Category Archives: bad law

Jamie Knox sent along Iraq’s newly amended copyright law (as if THIS was where we needed to worry about rule of law in Iraq). I’ve just begun going through it, but there are favorite tidbits so far: collections of data can be protected; readings of the Koran are protected; and collections of government documents can be protected. But significantly, the term is life plus 50! More disharmony… Continue reading →

Krugman is a favorite regular read. His latest is a favorite among favorites.

Apparently, the FERC has now settled with “energy companies accused of manipulating markets during the California energy crisis.” Through various price manipulations, those companies cost Californians $8.9 billion — not including the extraordinarily high prices we now face because of long-term contracts signed at the height of the crisis.

The FERC has now imposed a $1 million fine on the energy companies. As Krugman calculates, though they imposed costs of at least $250 on each Californian by their games, they’re required to pay 3 cents.

$1 million for $9 billion in real harm.

Let’s put this in some perspective.

Jesse Jordan (the RPI student who ran a search engine and was sued by the RIAA) was, the RIAA claims, liable for $15,000,000 in damages. When you add up the damages claimed against all four of these students (who again had built search engines), the RIAA was asking, on some estimates, for $100 billion dollars. That’s because, under our law as interpreted by the RIAA, downloading one song makes you liable for $150,000. Or, on the RIAA’s view of the law, cheaper to defraud Californian’s of $9 billion than download 10 songs from a p2p server.

“Oh,” you say, “but that’s unfair. You’re comparing actual fines imposed to the maximum fines that could be imposed.”

Ok, so let’s compare actual to actual.

In January, 2000, MP3.com launched a service called my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify the CD, and then give the user access to that content. So, for example, if you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were � at work, or at home � you could get access to that music once you signed into your account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.

No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com service was to give users access to their own content, and as a byproduct, by seeing the content you already owned, discover the kind of content the users liked.

To make this system function, however, MP3.COM needed to copy 50,000 CDs to a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music, but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a product of question-able quality.) It therefore purchased 50,000 CD from a store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers something they had already bought.

Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. The judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118,000,000. MP3.com then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over $54 million.

So defraud Californians of $9 billion, pay $1 million. But develop a new technology to make it easier for people to get access to music that they have presumptively purchased: pay more than $54 million.

Such are the values of our time. Continue reading →

The battle against software patents is coming to a head in the EU. (Not that much of the support for software patents has come from the head.) As these articles (News.com, TheRegister, and Slashdot) describe, the battle has become quite heated, with the side of right not expected to prevail.

A large number of F/OSS-related sites are shutting down because of the move. See, e.g., Gimp. And those amazing Europeans are actually marching in the streets about this threat to the freedom to innovate.

That there is a threat would be more obvious to WIPO and the US government if it didn’t spend its efforts working to remain ignorant about the importance of balance in intellectual property law. But I understand, they’re very busy, those regulating sorts. So here’s perhaps the most concise and compelling account of just why software patents will harm new innovators (that’s you Europe) and benefit old innovators (that’s America), written in 1991 by Mr. Gates:

“If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today�s ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still today. The solution . . . is patent exchanges . . . and patenting as much as we can. . . . A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high: Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors.” Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars 170-71 (NY: Wiley 1994).

Perhaps the F/OSS sites should take more advantage of this unique opportunity for them to quote the wisdom of Mr. Gates. Continue reading →

The thread about Ms. Boland’s (mis)characterization of open-source software (remember the days when statements were either true or false?) reminded me of an odd fight I found myself in the middle of at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva in February.

I was asked to give one of three keynotes launching the second preparatory conference. At a press conference before the keynote, a reporter asked what I was going to talk about. I indicated vaguely I would discuss the importance of the public domain to innovation, etc. (same old boring stuff). But I was then astonished when the moderator of the event, Maria CATTAUI, Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Commerce, scolded me that issues of “intellectual property” were not to be discussed because they were “exclusively” the concern of WIPO.

I promptly threw away the talk I had intended to give, and gave a completely different talk about how — Ms. Cattaui’s scolding notwithstanding — it was crucial that a summit on the world “information society” consider the role of the public domain in spreading knowledge and culture even if WIPO claimed exclusive jurisdiction of the matter. That assured I won’t be invited back to WSIS anytime soon (or at least by Ms. Cattaui).

It is therefore extraordinary now that people purporting to speak for WIPO would say that WIPO too is not to consider issues about the public domain. Neither at WIPO, nor at WSIS, nor apparently anywhere. Except among us commies I guess. (Fellow travelers, for our next secret communist meeting, be sure to read the latest great work by some of the most prominent IP commies out there. Linked here.) Continue reading →

I don’t even know how to begin this story, so stupid and extreme it is.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was convinced by Jamie Love and others to hold a meeting about “open collaborative models to develop public goods.” One of those models is, of course, open source and free software. Lobbyists for Microsoft and others apparently (according to this extraordinary story by Jonathan Krim) started lobbying the US government to get the meeting cancelled. No surprise there. Open source and free software is a competitor to MSFT’s products. Lobbying is increasingly the way competition is waged in America.

But the astonishing part is the justification for the US opposing the meeting. According to the Post, Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said “that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.” As she is quoted as saying, “To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO.”

If Lois Boland said this, then she should be asked to resign. The level of ignorance built into that statement is astonishing, and the idea that a government official of her level would be so ignorant is an embarrassment. First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in intellectual-property rights. It can’t exist (and free software can’t have its effect) without it. Second, the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government, should be to promote the right balance of intellectual-property rights, not simply to promote intellectual property rights. And finally, if an intellectual property right holder wants to “disclaim” or “waive” her rights, what business is it of WIPOs? Why should WIPO oppose a copyright or patent rights holder’s choice to do with his or her rights what he or she wants?

These points are basic. They should be fundamental. That someone who doesn’t understand them is at a high level of this government just shows how extreme IP policy in America has become. Continue reading →

I’m relieved to find myself again in disagreement with Declan. In the simple world that images just two choices — regulation or no regulation — Declan thinks Microsoft is behaving inconsistently. Microsoft has argued (rightly and wrongly, depending upon the case, imho) against various examples of regulation. But Declan is now aghast to discover that Microsoft has been now lobbying to get the FCC to impose a different form of regulation. Oh my gosh! Imagine that!

The problem here is not Microsoft’s. The problem is Declan, and the simple-isms that continue to reign in Declan-thought. No one serious opposes all regulation. No one serious supports all regulation. The only serious debate is whether a particular regulation makes sense.

The particular regulation that Microsoft has endorsed does, in my view, make lots of sense. As Microsoft described in FCC hearings, increasingly, cable companies are beginning to assert the right to decide which applications will run on their cable networks. Microsoft faced this when they tried to deploy Xbox technology. Tim Wu has other examples of this control here.

Declan quotes many who say, hey, no reason to worry. There’s no good evidence that there is any significant discrimination — yet.

But this is the part of this argument that convinces me Declan is spending too much time in Washington, and should go back to his CompSci roots. The issue here is not “regulation vs no regulation”; the issue here is the continued viability of any end-to-end architecture to the Internet.

If in fact networks are allowed to decide which applications and content can run on the network, then “the Internet” is dead. Sure, there will be a network out there — the cable network, or whatever you want to call it — but it will no longer be “the Internet” that Saltzer, Clark and Reed wrote about.

And, more importantly, and completely contrary to the non-thought that now reigns in Washington about this: the very possibility that this is the future of the Internet is having an effect on investment right now.

The point is obvious (save to those who inhale the DC air): Investments in technologies for the Internet are being made today, based upon the expectations about what the Internet will be in 3-5 years. If cable companies are allowed to decide what applications and content gets to run on that network, then the cost of innovation has been increased right now. If everyone with an Xbox technology needs permission to use the Internet, then what everyone should begin to recognize is that only Microsoft — and others with their money and power — will have permission to use the Net.

Maybe that’s ok with Declan and the Cato types. After all, they’re fighting for a principle — “no regulation.” Ah yes. “No regulation.”

What planet do these guys come from? Continue reading →

Dan Gillmor nicely captures the truth around the emerging spam consensus in DC: A spam bill that will make it (1) harder to decline UCE from companies with famous logos, and (2) impossible to block UCE from spammers. Continue reading →

If you have not yet, you should consider contributing to the RIAA scapegoats. Jesse Jordan‘s story is particularly extraordinary. He built a search engine for RPI’s network — one of a half-dozen such engines running at the time. Three-fourths of the files in the directory were not music files. Yet he was sued by record companies, demanding hundreds of millions in damages.

When they discovered that he had saved $12,000, they gave him a classic Sopranos-like choice: Either defend yourself in court (which would cost his family over $200,000) or pay us $12,000. He handed over the $12,000.

He, and some of the other student defendants, have set-up donation booths. Whatever your view about these issues, you should consider contributing. Whether or not the RIAA is right about the law, there is something deeply wrong about using the law to squash the likes of Jesse. He was not running Napster; indeed, he did nothing more than hack an improvement to an already existing search technology that existed in RPI’s net. Yet as the RIAA lawyers knew, it would cost him more to fight this suit than to settle it. So his defense would never get a chance to show that the law is not yet as extreme as the RIAA lawyers would like it to be.

Our legal system gives companies like A&M Records the power to do this to people like Jesse. We each, individually, by donating to these students, can help remove some of the burdens of that flaw. We all, collectively, should do something to change that legal system to remove that flaw. Soon. Continue reading →

Senator Hatch has been swallowed by the extremists. (Though this might not be such a bad idea. Can we bomb the offices of stock brokers thought to be violating SEC regulations? Or bulldoze houses of citizens with unregistered guns? Or — yes, this is good — short the telephones of people who use indecent language?) Continue reading →

Declan’s got a great piece about the Council of Europe and rights to reply. Continue reading →