WebProNews

Tag: Copyright

  • YouTube Upgrades Its Content ID System

    YouTube’s Content ID system has drawn the ire from plenty of Internet users. Important moments in history have been ruined thanks to the trigger happy ID matching program that seems to serve content curators over users. This year alone has seen two embarrassing instances of the Content ID system being abused – the Mars Rover landing and the Democratic National Convention. YouTube hopefully has a few fixes so stuff like this doesn’t happen again.

    YouTube says that a lot of the problems with the Content ID system comes from the fact that the system has over 500,000 hours of reference files to pull from. A video that even remotely matches the content that copyright owners have uploaded will be taken down with extreme prejudice. That’s a problem, and YouTube has introduced a new appeals process to make things easier.

    Those who have their videos blocked on copyright grounds will now be able to appeal the decision. The new appeals process takes the fight directly to the content owner with two options – rescind the claim or file an actual DMCA takedown request. YouTube’s Content ID system was abused so much in the past because there was no actual DMCA requests involved. Requiring trolls to actually file a request should help cut down on illegitimate takedowns.

    YouTube is also introducing a manual review process for claims. Those 500,000 hours of reference material can sometimes unintentionally cause a video to be blocked. The YouTube team has improved the algorithm used in this process, but they will also manually review videos that have been flagged. The video in question won’t be taken offline until it’s been manually reviewed.

    Finally, YouTube has improved the matching technology that sits at the center of the Content ID system. Better algorithms are one part of the solution, but they will continue to build out their reference library to make sure that videos uploaded to YouTube aren’t affected by bogus claims.

    It will be interesting to see if the Content ID system actually improves over the coming weeks. YouTube has to build back trust with a public that doesn’t necessarily trust its system or those who seemingly abuse it. In the meantime, here’s hoping a bogus claim from CNN or Fox News doesn’t take down the first presidential debate streaming live on YouTube tonight.

  • ISPs To Start Six-Strike Anti-Piracy Program Later This Year

    You may recall an effort on the part of the Center for Copyright Information to start a six-strike warning system for repeat copyright infringers. The plan called for tracking of Internet users and calling them out when they were found to be downloading copyrighted content. The warning system was to be put in place last year, but has been delayed numerous times. Now it looks like it may finally be launching before the end of this year.

    TorrentFreak reports that a source close to the CCI that the six-strike system is up and ready. The only thing standing in its way is a reluctance on the part of ISPs to start warning subscribers. The fist one out of the gate will be seen as betraying the privacy of their subscribers, and they could start to lose said subscribers.

    Regardless, the CCI is pushing for a launch by the end of this year. The current plan is to simultaneously launch the effort across the five largest ISPs in America – Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision. These ISPs will begin testing the warning system in November.

    TorrentFreak also reports that the CCI has contracted MarkMonitor to find the identity of alleged pirates. They point out that MarkMonitor is owned by the same company that currently identifies pirates under Ireland’s ridiculous three-strikes system.

    The concern right now is that the CCI is being rather secretive about the six-strike system. All we know is that ISPs will punish repeat offenders, but it was never made clear what the punishments would entail. ISPs claimed that they would not terminate a user’s service, but there was never any guarantee made.

    In slightly good news, TorrentFreak’s source reports that MarkMonitor had its evidence technique reviewed by an independent third party. The report will apparently be released in the next few weeks to provide transparency on their methods. At that time, we’ll hopefully be able to fully understand what exactly is going into this new method of pirate surveillance.

    For now, we can at least rest easy that the six-strike system is nowhere near as bad as Mediacom’s self-instituted three-strike system. The ISP recently said that they would ban a subscriber for life if they were found to be downloading copyrighted content three times in a row.

    Regardless of the system, any kind of elevated response system just shows that the copyright lobby still doesn’t understand the proper methods of combatting piracy. Services like Netflix and Spotify have done more to reduce piracy than harebrained schemes implemented by dinosaurs. Of course, we wouldn’t expect them to make things easy on consumers.

  • Mediacom Takes File Sharing Punishments To Absurd New Levels

    Are you a Mediacom subscriber? Do you use file sharing services to obtain content? If so, you may want to switch to a different provider. The ISP’s new three-strike system is absurdly anti-consumer.

    Mediacom is a very large ISP. They mostly serve small towns and cities throughout the U.S., however, so they don’t get as much media play as Time Warner Cable or Comcast. They’re going to start getting a lot of media coverage today after revealing their new three-strikes policy in dealing with file sharers.

    According to TorrentFreak, Mediacom is going to start cracking down on those accused of file sharing. Considering that many right owners send out DMCA notices without even thinking, this could prove to be very bad for Mediacom subscribers.

    Here’s how it all go down: The first strike will result in Mediacom sending the subscriber a warning and flagging their account. The second strike will result in an account suspension. The dirty pirate will then have to fill out some paperwork to get their service reinstated. The third strike will result in their service being cancelled and the subscriber will be banned from Mediacom services for life.

    The U.S. is working with major ISPs on a similar six-strike program. It’s nowhere near as bad as the plan that Mediacom will be putting into action. Under the six-strike program, the worst any ISP can do is throttle your Internet.

    Regardless, Mediacom’s actions prove that ISPs can, and will, take matters into their own hands. It’s absolutely ridiculous that they would threaten to ban Internet users for life, but it’s wholly within their power to do so at this point in time. It would take somebody from within government telling them the practice is anti-consumer for them to change course.

    Of course, users could leave Mediacom for another ISP (if they can) to show their disapproval of the new plan. Piracy is an issue, but punishing users isn’t going to stop the practice. If ISPs and rights owners actually cared about consumers, they would realize that offering competitive and more convenient services would curtail piracy in a major way. Until pigs fly, we’ll just have to deal with more hackneyed plans to stop piracy.

  • Swiss Federal Railways Accuses Apple Of Copyright Infringement

    Things got a little strange in the copyright world a few weeks ago when Apple sued a grocery store. They claimed that the store was using its iconic logo to trick people into buying groceries instead of iPhones. It was strange and ridiculous. Now, Apple is being targeted for a similarly ridiculous copyright claim.

    The Swiss Federal Railways has a very iconic clock. You’ve probably seen it film or pictures. If not, here it is:

    Now, Apple has a new clock design in iOS 6 for iPad.

    Swiss Federal Railways Apple Copyright

    Does anything look familiar? It would seem that the resemblance has not been lost on the owners of the copyright, the Swiss Federal Railways service. They apparently don’t appreciate the resemblance and are weighing their options. According to an article from Tages-Anzeiger, and translated by MacRumors, the Swiss Federal Railways had this to say:

    SBB is the sole owner of the trademark and copyright of the railway clock. The railway company will now get in touch with Apple. The aim is a legal, as well as a financial solution. It is not right that one [Apple] simply copies the design.

    I may not like Apple’s strong arm legal tactics, but there are limits to how stupid lawsuits can go. Did Apple steal the clock design of the Swiss Federal Railways? Most likely. Is it stupid? Yes, it is. Either way, Apple should change the design and just move on. They have bigger problems to contend with at the moment.

  • Court Grants Stay In Google Books Case

    Court Grants Stay In Google Books Case

    For a quick update on the ongoing case between Google and the Authors Guild over Google Books, a judge granted a stay in the case on Tuesday, while the court reviews the recent decision to give authors the go ahead to sue Google.

    Interestingly, this comes just a couple weeks after Google was denied request for a stay.

    Jeff Roberts at Paid Content shares the court document, which says:

    “Appellant Google, Inc. has filed a motion to stay district court proceedings pending appeal of the class certification order and appellees have filed a response stating that they consent to the stay, although not to the arguments put forward in the motion as to why Google expects to prevail on appeal. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to stay proceedings pending appeal is GRANTED.”

    Here’s the actual document:

    CA2 Order Granting AG Stay

  • Sweden Gives $59 Million To Cambodia Following Pirate Bay Founder’s Arrest

    We brought you word on Tuesday that The Pirate Bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm was arrested in Cambodia last week. He is to be deported to Sweden where he faces a one year prison sentence and a $1.7 million fine. After the arrest, people began to ask why Cambodia was so dead set on arresting and deporting Svartholm after he had already been living in the country for a few years. The answer may lie in a suspicious coincidence.

    TorrentFreak reports today that Sweden has made a generous donation of $59 million to the country of Cambodia in the form of a care package. The money will be going to the development of Cambodia’s democracy, education, and other worthwhile causes. It’s a good move by Sweden, but the timing just seems a little suspect.

    I don’t think anybody would deny the noble intentions of Sweden to help out their fellow man in a less fortunate nation. It just seems oddly suspicious that such a gift would come right after Cambodia agreed to arrest and deport the founder of one of Sweden’s most notorious file sharing outfits.

    For their part, Sweden says the gift is all about strengthening ties with Cambodia. TorrentFreak points out that the U.S. ambassador to Cambodia said the same thing on the day that Svartholm was arrested. I’m willing to chalk all of this up to coincidence, but you have to admit that it’s one hell of a coincidence.

    Even if it wasn’t a coincidence, Svartholm was still convicted in a Swedish court. He ran and is now facing the consequences. Sweden has already proven that they’ll do anything to catch their man, and Svartholm just happened to be that man.

  • DNC Livestream on YouTube Blocked, Marked Private [UPDATED]

    DNC Livestream on YouTube Blocked, Marked Private [UPDATED]

    UPDATE: Videos from the convention are appearing on the DNC’s official channel. YouTube says that there was no copyright violation and that it was simply an incorrect error message that users saw on Tuesday night. Here’s their statement:

    “After Tuesday’s live stream ended, YouTube briefly showed an incorrect error message on the page hosting the completed live stream instead of the standard “This event is complete” message. There was no copyright violation on the video and neither the live stream nor any of the channel’s videos were affected.”

    YouTube has made a big deal out of the fact that they are one of the best places to go this year for campaign coverage. Whether that be behind-the-scenes videos, news reports, short features, debate coverage, or live streaming of the conventions – YouTube’s new Elections Hub has the American voters covered.

    Well, except when things fail to go according to plan.

    Viewers who attempted to access YouTube’s livestream of the Democratic National Convention late last night were unable to do so. Shortly after First Lady Michelle Obama completed her speech, the archived recording of the event went black.

    Actually, here’s the message that users received:

    This video contains content from WMG, SME, Associated Press (AP), UMG, Dow Jones, New York Times Digital, The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (HFA), Warner Chappell, UMPG Publishing and EMI Music Publishing, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

    Blocked for copyright purposes. Say what?

    YouTube told GigaOM that it wasn’t their fault.

    “After tonight’s live stream ended, YouTube briefly showed an incorrect error message. Neither the live stream nor any of the channel’s videos were affected,” they said.

    But many took to Twitter to lament the blocked video. Now, when you try to access the video it is marked as private. If this really isn’t a copyright problem and simply an error, it shouldn’t take those responsible very long to fix this and make the video public again.

  • Google, Takedown Requests & The Unknown

    Google, Takedown Requests & The Unknown

    As you may know, Google is now using the amount of takedown requests it receives for a site as a ranking signal. Google publicly announced this change earlier this month, and it’s been something of a controversial topic within the webmaster community.

    Interestingly, according to Google’s Transparency Report, the number of takedown requests has actually decreased since the announcement, but the overall trend shows a very significant rise in requests over the past year. There are a lot of concerns about the vagueness of how Google uses this data, and potential abuse of the signal by competitors. More on all of that here.

    SEOBook‘s Aaron Wall shared some additional thoughts about the whole thing with us. He thinks the change may be good for Google, but is less certain how good it is for the rest of the web.

    The unknowns

    “I don’t think the feature hurts Google at all,” he tells WebProNews. “In fact I think it creates a further competitive advantage for them.”

    “It is the rest of the web that the feature is not so good for,” he adds. “The limitations are not known publicly, the level of pain caused is not known publicly, the recovery process is not known publicly, how and where and why they may change limits or penalties associated with it going forward is also unknown, etc.”

    “It is a way to point at basically anything with any sort of remix of culture and say, ‘well it is spam because this over here,’” Wall says.

    Google, as a company, is changing

    “Now to be fair, I think historically Google has been far fairer than most in their position would be,” he adds. “However as time passes, they become larger, they get more employees & they need to keep growing revenues they become more of a typical company (and that means past exceptionalism might be less exceptional in years to come).”

    “As an example of something they wouldn’t have done 10 years ago, today Google’s homepage has a large graphic ad on it for their tablet,” he points out.

    We actually talked about this another piece. It certainly is a pretty interesting turnaround from where the company once was. You have to wonder how much ore of this kind of thing Google will do. User response hasn’t been incredibly positive. Here are some examples of some fo the comments we received about the ad:

    “Definitely the most bold ad to be shown on the homepage ever. I don’t mind a text link, but an animated image? It is 179Kb as well, that is not a tiny file.”

    “How do I get rid of this annoyance?!!!! I don’t want another annoying push to buy things I couldn’t care less about.”

    “This is a sad day!!”

    “Really don’t like it – very annoyed with google.”

    I’m sure there are plenty who are not really bothered by the ad. Frankly, it doesn’t really bother me at all. I just find it noteworthy that Google would do this now after its long history of homepage simplicity.

    What About User-Generated Content Sites?

    Wall shares a quote from a post Google made on its AdSense blog this week:

    “It’s against our policies to show ads on the same page as links to other sites that are hosting copyrighted materials without authorization. Keep in mind that these sites come in various forms such as forums, blogs or community websites.”

    “Notice that YouTube goes unmentioned in the above tip,” Wall says. “Yet if you wanted to list sites that have been on the receiving end of a billion Dollar lawsuit for copyright infringement YouTube would be right up top. That was sort of the point I was trying to make…that new sites that behave like some of Google’s vertical properties do would have a strong risk of being labeled as spam before they could reach a critical mass.”

    Google has acknowledged that YouTube (and Blogger) aren’t counted among takedown requests in its transparency report, as they have different paths for reporting, but Wall makes an interesting point about other user-generated content sites trying to get off the ground.

    The signal is only one of over 200, but for a site that operates in a similar fashion to YouTube, it could be a strong signal, depending on how users use it, even if the site is diligent about responding to requests of its own.

    We’ve reached out to Google for comment on this, and will update if we receive one.

    Update: Talking with Google, the company, while acknowledging that no algorithm is perfect, indicates that it does not feel like the signal will have much of an impact on user-generated content sites, because of the way the signal has been designed. It’s likely that the types of sites seen at the top of the list of the Transparecy Report will be affected most. The company also explains that the bar is pretty high for abuse, given the legal ramifications of submitting false reports, which it says is punishable by penalty of perjury. The signal has also apparently been designed to prevent abuse.

    Google also reminds us that it is only one of over 200 signals, and that it i not using the signal to remove sites from listings.

  • Removal Requests Actually Down, Following Google Algorithm Change

    On August 10, Google announced that it would be updating its algorithm the following week to include a new ranking signal for the number of “valid copyright removal notices” it receives for a given site.

    Do you think Google’s addition of this signal is a good thing for search results? Let us know in the comments.

    “Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results,” said Google SVP, Engineering, Amit Singhal, at the time. “This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it’s a song previewed on NPR’s music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed from Spotify.”

    One might have expected the removal request floodgates to have been opened upon this news, but that does not appear to be the case. In fact, interestingly, it has been kind of the opposite, according to Google’s Transparency Report.

    Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Roundtable points out that from August 13 to August 20, the number of URLs requested to be removed from Google search per week, actually decreased, going from 1,496,220 to 1,427369. It’s only a slight decrease, but the fact that it decreased at all, following this news, is noteworthy.

    URLs requested to be removed

    When Google first announced the algorithm change, it immediately sparked a great deal of criticism from bloggers and webmasters and concern from consumer groups. “In particular, we worry about the false positives problem,” the EFF said at the time. “For example, we’ve seen the government wrongly target sites that actually have a right to post the allegedly infringing material in question or otherwise legally display content. In short, without details on how Google’s process works, we have no reason to believe they won’t make similar, over-inclusive mistakes, dropping lawful, relevant speech lower in its search results without recourse for the speakers.”

    Public Knowledge has spoken out about the change as well. Senior staff attorney John Bergmayer previously said in a statement, “Sites may not know about, or have the ability to easily challenge, notices sent to Google. And Google has set up a system that may be abused by bad faith actors who want to suppress their rivals and competitors. Sites that host a lot of content, or are very popular, may receive a disproportionate number of notices (which are mere accusations of infringement) without being disproportionately infringing. And user-generated content sites could be harmed by this change, even though the DMCA was structured to protect them.”

    “Google needs to make sure this change does not harm Internet users or the Internet ecosystem,” he added.

    Interestingly enough, Public Knowledge actually receives contributions from Google, as indicated in new court document Google provided in the Oracle case. “Google has contributed to Public Knowledge for years before the complaint in the case at bar was filed,” wrote Google attorney Robert Van Nest.

    Regarding inaccurate and intentionally abusive copyright removal requests, Google says, “From time to time, we may receive inaccurate or unjustified copyright removal requests for search results that clearly do not link to infringing content. An independent, third-party analysis of how frequently improper and abusive removal requests are submitted was conducted in 2006.”

    That was six years ago, and does little to set webmasters’ minds at ease. On an FAQ page, Google lists a number of examples of requests that were submitted that were “clearly invalid,” and notes that it did not comply with any of them.

    In case you’re wondering how many of the requests Google does comply with, the company says on the same page, “We removed 97% of search results specified in requests that we received between July and December 2011.”

    “We remove search results that link to infringing content in Search when it is brought to our attention, and we do it quickly,” Google adds. “As of May 2012, our average processing time across all removal requests submitted via our web form for Search is approximately 10 hours. However, many different factors can influence the processing time for a particular removal request, including the method of delivery, language, and completeness of the information submitted.”

    As far as webmasters being informed of the issue by Google, the company says, “When feasible and legal to do so, we try our best to notify users to give them an opportunity to submit a counter-notice in response to copyright removal requests. For Search, it is extremely difficult to provide meaningful notice to webmasters whose pages have been identified in copyright removal requests, because we do not necessarily know their identities or have an effective means of contacting them. If users have registered with our Webmaster Tools as web site owners, we will notify them there. We also share a copy of qualifying copyright removal requests with the public site Chilling Effects, where a webmaster may inspect it as well.”

    For the past month, Google says 5,680,830 URLs have been requested to be removed from 31,677 domains by 1,833 and 1,372 reporting organizations. The top copyright owners in the past month have been Froytal Services, RIAA member companies, Microsoft, NBCUniversal and BPI. The top specified domains have been filestube.com, torrenthound.com, isohunt.com, downloads.nl and filesonicsearch.com.

    You can see all copyright removal requests here. You can see a big list of 133,502 specified domains here. A list of 9,660 reporting organizations is available here. The list of over ten thousand copyright owners is here.

    All data reflects copyright removal notices received for search since 2011, with some omissions, which include requests for products other than Google Search (like YouTube and Blogger), and requests submitted by means other than Google’s web form (such as fax or written letters).

    It’s important to note that while Google is now using the number of removal requests a site receives as a ranking factor, it is still only one of over two hundred factors. But the negative SEO ramifications of the signal still have people worried. Negative SEO was a growing concern before this signal was even announced, particularly as it’s related to bad links and the Penguin update. Now there is concern that competitors can submit notices, and influence Google. Whether this can be done successfully or not really remains to be seen. Google seems to be giving the impression that it cannot, as Google only complies with “valid” requests, but when was the last time Google executed an algorithm update flawlessly?

    Google even recently reworded its help page for the question “Can competitors harm ranking?”. It used to say, “There’s almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index.” It was changed to say, “Google works hard to prevent other webmasters from being able to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index.”

    But, as the image above shows, it doesn’t appear that Google’s announcement has led to too a substantial increase in attempted abuse so far. That doesn’t mean it’s not possible to abuse it, and that people aren’t trying to abuse it. People were probably already trying to abuse it. While the number may be down since the announcement, the greater trend is clearly that of substantial growth in the number of requests. It will be surprising if the trend does not ultimately continue upward. We’re still waiting on the latest numbers to come out.

    Are you worried about URL removal requests as a ranking signal? Share your thoughts in the comments.

  • Torrent Sites Think Google Is Censoring Them

    Google caused a lot of discussion last week when they announced that they were introducing a new ranking signal into their search algorithm. The new signal directly targets sites that receive a lot of DMCA takedown notices and downgrades them in search results. It’s assumed that the move will have an effect on the visibility of sites like The Pirate Bay.

    What’s funny is that people can still find content from torrent sites as long as they search for relevant terms. It’s true that typing in “The Avengers download” no longer returns links to The Pirate Bay or other torrent sites. Typing in “The Avengers torrent” brings them all back to the front page.

    The Pirate Bay addressed Google lowering their search rankings in a blog post. They say that a “very low amount” of their traffic actually comes from Google and that’s only a good thing. They see themselves as a search engine and Google’s move was a way to get rid of the competition. They expect people to search for content directly on The Pirate Bay when nothing shows up on Google.

    They do, however, have one concern about Google’s new policy:

    The thing we don’t like with this is that a corrupt industry is deciding what another industry has to do. They’re dictating terms. It’s really ironic: an industry that makes funny movies about dictators, where the dictator is essentially calling the USA a dictatorship, is trying to dictate terms where they have no place to do so….

    isoHunt’s Gary Fung takes it a bit further and says that Google’s new ranking signal is an antitrust violation. He points out that YouTube is not on Google’s list of DMCA takedown notices. Google will say that’s because they have their own internal reporting system within YouTube, but isoHunt says it’s all protecting Google’s own interests in search. He reiterates the idea from The Pirate Bay that isoHunt is a search engine that’s competing with Google.

    Fung is also concerned over the use of “valid” DMCA takedown notices. He says that Google processes a DMCA takedown notice as valid if it hasn’t been countered. isoHunt receives too many DMCA takedown notices a day for them to counter and so they get counted as signals for Google to downgrade their ranking.

    The harm here according to Fung is that a lot of legitimate content on isoHunt gets flagged with DMCA notices by overzealous copyright trolls. The mountains of legitimate content on torrent sites will be removed from Google search results. He equates it to censorship. In response, he says that “we need a protest against Google censorship and antitrust.”

    Google has definitely ruffled some feathers with their newest search ranking signal, but it was to be expected sooner or later. The company must now ensure that legitimate content is not downgraded. They must also make search fair for everybody including themselves. Making YouTube and other Google services immune to their own algorithm may raise some antitrust flags in the future.

    [h/t: TorrentFreak]

  • Should Linking To Copyrighted Material Be Illegal?

    Despite how you feel on the matter, online piracy is illegal. Various courts throughout the country have said again and again that uploading pirated works on the Internet for others to download is illegal. The copyright lobby hasn’t really done much about it in recent years after finding out that suing everybody wasn’t good for their image. There is, however, a new war that the copyright lobby is waging that’s far more murky in its legality.

    The courts are now having to deal with the issue of linking to content that may be illegal. Copyright law has generally been applied to those who host the content themselves. Now the law is being applied to sites that host zero content, but rather link to content on other Web sites. That’s where the case of Anton Vickerman comes in.

    Should linking to copyrighted material be illegal? Where do we draw the line in copyright law? Let us know in the comments.

    It was reported Monday that Vickerman was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to defraud. He now stands to serve four years in prison for running surfthechannel.com. The Web site hosted links to content off site – both legal and illegal. He was said to have made £250,000 through advertisements on the site in 2008.

    The interesting part is that Vickerman could not be charged for copyright violation. The prosecution had to go with charges of conspiracy to facilitate copyright infringement. Facilitating copyright infringement is a hard sell in most courts because most people charged with the crime usually aren’t aware that the content they’re linking to illegal.

    Unfortunately for Vickerman, he sold advertisements on his Web site. The mere fact that he made money by linking to this illegal content is what doomed him in the first place. The prosecution stated that Vickerman’s Web site “was created specifically to make money from criminal activity.” The defense obviously argued that this was not the case, but it’s hard to argue with the £250,000 made over the course of a year. That’s obviously more than what running a link aggregator would cost.

    It causes one to think if the result would have been the same if Vicerkman had made no money off of the site. There are plenty of other sites out there that only link to illegal content, but make no money from it. They pay for the servers out of their own pocket or with donations from users. It seems to be a legal gray area that only becomes criminal activity once the site owner starts to make money off of it.

    Vickerman isn’t the only UK resident who is facing charges over linking to illegal content, nor is he the most well known. We’ve covered the extradition case of Richard O’Dwyer extensively over the past year and it’s far messier than Vickerman’s case ever was.

    For those who need a refresher, O’Dwyer is a 23-year-old from the U.K. who is going to be extradited to the U.S. for copyright infringement. What was his crime? He linked to online streaming videos of U.S. television shows and movies. The kind of shows that citizens in the U.K. can’t easily gain access to until months after their original airing in the U.S.

    Just like Vickerman, however, O’Dwyer is being charged because he made money off of his Web site – TVshack.net. The site was reported to have had about 300,000 users per month and he made about £147,000 in revenue over three years from the site. For his crimes, O’Dwyer would be extradited to the U.S. where he could face up to 10 years in prison.

    Of course, this brings us to the difference between O’Dwyer and Vickerman. Why can one be tried in the U.K. while the other has to be tried in the U.S.? Many groups and activists don’t see a difference and are fighting to have O’Dwyer tried in his native country. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales started a petition in June that called for the halting of O’Dwyer’s extradition. He even went so far to say that O’Dwyer is the “human face of the battle between the content industry and the interests of the general public.”

    O’Dwyer’s mother even jumped into the fray with a passionate plea for her son to remain in the U.K. She said that her son’s extradition is not about copyright, but rather the U.S. wanting to flex its control over the Internet. She said that her son’s case is about “America trying to control and police the Internet.” She also said that it’s “wrong that America should lay laws down on the Internet for other countries.”

    Both Wales and O’Dwyer’s mother bring up good points that lead to a much larger question. Why does the copyright industry care so much about linking to content? Why would they go out of their way to prosecute some guys that ran a Web site that never hosted any of this content, but rather linked to it. Most of the content on these sites were submitted by users. The DMCA has a safe harbor provision that protects Web sites from the actions of its users. Of course, a Web site can only qualify for safe harbor if they have no knowledge about the infringing content. It’s hard to say if Vickerman or O’Dwyer knew the content they were hosting was illegal.

    Should O’Dwyer be extradited to the U.S. for merely linking to copyrighted material? Should either men receive DMCA protections? Let us know in the comments.

    All of this is meant to lead up to the biggest problem at hand – Google. There are other search engines, but Google has been targeted the most for their actions. The copyright lobby has been constantly on Google’s back for linking to copyrighted content. They even claim that Google prioritizes infringing links over legitimate links in search results for those searching for something as innocuous as “Justin Bieber MP3.”

    Back in January, when the debate over SOPA was in full swing, media mogul Rupert Murdoch said that Google was a “piracy leader.” He said that Google streams movies, which I assume he means YouTube, and sells adverts around them. That kind of response to Google is typical hence why Google and other search engines were given a code of conduct by the U.K.’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

    The code of conduct says that Google and other search engines should “assign lower rankings to sites that repeatedly make available unlicensed content in breach of copyright.” It also calls upon Google to “stop indexing Web sites that are subject to court orders.” In short, it’s all about the copyright industry wanting Google to stop linking to illegal content. They might have gotten their wish last week.

    The Internet collectively freaked out when Google announced that they were adding DMCA takedown notices to their search algorithm. Google’s SVP of Engineering, Amit Singhal, said that “sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results.” Many people immediately began to assume that this was just Google bowing to copyright lobby pressure and why wouldn’t they? While it’s highly unlikely that Google would be convicted for copyright violations, the DMCA definitely protects them, it gives them a bargaining chip in Washington and Hollywood.

    The mere fact that Google did this in the first place, however, is a major cause for concern. There are plenty of legitimate sites that receive bogus takedown notices all the time. Most of these sites thrive off of user created goods and media. Would Google knock them down in search results because of some overzealous copyright warrior?

    Our own Chris Crum was quick to point out that Google’s new ranking signal was only one out of over 200. Sites that were already doing well are still going to keep doing well. Your favorite YouTube videos and Etsy stores are still going to stay near the top of search if Google has anything to say about. What is worrisome is that Google even had to address in the first place.

    With Google backing the idea that linking to illegal content is indeed illegal, it only legitimatizes the current trend of going after those that only host links. Will Google’s move make the copyright lobby more aggressive in going after those who run link aggregate sites? Will it only go after those who link to television shows and movies? What about news aggregate sites that link to content from the overly protective AP?

    It’s still too early to tell, but a war on links may be coming. The Internet was built on links, but that may not be the case for much longer if laws continue to punish the mere act of linking.

    Do you think links are in danger? Would the copyright lobby try to destabilize one of the key tenets of the Internet? Let us know in the comments.

  • Remember, Google’s Newest Ranking Signal Is Only 1 Of Over 200

    Google announced on Friday that starting this week, it would begin using the number of “valid” copyright removal notices it gets for a site as a ranking signal. This immediately rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

    In fact, various groups were quick to speak out about Google’s new policy. The EFF, for example, called the policy “opaque,” and expressed its concerns about how Google will make its determinations, and about the road to recourse (or lack thereof) that sites will have.

    “Sites may not know about, or have the ability to easily challenge, notices sent to Google,” said Public Knowledge Senior Staff Attorney, John Bergmayer. “And Google has set up a system that may be abused by bad faith actors who want to suppress their rivals and competitors. Sites that host a lot of content, or are very popular, may receive a disproportionate number of notices (which are mere accusations of infringement) without being disproportionately infringing. And user-generated content sites could be harmed by this change, even though the DMCA was structured to protect them.”

    Other have questioned how Google will deal with these notices with regards to its own properties – namely, YouTube. YouTube, of course, gets plenty of takedown requests, but they go through a different system (which Danny Sullivan has broken down into great detail). In fact, the takedown request form Google pointed to in its announcement of the feature, specifically mentions YouTube:

    “If you have a specific legal issue concerning YouTube, please visit this link for further information. Please do not use this tool to report issues that relate to YouTube.”

    Sullivan says Google told him, however, that “notices filed against YouTube through the separate YouTube copyright infringement reporting system will be combined with those filed against YouTube through the Google Search reporting system,” and that Google will treat YouTube like any other site. However, he reports, Google does not expect YouTube to be negatively affected by this, nor does it expect other popular user-generated content sites. Google, he says, told him that it will take into account other factors, besides the number of notices it receives.

    Well, this makes sense, because Google was pretty clear in its announcement that it was simply adding this as a signal – as in one of over 200.

    “We aim to provide a great experience for our users and have developed over 200 signals to ensure our search algorithms deliver the best possible results,” Google’s Amit Singhal said. “Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site.”

    YouTube and other popular sites likely have enough other signals working in their favor to counter this one signal. It doesn’t sound like Google’s newest signal is necessarily going to be its weightiest.

  • New Google Algorithm Change Immediately Raises Concerns

    As previously reported, Google announced that it will implement a new ranking signal into its search algorithm next week. The search engine will start taking the number of “valid” copyright removal notices it receives for a site, into account when ranking content.

    Are you concerned about this new addition? Let us know in the comments.

    Almost as soon as the Blogosphere was able to react to the news, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) put out its own post about it. Julie Samuels and Mitch Stoltz with the EFF write, “Earlier this summer, we applauded Google for releasing detailed stats about content removal requests from copyright holders. Now that we know how they are going to use that data, we are less enthusiastic.”

    The two go on to express concerns with how “opaque” Google is being about the process, despite Google’s claim that it will “continue to be transparent about copyright removals.”

    The EFF’s concerns are the vagueness of what Google considers to be a high number of removal notices, how Google plans to make its determinations, and how “there will be no process of recourse for sites who have been demoted.”

    Google does say that it will “continue to provide ‘counter-notice‘ tools so that those who believe their content has been wrongly removed can get it reinstated.”

    “In particular, we worry about the false positives problem,” says the EFF. “For example, we’ve seen the government wrongly target sites that actually have a right to post the allegedly infringing material in question or otherwise legally display content. In short, without details on how Google’s process works, we have no reason to believe they won’t make similar, over-inclusive mistakes, dropping lawful, relevant speech lower in its search results without recourse for the speakers.”

    “Takedown requests are nothing more than accusations of copyright infringement,” the EFF addds. “No court or other umpire confirms that the accusations are valid (although copyright owners can be liable for bad-faith accusations). Demoting search results – effectively telling the searcher that these are not the websites you’re looking for – based on accusations alone gives copyright owners one more bit of control over what we see, hear, and read.”

    The EFF concludes by saying that Google’s “opaque policies” threaten lawful sites and undermine confidence in search results.

    The EFF is not the only group to quickly speak out about the announcement. Public Knowledge, a consumer rights group, also put out a much longer response.

    We also received the following statement from Public Knowledge Senior Staff Attorney, John Bergmayer:

    “It may make good business sense for Google to take extraordinary steps, far beyond what the law requires, to help the media companies it partners with. That said, its plan to penalize sites that receive DMCA notices raises many questions.

    “Sites may not know about, or have the ability to easily challenge, notices sent to Google. And Google has set up a system that may be abused by bad faith actors who want to suppress their rivals and competitors. Sites that host a lot of content, or are very popular, may receive a disproportionate number of notices (which are mere accusations of infringement) without being disproportionately infringing. And user-generated content sites could be harmed by this change, even though the DMCA was structured to protect them.

    “Google needs to make sure this change does not harm Internet users or the Internet ecosystem.”

    It’s going to be quite interesting to see how Google’s new policy/signal holds up to abuse, and whether or not we see fair use significantly jeopardized.

    Tell us what you think about the change in the comments.

  • Google Adds Copyright Removal Notices To Its Search Algorithm

    Google announced a new change to its search algorithm today. Starting next week, the search engine will begin taking into account the number of valid copyright removal notices in rankings.

    That is the number of valid notices Google receives itself. This should get interesting.

    “Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results,” says Google SVP, Engineering, Amit Singhal. “This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it’s a song previewed on NPR’s music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed from Spotify.”

    “Since we re-booted our copyright removals over two years ago, we’ve been given much more data by copyright owners about infringing content online,” Singhal adds. “In fact, we’re now receiving and processing more copyright removal notices every day than we did in all of 2009—more than 4.3 million URLs in the last 30 days alone. We will now be using this data as a signal in our search rankings.”

    “Only copyright holders know if something is authorized, and only courts can decide if a copyright has been infringed; Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate copyright law,” Singhal notes. “So while this new signal will influence the ranking of some search results, we won’t be removing any pages from search results unless we receive a valid copyright removal notice from the rights owner.”

    Google says it will continue to provide “counter notice” tools that people can use, when they believe their content has been wrongfully removed, so they can get it reinstated.

    More reconsideration request-like things to file. Why do I get the feeling that fair use is going to be challenged more than ever?

    Google says it will continue to be transparent about copyright removals. Speaking of transparency, Google was putting out monthly lists of algorithm changes in an effort to be more transparent, but seems to have fallen behind on that, despite the occasional one-off announcement such as this one.

  • The Government Is Putting Fair Use In Danger

    Fair use – what do those two words mean to you? If you’ve been following copyright law at all lately, you probably have heard the term thrown around a few times. It’s considered by many to be the most important feature in copyright law, so why is it always under attack?

    It would be unfair to say that fair use is directly under attack. Even the worst Hollywood executives understand fair use and do nothing to directly impede it. What bills and treaties like SOPA, PIPA and ACTA did was weaken fair use to a point where it didn’t matter anymore. Thankfully, those three laws were killed before they could change everything for the worst. Unfortunately, the most secretive treaty of all – TPP – just revealed its intentions for fair use, and it’s not good.

    Is fair use a concern to you? Are exceptions to copyright law something worth protecting? Let us know in the comments.

    Before we get into that though, it’s important to understand why fair use is so important. As an example, here’s a YouTube parody video based on the popular video game, Skyrim:

    If you’re not aware, this video contains a lot of copyrighted content from the game’s developers. That content can not be used without permission from the original copyright owner under normal conditions. Under fair use, it’s totally legal and encouraged. You see, fair use is an exception in copyright law that allows people to use copyrighted materials if the content in question is a non-commercial parody or uses the content for criticism, commentary or education.

    YouTube is actually the perfect example of fair use. The entire Web site is pretty much dedicated to it with thousands of video creators using other people’s works in ways that fall under fair use protections. The young girl singing her favorite Justin Bieber song into a camera is fair use. The political commentator pulling clips from CNN and Fox News to make a point also falls under fair use.

    The importance of fair use can not be understated. That’s why the recent leak from the fair use section of TPP has proponents so concerned. After promising that the revised TPP would contain strong fair use protections, the text of the bill actually restricts fair use. Here’s the text of the treaty acquired by KEI Online:

    1. [US/AU: With respect to this Article [(Article 4 on copyright) and Article 5 and 6 (which deal with copyright and related rights section and the related rights section)], each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.]

    2. Subject to and consistent with paragraph (1), each Party shall seek to achieve an appropriate balance in providing limitations or exceptions, including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but no limited to, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.92]

    As TechDirt points out, the leaked section on fair use actually does nothing to defend fair use or increase its reach. It pulls the text from the three step test that was introduced to the Bernes Convention in 1971. Here’s the text from the Berne’s Convention treaty:

    It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

    While the actual text doesn’t seem all that bad, it’s the interpretation that counts. When you leave the legality of fair use up to “not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author,” things are going to get messy. The problem is further compounded by a Supreme Court ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music that put the burden of proving fair use on the defendant. It’s so much easier to prove that a work is copyright infringing then to prove that it’s fair use. Thankfully, in the aforementioned case, the defendants were able to prove that their work was valid under fair use. One victory does not mean that all will be like that, and the rules of TPP make it harder for people to prove fair use.

    What’s interesting is that only the United States and Australia are behind these excessive measures. TPP is being debated and written by a number of countries in the Pacific, but only the U.S. and Australia are behind the worst parts. In fact, countries like Brazil, Chile, Malaysia and Vietnam want to incorporate strong consumer protections into TPP that would strengthen fair use and allow consumers to own their digital content.

    [NZ/CL/MY/BN/VN propose; AU/US oppose93: 1. Each party may provide for limitations and exceptions to copyrights, related rights, and legal protections for technological protections measures and rights management information included in this Chapter, in accordance with its domestic laws and relevant international treaties that each are party to.]

    Do you think TPP should strengthen its fair use clause? Or are the current protections enough? Let us know in the comments.

    Earlier, I used a Skyrim parody video to illustrate fair use. Unfortunately, we live in a world where real world examples of fair use and essential freedom abuses are easy to come by. We recently reported on a YouTube video being taken down due to copyright violation notices from CBS and the United States Department of Homeland Security. The main concern here is that the video, which only contains the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist, was taken down by a brach of the government.

    The secondary concern is that the video falls under fair use. Even if it was the insane ramblings of a conspiracy theorist; he was using copyrighted content, a Sky News broadcast in this case, to provide commentary on world events. Such a case falls under fair use and copyright holders should know that. While there’s something to be said on how YouTube gives into copyright pressure too easily, it would only get worse if fair use was restricted.

    While the changes to fair use are bad enough, we still don’t know the extent of the damage. TPP’s secretive nature has led to it being one of the more problematic treaties of our time. Fortunately, things can change for the better. If Sen. Ron Wyden has his way, TPP would be open for debate in Congress and among the citizenry. That’s really all we can ask for.

    Do you think fair use is in danger from TPP? Or are advocacy groups blowing it out of proportion? Let us know in the comments.

  • Government Is Now Issuing Takedown Requests Of YouTube Videos

    The copyright moguls who police YouTube make the lives of those just looking for entertainment unnecessarily hard. There’s something to be said for protecting your copyright, but sometimes things just get outrageous. The latest takedown is probably the most outrageous of them all.

    TechDirt was pointed to one of those silly conspiracy theory videos that pop up on YouTube all the time. They’re completely harmless and only serve to gather comments from the people who think wearing tin foil hats is fashionable. What’s interesting is that the video was taken down with a copyright claim from not only NBC, but the Department of Homeland Security.

    The video in question is available elsewhere and there is nothing in the video that would violate the copyright of CBS or the DHS. The clip is taken from Sky News, a subsidiary of Sky Broadcasting. The only group besides Sky who could take offense would be News Corp who owns a rather large stake in the company. The video also uses the Imperial March from Star Wars, which is owned by LucasFilm.

    As you can see, nothing adds up whatsoever. CBS has no stake in this video being proliferated around the Internet, and the bad conspiracy theories that permeate the video should not be any threat whatsoever to the nation that DHS has to issue a takedown.

    The folks at TechDirt attempted to contact CBS and the DHS on the matter, but were either issued a “no comment” or outright ignored. It’s interesting to see this kind of reaction to a video that’s so blatantly harmless.

    Now that the video and its account have been taken down, the crazy conspiracy theorists are going to take this as a sign that that Obama administration is trying to cover up evidence. The same evidence that’s available on about 85,000 other videos that deal with the conspiracy of a New World Order led by the Illuminati and Barack Obama.

    The very idea that the DHS would get into the business of censoring videos on YouTube is absolutely insane. They have no copyright to defend and would only want to block a YouTube video if it featured some kind of threat to the security of the United States. The insane gibberish of a conspiracy theorist is fully protected free speech, even if it makes you question the sanity of the person saying it.

    I’m going to go with TechDirt on this one though. It’s still a little disturbing that the U.S. government is now issuing takedown requests of YouTube videos. Does that mean that the Obama administration or any other entity can now take down any video that they disagree with? Oh wait, they already have.

  • YouTube Reminds Us That There Are Over 4 Million Creative Commons Videos At Our Disposal

    A little over a year ago, YouTube launched Creative Commons on YouTube, and officially allowed uploaders to ad a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY) to their videos. At the launch, the CC library consisted of just over 10,000 videos from organizations like C-SPAN, PublicResource, and Al Jazeera.

    Today, YouTube tells us that there are now 4 million Creative Commons videos in their library, which means that YouTube is the number one place to go on the web to find video to “reuse, remix, and reimagine.”

    From the YouTube blog:

    Since the Creative Commons video library launch on YouTube a year ago, you’ve added more than 40 years’ worth of video to the mix. Anyone, anywhere can edit, build on and republish the library’s videos for free thanks to the Creative Commons Attribution license, otherwise known as CC BY.

    Do you need a professional opening for your San Francisco vacation video? Perhaps some gorgeous footage of the moon for your science project? How about a squirrel eating a walnut to accompany your hot new dubstep track? All of this and more is available to inspire and add to your unique creation. Thanks to CC BY, it’s easy to borrow footage from other people’s videos and insert it into your own, because the license grants you the specific permissions to do so as long as you give credit to the original creator.

    To make your video available to the Creative Commons, it’s as simple as clicking this option when uploading:

    And starting today, you can switch over your default to CC BY, meaning that all of your future uploads will appear in the Creative Commons library.

  • With ACTA Dead, TPP Shapes Up To Avoid The Same Fate

    The internet is still rejoicing after last week’s win over ACTA. The European Parliament overwhelmingly voted down the treaty which effectively kills it for the time being. It will be back later, but the Internet can celebrate another win for now. While our friends in Europe our celebrating, the U.S. must still be on the offensive in regards to the ever elusive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

    It’s rare for us to get any kind of news in regards to TPP and even rarer for it come straight from the U.S. Trade Representative, but that’s what happened last week. During the always secret TPP talks taking place in San Diego last week, the USTR introduced “New Copyright Exceptions and Limitations Provision” into the TPP text. Here’s the statement from the USTR:

    For the first time in any U.S. trade agreement, the United States is proposing a new provision, consistent with the internationally-recognized “3-step test,” that will obligate Parties to seek to achieve an appropriate balance in their copyright systems in providing copyright exceptions and limitations for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. These principles are critical aspects of the U.S. copyright system, and appear in both our law and jurisprudence. The balance sought by the U.S. TPP proposal recognizes and promotes respect for the important interests of individuals, businesses, and institutions who rely on appropriate exceptions and limitations in the TPP region.

    So why is this such a big deal? The introduction of the Berne three-step test to TPP makes the copyright section at least appear desirable The three-step test allows people to use copyrighted works in cases of criticism, parody, education, etc all under the banner of fair use.

    So is TPP fine after this? Not by a long shot, but it proves that the USTR is at least attentive to recent happenings around the world. The death of ACTA may have had a hand in this recent change as those involved in the treaty do not want massive protests on the level of what we saw in Europe.

    While the introduction of the three-step test is a start, many civil liberties organizations feel that it is not enough. A joint statement from EFF, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge and Public Citizen said that the still secret provision could actually “restrict fair use and other copyright exceptions and limitations crucial for the progress and access of culture, science, education and innovation.”

    Their fears are justified as the USTR only said that they would be introducing the three-step test. It’s not in the bill yet and those involved in the negotiations (i.e. Hollywood) might shoot down the provision. They could also pass it in name only, while keeping the draconian copyright statutes that we’ve seen in previous leaks.

    We’ll keep you updated on any more changes to TPP over the coming months. The recent interest in TPP from a Congress that’s angry over their being left out of the negotiations could prove interesting as we head into the election season.

  • Jimmy Wales Got a Little Testy with Reporters About the O’Dwyer Case

    In spite of what appeared to be a decision from the United Kingdom’s Home Office to continue with the extradition of accused copyright-infringer Richard O’Dwyer to the United States, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales maintains that reports of the Home Office’s decision are false.

    On Tuesday, V3 published a comment from U.K. Home Secretary Theresa May’s office saying that it would not halt the extradition of O’Dwyer, who is being sought to stand trial in the United States in spite of not committing any crime there and not having clearly broken any law in the United Kingdom. However, following the report, Wales took to Twitter to dismiss the statements from the UK Home Office and insisted that all accounts affirming the Home Office’s decision were incorrect.

    In fact, he just about goes all out Braveheart on some of the people repeating that the U.K. Home Office won’t halt the extradition.

     

     
     
     

     
     

    Aside from correcting multiple journalists for reporting a statement that was provided to V3 about the O’Dwyer extradition and confidently claiming that statement is untrue, Wales says that his efforts to stop the extradition are far from over.

     

    I hope that Wales’ insistence that the UK Home Office wouldn’t risk a public relations nightmare by not meeting with him has some merit. He’s obviously got some clout and given he has the ears of notables like Jimmy Carter and Richard Branson, hopefully he’ll be able to rally some high-profile names to add to the legion of internet supporters that have gathered around O’Dwyer’s cause.

    Then again, maybe the UK Home Office cares not for public opinion over sustaining cozy relations with the U.S. government.

    At any rate, godspeed, Mr. Wales.

  • Anonymous Launches #OpJapan Against Law That Would Imprison People Over Watching YouTube

    Do you want to know the secret to getting on Anonymous’ bad side? Try passing a law that punishes people for watching YouTube videos. Japan just recently passed a law that would fine and imprison people for watching YouTube videos of copyrighted content. Once they caught wind of the news, Anonymous launched #OpJapan in protest.

    Anonymous launched the campaign with a press release on AnonPR stating their motives and actions that would define the movement:

    Greetings land of the rising sun, we are Anonymous.

    In recent years the content industry, politicians, and governments throughout the world have dramatically increased their efforts to combat internet piracy and copyright infringement. Unfortunately in doing so they have often taken the wrong approach which has lead to draconian laws, infringements of basic rights, and severely stunting the growth of technological innovations.

    Japan, home to some of the greatest technological innovations throughout history has now decided to go down the path as well and cave into the pressures of the content industry to combat piracy and copyright infringement. Earlier this week Japan approved an amendment to its copyright law which will give authorities the right to imprison citizens for up to two years simply for downloading copyrighted material

    We at Anonymous believe strongly that this will result in scores of unnecessary prison sentences to numerous innocent citizens while doing little to solve the underlying problem of legitimate copyright infringement.

    If this situation alone wasn’t horrible enough already, the content industry is now pushing ISPs in Japan to implement surveillance technology that will spy on and every single internet user in Japan. This would be an unprecedented approach and severely reduce the amount of privacy law abiding citizens should have in a free society.

    To the government of Japan and the Recording Industry Association of Japan, you can now expect us the same way we have come to expect you in violating our basic rights to privacy and to an open internet.

    Anonymous has set up the usual Twitter account that details all of their actions. They’re mixing it up this time by not only pulling DDoS attacks on various Japanese government Web sites, but encouraging street action by posting fliers.

    Anonymous recently launched a campaign against India for that country’s attempt to block The Pirate Bay and other file-sharing Web sites. After massive protests from Anonymous and many Indian citizens, access was reinstated. Japan won’t be so easy. They’re protesting a law this time and Japan is well-known for ignoring its citizens in favor of pandering to the U.S. and special interests, even the non-otaku citizens that will be out against this bill.

    Speaking of otaku, Japan has a sizable Twitter-using population who could fall into the category of otaku (nerd). The majority of the 9,400 followers of @OpJapan could definitely be labeled within this category. While it’s a fantastic sign of support from the tech savvy population of Japan, the national media (NHK) in Japan is probably going to twist it against them as otaku are not exactly respected in mainstream culture.

    I want to remain optimistic, but I highly doubt that the Japanese government is going to rethink this law. It’s going to take the law openly hurting innocents before they go back to the drawing board. We’ll keep you updated when and if #OpJapan pulls off any crazy hijinks. They’re not going to give up easily so it will be interesting to see how the Japanese media reacts to a concentrated cyberattack.

  • Tetris Clones Beware, You May Be Held Accountable For Copyright Infringement

    I think everybody knows what Tetris is by now. If you don’t, then you obviously never owned a game console since the Gameboy. It pretty muck kickstarted the puzzle genre and it spawned countless imitators. The company that owns the trademark, Tetris Holding, is extremely protective. Their latest target was the iPhone game, Mino.

    Wired reports that a District judge has ruled that Tetris clone “Mino” was found to be infringing on the copyright of the original puzzle game. How did Mino infringe on that copyright? Let’s take a look at the two games:

    Tetris for iPhone

    Mino for iPhone

    As you can see, the games are pretty much the same. They look the same and obviously play the game, but does that constitute as copyright infringement? As Wired points out, gameplay design has to be patented, so why did the judge rule in Tetris Holding’s favor?

    The court had to take apart what it means to be artistic expression protected by copyright and the “mechanical or utilitarian features” of a game that must have a patent. The 14 elements of Tetris that the company claimed Mino copied were deemed to be artistic expression under the court. Here’s what the court had to say:

    The “wholesale copying” of Tetris was troubling to the court, which found that the Tetris design, movement, playing field dimensions, display of “garbage lines,” appearance of “ghost” pieces, color changes and automatic fill-in of the game board at the end of the game (all of which were copied by Xio) were aesthetic choices, and were protected, original expressions of an idea. While the idea of a game that required one to rotate figures into a field was not protectible, the design of the component parts was. The court found that the overall look and feel of the games were nearly identical and that any differences between the two were “slight and insignificant.” The court concluded: “There is such similarity between the visual expression of Tetris and Mino that it is akin to literal copying. While there might not have actually been “literal copying” inasmuch as Xio did not copy the source code and exact images from Tetris, Xio does not dispute that it copied almost all of visual look of Tetris.”

    So the gist of this case is that Xio could have made any number of puzzle games that played like Tetris and they would have been in the clear. The problem arose because they not only copied the gameplay of Tetris, but the copy was made in a way to intentionally look like Tetris. Pro-tip: If you can prove that people wouldn’t be able to tell your product apart from another, it’s copyright infringement.

    Now, don’t get discouraged if you were wanting to make a Tetris clone. There are thousands of puzzle games out there and a lot of them have the same rules. As long as you make the game look different, you can still use the same rules of Tetris. You can even change it up and add your own rules. Here’s a few great examples of games that took Tetris and made it better:

    It’s easy to make your own puzzle game and not copy Tetris. All these games copied and made their own tweaks to the Tetris design for you. Now, I’m not condoning that you blatantly copy any of these games, but I am saying that it’s easy to create your own unique puzzle game while following the rules of the genre.