Home / techdirt.com rss archive / September-21-2007


The Pirate Bay To Sue Entertainment Companies For Attacks
Well, this could get interesting. Following the leak of MediaDefender's emails, the folks behind The Pirate Bay now believe they have enough evidence to sue many major entertainment firms for "infrastructural sabotage, denial of service attacks, hacking and spamming." Basically, there's evidence in the emails that a bunch of firms, including Universal, EMI, Sony, Paramount and others were using MediaDefender to try to mess with The Pirate Bay's system. Whether or not the lawsuit actually goes anywhere may depend on a lot of factors (including Swedish laws, which I am totally unfamiliar with). There may be some questions about how the emails in question were obtained. And, of course, the entertainment companies will likely counter that they were just trying to protect their own materials -- which could find a sympathetic ear in a courtroom. Either way it would be quite a lawsuit.

Australian Web Censorship Continues Down The Slippery Slope
The Australian government has had a long and storied history of trying to block porn on the Internet. But, this Thursday, a bill was introduced in Australia that would take this censorship even further. The bill would allow the federal police to alter the blacklist of sites currently controlled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. With this, the federal police are empowered to blacklist any site that "encourages, incites or induces," "facilitate(s)" or "has, or is likely to have, the effect of facilitating" a crime. This brush is incredibly broad, and without proper checks and balances, it seems likely to be abused. Australian Police would be able to block any site they don't like, and claim that it is "likely" to facilitate crime. Australia's censorship trip down a very slippery slope takes a big second step here. First porn, now "criminal" sites. With this power, Australia is but a tiny step away from censoring valid free speech. Maybe Australia...

Boston Police Still Calling Random Light-Up Devices 'Hoax' Bombs
Earlier this year, a Cartoon Network marketing promotion became a huge story in the city of Boston when police assumed that some promotional light-up boxes were actually bombs. Rather than admit that they made a mistake and overreacted, the authorities in Boston continued to accuse the folks behind the promotion of perpetrating a "hoax" on the city. Of course, a hoax is where you try and trick people. None of the folks involved in the promotion were trying to trick anyone into believing the promotional devices were bombs. They were simply promotional. However, Boston still seems to be focused on calling any electronics device they don't understand a hoax device. The latest situation involves an MIT student wearing a sweatshirt that included a homemade electrical component that would light up LEDs on the sweatshirt. It's certainly understandable that security would want to check out the device and understand it. It's even somewhat understandable that they would be quite...

Ah, So Now Intel Says 2008 Is The Year For WiMax
Intel has been hyping up WiMax for ages, to the point that many people (including reporters) believed it existed when didn't. In fact, Intel even declared WiMax a proven success before it existed. Now that's marketing! While there's a decent chance that WiMax will eventually be successful, it's reached the point that we have a hard time believing anything Intel has to say about the technology. So, when they come out and say something like 2008 will be the year for WiMax consider us skeptical. The good news is that we're not the only ones. That Wired article is written by Bryan Gardiner who expresses his skepticism and quotes some WiMax skeptics and points to Intel's earlier overstated claims on the technology. Either way, the idea that 2008 will be the year for WiMax simply reminds me of the fact that some wireless company or analyst firm seems to have declared every year since 2003 the year for "3G wireless." Now that we're moving on to what some people consider "4G,"...

Lawsuit Tests The Legal Status Of The GPL
On Wednesday, the Software Freedom Law Center filed a lawsuit to enforce the GPL against a company that has been distributing GPL-derived software without disclosing the source code, as the GPL requires. The SFLC says this is the first US copyright infringement lawsuit it has ever filed for infringement of the GPL. Traditionally, SFLC head Eben Moglen has worked to settle disputes with companies without going to court. But in this case the lawsuit was filed less than a month after SFLC first contacted the defendant, Monsoon Multimedia, about its violation of the license. Luis Villa suggests a couple of possible reasons they moved so quickly. One is that Monsoon failed to respond to the SFLC's letters, leaving them little choice but to go to court. Another factor is the recent Jacobsen decision, which called into question the enforceability of open source software licenses. The SFLC may have felt its chances of winning on appeal were not as good with the Jacobsen case, which...

The Ongoing Blind Belief In Mobile Broadcast TV
For years the big research companies have been putting out report after report after report claiming that mobile broadcast TV is going to be a huge moneymaker. However, there seems to be almost no real evidence to support this. In the 80s there was an attempt at mobile TV that went nowhere. Yet, the studies keep coming. The latest is from Juniper Research predicting that mobile-broadcast TV services will be a $6.6 billion market by the year 2012, which is very soon for a market that there are still a ton of questions around. This isn't to say that mobile video isn't an interesting service, but it's difficult to believe that the market for broadcast style TV is one that many people would ever pay for. There are many reasons why. First off, mobile users are quite often "on the go," meaning that they don't necessarily have the time or inclination to be watching broadcast TV programs. Instead, they're more likely to want to do mobile specific things -- short clip videos...

Apple Tries To Point Out How Little Burst's Patents Matter
You may recall the story of Burst.com, a startup that had come up with some video streaming technology that they later claimed Microsoft copied. While many people still feel that Burst's patents are of questionable validity, there did appear to be evidence of questionable activity by Microsoft, so it was hardly surprising that Microsoft eventually settled the case for $60 million. That payoff then turned Burst onto the wonders of suing for patent infringement, and they started approaching plenty of other companies who were doing things with multimedia content. After threatening Apple, Apple went on the offensive and sued to have Burst's patents invalidated (or to, at least have a court say that Apple wasn't infringing). In response, Burst quickly sued Apple right back for patent infringement.Apple is now asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit (via MacWorld), though the strategy they're using seems a bit odd. They're focused on Burst's claims that its patents are central...

Fired For Using eBay At Work
There have been a bunch of bogus stories over the years (usually placed by companies that sell internet filters) about the productivity losses of personal surfing at work. However, other studies have shown that personal surfing tends not to be a problem for most people. It helps ease the work-life balance that has all too often created a situation where "work" interrupts "life." Thus, it seems only fair for "life" to occasionally show up at "work." In fact, one study showed that people who do personal surfing at work tend to make it up either by being more productive or putting in extra work time from home. The key, really, is to look at whether or not the person is getting their job done. If they're able to get the job done, then does it really matter if they spend some excess time surfing? Over in the UK, there's a story about nine office workers who were fired after it was discovered that they had spent up to two hours a day on eBay. That seems like quite a bit (though...

Creative Commons (And Virgin) Sued For Teen's Photo Being Used In Ad Campaign
Stack writes in to let us know that the family of a teenager in Texas has sued Creative Commons, Virgin Mobile Australia and Virgin Mobile USA because Virgin Mobile Australia happened to use a photo of the girl in an ad campaign in Australia. The photo had been taken by the girl's youth counselor, who posted it on Flickr, with a Creative Commons license saying the photo could be used with attribution (the ad apparently includes the Flickr URL, so it appears to be following the terms). There are some bizarre parts to the story. It's not clear why they're suing Creative Commons, since the photographer (who is apparently suing as well) chose the license in question. If he didn't want to have the photo used, he shouldn't have picked a CC license (or should have picked a more restrictive CC license). It's certainly ridiculous to then blame CC because the guy didn't know what kind of license he was choosing or how it could be used. In fact, the original photo is still using...

Patent Reform Is Only Bad For Startups Who Rely On Patent Law
There are some news reports coming out about "small inventors" and "startups" coming out against patent reform, but when you read between the lines, that's not what's happening at all. What's happening is that a few entrepreneurs who have relied heavily on patents as part of their business model are coming out against patents. That's not surprising. After all, this form of government protectionism did help them. However, that does not mean that it's good for society or promoting innovation overall (which is the purpose of the patent system). There is no single view from startups. If a startup's business model is going to rely on patents, then obviously they'll want stronger patent protection. However, plenty of startups these days don't rely on patent protections, and focus on other types of business models instead. For them, patents are a real worry -- because even as they innovate, they always need to be wary of some no-name, no-product company suddenly suing them...

Perhaps Up North 'Unlimited' Means Something Different Than It Does Here
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a connectivity provider limiting how people use their connectivity -- as long as it's clearly laid out in how they pitch the service. Unfortunately, too many of these services advertise "unlimited" service, but mean the exact opposite. In the US, Verizon Wireless used to do this. When confronted on it, they tried to doubletalk their way around the issue, claiming that it was "unlimited data for limited types of data" (read that phrase a few times). However, eventually, Verizon Wireless realized how ridiculous this was and started to back off the claims of unlimited data. Unfortunately, that sort of thinking hasn't reached the folks at Bell Canada, who are apparently advertising an unlimited service, while hiding an awful lot of "limits" within the terms of service. Again, there's nothing wrong with them deciding they need to limit the service -- but if they're going to do so, they shouldn't be advertising it as unlimited. It's amazing...