/usr/share/php/tests/Horde_Feed/Horde/Feed/fixtures/lexicon/http-www.techdirt.com-techdirt_rss.xml is in php-horde-feed 2.0.1-4.
This file is owned by root:root, with mode 0o644.
The actual contents of the file can be viewed below.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl" type="text/xsl" media="screen"?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css" type="text/css" media="screen"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/techdirt/feed" type="application/rss+xml" /><item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:44:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Copyright Office May Have Just Added New Royalties For Webcasts</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2216361751.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2216361751.shtml</guid>
<description>Well, this is just downright disturbing. Jon Healy has a quick summary of a totally unexpected and unnecessary proposed rulemaking from the Copyright Office that could <a href="http://opinion.latimes.com/bitplayer/2008/07/more-royalties.html" target="_new">add additional royalties that webcasters would need to pay</a> (on top of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070607/092053.shtml">already onerous</a> webcasting rates). Basically, the Copyright Office had been asked to decide on a totally different question concerning royalties back in 2000. That issue isn't even in question any more, as the two sides had already worked out their differences, and the Copyright Office didn't do much to give an official answer on that question anyway.
<br /><br />
<i>Instead</i>, it came up with an idea out of the blue that music publishers are entitled to an additional mechanical royalty for non-interactive streams (e.g., webcasts, satellite radio, etc.). As Healy explains, this makes no sense and seems to go against previous agreements on these types of royalties. Mechanical royalties are supposed to be for actual copies of the music. Non-interactive streams are basically the same as radio -- which requires performance royalties, but not mechanical royalties.
<br /><br />
This reminds me of the column by Rasmus Fleischer we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080609/1950311357.shtml">wrote about</a> a little while ago, where he noted how silly copyright law can get with all these different royalty rates that were designed for a different time. The borderlines between radio, streams, downloads, recordings and all other ways of accessing and hearing music are blending together, and trying to match the old rights to the new ways that people interact with music just leads to more problems -- such as multiple levels of royalties all being heaped upon the same single action, making it effectively uneconomical to actually do the most natural thing with music: play it online.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2216361751.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2216361751.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080721/2216361751&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=94d8068ab5c55faef69b882fc974103b"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=94d8068ab5c55faef69b882fc974103b"/></a>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=94d8068ab5c55faef69b882fc974103b" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=41wAXj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=41wAXj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/342615518" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>you-can't-be-serious</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080721/2216361751</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:01:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Andrew Cuomo Threatens To Sue Comcast If It Doesn't Sign Up For His Plan To Pretend To Fight Child Porn</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1545501748.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1545501748.shtml</guid>
<description>Last month, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo made some news by pressuring a bunch of ISPs to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/0117061360.shtml">agree</a> to block certain sites in a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080611/0117051372.shtml">totally misguided</a> effort to fight child porn. It will actually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1918171715.shtml">do the opposite</a>, because it merely hides the issue, driving it further underground, rather than attacking at the source. At the same time, it opens up a very questionable door: having ISPs blocking any content that they feel is "objectionable" in some manner. It's not hard to predict where this goes, in terms of ISPs blocking other types of content as well.
<br /><br />
Comcast was one of the companies that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1918171715.shtml">agreed</a> last week to a similar proposal with a bunch of state attorneys general, but apparently that's not enough for Andrew Cuomo. He's now <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/NY-AG-Will-Sue-Comcast-If-They-Dont-Pretend-To-Fight-Child-Porn-96269" target="_new">threatening to sue Comcast within five days</a> if it doesn't sign the more stringent "code of conduct" that Cuomo wrote up. Apparently Cuomo doesn't think last week's agreement goes far enough.
<br /><br />
Of course, what's odd is that nowhere does Cuomo explain how Comcast's actions violate the law. He just threatens to sue over it -- and even makes a veiled threat that the lawsuit alone will be damaging to Comcast, because Cuomo will position it as Comcast protecting child porn:
<blockquote><i>
Comcast's unwillingness to sign the code of conduct and purge its system of child pornography puts Comcast at the back of the pack in the race to fight this scourge, and would likely be surprising to Comcast's millions of customers across the country.
</i></blockquote>
The reason Cuomo doesn't explain what the legal rationale for any lawsuit, is because there isn't one. Comcast as a connectivity provider is not responsible for what content goes across its network. Cuomo (one would hope) knows this -- and is bullying Comcast into signing his "Code of Conduct" by threatening to paint the company as protecting child porn. That's a rather sickening abuse of power -- and the end result will only be to make it more difficult to stop child pornography, while opening the door to widespread content blocking by ISPs.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1545501748.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1545501748.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080721/1545501748&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=5bec1ad2cbf5769743442dd53dd5c1fa" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=5bec1ad2cbf5769743442dd53dd5c1fa" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=ZyLG5j"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=ZyLG5j" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/342537210" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>grandstanding</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080721/1545501748</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:36:19 PST</pubDate>
<title>MPAA Doubletalk On FCC Request To Block DVR Recordings</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/0742051745.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/0742051745.shtml</guid>
<description>You may recall back in June we wrote about the MPAA's petition to the FCC to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080609/1811451352.shtml">block DVR recordings</a> of certain movies by removing a restriction on "Selectable Output Control" (SOC), allowing it to set rules that forbid recording. What the MPAA is clearly trying to do here is start releasing movies on TV before they're available on DVD, but wants to do so in a way that users won't be able to record on their DVRs (though, they hardly come out and say that). Matthew Lasar has an <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080720-mpaa-dvr-blocking-about-multibillion-dollar-theft-problem.html" target="_new">absolutely hilarious interview with an MPAA representative</a> where the MPAA guy tries to pretend that this has nothing to do with blocking recordings of movies and everything to do with stopping piracy.
<blockquote><i>
"I can't emphasize this enough," Oster finally exclaimed. "We've hit on this a number of times so you might sense some frustration in my voice. 'Recording'—take it off the table. Put it out of your mind. This has nothing to do with recording at all in any way."
<br /><br />
"Ok. I guess I'm confused," I replied. "What is selectable output control about then?"
<br /><br />
"It's in large part, first and foremost, about the fact that our industry has a multibillion-dollar theft problem, which is that billions and billions of dollar's worth of film content is stolen every year," Oster replied.
<br /><br />
"How is it stolen? What's the mechanics of its being stolen?" I asked. "What happens?"
<br /><br />
"It comes in many forms," Dean Garfield interjected. "It comes in camcording."
<br /><br />
"Did you just say the word 'recording'?" I asked.
<br /><br />
"No!" Oster intervened. "He said 'camcording'!"
<br /><br />
"But isn't that just basically recording?" I begged.
<br /><br />
"No!" Oster insisted. "What we want is to offer consumers high-definition content earlier than they can today. That's what we want to do! We want our studios to have the flexibility to put in place business models that allow them to offer high definition content on demand to the home, earlier than they do now. Period! Full stop!"
</i></blockquote>
Let's translate this for everyone. Basically, the MPAA falsely believes that it has a problem with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070115/153254.shtml">camcording</a>. It likes to come out with all sorts of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070205/114410.shtml">bogus</a> stats that don't <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070508/202525.shtml">add up</a>. The truth is that camcorded versions don't keep people from going to the movies, and most movies online have studio quality versions leaked from <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&#038;task=view&#038;id=1609&#038;Itemid=125">insiders</a>.
<br /><br />
So what does that have to do with SOC? Not much, really. But the MPAA wants to change the release window pattern it currently uses for movies. Rather than theaters, video, PPV, cable TV, it wants to be able to put some movies on TV before they're released to video, hoping that it can charge cable channels a lot for showing them. But, if it does that, it's worried that it will undercut its own business model in the video rental space. So, it falsely believes that it needs this "exemption" from SOC to effectively enable DRM on those movies to prevent them from being recorded. It's the same old mistake, believing that DRM somehow <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080612/0101311386.shtml">enables</a> new business models when the truth is that DRM only <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070301/005837.shtml">restricts opportunities</a>. The content will still get recorded and released. The effective DRM will do nothing to stop that -- and once the content is out there, it's out there. However, this will be a pain for plenty of legitimate viewers who start wondering why their DVRs don't work properly.
<br /><br />
It's not about stopping any kind of piracy. This won't do that. It's not about enabling any new business models or new content. It's about a misguided MPAA which thinks it needs DRM to add yet another way for it to make money while pissing off legitimate users. For that, the FCC should not grant a special exemption.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/0742051745.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/0742051745.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080721/0742051745&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=2b77e6f064a6781509f338e8d1aec90f" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=2b77e6f064a6781509f338e8d1aec90f" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=5eakuj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=5eakuj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/342500941" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>the-mainstream-press-may-believe-you,-but...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080721/0742051745</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:35:17 PST</pubDate>
<title>RNC Backs Down On Threats Over T-Shirts With Its Logo</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2128241749.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2128241749.shtml</guid>
<description><a href="http://www.citizen.org/litigation/">Paul Alan Levy</a> writes in to let us know that following widespread press coverage of his challenge to the Republican National Committee to back down from <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1535171711.shtml">suing</a> CafePress over t-shirts that use the term "GOP" or show the RNC's elephant logo, that the RNC <a href="http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2008/07/rnc-gives-up-tr.html" target="_new">has in fact agreed to back down</a>. It won't be suing CafePress or users, and will only ask that those who just show the logo or the term apply for a free license (though, it's unclear what happens if that license request is turned down). However, in following this story, Levy discovered that the RNC had also been threatening some individual sellers, especially on t-shirts that are critical of the RNC. Levy and Public Citizen have called on the RNC to withdraw the threatening letters, and warns the RNC that it may sue for declaratory relief (basically get a judge to say the t-shirts are perfectly legal) if the RNC does not withdraw the letters.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2128241749.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2128241749.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080721/2128241749&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=43f732324106beeef1662bb8b8bfa452" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=43f732324106beeef1662bb8b8bfa452" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=g7jbij"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=g7jbij" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/342318583" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>an-elephant-never-forgets,-but-sometimes-it-misuses-trademark-law</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080721/2128241749</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:50:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Delusions Of Being Jim Carey In The Truman Show</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2011101740.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2011101740.shtml</guid>
<description>Pop culture influences different people in different ways. In fact, some psychologists
are trying to claim that there's a new delusion out there based on the Jim Carey movie,
<i>The Truman Show</i>. Yes, apparently (these psychologists claim) an increasing number of
people are <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=665015">under the
impression that their whole lives are being filmed secretly</a>, and everyone they know
and interact with is playing off a script. They psychologists are calling this "The Truman
Show Delusion." Other psychologists claim this isn't really
any different than other types of delusions, but that the Truman Show angle has just
helped crystallize the scenario in some people's minds. Others point out that other movies
have had similar effects, with one noting that he has a patient who believes that he's in
<i>The Matrix</i> as well. Of course, by calling it the Truman Show Delusion, you run into the possibility (as happens all too often) that people will start <i>blaming</i> a pop culture movie. This is what happens with all those various technology <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061204/191445.shtml">"addictions."</a> Next thing you know, we'll have people trying to ban <i>The Truman Show</i> from being shown. Yes, that's an extreme case (that won't likely happen), but it's no different than the overreaction people have in calling for things like having video games declared <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070615/002750.shtml">an official addiction</a>. It focuses the attention on the wrong thing: the pop culture phenomenon, rather than the actual problems the individual might have that resulted in the problem.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2011101740.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2011101740.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080720/2011101740&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=11c28f5432829c3c6ad75a92f8c9aa41"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=11c28f5432829c3c6ad75a92f8c9aa41"/></a>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=11c28f5432829c3c6ad75a92f8c9aa41" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=MSnaBj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=MSnaBj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/342228529" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>reality-tv-all-the-time</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080720/2011101740</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:38:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Why Are UK Defense Ministry Officials Carrying Classified Info On USB Keys?</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1805551731.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1805551731.shtml</guid>
<description>Over in the UK, the Defense Ministry is admitting to the fact that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7514281.stm" target="_new">it's lost plenty of laptops with classified info on them</a>. That, alone, isn't really all that newsworthy, given how common it is for governments around the world to lose such things. What was more interesting was the admission that employees have also lost 26 portable memory sticks (USB keys) with classified info on them (out of a total of 131 memory sticks lost). Given just how easy it is to lose such USB keys, it makes you wonder why they would ever put classified info on them. One would hope that any such info would be encrypted, but the report doesn't seem to indicate one way or the other on that.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1805551731.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1805551731.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080718/1805551731&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=4d92b116b415b90c32c09df8e9a9aa43" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=4d92b116b415b90c32c09df8e9a9aa43" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=Sitisj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=Sitisj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/342140834" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>seems-like-a-reasonable-question</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080718/1805551731</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:32:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>EFF Gets Another Victory Over Bogus Patents</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1734411729.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1734411729.shtml</guid>
<description>It's been four years since the EFF <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040630/0424218.shtml">first announced</a> its bogus patent busting project, where it lined up 10 awful patents that needed to be revoked. While it's taken some time, slowly but surely it's been winning each battle. Back in January, we noted another <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071231/003833.shtml">win</a>, and now the EFF has <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/u-s-patent-office-rejects-all-ninety-five-neomedia" target="_new">announced that the Patent Office has rejected all 95 claims</a> on a patent held by NeoMedia. The <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=g5IGAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=6,199,048">patent in question</a> covers scanning a barcode and connecting it to a website to look up info about the product. The EFF presented a bunch of prior art that (of course) the Patent Office had failed to consider. This is just the preliminary rejection, so NeoMedia can (and probably will) respond -- but it's going to have to explain why not a single claim survived.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1734411729.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1734411729.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080718/1734411729&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=f6e87cc6d7051257a9659f01052bcd09" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=f6e87cc6d7051257a9659f01052bcd09" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=i9ZLrj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=i9ZLrj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/342042997" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>good-for-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080718/1734411729</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:48:58 PST</pubDate>
<title>The FCC's Obscenity Malfunction</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1422421746.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1422421746.shtml</guid>
<description>The FCC has a pretty spotty record when it comes to dealing with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060910/192931.shtml">indecency charges</a>. Basically, it seems to randomly fine stations if it receives enough complaints, even if most of those complaints come from auto-generated scripts from people who didn't actually see the content at all. Of course, perhaps the most highly publicized case where the FCC got involved over what it found to be indecent content was the infamous Janet Jackson Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction. However a court has now ruled that, rather than a wardrobe malfunction, the <a href="http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/C/CBS_JANET_JACKSON?SITE=WIRE&#038;SECTION=HOME&#038;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&#038;CTIME=2008-07-21-10-55-24" target="_new">real malfunction was by the FCC</a>, which had changed its obscenity standards arbitrarily and with no explanation whatsoever in doling out fines over the incident. The court points out that the FCC is allowed to change its standards, but with an explanation and not so arbitrarily. In this case, though, it seemed clear that the response was politically motivated -- and the court has tossed out the fines.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1422421746.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1422421746.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080721/1422421746&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=e6a21530d0c2998c1f36a9fd0953b944" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=e6a21530d0c2998c1f36a9fd0953b944" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=9coXRj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=9coXRj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/341973984" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>arbitrariness-is-no-way-to-govern</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080721/1422421746</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:08:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Is Creating A Fake News Story Libel Or Copyright Infringement?</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080717/2000201718.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080717/2000201718.shtml</guid>
<description>Creating fake news stories has a long history on the web. People do it all the time, usually for fun as something of a <a href="http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2003/02/57506">hoax</a>. Many of these stories pretend to be from respected news publications -- but to anyone beyond the most casual observer, it should be obvious that they're fakes, based on the fact that they're <i>not hosted</i> on the actual publications' website. However, that's apparently not enough for some. <a href="http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&#038;aid=147032">Romenesko</a> points out that the Oklahoma Publishing Company (publishers of The Oklahoman) and sports writer Jake Trotter are <a href="http://newsok.com/article/3270140" target="_new">suing a guy who wrote up a fake article (using Trotter's byline) and posted it on his own website</a>. The news report covering this is in the Oklahoman's own paper, so it doesn't share the guy's side. However, a look around various <a href="http://www.nebsports.com/2008/07/10/internet-hoax-about-two-oklahoma-players-backfires-on-husker-fan/">blogs</a> shows what you'd expect: he did it as a silly hoax because he's a fan of Nebraska's football team over Oklahoma's. So he created a silly fake news story about some Oklahoma players. Yes, it was stupid, but sports fans do plenty of stupid things against opposing teams.
<br /><br />
There isn't <i>any</i> indication that anyone actually believed this fake story was true. It was only posted on a site whose domain was clearly someone rooting for the Nebraska Cornhuskers, rather than on the Oklahoman's actual website. It's difficult to see what sort of "damages" this story could have had on anyone. Yes, it was a stupid hoax stunt from an overly passionate fan, but suing him for libel, copyright infringement and trademark infringement seems like an even bigger overreaction in response.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080717/2000201718.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080717/2000201718.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080717/2000201718&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=b511ea2cfff3c5efad1730d140daa13e"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=b511ea2cfff3c5efad1730d140daa13e"/></a>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=b511ea2cfff3c5efad1730d140daa13e" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=14NGpj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=14NGpj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/341899842" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>seems-a-bit-questionable</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080717/2000201718</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:36:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Why Is Google Punishing Sites That Publish Full RSS Feeds? [UPDATED]</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1717001728.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1717001728.shtml</guid>
<description>Last year, we explained why <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070813/014338.shtml">full text RSS feeds make sense</a>. You can read the whole thing, but the short version is that it makes it easier to read, and that means more people actually read the full stories and are willing to discuss them, share them and get others interested in reading as well. It just makes the reading experience that much better. We've always had full text RSS feeds, and we're not about to change that. However, it appears that Google may be punishing sites that have full text feeds. A concerned reader pointed us to the news that the magazine Mental Floss has <a href="http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/16543" target="_new">reluctantly ditched its full text feeds because Google banned the site</a> and told them the only way to get back in was to <i>get rid of the full text feeds</i>. <b>Update</b>: Matt Cutts from Google has <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080718/1717001728#c38">responded in the comments</a> and explained what happened. Turns out, despite the original post, it had nothing to do with full text RSS feeds, but the site was hacked. I'm glad that's been cleared up now (and thanks to the multiple Google employees who quickly responded to this post).
<br /><br />
<strike>The "problem," according to Google, was that there were plenty of sites republishing Mental Floss's feeds, and Google's anti-spam algorithm supposedly uses that as an indication of spam. Of course, rather than figuring out which is the <i>real</i> site, it simply bans them all. This concerns me for a variety of reasons. The reason we publish a full text RSS feed is to make it easier for anyone to do what they want with our content -- even if it's republishing it. There are a bunch of sites that republish our RSS feed (some in the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20070412/183135#c612">mistaken belief</a> that such sites would get us upset at the "copyright infringement"). Those sites are harmless for the most part. Either they get no traffic at all, or they end up driving more traffic to us. That's great. But, it's a bit troublesome that Google might potentially disappear us from their entire index just because we publish a full text feed and someone else uses that feed exactly as they're supposed to.
<br /><br />
I could understand if the deletion of Mental Floss from the index was simply a mistake, and upon being alerted to it, they restored the site. But the fact that Google's response was to tell Mental Floss to ditch the full text feeds is worrisome. What makes this even more ridiculous is that Feedburner, which is owned by Google, tells people <a href="http://www.problogger.net/archives/2007/09/12/full-or-partial-rss-feeds-the-great-feed-debate/">that full text feeds are better</a>. So, you have part of Google telling people to use full text feeds, and another part of Google punishing them for doing so.</strike>
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1717001728.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1717001728.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080718/1717001728&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=94170a0314a26ae2d5f70697baac173e" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=94170a0314a26ae2d5f70697baac173e" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=QAWUQj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=QAWUQj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/341827412" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>not-good-at-all</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080718/1717001728</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:01:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>How Would You Build Tomorrowland?</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2252331743.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2252331743.shtml</guid>
<description>The Washington Post is running long look <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071800837_pf.html" target="_new">at the relaunch of Disney's "Tomorrowland,"</a> that doesn't sound all that impressed. Actually, the article gets into the details of the original Tomorrowland and even dips into the way people viewed the future (optimistically/pessimistically) over the intervening years. However, the end result is that the concept of "Tomorrowland" is a rather difficult one to build. As the reporter notes, it has to be something that is far enough out that it actually doesn't need to be revamped all that often. But, at the same time, it still needs to be realistic in a way that people aspire to create themselves. All in all, it sounds like the latest Tomorrowland fails. But, it does raise a good question: if you were building Tomorrowland, what would you do?
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2252331743.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2252331743.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080720/2252331743&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=d6ebb609d97102094bbc8f412ef06763" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=d6ebb609d97102094bbc8f412ef06763" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=xcUxoj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=xcUxoj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/341760989" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>or-would-you-build-it-at-all</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080720/2252331743</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:35:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>American Airlines And Google Settle Keyword Advertising Spat</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/1929561737.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/1929561737.shtml</guid>
<description>Despite lawsuit after lawsuit ruling <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070108/002456.shtml">in favor</a> of Google whenever a company sued Google
because one of their own competitors was buying keywords based on their trademarks,
American Airlines <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070817/021228.shtml">decided</a> to get in on the game as well. Since American Airlines was
probably the biggest company to take on Google in this manner, some undoubtedly were
hoping that it might actually be able to succeed. However, the two companies have now <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/07/american_airlin_1.htm">settled the
case</a>. And, while the terms of the deal remain secret, Eric Goldman checked the ads on
Google and doesn't see anything that indicates that Google has changed its usual practice
of allowing non-confusing ads.
<br /><br />
In other words, it sounds like American Airlines lawyers finally looked at the details of
earlier rulings and realized the company had close to no chance of winning this. A trademark does
not give the holder complete control over the use of the word, and a competitor using the
word for competitive advertising is completely legal, so long as they're not using it in a
way that is likely to confuse a consumer. Even more important, if there's <i>any</i>
liability, it should be on the other advertisers, not Google, which is merely the platform provider.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/1929561737.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/1929561737.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080720/1929561737&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=38028ffa6c6da91857b1bd1e5f635732" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=38028ffa6c6da91857b1bd1e5f635732" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=yxeY9j"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=yxeY9j" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/341691074" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>too-bad-it's-secret</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080720/1929561737</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:03:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Is Anonymity Good Or Bad For Wikipedia?</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2035441742.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2035441742.shtml</guid>
<description>Last year plenty of attention was paid to the release of Wikiscanner, a tool from Virgil
Griffith that connected the IP addresses of Wikipedia edits with the companies from which
they came. This resulted in a few PR flare ups as people noticed some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070814/130237.shtml">questionable
editing</a> by biased parties. Griffith has now <a href="http://www.forbes.com/technology/2008/07/19/security-hackers-internet-tech-cx_ag_0719wikiwatcher.html">upgraded Wikiscanner to do even more</a> (and renamed it to
Wikiwatcher). While the revelations probably won't be as surprising, it will allow some
way of connecting those who may have edited at home to their employers.
<br /><br />
However, perhaps an even more interesting discussion is somewhat buried at the end of the
Forbes article linked above: the question over whether or not anonymity is a good or bad
thing for Wikipedia. The article quotes Marc Rotenberg, the director of the Electronic
Privacy Information Center, complaining that Wikipedia needs to do a better job protecting
individuals' privacy. Griffith responds that removing anonymity should improve the
quality of Wikipedia:
<blockquote><i>
"I would say that if people are anonymous, the quality of their contribution is probably
much lower. Wouldn't you want Wikipedia users to be held accountable for what
they change?"
</i></blockquote>
This brings up a few interesting questions. Rotenberg's complaint seems misplaced. The
fact that your IP address is revealed with each edit is a known fact. Anyone editing
Wikipedia should take that into account. That's hardly Wikipedia's problem. But
anonymity can also be an important factor in getting content out. And so far, it appears
that all of the "scandals" associated with Wikiscanner were related to biased parties changing info
in their favor -- which certainly suggests Giffith has a point: catching those who are
changing Wikipedia with ulterior motives does seem to improve the reliability of the site.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2035441742.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2035441742.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080720/2035441742&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=bfcf10ddb213f41a1633177ba86aba46"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=bfcf10ddb213f41a1633177ba86aba46"/></a>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=bfcf10ddb213f41a1633177ba86aba46" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=VWfElj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=VWfElj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/341610326" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>depends-on-who-you-ask</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080720/2035441742</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:21:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Universal Says It Can Ignore Fair Use In DMCA Takedowns</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2033251741.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2033251741.shtml</guid>
<description>Last year, we wrote about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070725/224422.shtml">case</a> where Universal Music sent a takedown notice to YouTube
when a woman posted a short (29-second) video of her toddler running around with a Prince
song (barely audible) in the background. Universal backed down when challenged on the
takedown notice, but the woman (with the help of the EFF) hit back and have sued Universal
Music for a false takedown.
<br /><br />
The DMCA has provisions for a copyright holder to assert ownership, at which point the
service provider needs to takedown the content. Whoever posted the content can protest
that the content was legally posted -- which is exactly what happened in this case.
However, the DMCA also says that filing a false DMCA notice opens one up to damages from
those whose content was taken down. This was in an effort to discourage false DMCA
notices. This provision was used last year against Viacom for its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070322/200545.shtml">false takedowns</a> on
satirical clips of the Colbert Report.
<br /><br />
The question then, is whether or not filing a takedown notice on content that is used in a
way consistent with "fair use" is a misuse or not. Universal Music's claim is that <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/universal-says.html">it is not reasonable
for the copyright holder to take fair use into consideration</a> before sending a takedown
notice. At a first pass, it sounds like the <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/19/BUDH11RKQ9.DTL">judge agrees</a>.
<br /><br />
As ridiculous as this whole situation is, the judge and Universal Music may be correct
under the existing law. There isn't anything in the law that says the copyright holder
needs to take into account the user's defenses. It just says they need to be the
legitimate copyright holder (which Universal Music is).
<br /><br />
The real problem, then, in this story isn't Universal Music's actions (though Universal
was acting in a rather heavy handed manner in getting the video taken down), but with the
DMCA itself that forces a takedown before the user gets to respond with a defense. It's
this "notice and takedown" provision that's a problem. If, instead, we had a "notice and
notice" provision that allowed the user to respond before the takedown occurred, it would
be a lot more reasonable and would avoid ridiculous situations such as this one.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2033251741.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2033251741.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080720/2033251741&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=0243bb09add739bb04ef388bd44b91ec" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=0243bb09add739bb04ef388bd44b91ec" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=oJufXj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=oJufXj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/341542789" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>and-it-might-be-right</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080720/2033251741</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:11:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>I Don't Think It's Motorola's Trade Secrets That Have Made The iPhone A Success</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1850451733.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1850451733.shtml</guid>
<description>Late Friday, the news broke that <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&#038;sid=addkX1GCw6zw" target="_new">Motorola was suing a former sales executive</a> who had left Motorola and joined Apple in April. Motorola is claiming that he was sharing Motorola's trade secrets with Apple. Of course, given the directions both companies seem to be heading in with their mobile phone devices, one might think that the only "secrets" he might have shared from Motorola were about what <i>not</i> to do. In fact, it seems like a lot of Apple's success with the iPhone has been in ignoring many of the old rules.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1850451733.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1850451733.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080718/1850451733&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=d63cda6f49ef920e90affba19ef59b3d" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=d63cda6f49ef920e90affba19ef59b3d" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=TgY9yj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=TgY9yj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/341446565" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>let's-be-honest-here</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080718/1850451733</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:18:09 PST</pubDate>
<title>MLB Threatens Guy Who Made A Cool iPhone App For Baseball Fans</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1259201726.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1259201726.shtml</guid>
<description>It's really disappointing watching various sports leagues abuse intellectual property law over and over again. Perhaps the worst offender has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?site=&#038;q=mlb&#038;tid=&#038;aid=&#038;searchin=stories">Major League Baseball</a>. MLB wants people to think that it owns absolutely everything having to do with baseball, even though the courts have shot it down repeatedly. Even when it may be legally correct, its moves tend to do more to <i>harm</i> the game than to help it. It's as if MLB wants to keep shooting itself in the foot. The latest example was sent in by William Jackson, who points out that MLB is <a href="http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/007301.html" target="_new">threatening the guy who made a neat Baseball app for the iPhone</a>.
<br /><br />
MLB has its own baseball app for the iPhone, which costs $5, that shows scores and highlights -- but this free app doesn't compete with that one. Instead, it's basically a baseball encyclopedia, allowing fans to look up all sorts of interesting historical stats and information. In other words, it's the sort of thing that helps fans feel even more connected to the game. So what does MLB do? It complains that the guy has the actual logos of Major League teams in the app. MLB argues that this is trademark infringement, but that's questionable. This is helping to <i>promote</i> those major league teams, not harm or dilute their brand in any way.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1259201726.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1259201726.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080718/1259201726&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=a3238e331e753b0db54a2faaf849de6d" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=a3238e331e753b0db54a2faaf849de6d" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=N4jKUj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=N4jKUj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/341342682" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>there's-thick-headed-and-then-there's-mlb</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080718/1259201726</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:44:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>A Detailed Explanation Of How The BSA Misleads With Piracy Stats</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1226541724.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1226541724.shtml</guid>
<description>A couple months ago, when the Business Software Alliance (BSA) released its latest stats on "piracy," it's VP of anti-piracy, Neil MacBride, gave me a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080514/1350531114.shtml">call</a> to discuss my earlier <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070515/110016.shtml">complaints</a> about the organizations methodology. Needless to say, we did not see eye-to-eye, and the phone call did little to resolve our differences. I'm still hopeful that eventually the BSA will recognize that it's doing more damage to its own position by publishing obviously bogus numbers. So, with the organization releasing another bogus stat today, it's time to explain why it's wrong and misleading.
<br /><br />
Today's report is an attempt to get the government involved in protecting BSA member companies' business model, by <a href="http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/07/18/bsa_us_states_piracy/" target="_new">claiming that the US is losing out on $1.7 billion in tax revenue</a> due to "pirated" software. And, of course, it comes with a lovely quote from Mr. MacBride: "The most tragic aspect is that the lost revenues to tech companies and local governments could be supporting thousands of good jobs and much-needed social services in our communities." And the BSA is even so kind as to quantify what that (not really) lost tax revenue could do: "For example, the lost tax revenues to state and local governments -- an estimated $1.7 billion -- would have been enough to build 100 middle schools or 10,831 affordable housing units; hire 24,395 experienced police officers; or purchase 6,335 propane-powered transit buses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
<br /><br />
Except that this is almost entirely incorrect and it's relatively easy to show why:
<ol>
<li> The report counts every unauthorized piece of software as a lost sale. You have to dig through separate PDFs to find this info, but when you finally get to the methodology it states:
<blockquote><i>
The software losses are based on the piracy rate and equal the value of software installed not paid for.
</i></blockquote>
That's a huge, and obviously incorrect assumption. Many of the folks using the software likely would not have paid for it otherwise, or would have used cheaper or open source options instead.
</li>
<li> The report makes no effort to count the <i>positive</i> impact of unauthorized use of software in leading to future software sales. This is something that even Microsoft has <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9">admitted</a> has helped the company grow over time. But according to the BSA's report, this doesn't matter.
</li>
<li> The report also proudly notes: "Software piracy also has ripple effects in local communities." However, "ripple effects" are easily disproved as <a href="http://techliberation.com/2006/10/01/texas-size-sophistry/">double or triple counting</a> the same dollar. Using ripple effects like that inflates the final number by two or three times. In the link here, Tim Lee explains this (in reference to an MPAA study done by IPI, but it applies here to the BSA study done by IDC as well):
<blockquote><i>
If a foreigner gives me $1, and I turn around and buy an apple from you for a dollar, and then you turn around and buy an orange from another friend for a dollar, we haven't thereby increased our national wealth by $3. At the beginning of the sequence, we have an apple and an orange. At the end, we have an apple, an orange, and a dollar. Difference: one dollar. No matter how many times that dollar changes hands, there's still only one dollar that wasn't there before.
<br /><br />
Yet in IPI-land, when a movie studio makes $10 selling a DVD to a Canadian, and then gives $7 to the company that manufactured the DVD and $2 to the guy who shipped it to Canada, society has benefited by $10+$7+$2=$19. Yet some simple math shows that this is nonsense: the studio is $1 richer, the trucker is $2, and the manufacturer is $7. Shockingly enough, that adds up to $10. What each participant cares about is his profits, not his revenues.
</i></blockquote>
This is a huge fallacy that the BSA an IDC refuse to acknowledge. When I discussed it with them in May, they insisted that they only wanted to talk about piracy <i>rates</i>, not the loss number. I wonder why...
</li>
<li> Next, if they're going to count ripple effects in one direction, it's only fair to also count them in the other direction. That is, they complain that:
<blockquote><i>
Lost revenue to technology companies also puts a strain on their ability to invest in new jobs and new technologies. For example, the $11.4 billion in piracy losses to software vendors and service providers in the eight states would have been enough to fund more than 54,000 tech industry jobs.
</i></blockquote>
But what they don't acknowledge is the ripple effects in the other direction. That is, if (going by their assumption, remember) every company that uses an unauthorized copy of software had to pay for it, that would represent $11.4 billion in money that all of those other companies <i>could not</i> use to fund jobs at those companies. What about all of those jobs?
</li>
<li> The BSA/IDC stat on lost tax revenue also miscounts on the point above, since it includes the lost <i>income tax</i> revenue from those 54,000 lost jobs, but does not count the equivalent income tax revenue from those other jobs. In fact, in the fine print, the report notes:
<blockquote><i>
"Employment losses are calculated from revenue losses, and only apply to employment in the IT industry, not IT professionals in end-user organizations. Tax revenue losses are calculated from revenue losses (VAT and corporate income tax) and employment losses (income and social taxes)."
</i></blockquote>
In other words, the income tax losses only count one side of the equation and totally ignore the lost income tax revenue from the lost jobs on the other side of the equation. Oops.
</li>
<li> It seems likely that the eventual tax benefits of the unauthorized use of software is most likely to greatly outweigh the lost tax revenue elsewhere. That's because the use of software within industries is a productivity tool that increases overall productivity and output, which would increase taxes beyond just the income taxes of the employees. The study, of course, ignores this point.
</li>
<li> Worst of all, the report seems to assume that direct software sales are the only business model for the software industry, ignoring plenty of evidence from companies that have adopted business models that embrace free software -- generating billions of dollars for the economy (and in taxes). And that's what this really comes down to. It's a business model issue. If others started adopting these business models as well, there wouldn't be any "losses" at all.
</li>
</ol>
Oh, and just for good measure, the report <i>also</i> falsely claims that: "What many don't realize or don't think about is that when you purchase software, you are actually purchasing a license to use it, not the actual software." That's not exactly true and goes directly against a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080522/0016171201.shtml">recent court ruling</a> that said the opposite and goes through a detailed explanation for why a piece of sold software is a sale with restrictions, rather than a license, using previous court precedents.
<br /><br />
Most of these points have been made to the BSA and IDC in the past, and both organizations chose not to address them. The fact that they're continuing to use these obviously false numbers and methodology to now push for the government to prop up an obsolete business model should be seen as troubling not just for the dishonesty of it, but for the <i>negative</i> impact it will have on the software industry and our economy as a whole.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1226541724.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1226541724.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080718/1226541724&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=96a6d84cc967eae6793eed534a1ae283"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=96a6d84cc967eae6793eed534a1ae283"/></a>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=96a6d84cc967eae6793eed534a1ae283" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=xg7UBj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=xg7UBj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/339551441" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>and-on-and-on-it-goes</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080718/1226541724</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:35:23 PST</pubDate>
<title>No, The Internet Is Not Bad For Science; Bad Research Is Bad For Science</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1939141717.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1939141717.shtml</guid>
<description>Wired has an article discussing the assertion published in the journal Science (not online at the moment) claiming that <a href="http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/is-the-internet.html" target="_new">the internet is bad for science</a>, because researchers just do some searches online and get the most popular hits or the most recent hits, and fail to dig deeper or look at older research. Of course, that's placing the blame on the wrong party. The problem isn't the internet: it's people who do bad research on the internet. If you use the internet as <i>one tool</i> of many in doing your research, and make sure to follow up on reading the actual research and following through on the citations, then the internet can be quite useful. I know I've found that in doing some recent economics research. Being able to search online, in addition to through some print journals, resulted in finding some additional useful research I wouldn't have come across otherwise. Of course, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that a journal whose history is paper-based would push out an article trashing the internet for research.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1939141717.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1939141717.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080717/1939141717&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=7dc4593ba5e92a51bf0ab89a99173d3c" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=7dc4593ba5e92a51bf0ab89a99173d3c" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=NI00Nj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=NI00Nj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/339507739" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>watch-where-you-place-that-blame</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080717/1939141717</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:21:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Should Organizations Get To Ignore Copyright For The Sake Of Preservation?</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080716/0202441697.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080716/0202441697.shtml</guid>
<description>Copyright was clearly designed for a different age: when not everyone was a "publisher." And while we've spent years pointing out many of the different problems that has caused, here's another one: how is a library or some other institution charged with "archiving" written works for posterity supposed to deal with copyright laws that can often make such archival activities against the law? Well, the Library of Congress and a bunch of other organizations have a suggestion: <a href="http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=813" target="_new">let them all ignore copyright law for the sake of archiving</a>. Basically, the report recommends that certain organizations be designated as "preservation institutions," which are then more or less allowed to ignore copyright law and copy-at-will for the sake of preservation. Of course, this is clearly going to lead to many questions, including just who would get designated as such. Many people can probably agree on public libraries and such -- but what about Google? After all, Google is already one of the largest players in "preserving" what's online and also, with its book scanning project, what's in books. Yet it's a private, for-profit company. Should it qualify? I would argue that it makes sense to allow it, given how beneficial the archival activities of Google have already been. Even if it is for profit, the public benefit has been tremendous as well. But then what's to stop any other company from arguing that it to deserves an exemption for preservation purposes? Wouldn't a better solution be to start rethinking copyright law altogether, since what has become clear from this is that copyright doesn't quite fit today's world any more?
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080716/0202441697.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080716/0202441697.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080716/0202441697&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=0f11464250484ad34c4cc469542f987a" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=0f11464250484ad34c4cc469542f987a" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=Hu02mj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=Hu02mj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/339465224" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>glossing-over-a-bigger-problem?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080716/0202441697</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:11:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>GPS Data Used To Disprove Radar Gun In Speeding Trial</title>
<dc:creator>Kevin Donovan</dc:creator>
<link>http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1234331725.shtml</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1234331725.shtml</guid>
<description>Over the past couple months, we've pointed to the misuses of technology to enforce traffic laws, particularly <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080604/2243441315.shtml">red light cameras</a> which often end up causing more accidents or allow municipalities to decrease the yellow light time and increase ticket revenue. Last fall we noted the case of a teenager who was challenging another technological traffic enforcement: <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080604/2243441315.shtml">radar guns</a> -- and he was using a different technology to do so: his GPS system. Now, the 18-year old driver has <a href="http://www.hothardware.com/News/Speeding_Radar_Gun_vs_GPS/">successfully contested that speeding ticket</a> which he was issued for allegedly traveling 62 mph in a 45 mph zone.
<br /><br />
Luckily for the teen, his car had an advanced GPS system which not only provided directions but measured velocity to "within 1 mph." After receiving a trial and bringing a GPS expert to testify to the accuracy of the device, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080718-nabbed-for-speeding-gps-data-could-get-you-off-the-hook.html">the $190 ticket has been dismissed.</a> What is not clear is why the police officer's radar gun output was more than 1/3 inflated (though this <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051229/138257.shtml">is hardly an isolated incident</a>). Also, as a number of people have pointed out, similar GPS data, if widespread, could also come to serve as critical evidence in <i>convicting</i> traffic law violators instead of providing a check on state authority.
<p style="border-top: 1px #aaaaaa dashed;padding-top: 5px;margin-top: 10px;">
<em>Kevin Donovan is an expert at the <a href="http://www.insightcommunity.com/">Techdirt Insight Community</a>. To get insight and analysis from Kevin Donovan and other experts on challenges your company faces, <a href="http://www.insightcommunity.com/">click here</a>.</em>
</p>
<br /><br />
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1234331725.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1234331725.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080718/1234331725&op=sharethis">Email This Story</a>
<br />
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=9cf4b3cada9f70b51c123544aabda0d2" height="1" width="1"/>
<img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=9cf4b3cada9f70b51c123544aabda0d2" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=OUPAXj"><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=OUPAXj" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/339422331" height="1" width="1"/></description>
<slash:department>not-so-fast</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080718/1234331725</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
|