I've been meaning to post an alert to this story for ages - Senator Ted Kennedy somehow got himself on the US government's "no fly" list.
"A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects.
While he worked to clear himself, Kennedy kept having to wait in terminals at Reagan National, Boston's Logan International and at least one other airport, his staff said. All of the flights were on US Airways. When the senator checked in at the counter, airline employees told him they could not issue him a boarding pass because he appeared on the list. Kennedy was delayed until a supervisor could be summoned to identify him and give approval for him to board the plane."
The wonders of airport security.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Black box voting have reported another problem with Diebold voting machines.
"By entering a 2-digit code in a hidden location, a second set of votes is created. This set of votes can be changed, so that it no longer matches the correct votes. The voting system will then read the totals from the bogus vote set. It takes only seconds to change the votes, and to date not a single location in the U.S. has implemented security measures to fully mitigate the risks."
If that report is accurate then it is pretty worrying.
"By entering a 2-digit code in a hidden location, a second set of votes is created. This set of votes can be changed, so that it no longer matches the correct votes. The voting system will then read the totals from the bogus vote set. It takes only seconds to change the votes, and to date not a single location in the U.S. has implemented security measures to fully mitigate the risks."
If that report is accurate then it is pretty worrying.
The Consumers Association in the UK have decided to refer the Apple iTunes service to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for anti competitive practices.
'Consumers' Association's main areas of concern are that the practice of residency based price discrimination frustrates consumer benefits possible under the single market and that the iTunes system allows market abuse, going against the principles of the single market.
When CA asked Apple to justify the price differential, they responded: "The underlying economic model in each country has an impact on how we price our track downloads. That's not unusual, look at the price of CDs in the US versus the UK. We believe the real comparison to be made is with the price of other track downloads in the UK." '
Price discrimination based on geography. Just another symptom of DRM.
'Consumers' Association's main areas of concern are that the practice of residency based price discrimination frustrates consumer benefits possible under the single market and that the iTunes system allows market abuse, going against the principles of the single market.
When CA asked Apple to justify the price differential, they responded: "The underlying economic model in each country has an impact on how we price our track downloads. That's not unusual, look at the price of CDs in the US versus the UK. We believe the real comparison to be made is with the price of other track downloads in the UK." '
Price discrimination based on geography. Just another symptom of DRM.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
The Sony Playstation2 mod chip case, Sony v Stevens, is heading for the Australian High Court, scheduled to be heard in March 2005.
"Last year Sony Computer Entertainment successfully sued a Sydney-based mod-chip trader Eddy Stevens, claiming he contravened the Copyright Act by selling and installing chips for Sony Playstation machines.
Mod chips allow users to overcome Playstation's security system so they can play pirated or copied games, legitimate gamed bought more cheaply outside Australia, or make personal back-up copies...
...Last year Sony Computer Entertainment successfully sued a Sydney-based mod-chip trader Eddy Stevens, claiming he contravened the Copyright Act by selling and installing chips for Sony Playstation machines.
Mod chips allow users to overcome Playstation's security system so they can play pirated or copied games, legitimate gamed bought more cheaply outside Australia, or make personal back-up copies."
"Last year Sony Computer Entertainment successfully sued a Sydney-based mod-chip trader Eddy Stevens, claiming he contravened the Copyright Act by selling and installing chips for Sony Playstation machines.
Mod chips allow users to overcome Playstation's security system so they can play pirated or copied games, legitimate gamed bought more cheaply outside Australia, or make personal back-up copies...
...Last year Sony Computer Entertainment successfully sued a Sydney-based mod-chip trader Eddy Stevens, claiming he contravened the Copyright Act by selling and installing chips for Sony Playstation machines.
Mod chips allow users to overcome Playstation's security system so they can play pirated or copied games, legitimate gamed bought more cheaply outside Australia, or make personal back-up copies."
Monday, September 13, 2004
TiVo and ReplayTV have agreed to implement technological restrictions to digital video recorders. The more I think about this kind of thing the more surreal it appears to be. What is the logic in restricting the products you supply to the market, reducing your customers utility purely to serve the interests of dominant players in a related market? All of this is bound to eventually collapse in on top of itself.
The new head of so-called e-government in the UK, Ian Watmore, is very keen on national identity cards and single ID numbers for all citizens. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Theoretically, for example, a single ID number would make his job of joining up the IT dots for government significantly easier. That's something that is often neglected when it comes to grand schemes like ID cards or complex security systems. The agenda of the individual actors has a significant part to play in the position they take on any issue.
That it may be helpful to Mr Watmore in meeting whatever targets he might have, however, does not necessarily mean it is in the general interest of the rest of us.
Theoretically, for example, a single ID number would make his job of joining up the IT dots for government significantly easier. That's something that is often neglected when it comes to grand schemes like ID cards or complex security systems. The agenda of the individual actors has a significant part to play in the position they take on any issue.
That it may be helpful to Mr Watmore in meeting whatever targets he might have, however, does not necessarily mean it is in the general interest of the rest of us.
Friday, September 10, 2004
FFII are concerned that the EU Council may rubber stamp the software patents directive at their meeting later this month.
I've been really busy and Blogger's been playing up in recent weeks. Hence the current sparsity of postings. But you should be staying tuned to Copyfight, EDRi and all the usual suspects.
Privacy International and EDRi have today released their response to the EU consultation on communications data retention. Needless to say it is intensely critical of the proposals. There's a salutory quote included from the European Court on Human Rights
"The distinguishing feature of a blanket data retention requirement is the absence of any reasonable relationship between the intrusion on individual privacy rights and the law enforcement objectives served."
The full report is worth a read. The executive summary follows:
"The following report is a response to the European Commission's Directorate Generals on the Information Society and on Justice and Home Affairs call for comments on a proposed retention regime across Europe. We welcome the intervention of the Commission in this process that has to date been led by some Member States, and previously conducted in a closed manner. We hope that the Commission will re-invigorate this debate, and provide some deliberation on this pressing issue before it is too late.
In this response we argue that any regime for the indiscriminate retention of personal data is hazardous. At a time like this, the European Union should be fulfilling its role to uphold the rights of individuals, as technologies become more invasive, and as laws are increasingly reluctant to protect individual rights. Data retention is an invasive and illegal practice with illusory benefits. And to date, the paths to data retention in Europe have involved illegitimate policy processes.
The retention of personal data resulting from communications, or of traffic data, is necessarily an invasive act. With the progress of technology, this data is well beyond being simple logs of who we've called and when we called them. Traffic data can now be used to create a map of human associations and more importantly, a map of human activity and intention. It is beyond our understanding as to why the EU Presidency and some select EU Member States insist on increasing the surveillance of traffic data even as this data becomes more and more sensitive, concomitant to a decreasing regard for civil liberties.
Claims that the retention of this information is necessary for investigations are not entirely accurate. Security gained from retention may be illusory. It is likely that traffic data that is associated to one individual may actually be linked to activity taken by another, or by a process that is unrelated to the activities of that user. The linking of one individual to a set of actions through checking logs is a tenuous link at best. In an investigation of 'who' visited a website with controversial content, even if the logs are well maintained, there is little certainty that they will lead back to the individuals who are being sought. We may be attributing actions and intentions to innocent individuals instead, which is also an invasion of privacy.
Retention is illegal. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to a private life. The indiscriminate collection of traffic data offends a core principle of the rule of law: that citizens should have notice of the circumstances in which the State may conduct surveillance, so that they can regulate their behaviour to avoid unwanted intrusions. Retention would be so extensive as to be out of all proportion to the law enforcement objectives served. Under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, such a disproportionate interference in the private lives of individuals cannot be said to be necessary in a democratic society.
The process through which EU Member States are attempting to establish retention is illegitimate. Some believe that the mandate for retention was established through Directive 2002/58/EC on Privacy and Electronic Communications. In fact this Directive was passed under problematic circumstances, as were many of the national laws on data retention. Many of these laws were passed in response to terrorism, only for legislators to be shocked to discover that data retention has little to do with investigating terrorism and is more commonly used for common investigations and surveillance. We agree that the policy situation across the EU right now is quite fragmented with some countries with retention and others without. This is because some countries concealed the policy under the guise of terrorism. Others pursued this policy under the veils of silence and ignorance to its ramifications. Some Parliaments have actively rejected the policy. If the Commission calls for the adoption of data retention due to concerns regarding the single market and harmonisation, it will be rewarding these undemocratic actions of some member states whilst ignoring the democratic responses of others.
The process through which the EU is insisting on ensuring that all countries weaken privacy protections to support generalised surveillance is contrary to the principles of an open society."
Privacy International and EDRi have today released their response to the EU consultation on communications data retention. Needless to say it is intensely critical of the proposals. There's a salutory quote included from the European Court on Human Rights
"The distinguishing feature of a blanket data retention requirement is the absence of any reasonable relationship between the intrusion on individual privacy rights and the law enforcement objectives served."
The full report is worth a read. The executive summary follows:
"The following report is a response to the European Commission's Directorate Generals on the Information Society and on Justice and Home Affairs call for comments on a proposed retention regime across Europe. We welcome the intervention of the Commission in this process that has to date been led by some Member States, and previously conducted in a closed manner. We hope that the Commission will re-invigorate this debate, and provide some deliberation on this pressing issue before it is too late.
In this response we argue that any regime for the indiscriminate retention of personal data is hazardous. At a time like this, the European Union should be fulfilling its role to uphold the rights of individuals, as technologies become more invasive, and as laws are increasingly reluctant to protect individual rights. Data retention is an invasive and illegal practice with illusory benefits. And to date, the paths to data retention in Europe have involved illegitimate policy processes.
The retention of personal data resulting from communications, or of traffic data, is necessarily an invasive act. With the progress of technology, this data is well beyond being simple logs of who we've called and when we called them. Traffic data can now be used to create a map of human associations and more importantly, a map of human activity and intention. It is beyond our understanding as to why the EU Presidency and some select EU Member States insist on increasing the surveillance of traffic data even as this data becomes more and more sensitive, concomitant to a decreasing regard for civil liberties.
Claims that the retention of this information is necessary for investigations are not entirely accurate. Security gained from retention may be illusory. It is likely that traffic data that is associated to one individual may actually be linked to activity taken by another, or by a process that is unrelated to the activities of that user. The linking of one individual to a set of actions through checking logs is a tenuous link at best. In an investigation of 'who' visited a website with controversial content, even if the logs are well maintained, there is little certainty that they will lead back to the individuals who are being sought. We may be attributing actions and intentions to innocent individuals instead, which is also an invasion of privacy.
Retention is illegal. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to a private life. The indiscriminate collection of traffic data offends a core principle of the rule of law: that citizens should have notice of the circumstances in which the State may conduct surveillance, so that they can regulate their behaviour to avoid unwanted intrusions. Retention would be so extensive as to be out of all proportion to the law enforcement objectives served. Under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, such a disproportionate interference in the private lives of individuals cannot be said to be necessary in a democratic society.
The process through which EU Member States are attempting to establish retention is illegitimate. Some believe that the mandate for retention was established through Directive 2002/58/EC on Privacy and Electronic Communications. In fact this Directive was passed under problematic circumstances, as were many of the national laws on data retention. Many of these laws were passed in response to terrorism, only for legislators to be shocked to discover that data retention has little to do with investigating terrorism and is more commonly used for common investigations and surveillance. We agree that the policy situation across the EU right now is quite fragmented with some countries with retention and others without. This is because some countries concealed the policy under the guise of terrorism. Others pursued this policy under the veils of silence and ignorance to its ramifications. Some Parliaments have actively rejected the policy. If the Commission calls for the adoption of data retention due to concerns regarding the single market and harmonisation, it will be rewarding these undemocratic actions of some member states whilst ignoring the democratic responses of others.
The process through which the EU is insisting on ensuring that all countries weaken privacy protections to support generalised surveillance is contrary to the principles of an open society."
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
An alledged Australian software pirate, Hew Raymond Griffith, has been extradited to the US.
Meanwhile, according to CNN,
"The U.S. Department of Justice has asked an appellate court to keep its arguments secret for a case in which privacy advocate John Gilmore is challenging federal requirements to show identification before boarding an airplane."
Meanwhile, according to CNN,
"The U.S. Department of Justice has asked an appellate court to keep its arguments secret for a case in which privacy advocate John Gilmore is challenging federal requirements to show identification before boarding an airplane."
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Have a look at a new blog - Copyfutures and Ernest Miller's new law and IT conversations at the Importance of...
Friday, September 03, 2004
Nice article on the TSA's launch of the replacement for CAPPS II, "Secure Flight".
"Unlike the previous proposal, the new system will only look for known or suspected terrorists, not other law enforcement violators. In addition, it will include a redress mechanism, where people can resolve questions if they believe they have been unfairly or incorrectly selected for additional screening."
"Unlike the previous proposal, the new system will only look for known or suspected terrorists, not other law enforcement violators. In addition, it will include a redress mechanism, where people can resolve questions if they believe they have been unfairly or incorrectly selected for additional screening."
Announcements about the death of the CAPPS II passenger screening system by the head of US Homeland Security recently may have been pre-mature. The Washington Post is suggesting that it has been resurrected under a new user friendly name "Secure Flight," and with a new slogan, "Preserving our freedoms."
Jason Schultz is spot on in his comments about the balkanization of digital music. Funny enough, I had just been making exactly the same point in my keynote address to the IEEE Consumer Electronics Symposium 2004. People are going to get fed up having their music players dictate which music they can play and the nonsensical need to buy a separate player for music supplied, for example by Microsoft, Apple or Real. And what happens when you decide to buy a new player that won't play any of your old music?
Stefan Motte from Phillips, in a terrific talk this morning, made the point that the key things for digital consumer electronics devices in the home are usability, seamless integration and interoperability. I wonder how long it will be before the Microsoft/Apple/Real/entertainment business balkanized markets collapse in on themselves. I just hope not too much permanent damage is done in the interim.
Stefan Motte from Phillips, in a terrific talk this morning, made the point that the key things for digital consumer electronics devices in the home are usability, seamless integration and interoperability. I wonder how long it will be before the Microsoft/Apple/Real/entertainment business balkanized markets collapse in on themselves. I just hope not too much permanent damage is done in the interim.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Yahoo have failed in their attempt to get a US court to support their position in the Yahoo France Nazi memorabilia case. The majority jusdge in the split opinion said
"Yahoo obtains commercial advantage from the fact that users located in France are able to access its Web site … Yahoo cannot expect both to benefit from the fact that its content may be viewed around the world and to be shielded from the resulting costs... If Yahoo violates the speech laws of another nation, it must wait for the foreign litigants to come to the United States to enforce the judgment before its First Amendment claim may be heard by a U.S. court."
"Yahoo obtains commercial advantage from the fact that users located in France are able to access its Web site … Yahoo cannot expect both to benefit from the fact that its content may be viewed around the world and to be shielded from the resulting costs... If Yahoo violates the speech laws of another nation, it must wait for the foreign litigants to come to the United States to enforce the judgment before its First Amendment claim may be heard by a U.S. court."
Monday, August 23, 2004
Looking for information and analysis of the MGM v Grokster & Musiccity case?
Copyfight and the Importance of... would be very good places to start.
Copyfight and the Importance of... would be very good places to start.
Friday, August 20, 2004
There are loads of stories around on the Grokster decision. I expect Copyfight will have a round up but just for starters here's one from the NYT and the EFF's take on it.
The 9th circuit appeal court has firmly rejected the entertainment companies' appeal in the Grokster case.
"The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light
of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding
exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and
vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation
conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless,
taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners' immediate
economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in
profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present
context.
Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological
environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet
innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th
Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive
to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose
works are sold through well established distribution mechanisms. Yet,
history has shown that time and market forces often provide
equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a
player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal
computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent
for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability
theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses,
despite their apparent present magnitude."
Expect another appeal especially with the INDUCE act in the pipeline.
"The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light
of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding
exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and
vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation
conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless,
taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners' immediate
economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in
profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present
context.
Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological
environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet
innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th
Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive
to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose
works are sold through well established distribution mechanisms. Yet,
history has shown that time and market forces often provide
equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a
player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal
computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent
for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability
theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses,
despite their apparent present magnitude."
Expect another appeal especially with the INDUCE act in the pipeline.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
I don't think Lawmeme's excellent guide to Ernest Miller's dissections of the INDUCE act developments has caught up with his latest offensive. Sen. Orrin Hatch and co. have written to the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, asking her to take charge of refining the INDUCE act by 7 September 2004.
"Asking Marybeth Peters to play a leadership role with regard to legislative changes to copyright law is like asking Dr. Jack Kevorkian to play a leadership role with regard to legislative changes to euthanasia law...
...Peters is to identify "proposed solutions" to "legitimate concerns." Unfortunately for the tech industry, Peters doesn't think there are any legitimate concerns with regard to the bill, at least according to her testimony: Copyright Office on INDUCE Act (IICA): It isn't Strong Enough. If anything, she thinks the bill is too soft on technology."
Ernest is not impressed.
"Asking Marybeth Peters to play a leadership role with regard to legislative changes to copyright law is like asking Dr. Jack Kevorkian to play a leadership role with regard to legislative changes to euthanasia law...
...Peters is to identify "proposed solutions" to "legitimate concerns." Unfortunately for the tech industry, Peters doesn't think there are any legitimate concerns with regard to the bill, at least according to her testimony: Copyright Office on INDUCE Act (IICA): It isn't Strong Enough. If anything, she thinks the bill is too soft on technology."
Ernest is not impressed.
Simon Jenkins is on David Blunkett's trail again, criticising the home secretary and the court of appeal for relying on evidence, gleaned from torture in foreign parts, to hold terrorist suspects indefinitely.
"SO THE Home Secretary, David Blunkett, is having trouble with his friends, the tabloids. Well, well. For years he has been treating them like a skinhead playing with rottweilers. He has crammed prisons, abused judges, taunted left-wingers and pandered to the mob. Suddenly the snarling beasts turn on their handler and savage him. Before you can say “liberal” a large portion of the Home Secretary’s anatomy is raw flesh.
Where, he might wonder, did the tabloids gather their information about his love life? How rigorous were their sources? From whom was their evidence extracted, and with what bribes and duress? How do these journalists now rate their pledges of respect for human rights? The answers are probably as robust as those that Mr Blunkett deploys against the ten detainees whose case came before the Court of Appeal last week, whom he brands “terrorists”. His victims claimed the evidence against them was gleaned from prisoners who had been tortured. Unlike that in Mr Blunkett’s case, this evidence really matters. These men have been in prison for two years without trial or normal civil rights.
In prison they will stay. Three appeal court judges inexplicably found in favour of Mr Blunkett, albeit one of them with reservations. Lord Justice Laws declared himself “quite unable to see” why the Home Secretary should not rely on evidence “gained by torture”, if the torturers belonged to states “over which he has no power of direction”. Torture is apparently fine so long as the torturers are not British. I sense that this is what might be called an old-fashioned judge.
He then went further and added that he could not even see why Mr Blunkett had a “duty of solemn inquiry as to the interrogation methods used”. If he wants to declare an accused a terrorist, any evidence would presumably do, even if it were scraped off the walls of Abu Ghraib jail.
These detainees are not accused of any act or planned act of terrorism, only of membership of al-Qaeda. They have the option of leaving England and returning to their home country, but they claim that this would be at risk of their lives. They want to stay free in Britain. Since this is in part an immigration case, the appeal court may have considered the burden of proof on the Home Office less than onerous. But that is quite different from liberating the Home Secretary to sweep the torture chambers of the world for accusations against his victims...
...In The Times on Monday a former immigration scrutineer, Sir Brian Barder, attacked the appeal court decision. Surely, he said, the court should have issued “a ringing condemnation of reliance on evidence obtained by torture, wherever and by whomever practised, as a basis for imprisoning people indefinitely and without trial”.
It is scarcely believable that such words need writing in Britain in the 21st century. They do."
I don't always agree with Jenkins but in this instance I find his central arguments to be compelling and persuasive.
"SO THE Home Secretary, David Blunkett, is having trouble with his friends, the tabloids. Well, well. For years he has been treating them like a skinhead playing with rottweilers. He has crammed prisons, abused judges, taunted left-wingers and pandered to the mob. Suddenly the snarling beasts turn on their handler and savage him. Before you can say “liberal” a large portion of the Home Secretary’s anatomy is raw flesh.
Where, he might wonder, did the tabloids gather their information about his love life? How rigorous were their sources? From whom was their evidence extracted, and with what bribes and duress? How do these journalists now rate their pledges of respect for human rights? The answers are probably as robust as those that Mr Blunkett deploys against the ten detainees whose case came before the Court of Appeal last week, whom he brands “terrorists”. His victims claimed the evidence against them was gleaned from prisoners who had been tortured. Unlike that in Mr Blunkett’s case, this evidence really matters. These men have been in prison for two years without trial or normal civil rights.
In prison they will stay. Three appeal court judges inexplicably found in favour of Mr Blunkett, albeit one of them with reservations. Lord Justice Laws declared himself “quite unable to see” why the Home Secretary should not rely on evidence “gained by torture”, if the torturers belonged to states “over which he has no power of direction”. Torture is apparently fine so long as the torturers are not British. I sense that this is what might be called an old-fashioned judge.
He then went further and added that he could not even see why Mr Blunkett had a “duty of solemn inquiry as to the interrogation methods used”. If he wants to declare an accused a terrorist, any evidence would presumably do, even if it were scraped off the walls of Abu Ghraib jail.
These detainees are not accused of any act or planned act of terrorism, only of membership of al-Qaeda. They have the option of leaving England and returning to their home country, but they claim that this would be at risk of their lives. They want to stay free in Britain. Since this is in part an immigration case, the appeal court may have considered the burden of proof on the Home Office less than onerous. But that is quite different from liberating the Home Secretary to sweep the torture chambers of the world for accusations against his victims...
...In The Times on Monday a former immigration scrutineer, Sir Brian Barder, attacked the appeal court decision. Surely, he said, the court should have issued “a ringing condemnation of reliance on evidence obtained by torture, wherever and by whomever practised, as a basis for imprisoning people indefinitely and without trial”.
It is scarcely believable that such words need writing in Britain in the 21st century. They do."
I don't always agree with Jenkins but in this instance I find his central arguments to be compelling and persuasive.
Rod Dixon at CircleID has an interesting piece on the domain name dispute which came to light recently between Penguin and the private owner of katie.com. Penguin published a book called katie.com four years ago even though there was a website with the same domain name registered to an individual, Katie Jones.
"In 2000, katie.com was published by Penguin Putnam Publishing; according to the publisher, the book provides an "eye-opening account of teenager's descent into the seductive world of the Internet." Apparently, the publisher successfully took on the ambitious task of publishing a book about the "world of the Internet," yet did so somehow without any awareness that the book's title was identical to a pre-existing domain name. This misstep ordinarily may constitute a minor distraction for a publisher of a book on other topics, but a book about the Internet targeted toward young readers, should likely require a rerun of the printing press with a different book title, if the current domain name holder refuses to sell or license the domain name...
...Unfortunately, individual domain name holders are not widely known to receive compensation for interference with the enjoyment of their intellectual property. Too often, it seems individual domain name holders find their interests viewed as entirely irrelevant...
...legal rules governing property rights in domain names have largely resisted reformulation when directed toward freedom of expression or non-trademark-oriented uses. Hence, Katie Jones not only was without a low cost forum to assert her own rights, but could have been forced to defend a domain name she had lawfully acquired. Some commercial interests have demonstrated an implacable and ferocious appetite for domain names held in non-commercial use by individual domain name holders. In addressing her own circumstance as a domain name holder, Katie Jones indicated that the situation she faced was: "like having your home address made into a book title, and then everyone shows up at your doorstep looking for the main character…Domain name owners have just as much at stake as regular property owners.""
The publisher has now decided to change the title of the book.
"In 2000, katie.com was published by Penguin Putnam Publishing; according to the publisher, the book provides an "eye-opening account of teenager's descent into the seductive world of the Internet." Apparently, the publisher successfully took on the ambitious task of publishing a book about the "world of the Internet," yet did so somehow without any awareness that the book's title was identical to a pre-existing domain name. This misstep ordinarily may constitute a minor distraction for a publisher of a book on other topics, but a book about the Internet targeted toward young readers, should likely require a rerun of the printing press with a different book title, if the current domain name holder refuses to sell or license the domain name...
...Unfortunately, individual domain name holders are not widely known to receive compensation for interference with the enjoyment of their intellectual property. Too often, it seems individual domain name holders find their interests viewed as entirely irrelevant...
...legal rules governing property rights in domain names have largely resisted reformulation when directed toward freedom of expression or non-trademark-oriented uses. Hence, Katie Jones not only was without a low cost forum to assert her own rights, but could have been forced to defend a domain name she had lawfully acquired. Some commercial interests have demonstrated an implacable and ferocious appetite for domain names held in non-commercial use by individual domain name holders. In addressing her own circumstance as a domain name holder, Katie Jones indicated that the situation she faced was: "like having your home address made into a book title, and then everyone shows up at your doorstep looking for the main character…Domain name owners have just as much at stake as regular property owners.""
The publisher has now decided to change the title of the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)