Kino-Eye.com » Law

Imagine a world without free knowledge

David Tames — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:31:37 +0000

Right now the U.S. Congress is considering legislation (SOPA and PIPA) that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, Wikipedia is blacking out their English language edition beginning at midnight January 18, Eastern Time. I join Wikipedia in encouraging you to share your views with your representatives, and with each other on social media. While these bills are efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign web sites, many Internet experts believe that they attempt to do so in a manner that will infringe on free expression and in the end will end up harming the culture and value of the Internet. For more information, I suggest visiting the “End Piracy, not Liberty” pages from Google, or the Learn More page on Wikipedia. Another good resource to check out is EFF’s article, “How PIPA and SOPA Violate White House Principles Supporting Free Speech and Innovation.”

While I do admire Wikipedia’s bravado regarding this issue, other Internet players have taken a more subtle approach, encouraging action by putting up a splash screen (Mozilla) or changing their logo (Google) but not blacking out the entire site for a day. Why has Wikipedia blacked out the entire site for the SOPA and PIPA issue, but has not done so for other issues that may be even more important, like hunger, poverty, human rights, etc? It is an issue worth thinking about. Why do we take particular actions with particular issues, and what does that reveal about our deeply held values? Food for thought.

Will the Internet remain in the hands of the people?

David Tames — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:23:30 +0000

The struggle for Net Neutrality has reached a critical moment. The FCC Chairman has called for new Net Neutrality rules, and he is being supported by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and many congressional leaders. Will the Internet remain in the hands of the people? Or will a few phone and cable companies decide which Web sites you can and can’t see? Concerned citizens are calling for the FCC to protect Net Neutrality by enacting strong rules that will keep the Internet free from blocking, censorship and discrimination and furthermore ensure that Internet service providers disclose their efforts to manage content. The FCC has invited feedback before they rule on Net Neutrality, but the window for commenting is closing on January 14, 2010. You have until Thursday at midnight to tell the FCC how you feel about the Internet:

www.savetheinternet.com/fcc-comments

Net neutrality is the network design principle that has made possible the Internet’s rapid innovation and unprecedented open access. It protects your right, without interference from the network provider, to use any equipment, send or receive any content, run any application, or access any service. If you are not familiar with the Net Neutrality argument, check out the following:

Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality, by Tim Wu (Slate)
Network Neutrality FAQ by Tim Wu
Net Neutrality: This is serious, by Tim Berners-Lee
The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era, by Mark Lemley and Lawrence Lessig
Is Net Neutrality a Trojan Horse?, A summary of EFF’s concerns with the FCC’s new neutrality proposal.
Regulatory Capture, How the entertainment and media industries are often able to exert undue influence on the FCC.
EFF Weighs in on Proposed FCC Net Neutrality Rules, A summary of EFF’s full comments to the FCC.

[Note: The last three links above were added to this post on 2010.01.18]

In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458). This landmark legislation would protect Net Neutrality under the Communications Act. Phone and cable companies have hired hundreds of lobbyists in Washington to try to stop this bill from becoming law. Citizens can make a difference, Take Action now!

Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video

David Tames — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:32:56 +0000

The Center for Social Media of the School of Communication at American University recently published The American Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video, an important guide for producers of online video who make use of copyrighted materials without specific permission.

Online video has become a vibrant part of our everyday communication landscape and an important component of political discourse. Increasingly, video creation and sharing depend on the ability to use and circulate existing copyrighted work. As more and more video is being shared on the web, financial stakes are raised and the legal status of inserting copyrighted work into new work has become an important issue for online video makers, video hosting providers, and content owners to understand the legal rights of makers of new culture. What some people claim is “piracy” in the online environment might be lawful use protected under the fair-use doctrine of United States copyright law. Mashups, remixes, and parodies are part of an important cultural practice: recycling of old culture to make new, and this process of copying other author’s works is woven into the social bargain at the core of copyright law in the fair use provisions, which are not well understood by most online videomakers. This new document should go a long way in helping to narrow this gap of understanding among online videomakers.

This document provides a long-awaited and much needed code of best practices that will help online videomakers, copyright holders, hosting providers, and other interested parties in developing a better understanding of the copyright doctrine of fair use in the context of online video. Fair use is the right to use copyrighted material without permission or payment under some circumstances. What are these circumstances? Most often it is acceptable when doing a parody, or making a critical comment or appropriate quotation. Many of the uses you see online are acceptable, many are not. This code of best practices does not clearly define the limits of fair use rights (that’s determined by the trends in case law, quite complex), however, it does provide much needed guidance to what are currently acceptable practices and draws upon actual activities of media creators as discussed in the study, Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video and backed by the judgment of a national panel of experts. It also draws upon the professional judgment and experience of documentary filmmakers, whose own code of best practices has been recognized throughout the film and television businesses and is described in the document, Documentary Filmmakers Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use.

Unconstitutional FISA Bill Becomes Law

David Tames — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:15:20 +0000

I usually don’t blog about political issues on this blog, but enough is enough. On July 10, 2008, President Bush signed into law the clearly unconstitutional F.I.S.A. Amendments Act, which gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked powers to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and emails, and grants immunity to telecommunications companies that illegally aided in the president’s warrantless wiretapping program. Congress may have rolled over and joined the conspiracy to weaken constitutional protections, however, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a broad coalition of plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the law. Some Democratic leaders who still respect the right to privacy have promised to revisit the issues surrounding the FISA Amendments Act during the 2009 debate over reauthorization of USA Patriot Act provisions. I suggest reading more about this issue on the ACLU web site. Thomas Paine wrote, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” (The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777).

I’m disappointed with Barack Obama’s vote for this bill, which represents a reversal for him. He previously opposed that provision. Why did he change his position on this? Character is revealed through action and this action proves that his demoncratic liberal talk is just that, talk. His actions have now revealed that now that he’s the heir apparent, he does not want to take a stand for the constitution or freedom. So much for the oath of office he hopes to take if he’s elected president.

The F.I.S.A. bill passed 69 to 28 in the Senate, and a number of Democratic senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, and former rival Hillary Clinton, voted against it. Michael Falcone in The New York Times politial blog quoted Clinton as saying, “… even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions.” On an issue of such importance, not to mention a grievous violation of the constitution, all representatives should have been given the information so they could make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation and if anything was rotten, they could leak it to the press. If only we had a true free press (but that’s another issue). Clinton also said, “I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.”

What was Barack Obama thinking when he voted yes? So much for the “Audacity of Hope.” If Barack is elected president, will we continue to see erosion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the Executive Branch slowly gains more and more power as the Bush administration has done for the past eight years?. If Obama voted yes as to not to appear weak on terrorism, it demonstrates his weakness as a leader, a lack of respect for the Constitution, choosing political expedience over the leadership he’s always talking about, one more erosion of liberty that is so fragile. At one point Obama spoke about his intent to filibuster (his so called words), and now that he expects to be president and looking forward to having all that unconstitutional power at his disposal, he votes yes (his real action). Most politicians fail tests of character, and Barack has failed his. Character, once again, was revealed through action.

Viacom will soon know what you watch on YouTube

David Tames — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:04:32 +0000

A recent BBC news story, “Google must divulge YouTube log,” reports on the latest phase in the Viacom case against Google’s YouTube: A U.S. court ordered Google to disclose the viewing logs of each and every YouTube user. This gives Viacom access to over 12 terabytes of data so they can prove their dubious claim that “infringing” videos hold more appeal than non-infringing ones. As the EFF and others have pointed out, this is a serious setback in user privacy. It’s a black-eye for Google who should have made IP address data anonymous a long time ago. And shame on Viacom for even asking. Google should have been keeping the data in anonymous form. Another tarnish on the shiny Google image, and just another pound of slime on the already greedy image of Viacom.

Google said the log should not be handed over because of privacy concerns, in their submission to the court Google said: “Plaintiffs (Viacom) would likely be able to determine the viewing and video uploading habits of YouTube’s users based on the user’s login ID and the user’s IP address.” But the court ruled these concerns were “speculative”. So much for the judge’s respect for rights to privacy.

The copyright thing is out of control, no, not copyright law per se, but how corporations are using it in a desperate attempt to stem the tide of media change. Another argument why we need a more vibrant, competitive, user-driven media ecosystem. And this can happen if you embrace the change, make the change, be the change. This summer, avoid Viacom channels like Nick@Night, TV Land, MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, Bravo, etc. and go out and make your own media and watch the great media that’s being made by your fellow citizens. Check out the great shows on blip.tv. Check out the wonderful short films on YouTube. Be the media, or encourage those citizens who are.

Comcast does not want public voices heard

David Tames — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:59:05 +0000

On Monday, February 25, 2008 the FCC held a public hearing, hosted by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society on the campus of Harvard Law School. It turns out that Comcast was paying people to fill seats in the Ames Courtroom to prevent net neutrality supporters from participating in the dialog.

The hearing covered complaints leveled critics of Comcast that they are preventing competition by blocking the delivery of rival video services over their system. This lies at the heart of the net neutrality issue. One of the features of the IP network (at the heart of the internet) is that carriers can’t discriminate between packets of information that are being routed along the way. This means that IP networks can’t favor their bytes and discriminate a competitor’s bytes. Bits are bits, and IP routers don’t know what bytes belong to who. A good thing if you want to keep the internet free and open. This action to quiet public voices by Comcast is outrageous, but of course the mainstream media would never take this on as a story when there’s so much violence to cover that does a better job of keeping the electorate scared. But this scares me more than the report of another gang shooting in Boston. We have to assure that the internet continues to be a free and open market of ideas, however, open access and competition are anathema to the telecoms.

A copyright carol (canadian style)

David Tames — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:29:52 +0000

Rudy Jahchan does a nice job commenting on proposed amendments to the Canadian Copyright Act in the most recent episode of Galacticast, “A Copyright Carol.” The bill was delayed following growing opposition to what many have argued was a flawed process and accusing lawmakers of only consulting the U.S. and industry lobbyists who want to crackdown on all forms of copyright infringements, without taking into account non-commercial fair use applications. It’s refreshing to see that public outcry can still challenge powerful industry lobbying.

Amazon wants control over your computer, will you allow it?

David Tames — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:03:23 +0000

Would you be willing to surrender your rights to privacy, integrity of your personal data, and control over your computer, in order to download movies? If you’ve signed up for and installed Amazon UnBoxed on your computer, you have. Cory Doctorow, in his post “Amazon Unbox to customers: Eat shit and die” on boingboing explains in great detail why this is so. Essential reading.