IPTAblog

More Kindling

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:02:21 -0500

Even though Amazon agreed to allow authors and publishers the right to decide whether Kindle e-books can be read aloud, here are couple more (belated) links about Kindle 2 reading e-books via text-to-speech synthesizer. LA Times, Amazon Kindle 2 makes authors' e-Books more compelling, "Innovators such as Amazon are and should be free to create devices that help consumers exploit all of the rights they obtain when they purchase books and other copyrighted material. And by the way, Authors Guild: Amazon sells e-books. The Kindle makes those products more appealing to consumers, which makes them more valuable to authors and publishers. If authors hope to compete in the digital era, they need the e-book market to succeed. Stripping features from the Kindle 2 won't help." Derek Bambauer, Info/Law, Kindle Owners of the World, Unite!: "Roy Blount Jr., writer and president of the Author’s Guild, has a jeremiad in the New York Times about Amazon’s Kindle, and its ability to read books aloud. Blount thinks that is a violation of authors’ rights. After giving some thought to his argument, I can only conclude that Blount should stick to sports, because he’s pretty confused about copyright." Ben Sheffner, Copyrights & Campaigns, Amazon compromises on Kindle 2's 'read-to-me' feature; who can blame them?: "Remember: Amazon can only offer books via Kindle because it has contracts with authors and/or publishers that permit it to reproduce, display, and distribute their books in digital form. I haven't seen such contracts, but I'm confident they contain myriad deal points: money, term of license, and exquisite detail about what Amazon is actually permitted to do with the digital copies." On Late Night with Jimmy Falllon, Kindle 2 reads the classics: Which is a similar, but opposite joke, as Late Night with Conan O'Brien's James Lipton reads the lyrics to Kevin Federline's Popozao.

Fitter, Happier, More Productive

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:50:47 -0500

In the New York Times, Authors Guild president Roy Blount, Jr, makes the case against the Kindle's text to speech synthesizer, The Kindle Swindle?: "True, you can already get software that will read aloud whatever is on your computer. But Kindle 2 is being sold specifically as a new, improved, multimedia version of books — every title is an e-book and an audio book rolled into one. And whereas e-books have yet to win mainstream enthusiasm, audio books are a billion-dollar market, and growing. Audio rights are not generally packaged with e-book rights. They are more valuable than e-book rights. Income from audio books helps not inconsiderably to keep authors, and publishers, afloat." Engadget's Nikay Patel interviewed Paul Aiken, Executive Director of the Authors Guild, "Just because Amazon does something a bit clever with their ebook reader and adds technology which allows them to render text into speech doesn't mean they get to exploit it for all it's worth, without sharing with authors and publishers. In our view this is a legitimate market." In the last few years, lawyers have been digging into musty old file cabinets to review licenses for rights licensed for old films and television shows, in order to clear them to sell the works on DVD or make available on streaming services. These original licensing agreements never imagined home video or internet streaming uses and not granted rights to those then-uninvented possibilities. Did publishers merely fail to imagine the possibilities? Is an audiobook recording a completely different product than an e-book run through a text-to-speech synthesizer? Does a book of sheet music compete in the same marketplace with a recording of that same piece of music? What about a MIDI file that allows a synthesizer to play back a piece of music? Does that compete with a recording? With the sheet music? Update. Right after I posted this, Amazon announced that it would offer publishers the ability to block the Kindle from reading books to the Kindle owner. Brad Stone reported on the NYT Bits Blog, Amazon Backs off Text-to-Speech Feature in Kindle. Amazon's states,

"Kindle 2's experimental text-to-speech feature is legal: no copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given. Furthermore, we ourselves are a major participant in the professionally narrated audiobooks business through our subsidiaries Audible and Brilliance. We believe text-to-speech will introduce new customers to the convenience of listening to books and thereby grow the professionally narrated audiobooks business. Nevertheless, we strongly believe many rights-holders will be more comfortable with the text-to-speech feature if they are in the driver's seat."

Lessig comments, Caving into bullies (aka, here we go again): "We had this battle before. In 2001, Adobe released e-book technology that gave rights holders (including publishers of public domain books) the ability to control whether the Adobe e-book reader read the book aloud. The story got famous when it was shown that one of its public domain works -- Alice's Adventures in Wonderland -- was marked to forbid the book to be read aloud." (Post title reference: Radiohead's song Fitter Happier features Macintalk on lead vocals.) Previously: Take a Look, It's in a Book.

Remix Revisited

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:18:56 -0500

The NY Public Library event Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy with Lawrence Lessig, Shepard Fairey, Steven Johnson was well-attended and lively discussion, even if the panel was comprised entirely of copyright moderates with no mainstream maximalists or crazy abolitionists. Here are some rough notes, transcribed and re-ordered from what I wrote down at the panel: On the continuum of copyright use, the panel talked about a few different uses that can be classified in the following ways: Incidental and de minimis use. This is where a copyrighted work may appear in another work, either as part of the background. Because of the pervasiveness of copyrighted works all around us, perhaps a more generous threshold than the 6th Circuit's Bridgeport sampling standard (where any use is an infringing use, no matter how small) is the sensible standard. Transformative use for commentary, criticism Here is, obviously, the heart of the panel. If a work is transformative and used for non-commercial or substitutionary purposes, it should be classified-- more often than not-- as a fair use. Is mashup creative? Does it shed a light on the works it builds from? Is the law able to judge the merit of the creativity? If a mashup derives its impact from borrowing the hook, core, or the entire narrative structure, shouldn't there be some level of use that deserves compensation? Where do we draw the line? But non-commercial transformative uses of copyrighted works online are often lumped in for enforcement purposes with infringing distributions or performances. How often do we see iconic images in a public space that aren't commercial images? Commercial substitution. Siknce Grokster, P2P usage is up substantially. And what percentage of those uses are simply straight-up infringing uses that substitute for purchases of copies? How much P2P usage is simply plain old piracy of current, popular, copyrighted works? That P2P usage is up since Grokster isn't necessarily something to celebrate and RIAA lawsuits aren't necessarily something to ridicule. Widescale piracy does need to be deterred. Whether these lawsuits are Miscellany At its best, grassroots activism is actually from the roots, not from above. And it's going to be messy. Institutions are made out of people. They're PEOPLE! PEOPLE! The NY Times' Jennifer Schuessler attended and wrote up a succinct summary of the discussion, Steal This Blog Post! "The event felt a little like Burning Man for the so-called Copy Left, with body art to match. Shortly before the talking started, two big guys with big cameras ushered a woman with a cool shoulder tattoo of Fairey’s Obama poster out of her seat. Enforcers from the Associated Press, which claims Fairey violated its copyright, perhaps?" Here's the complaint in Fairey's lawsuit against the AP seeking a declaratory judgment that "Hope" is not an infringing derivative work, Fairey v. AP The New York Times, Artist Sues The A.P. Over Obama Image Yesterday, Fresh Air broadcast an interview with Fairey, Shepard Fairey: Inspiration Or Infringement?, "He joins Fresh Air to talk about the image, the dispute, and why he thinks his poster qualifies as a protected work under Fair Use provisions." Fairey has inspired a whole genre of Hope-inspired images and parodies, such as a Watchmen-inspired image

Preparing for the Post-TV World

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:06:20 -0500

Thanks to the signing of the DTV Delay Act, television broadcasters continue to send out their sweet, sweet analog signals a full week after the original cutoff date. And those broadcasters will continue to broadcast both analog and digital signals until June 12. Note that 641 of the 1800 licensed television broadcast stations across the country have already switched off their analog broadcast facilities. While many television viewers in the US subscribe to cable or satellite service, there is a significant public interest in ensuring that anyone who wishes to obtain broadcast television should be able to. After all, these are public airwaves, which the broadcasters are allowed to use by authority of Congress. Broadcast TV is not merely soap operas, infomercials and bad sitcoms. It is local news, major public events and news. New York Times, Digital TV Beckons, but Many Miss the Call, "That so many viewers here and around the country risk losing something as basic as a free television signal is a function, at least in part, of the government’s failure to anticipate that those most affected would be among the nation’s most frail and vulnerable." Eliot Van Buskirk, Wired.com, How We Bungled the Digital Television Transition: "America's transition to over-the-air digital television signals, which netted the government $19 billion in a wireless spectrum auction, was doomed from the start, thanks to a flawed voucher program and a time frame that left the country stranded between administrations." At the same time, studios and networks are connecting with audiences outside of broadcast, cable and satellite, thanks to the internet. But don't plan on using the internet to replace current TV service just yet. Boxee makes a media center software application that runs on computers as well as the Apple TV media extender. Boxee's best feature is that it connects TV style viewing with internet video streaming. This provided a way to watch programs from the deep library of the NBC and Fox joint venture, Hulu. That was until Hulu's "content partners" (the studios who own the copyrights on the various programs) discovered Boxee and realized that they hadn't contemplated viewers watching Hulu on real televisions and asked Boxee to discontinue streaming Hulu programming. Interestingly, Hulu never had an agreement with Boxee. Boxee, The Hulu Situation, "our goal has always been to drive users to legal sources of content that are publicly available on the Internet. we have many content partners who are generating revenue from boxee users and we will work with Hulu and their partners to resolve the situation as quickly as possible." Hulu, Doing Hard Things, " While we never had a formal relationship with Boxee, we are under no illusions about the likely Boxee user response from this move. This has weighed heavily on the Hulu team, and we know it will weigh even more so on Boxee users." Does internet streaming generate revenues comparable to selling advertising on first-run broadcast, rights to second-run syndication and DVDs? (Obviously not). How can copyright owners contemplate future uses of licensed content when entering into licensing deals? Marc Hedlund, Hulu's Superbowl Ad and the Boxee Fight "To your TV is something completely different, and from the "content providers'" point of view, completely wrong. Aren't Apple and Tivo and YouTube bad enough as it is?" Dan Wallach, Freedom to Tinker, Hulu abandons Boxee—now what?: "Also interesting to note is the acknowledgment that there was no formal relationship between Hulu and Boxee. That's the power of open standards. Hulu was publishing bits. Boxee was consuming those bits. The result? An integrated system, good enough to seriously consider dropping your cable TV subscription." Janko Roettgers, NewTeeVee, Is Hulu Driving People Back to Piracy? "Applications like the Torrent Episode Downloader (TED) make it easy to subscribe to whole seasons of your favorite TV show via BitTorrent, and established TV torrent sites like EZTV even offer P2P streaming for immediate access." Fred Wilson, A VC (and investor in Boxee), Why Hulu Should Embrace Boxee: "There's a consistency to the comments and it is confusion first and foremost. Hulu users don't understand the distinction between watching Hulu through Firefox or Safari and wathicng Hulu through Boxee. And many of them are coming back to watching TV because they can watch over the internet, when they want, and how they want. They feel liberated by Hulu and Boxee and see them as a match made in heaven. Which they are. And I sure hope that Hulu and its content partners come to that realization quickly." It is possible to use the internet to watch most television programming. And The Wall Street Journal, reports that cable operators are looking to secure internet rights to have a role as content aggregators in the post-TV internet video world Cable Firms Look to Offer TV Programs Online: "Top cable-television providers and TV networks are exploring a sweeping solution to the threat of online video: putting large numbers of cable shows online, but accessible only to cable subscribers." But we're not in the post-TV world quite yet. Streaming Hulu content through Boxee (at least on an Apple TV) is a second rate experience to watching the same programs on broadcast or cable. Shows look far better on the digital broadcast or cablecast than on internet streaming. (Even ABC's very nice HD streams of Lost aren't as smooth as their HD broadcast.) But as music listeners have shown, there's a threshold where portability and convenience outweighs quality. For most people MP3 quality is good enough for music. Higher fidelity digital standards (Super Audio CD, DVD-Audio) never managed to compete with the convenience of MP3. For video, online streaming is obviously coming close enough to that point where convenience trumps quality.

John Adams, not Samuel Adams

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:16:01 -0500

The Brooklyn Paper, Tapped out! Hook brewery is ordered to stop making ‘Obama’ ale: "Federal agents have ordered a Red Hook brewery to stop making its popular 'Hop Obama' ale — a beer that was first brewed during the presidential campaign as a way of supporting the then-underdog candidate. The cease-and-desist order was issued by the Tax and Trade Bureau of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms on the grounds that Sixpoint Craft Ales did not have permission from to use the president’s likeness on the tasty, hop-heavy brew."

Take a look, it's in a book

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:54:01 -0500

This week, Amazon announced the details of its second generation Kindle e-book reader. One of the new features is text-to-speech software that can read aloud the text of a document stored on the Kindle. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Authors Guild is not happy with the feature, "They don't have the right to read a book out loud," said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. "That's an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law." New Kindle Audio Feature Causes a Stir Typically, audio books are derivative works of the original work and are fixed in a recorded medium. The reader adds his or her own interpretation to the text. The work can stand alone as an artistic creation. (See e.g. the accolades that Jim Dale has received for his readings of the Harry Potter books). However, a Kindle 2 owner could foreseeably forego buying the more expensive audiobook to choose to read aloud the e-book. But is the Kindle text-to-speech reading a derivative work? With the Kindle 2, the computer is generating a reading of the original work dynamically for the portion of that work the Kindle user chooses to have read aloud. Is it ever considered fixed in a tangible medium? If the text-to-speech reading isn't fixed, then it can not be a derivative work, since a work must be fixed in a tangible medium in order to be copyrightable. If publishers worry about text-to-speech affecting the market for audiobook rights, perhaps e-book rights (and thus e-books themselves) will become more expensive. Engadget's Nilay Patel analyzes, Know Your Rights: Does the Kindle 2's text-to-speech infringe authors' copyrights?: "This is actually pretty tough stuff -- as far as edge cases go, this one pushes right up against the boundaries of the current law. On one hand, you definitely have the right to read books that you own out loud using whatever tools you want, and on the other, authors definitely have the right to prevent others from selling audio versions of their works. The Kindle's text-to-speech feature blurs the lines between books and recordings, and that means those two rights are in conflict with each other." See also John Siracusa's take on the past, present and future of the e-book market, The once and future e-book: on reading in the digital age - Ars Technica: "A veteran of a former turning of the e-book wheel looks at the past, present, and future of reading books on things that are not books." Tangentially related, Apple's text-to-speech software, MacInTalk, has a major film credit in its resume. In Pixar's Wall-E, MacInTalk voiced the character Otto. Update (2/12). Neil Gaiman weighs in with a Quick argument summary, "When you buy a book, you're also buying the right to read it aloud, have it read to you by anyone, read it to your children on long car trips, record yourself reading it and send that to your girlfriend etc. This is the same kind of thing, only without the ability to do the voices properly, and no-one's going to confuse it with an audiobook. And that any authors' societies or publishers who are thinking of spending money on fighting a fundamentally pointless legal case would be much better off taking that money and advertising and promoting what audio books are and what's good about them with it." Evan Brown, Does the Kindle 2’s text-to-speech feature violate copyright law? "Does Aiken have a legitimate gripe? I say it depends on the technology. And the fact that there could be a difference based merely on a technological setup underscores how digital technology has sent some aspects of copyright fumbling towards absurdity."

YouTube, Fingerprinting and Fair Use

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:02:40 -0500

Critic and filmmaker Matt Zoller Seitz wirtes an essay about how YouTube and the DMCA Takedown procedure are harming online film criticism, The House Next Door: Copy Rites: YouTube vs. Kevin B. Lee: "When the history of intellectual property law is written, January 12, 2009 should be marked as a decisive moment. It was the day that my friend, fellow House Next Door contributor and sometime filmmaking partner Kevin B. Lee saw his entire archive of critical video essays deleted by YouTube on grounds that his work violated copyright." The web has the potential to make multi-media criticism accessible and easy to create. Criticism and comment on a work is a paradigmatic example of Section 107 fair use. However, because video is complex and bandwidth intensive, video hosting sites like YouTube in particular have made it possible for the non-technical critic to embed videos into a web page. And these video hosts have little desire to defend their users' alleged infringements as non-infringing fair uses. The DMCA §512(c) safe harbor creates an incentive for video hosting providers to respond promptly to notices of alleged copyright infringement and take down those allegedly infringing videos. With the rise of audio and video fingerprinting technology, YouTube and other video hosting sites may be scanning user uploads for potential copyright infringements of works owned by their content partners. YouTube is offering its users the ability to replace copyrighted music in soundtracks with music licensed to YouTube's music library. The EFF's Fred Von Lohmann calls the deployment of this audio fingerprinting technology, YouTube's January Fair Use Massacre: "It's clear from the Warner Music experience that YouTube's Content ID tool fails to separate the infringements from the arguable fair uses. And while YouTube offers users the option to dispute a removal (if it's an automated Content ID removal) or send a formal DMCA counter-notice (if it's an official DMCA takedown), many YouTube users, lacking legal help, are afraid to wave a red flag in front of Warner Music's lawyers. That's a toxic combination for amateur video creators on YouTube." Does YouTube have a responsibility to promote fair use? Or is it actively helping its users by forcing them to avoid any uses that might possibly infringing?

Benchler's Thoughts on Broadband Stimulus

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:42:44 -0500

Yochai Benchler compares the differing approaches towards creating economic opportunity through supporting broadband development in the economic stimulus bills introduced in the House and Senate, Broadband Stimulus: "Weaker or stronger, the fact that both the House and Senate bills clearly tie the funding to core goals intended to enhance distributed innovation and open participation, uncontrolled by the incumbents, and to begin to reintroduce the idea that competition from new entrants is important and requires some version of open access and interconnection regulation is a breath of fresh air." The New York Times, But experts warn that the rural broadband effort could just as easily become a $9 billion cyberbridge to nowhere, representing the worst kind of mistakes that lawmakers could make in rushing to approve one of the largest spending bills in history without considering unintended results."

Justices Reject COPA Case

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:38:31 -0500

The New York Times reports, Justices Reject Pornography Law: "Without comment, the court handed down an order declining to take the case of Mukasey v. A.C.L.U., No. 08-565. The administration of former President George W. Bush, through Attorney General Michael Mukasey, had asked the justices to review the law. The American Civil Liberties Union has been a leading foe of the statute." In ACLU v. Mukasey (2008) the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court opinion that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) violates the First and Fifth Amendments because it is not narrowly tailored to advance the Government's compelling interest in protecting children from harmful material on the internet, there are less restrictive and equally effective alternatives (filtering technology) and the statute is impermissibly overbroad and vague. Previously: Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children (June 2008) Pennsylvania Porn Prohibition Pronounced Unconstituional (2004) Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) Ashcroft v. ACLU link roundup (2004)

Isle of Man Proposes ISP Blanket LIcenses

Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:00:41 -0500

Is the Isle of Man, which eschews many of the taxes found in other European states, set to become a leader in levying a compulsory tax on internet use to compensate copyright holders for P2P file sharing? The New York Times reports, Music Industry Imitates Digital Pirates to Turn a Profit, "The government of the Isle of Man announced plans for a system under which consumers with broadband subscriptions would be required to pay a nominal monthly license fee. They could then legally download music from any source, even peer-to-peer services that are outlawed currently." MusicAlly live blogged the session at MidemNet where Rob Berry, from the Isle of Man's government, announced that the Isle of Man would be launching a porposal for a blanket fee for ISP-based music licensing. MidemNet 2009 Liveblog: Music and ISPs debate Ars Technica's Nate Anderson reports, Isle of Man gets unlimited music downloads with blanket fee"Few details are available beyond the news that a single blanket fee will cover unlimited download activity for all 80,000 or so Manx residents, with money to then be shared with the music industry. This raises all the obvious questions that compulsory licenses generate, including the fairness of forcing everyone to pay, whether they want to download files or not." Update, Jan. 20. Coolfer analyzes the BPI response, Isle of Man Proposes Blanket License for Unlimited Downloading. Not What Industry Wants: "What the BPI wants are label-sanctioned services to be bundled with ISP services and hardware. That means more control on the part of the major copyright owners. The Isle of Man's proposal, I imagine, is too 'wild west' for much of the industry."

Miscellany

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:06:57 -0500

WB and Fox Settle Watchmen Dispute. Variety reports, WB, Fox make deal for 'Watchmen': "Warner Bros. gets the right to open its superhero pic on March 6 as planned, and Fox's logo will not be on the film, sources said. Fox, on the other hand, will emerge with an upfront cash payment that sources pegged between $5 million and $10 million, covering reimbursement of $1.4 million the studio invested in development fees, and also millions of dollars in legal fees incurred during the case. More importantly, Fox will get a gross participation in 'Watchmen' that scales between 5% and 8.5%, depending on the film’s worldwide revenues. Fox also participates as a gross player in any sequels and spinoffs, sources said." Can the music industry recover? Stephen Masur has some suggestions for the music industry on how to make money in today's world. Good Music, Conveniently Delivered; The Value Prop Still Ain't There: "Even for lawyers the deals are too complicated and full of cheap tricks. We might be stuck with that for the older artists, but let’s throw it all away for the kids. Ian MacKaye had it right 20 years ago. Pay the artist a straight percentage rate across everything. It’s easy to understand, easy to account, easy to collect. Stop hiding things from artists. Stop lying to your own team. Instead, become their trusted partners in business." Stadium Naming Trends In The New York Times, William Rhoden notes that online educator The University of Phoenix-- which bought the naming rights for the Arizona Cardinals' new stadium for $154 million over 20 years-- doesn't have a sports program of its own, or a campus. Which could be confusing. Sports of The Times - No Football Team, but What a Stadium!: "Exactly where is the University of Phoenix? This is what puzzled me two and a half years ago when I stepped inside the fabulous University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. Was the university a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association or the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics? Did it play in Division I, II or III?" Los Angeles Times, Anaheim ends legal battle over renaming of Angels: "The city had sued after owner Arte Moreno changed that name to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim but lost rounds in Superior Court and state appellate court. The fight cost the city $4 million."

[Headline Redacted]

Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0500

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Appeals released a redacted version of its ruling from August 2008 upholding the constitutionality of a statute authorizing an intelligence program to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a specific court order. In re: Directives [redacted text]* Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (No. 08-01) The court holds that "a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." The New York Times, Intelligence Court Rules Wiretapping Power Legal, "The decision marks the first time since the disclosure of the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program three years ago that an appellate court has addressed the constitutionality of the federal government’s wiretapping powers. In validating the government’s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administration’s repeated assertions that the president has the power to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping that may involve Americans." Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog, Intelligence wiretap power upheld: "In a case that potentially could go to the Supreme Court, a special federal appeals court that operates almost entirely in secret has ruled that Congress did not act unconstitutionally in giving the government power to order telecommunications companies to aid in warrant-less national security wiretapping — eavesdropping mainly aimed overseas, but possibly reaching inside the U.S. and American citizens." David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times, Court calls warrantless wiretapping legal: "The decision confirms what Bush administration officials and some legal experts have long argued. Although the Constitution protects the privacy rights of Americans against 'unreasonable searches and seizures,' this principle does not bar U.S. spy agencies from conducting surveillance aimed at foreign targets abroad." The Washington Post, Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping: "The opinion, written by the court's chief judge, Bruce M. Selya, was extraordinary in several respects: It was partly redacted, and it referred to court pleadings that remain sealed. The ruling also hinged partly on a detailed, secret account by the government to the court of its surveillance procedures in 2007."

Who's Who in Internet and Communications Regulation, 2009

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:07:52 -0500

The Wall Street Journal reports that President-Elect Obama plans to nominate his technology adviser, Julius Genachowski, to chair the FCC. Genachowski Picked to Head FCC - WSJ.com: "During the campaign, Mr. Genachowski served as the top technology adviser to Mr. Obama, putting together a detailed technology and innovation plan that expressed support for open Internet or 'net neutrality' protections; media-ownership rules that encourage more diversity; and expansion of affordable broadband access across the country." Over in Congress, Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) will chair the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet. In the 111th Congress, Rep. Boucher "will oversee the digital television transition and work toward reform of the federal universal service fund, promote broadband deployment and work to enable local governments to offer broadband in communities not fully served by commercial carriers."

Hasbro drops Scrabulous suit

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:30:23 -0500

Earlier this week, the AP reported, Hasbro drops suit over Scrabble-clone Scrabulous: "According to documents filed in U.S. District Court in New York, Hasbro dropped the lawsuit Friday.... The court documents did not specify a reason for the withdrawal of the case." Previously: Scrabbled; Scrabulous-less

This Week in Net Neutrality News

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:00:48 -0500

On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Google, Lawrence Lessig and the incoming Obama administration all revised their position to no longer support a free and open internet, Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web: "Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers." Richard Whitt, Google's Washington Telecom and Media Counsel quickly responded, Net neutrality and the benefits of caching "Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday's Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open." Larry Lessig, The made-up dramas of the Wall Street Journal: "I got off the plane from Boston to find my inbox filled with anger about an article in the Wall Street Journal. To those who were angry, I hope you will direct any anger at the Wall Street Journal after you read what follows." Talking Points Memo asked the Obama transition team about the President-elect's position on net neutrality , Obama Spokesperson: His Commitment To Net Neutrality Hasn't Wavered One Bit: "The Obama transition team is reaffirming his complete commitment to net neutrality and is disputing a much-discussed report today claiming that the President-elect is softening his support for it or shifting his position on it." The program that the WSJ writes about is an "edge-caching" system, where Google co-locates servers at internet service providers, so that there are fewer bottlenecks between the end users and popular data. The caching servers need only download once over the public internet and then redistribute that data multiple times over the faster connections over the "last mile" between the ISP and the end user. This is similar to what Akamai does. It should be considered discrimination if one company is allowed to purchase access to end users while simultaneously purchasing the right to exclude or degrade the transmission of data from other competing publishers. If an ISP offers to co-locate caching servers for Microsoft or Yahoo or Netflix on an equal basis as Google, this should not be considered to violate open internet principles. If instead, an ISP offered the privilege of co-locating caching servers only to one highest bidder, then it would be discriminatory. Does it constitute discriminatory internet service for any publisher to be able to buy more bandwidth than others? Should V.C.R. the video blogger be able to purchase a faster connection than Ed the e-mailer? If Google, Microsoft and Netflix transfer orders of magnitude more of data than Joe the blogger, should an ISP or backbone provider be prohibited from offering discounted bundles of bits to its high volume customers on an equal basis? For Google to pursue competitive advantage for its services is a way to innovate over the open internet. Were Google to pursue these co-locating deals in a way that required its ISP partners to exclude Google's competitors, then that could be considered non-neutral. If Google's traffic between its central servers and edge servers were prioritized over other traffic. More reactions: Ed Felten, Three Flavors of Net Neutrality, "Part of the difficulty in this debate is that 'net neutrality' can mean different things to different people. At least three flavors of 'net neutrality' are identifiable among the Journal's critics." David Isenberg, Bogus WSJ Story on Net Neutrality: "Net Neutrality only becomes an issue when a carrier picks and chooses which cache to supply pipes to." David Isenberg and his commenters discuss the net neutrality implications of some of the permutations of edge caching, What if I were wrong about edge-caching? Timothy Lee, The Journal Misunderstands Content-Delivery Networks: "Unfortunately, the Journal seems to be confused about the contours of the network neutrality debate, and in the process it has mis-described the positions of at least two of the key players in the debate, Google and Lessig. Both were quick to clarify that their views have not changed." Frank Pasquale, Concurring Opinions, Frontiers of Net Neutrality: Recognizing the Bottlenecks: "Today's WSJ article on Google's alleged backsliding on net neutrality has spawned a lot of controversy on the web. Google has articulately defended the practices at issue in the article. But the piece does focus internet policymakers on some basic truths: there are many potential bottlenecks on the internet, and antitrust law alone cannot adequately regulate the power they confer."