- corporation-that-sell-DVDs-at-ridiculously-high-prices image.
"It's hard for two reasons. Copyright law is not the easiest thing to explain, and it's hard to put a bumper sticker on it. But, you're also talking about the future, and it's hard to explain to a consumer that there could one day be a lot of restrictions on what you can do with new technology." Rick Weingarten, American Library Association.
Spot on.
"So many of the issues that we deal with are really abstruse, And yet they touch a whole segment of the public that we want to reach out to." Wendy Selzer, EFF.
"People knew they couldn't steal a video tape out of Blockbuster," Dan Glickman, MPAA.
The MPAA seem to have an easier message to sell but are still up against the greedy- corporation-that-sell-DVDs-at-ridiculously-high-prices image.
"It's hard for two reasons. Copyright law is not the easiest thing to explain, and it's hard to put a bumper sticker on it. But, you're also talking about the future, and it's hard to explain to a consumer that there could one day be a lot of restrictions on what you can do with new technology." Rick Weingarten, American Library Association.
Spot on.
VeriSign and the Spyware Cos
James Grimmelmann points me at Ben Edelman's latest piece of smart digital detective work, which says James,
"turns the harsh light of public scrutiny on VeriSign's grubby practices in issuing digital certificates to vendors who try to install spyware by tricking users into clicking 'yes' with low-down dirty lying dialog boxes.
Now, Ben wants VeriSign to clean up its act: it should refuse to issue certificates to companies that use obviously fake names (such as "CLICK YES TO CONTINUE") or that use those certificates to deceive consumers. For Ben, it seems to be a matter of moral suasion: he points to VeriSign's anti-spyware public statements and he points to terms in VeriSign's contracts with companies that use its certificates that give VeriSign the right to revoke those certificates in exactly these situations.
I agree wholeheartedly, but something else is bothering me about VeriSign's actions in digitally signing certificates with obviously faked company names. Isn't that illegal? Why do we have to ask VeriSign to do right voluntarily, pretty-please?"
BTW James had a really interesting article, Virtual Worlds as Comparative Law, 49 N.Y.L.S. L. Rev. 147 (2004), published in the New York Law School Law Review, just before Christmas. (Like all law journal articles it's not for the average reader but it does use the architecture of digital games to draw some enlightening lessons in thinking about the law, which most of us don't realise is quite a technical, sometimes even mathematical subject area).
"turns the harsh light of public scrutiny on VeriSign's grubby practices in issuing digital certificates to vendors who try to install spyware by tricking users into clicking 'yes' with low-down dirty lying dialog boxes.
Now, Ben wants VeriSign to clean up its act: it should refuse to issue certificates to companies that use obviously fake names (such as "CLICK YES TO CONTINUE") or that use those certificates to deceive consumers. For Ben, it seems to be a matter of moral suasion: he points to VeriSign's anti-spyware public statements and he points to terms in VeriSign's contracts with companies that use its certificates that give VeriSign the right to revoke those certificates in exactly these situations.
I agree wholeheartedly, but something else is bothering me about VeriSign's actions in digitally signing certificates with obviously faked company names. Isn't that illegal? Why do we have to ask VeriSign to do right voluntarily, pretty-please?"
BTW James had a really interesting article, Virtual Worlds as Comparative Law, 49 N.Y.L.S. L. Rev. 147 (2004), published in the New York Law School Law Review, just before Christmas. (Like all law journal articles it's not for the average reader but it does use the architecture of digital games to draw some enlightening lessons in thinking about the law, which most of us don't realise is quite a technical, sometimes even mathematical subject area).
RIAA v dead woman
The RIAA have decided not to pursue an illegal downloading case against an 83 year old woman who died in September and hated computers. The woman's daughter said "I am pretty sure she is not going to leave Greenwood Memorial Park (where she is buried) to attend the hearing."
Monday, February 07, 2005
UK Patent Office Workshops on SW patents
The UK Patent Office have decided to hold a series of workshops on the proposed EU software patents directive, specifically to explore the meaning of the term "technical effect" which has been the cause of some of the heated debate amongst the various protagonists on all sides in the dispute.
Good for them.
Good for them.
Terror and lightning
Ian Gardiner, a former Royal Marine, writing in the Scotsman, says in Fear is the key in this theatre of the absurd that "statistically, you have about as much chance of being a terrorist victim as you have of being struck by lightning."
"So, what should our own response to the terrorist threat be?
Firstly, don’t be terrified. Don’t even be anxious. Keep things in proportion. Yes, we might suddenly find ourselves slammed out of the blue into some vile violent terrorist hell. But we might also be hit by lightning, or a bus - or a tsunami. So, relax and don’t worry about it, and don’t let the media wind you up. Secondly, don’t let our own government get things out of proportion. A baleful, sceptical eye should be cast over all attempts to introduce illiberal laws and to increase government powers and spending on the back of the apparent increased threat. Don’t let them erode further your privacy or your liberty without good cause.
And, lastly, don’t stand under trees during thunderstorms, mind how you cross the road - and remember to use a condom."
Sensible advice. Now about those ID cards...
"So, what should our own response to the terrorist threat be?
Firstly, don’t be terrified. Don’t even be anxious. Keep things in proportion. Yes, we might suddenly find ourselves slammed out of the blue into some vile violent terrorist hell. But we might also be hit by lightning, or a bus - or a tsunami. So, relax and don’t worry about it, and don’t let the media wind you up. Secondly, don’t let our own government get things out of proportion. A baleful, sceptical eye should be cast over all attempts to introduce illiberal laws and to increase government powers and spending on the back of the apparent increased threat. Don’t let them erode further your privacy or your liberty without good cause.
And, lastly, don’t stand under trees during thunderstorms, mind how you cross the road - and remember to use a condom."
Sensible advice. Now about those ID cards...
Friday, February 04, 2005
New proposals on anti terrorism laws
The media feeding frenzy has temporarily died down on the Home Secretary's proposals to address the government's House of Lords defeat on the Anti-terrorism Crime and Secutity Act. It will be another important story to monitor, though.
No2ID newsletter
The latest NO2ID newsletter is now available.
Whos said:
"I believe that the requirement of an internal passport is more objectionable than an external passport, and that citizens ought to be allowed to move about freely without running the risk of being accosted by a policeman or anyone else, and asked to produce proof of identity"
It was government spokesman Aneurin Bevan MP, in 1947 when there was a debate in parliament about the ID cards that had been introduced on the outbreak of World War II.
Monday, 21 February 2005, is the 53rd anniversary of the abolition of those ID cards by the government of Winston Churchill.
Whos said:
"I believe that the requirement of an internal passport is more objectionable than an external passport, and that citizens ought to be allowed to move about freely without running the risk of being accosted by a policeman or anyone else, and asked to produce proof of identity"
It was government spokesman Aneurin Bevan MP, in 1947 when there was a debate in parliament about the ID cards that had been introduced on the outbreak of World War II.
Monday, 21 February 2005, is the 53rd anniversary of the abolition of those ID cards by the government of Winston Churchill.
JURI buck Commission on SW Patents
The EU parliament's legal affairs committee (JURI)has asked the Commission to start from scratch with their software patents proposal. FFII are pleased but they should be careful about getting too excited. It may be an important statement on behalf of the EU parliament, which has had serious concerns about the software patent proposals for some time. The commission are still at liberty to ignore these concerns, however, and have shown no signs that they are prepared to take the parliament seriously on the issue, with two recent attempts to slip the directive through on the agenda of agriculture and fisheries meetings.
Report of Human Rights Committee on ID cards
The report I mentioned yesterday of the parliamentary human rights committee, which criticises the UK government's ID card bill is now available.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
SBC get direct dial VoIP phone numbers
In an obscure decision allowing SBC access to direct phone numbers for VoIP Internet telephony, the FCC taken another step to encourage the emerging market. David Isenberg will be pleased.
Human rights committee ID cards concern
It looks as though the parliamentary human rights committee, chaired by Labour MP Jean Corston, does not share her opinion of ID cards.
The committee says the government's plans raise serious concerns and
"also sharply criticised ministers for claiming that their ID card legislation is compatible with human rights conventions without giving any explanation to support the claim."
The Home Office have dismissed the committee's concerns and said they'll "respond in due course" ie when they feel like it and slipped into the midst of a busy news day or in an obscure place in a low level report. Given that Ms Corston is in favour of ID cards, you can be sure the Home Office had plenty of notice that the committee had taken a negative perspective and were well prepared to spin the news.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record yet again:
1. What problem does your proposed solution (ID cards) solve?
A: Lots allegedly - terrorism, immigration, benefit fraud, social cohesion etc - all ill defined.
2. What architecture has your proposed solution got - what does it look like?
A: Complicated - high tech cards, massive database which no computer scientist in the world could secure, decentralised networked registration centres, huge numbers of decentralised verification devices for police, GPs etc.
3. How well does it solve your problem(/s)?
A: Not at all and indeed, if it is security we're concerned about, it can actually make us less secure by creating the illusion of security without backing it up with real security. If we think we've solved a problem, we will fail to take the action really needed to solve that problem.
4. How can it fail and what other problems does it create?
A: It can fail in many ways and cause lots of other problems - errors in database, failure of remote verification and registration devices, unreliable biometric technology etc etc. As Bruce Schneier says, "What matters is how the system might fail when used by someone intent on subverting that system: how it fails naturally, how it can be made to fail, and how failures might be exploited."
5. How much does it cost?
A: Billions of pounds.
6. Is it worth it?
A: No, the money could be more effectively spent on [well trained] extra police, security service, customs and immigration staff.
The committee says the government's plans raise serious concerns and
"also sharply criticised ministers for claiming that their ID card legislation is compatible with human rights conventions without giving any explanation to support the claim."
The Home Office have dismissed the committee's concerns and said they'll "respond in due course" ie when they feel like it and slipped into the midst of a busy news day or in an obscure place in a low level report. Given that Ms Corston is in favour of ID cards, you can be sure the Home Office had plenty of notice that the committee had taken a negative perspective and were well prepared to spin the news.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record yet again:
1. What problem does your proposed solution (ID cards) solve?
A: Lots allegedly - terrorism, immigration, benefit fraud, social cohesion etc - all ill defined.
2. What architecture has your proposed solution got - what does it look like?
A: Complicated - high tech cards, massive database which no computer scientist in the world could secure, decentralised networked registration centres, huge numbers of decentralised verification devices for police, GPs etc.
3. How well does it solve your problem(/s)?
A: Not at all and indeed, if it is security we're concerned about, it can actually make us less secure by creating the illusion of security without backing it up with real security. If we think we've solved a problem, we will fail to take the action really needed to solve that problem.
4. How can it fail and what other problems does it create?
A: It can fail in many ways and cause lots of other problems - errors in database, failure of remote verification and registration devices, unreliable biometric technology etc etc. As Bruce Schneier says, "What matters is how the system might fail when used by someone intent on subverting that system: how it fails naturally, how it can be made to fail, and how failures might be exploited."
5. How much does it cost?
A: Billions of pounds.
6. Is it worth it?
A: No, the money could be more effectively spent on [well trained] extra police, security service, customs and immigration staff.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Teacher threatened with lawsuit
A teacher has been threatened with a lawsuit if he shows a documentary film, Eyes on the Prize, about civil rights to his students and members of the local community.
Eyes on the Prize is a documentary which used lot of licenced clips from other films but the licences were only granted for a limited period, which ran out some years ago. So, unless the documentary maker wants to re-licence the offending clips then they can't show or sell [etc] the film.
And anyone downloading it from Downhill Battle is also infringing copyright. Copyright law provides a defence for use in an educational context but the rules are complicated and didn't stop this teacher being threatened, nor, if he had decided to go ahead (which he didn't) do they gaurantee he would win any court case arising as a result.
I was just talking to a trusted friend and colleague about the impact of intellectual property in education this afternoon...
Eyes on the Prize is a documentary which used lot of licenced clips from other films but the licences were only granted for a limited period, which ran out some years ago. So, unless the documentary maker wants to re-licence the offending clips then they can't show or sell [etc] the film.
And anyone downloading it from Downhill Battle is also infringing copyright. Copyright law provides a defence for use in an educational context but the rules are complicated and didn't stop this teacher being threatened, nor, if he had decided to go ahead (which he didn't) do they gaurantee he would win any court case arising as a result.
I was just talking to a trusted friend and colleague about the impact of intellectual property in education this afternoon...
Monday, January 31, 2005
Heise gets circumvention cease and desist
Heise Online are not impressed at receiving a cease and desist letter from music industry lawyers.
"On behalf of several major firms in the music industry (BMG, edel, EMI, Sony Music, Universal Music and Warner Music), the Waldorf law firm of Munich sent Heise Zeitschriften Verlag a dissuasion this Friday. Among other things, the letter accuses the publisher of violating § 95a of the German Copyright Act (UrhG) in an article in the news ticker heise online (AnyDVD überwindet Kopierschutz von "Un-DVDs"). In addition, heise stands accused of spreading illegal "devices to get around anti-piracy measures". This law forbids, among other things, the manufacture, import, dissemination, sale, rental, and advertising of such software and hardware that circumvents copy protection measures.
According to the music industry, simply providing a link to the start page of the web site of a copying software manufacturer constitutes a violation of this law."
Here we go again with the legality of linking debate.
"On behalf of several major firms in the music industry (BMG, edel, EMI, Sony Music, Universal Music and Warner Music), the Waldorf law firm of Munich sent Heise Zeitschriften Verlag a dissuasion this Friday. Among other things, the letter accuses the publisher of violating § 95a of the German Copyright Act (UrhG) in an article in the news ticker heise online (AnyDVD überwindet Kopierschutz von "Un-DVDs"). In addition, heise stands accused of spreading illegal "devices to get around anti-piracy measures". This law forbids, among other things, the manufacture, import, dissemination, sale, rental, and advertising of such software and hardware that circumvents copy protection measures.
According to the music industry, simply providing a link to the start page of the web site of a copying software manufacturer constitutes a violation of this law."
Here we go again with the legality of linking debate.
The new copyright maths
The MPAA's PR page on copyright points to http://www.copyrightkids.org/teachrentframes.htm, which is a "Parent-Teacher Resource Page" to provide:
"an educational tool to define, explain, and apply copyright issues in language understandable to Middle School students.
an educational resource on copyright issues for teachers and parents of 5th - 8th graders who are engaged in a creative process.
instructions about how to protect your own creations by registering them with the U.S. Copyright Office in the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C."
In their copyright basics page there is a section on term of copyright, which perhaps explains why there is so much confusion over the actual length of time a copyright lasts for:
"How Long Does Copyright Protection Last?
Copyrights do not last forever, but they do last a pretty long time. Under the current laws, copyright protection starts from the moment of creation of the work and continues until 70 years after the death of the author or artist. That means that if someone who is 15 in the year 2001 writes a story that year and dies when he is 85 in the year 2086, the copyright will not expire until 70 years after 2086 -- in the year 2156, which is 130 years away."
I had a wry grin at this. The PR folk don't appear to be able to count. A 15 year old writes a story and dies 85 years later at the age of 85 (lost a few birthdays along the way no doubt); it also seems that there are only 130 years between 2001 and 2156;and potentially,that 70+85=130 rather than 155 and 70+70=130 rather than 140. Copyright propaganda is not only creating a whole new reality, it's creating a whole new area of mathematics. Mind you, 2086+70=2156, so they do have the requisite partial contact with the real world.
Parents, teachers and children are supposed to take this seriously?
"an educational tool to define, explain, and apply copyright issues in language understandable to Middle School students.
an educational resource on copyright issues for teachers and parents of 5th - 8th graders who are engaged in a creative process.
instructions about how to protect your own creations by registering them with the U.S. Copyright Office in the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C."
In their copyright basics page there is a section on term of copyright, which perhaps explains why there is so much confusion over the actual length of time a copyright lasts for:
"How Long Does Copyright Protection Last?
Copyrights do not last forever, but they do last a pretty long time. Under the current laws, copyright protection starts from the moment of creation of the work and continues until 70 years after the death of the author or artist. That means that if someone who is 15 in the year 2001 writes a story that year and dies when he is 85 in the year 2086, the copyright will not expire until 70 years after 2086 -- in the year 2156, which is 130 years away."
I had a wry grin at this. The PR folk don't appear to be able to count. A 15 year old writes a story and dies 85 years later at the age of 85 (lost a few birthdays along the way no doubt); it also seems that there are only 130 years between 2001 and 2156;and potentially,that 70+85=130 rather than 155 and 70+70=130 rather than 140. Copyright propaganda is not only creating a whole new reality, it's creating a whole new area of mathematics. Mind you, 2086+70=2156, so they do have the requisite partial contact with the real world.
Parents, teachers and children are supposed to take this seriously?
Microsoft EULA v crimes against humanity
James Grimmelmann is tipping his hat to the Microsoft lawyers who wrote the terms of use for the Xbox. Specifically:
"You agree that . . . you will not . . . [p]ublish, post, upload, distribute or disseminate any topic, name, material or information that incites discrimination, hate or violence towards one person or a group because of their belonging to a race, a religion or a nation, or that insults the victims of crimes against humanity by contesting the existence of those crimes."
"You agree that . . . you will not . . . [p]ublish, post, upload, distribute or disseminate any topic, name, material or information that incites discrimination, hate or violence towards one person or a group because of their belonging to a race, a religion or a nation, or that insults the victims of crimes against humanity by contesting the existence of those crimes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)