New Anti-SOPA Song & Crowdsourced Video From Dan Bull

Anti-Statism, Education, IP Law, Police Statism, Pop Culture

By Stephan Kinsella / December 20, 2011 / 4 minutes of reading

I noted previously a brilliant music video, “Death of ACTA,” by Dan Bull. (More on ACTA, which has unfortunately now been signed by several countries.) Now he’s back with a new one, in a very creative attempt to fight the evil Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. As Mike Masnick notes in this Techdirt post (see below),

Perhaps even more interesting, however, is how the song and video came together. After deciding he wanted to write a song about SOPA, he reached out to his followers on Twitter, asking for “help with themes and lyrics.” After getting a bunch of ideas, and realizing he should do something different for the video, he went on Facebook and asked for volunteers to take photos of themselves holding up signs with the various lyrics… and tons and tons of people jumped at the chance. The whole video was put together over the last few hours, and the whole effort is pretty impressive.

Incidentally, Leo Laporte, host of TWiT, and Denise Howell, host of TWiT’s This Week in Law, in recent episodes have been heroic in opposing SOPA. In the most recent TWiT show, Laporte makes a strong argument in favor of Internet freedom and against limiting it in the name of copyright, in contradistinction to Nilay Patel, who takes a more mainstream and confused “balancing” approach. And in a recent episode of TWiL, where most of the commentators and guests tend to be anti-SOPA, lawyer Marty Schwimmer was invited on to defend the need for SOPA or something like it; Howell admirably dissents.

[C4SIF]

Here’s Masnick’s post:

New Anti-SOPA Song & Crowdsourced Video From Dan Bull

from the sopa-can-ban-ya dept

We’ve written about UK singer Dan Bull a bunch of times, highlighting his various songs that often cover copyright issues. His latest is an anti-SOPA song and video, called SOPA Cabana (take a wild guess what that’s a reference to). Check out the video here first, and read on below about the video and why it’s interesting (beyond the music/lyrics):

First of all, what strikes me as most interesting about this is that Dan’s not in the US, but the UK. But he recognizes how this law being debated in the US can have a significant and dangerous impact around the world. In talking about his reasons for doing a song about SOPA, Dan noted that “SOPA is abhorrent on three fronts:”

Firstly, it threatens the future of the internet, which is something far more valuable both commercially and socially than the entertainment industry ever has been, or ever will be.

Secondly, creativity is all about interpreting and re-imagining what you see and hear around you. The idea that creativity exists in some kind of vacuum, and that you’re not a real artist unless you can make something “completely original” is not only stupid, it contradicts the most fundamental axioms of how the universe works. Everything is influenced by something else. If we want a richer cultural landscape, we should embrace remixes, embrace mashups, and embrace sharing, not cling to ideas as pieces of property.

Thirdly, the internet is an amazing new forum for free speech and holding those in power us to account. The idea that governments and even private corporations can police the internet and decide what people on a global scale are allowed to say and hear is tyrannical.

Perhaps even more interesting, however, is how the song and video came together. After deciding he wanted to write a song about SOPA, he reached out to his followers on Twitter, asking for “help with themes and lyrics.” After getting a bunch of ideas, and realizing he should do something different for the video, he went on Facebook and asked for volunteers to take photos of themselves holding up signs with the various lyrics… and tons and tons of people jumped at the chance. The whole video was put together over the last few hours, and the whole effort is pretty impressive.

Dan Bull is a musician. The entertainment industry and the lobbyists supporting SOPA insist that they’re doing this to protect people like Dan Bull — but Dan is quite reasonably scared of what this law will do to his ability to succeed online. Dan Bull is as well known as he is because of the internet, and his ability to share his works wherever and however he likes. SOPA would make that a lot more difficult. It doesn’t “protect” Dan Bull. It helps destroy the careers of folks like Dan Bull by limiting their ability to create, promote, distribute and communicate.

New Anti-SOPA Song & Crowdsourced Video From Dan Bull Read Post »

The evil SOPA is dead …. for now…. [Update: or not…]

Anti-Statism, IP Law, Police Statism, Protectionism, Technology

By Stephan Kinsella / December 16, 2011 / 2 minutes of reading

Update, from Masnick’s post below: “Update…. Or not. Despite the fact that Congress was supposed to be out of session until the end of January, the Judiciary Committee has just announced plans to come back to continue the markup this coming Wednesday. This is rather unusual and totally unnecessary. But it shows just how desperate Hollywood is to pass this bill as quickly as possible, before the momentum of opposition builds up even further.”

Great news!! As noted on Techdirt: SOPA Markup Runs Out Of Time; Likely Delayed Until 2012.

Carrier IQ’s attempt to employ copyright censorship backfires

Business, IP Law, Podcasts, Technology

By Stephan Kinsella / December 7, 2011 / 3 minutes of reading

As discussed in the Techcrunch post Android Researcher Hit With C&D After Dissecting Monitoring Software, Android security researcher Trevor Eckhart posted about the mobile tracking software from a company called Carrier IQ. As explained in the Techcrunch post:

Carrier IQ pitches themselves as the “leading provider of mobile service intelligence solutions,” and provides their services to a number of players in the mobile space. The company’s main U.S. carrier partner is Sprint, and Eckhart claims that their tracking software appears on Android devices from HTC and Samsung among others.

According to Eckhart’s research, Carrier IQ is capable of monitoring everything from where the phone is to what apps are installed, and even which keys are being pressed. Carrier IQ says that the information is collected to give carriers insight into how the mobile use experience can be improved. It sounds like a noble enough goal, except Eckhart found that the software could run without the user’s knowledge or consent as was the case with the HTC phones he tested.

Carrier IQ’s general counsel then fired off a vicious cease-and-desist letter [PDF] against Eckhart, “claiming that he committed copyright infringement by reproducing some of the company’s training materials in his post and that he made ‘false allegations’ about the nature of their software.” In other words, Carrier IQ was trying to squelch criticism of it by using copyright law to censor its critic. These tactics are one reason I not only despise copyright, but that I have begun to really detest what the legal profession has become: a bunch of arrogant bullies. The C&D letter is outrageous: it gave Eckhart two days to commit to all kinds of groveling, making a public apology, replacing his original blog post with one written by Carrier IQ, and so on. While threatening him with tens of thousands of dollars of damages, if not more, with some dubious claims, as discussed in a recent episode of This Week in Law. For example, according to some of the legal pundits on TWiL, the statutory damages and attorneys’ fees threatened are available only for a registered copyright work, and the material in question did not appear to have been registered. Further, Ekhard would probably have a fair use defense (as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argues as well).

In any case, after its threats was noticed and blogged and tweeted about on the Internet, and after Eckhart bravely contacted the EFF for help instead of backing down, Carrier IQ realized what a PR disaster its threats had created, and their CEO retracted their C&D and publicly apologized to the developer. (See Techcrunch’s post Carrier IQ Retracts Their C&D, Apologizes To The Android Researcher They Hassled.) From the release:

As, of today, we are withdrawing our cease and desist letter to Mr. Trevor Eckhart. We have reached out to Mr. Eckhart and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to apologize. Our action was misguided and we are deeply sorry for any concern or trouble that our letter may have caused Mr. Eckhart. We sincerely appreciate and respect EFF’s work on his behalf, and share their commitment to protecting free speech in a rapidly changing technological world.

The full text of the release is below. The EFF was truly heroic here (see Eckhart’s post Why I love the EFF; and EFF’s post Carrier IQ Tries to Censor Research With Baseless Legal Threat).

[c4sif]

Carrier IQ’s attempt to employ copyright censorship backfires Read Post »

Down with Gatekeepers: Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration vs. Internet Freedom

Anti-Statism, Corporatism, Education, IP Law, Police Statism, Technology, Totalitarianism

By Stephan Kinsella / December 6, 2011 / 1 Comment / 4 minutes of reading

Last year, in Hillary Clinton’s Historic Speech on Global Internet Freedom, Adam Thierer praised Hillary Clinton for a speech drawing

a bold line in the cyber-sand regarding exactly where the United States stands on global online freedom. Clinton’s answer was unequivocal: “Both the American people and nations that censor the Internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote Internet freedom.” “The Internet can serve as a great equalizer,” she argued. “By providing people with access to knowledge and potential markets, networks can create opportunities where none exist.”

But of course this is a complete sham. The fedgov and the Obama administration may not like it when other oppressive regimes restrict their own subjects’ access to technology, when this is contrary the American state’s geopolitical “interests,” but the cekatS¹ is not at all in favor of Internet freedom. Witness the relentless push to keep increasing copyright law and its insidious effect on Internet freedom. Thus, Obama signed the horrible ACTA (probably unconstitutionally),² and his administration is also: using other trade agreements to export the draconian DMCA-type copyright provisions to other countries;³ and has proposed to expand “tough” enforcement of copyright, including wiretaps⁴ and other legislation to curb “piracy” on the Internet.⁵ And it’s why

U.S. Copyright Czar and Obama administration officials secretly cooperate with Hollywood, recording industry and ISPs to disrupt internet access for users suspected of violating copyright law … Obama administration’s cozy relationship with Hollywood and the music industry’s lobbying arms and its early support for the copyright-violation crackdown system publicly announced in July.⁶

And it’s why we have the looming threat of SOPA,⁷ which endangers Internet freedom, which, as I’ve noted before, is one of the most important tools available in the fight against the state.⁸ And it’s why the cekatS wants to control and restrict it. And it’s doing so, cleverly if perversely, in the name of (intellectual) “property rights” and fighting “piracy”. And who can doubt Obama will sign SOPA if Congress puts it on his desk? (Even though Vice-Thug and IP Poobah Biden hypocritcally spoke out against SOPA type provisions recently.)

And it’s why the Obama administration has seized websites to censor Wikileaks. And ICE has seized hundreds of domains in the name of stopping piracy and at the behest of the MPAA, in addition to other ICE domain seizures in the name of stopping child pornography (“Operation Protect Our Children“–What do you mean “our,” kemosabe?).

No one can seriously think that the central state, or the Obama administration, is in favor of Internet freedom.

As for Hillary Clinton’s lies and claims to be for global Internet freedom despite being part of an administration hell bent on destroying it, her true views were revealed long ago, in 1998 in the wake of the Drudge Report breaking the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal, in response to a question by reporters Hillary Clinton was asked by reporters whether she favored curbs on the Internet. Her response:
“We’re all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function…”⁹ And, as Thierer notes in his piece, Hillary Clinton also said “We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with [the Internet], because there are all these competing values. Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?” Note here how IP (reputation rights are a type of IP) is once more at the root of the threat to the Internet (one reason I have concluded that copyright is even worse than patent). Of course the political elites–the real 1%–and the Big Media they are in cahoots with, hate the lack of the official “gatekeeper” function. They hate the Internet, social media, talk radio, podcasting, cell phones, twitter, and video cameras.

Update: see Democrats and “Internet Freedom”.

Bill Stepp’s acronymous term for the state: cekatS = “criminal entity known as the State.” Other funny ones are “conjob” for Constitution, and “crookopolies” for monopolies. ↩
ACTA, Executive Agreements, and the Bricker Amendment. ↩
Free-trade pacts export U.S. copyright controls. ↩
Copyright Enforcement, Now Featuring Wiretaps! ↩
White House will propose new digital copyright laws. ↩
Wired article, U.S. Copyright Czar Cozied Up to Content Industry, E-Mails Show. ↩
Die, SOPA, Die. ↩
The Ominous PROTECT IP Act and the End of Internet Freedom; Patent vs. Copyright: Which is Worse?; Internet Access as a Human Right. ↩
Quoted in Government Gatekeepers Come After the Internet; see also No Gatekeepers; Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Understand The Constitution. ↩

Down with Gatekeepers: Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration vs. Internet Freedom Read Post »

Putting the Highway in Information Superhighway

Podcast Picks, Technology

By Robert Wicks / December 3, 2010 / 2 minutes of reading

In a recent episode of This Week in Google, Jeff Jarvis, with some support from Leo Laporte, suggested that perhaps, given the incredible importance of the Internet, it should be treated like the highway system, with the government paying companies to build it out, but having state guaranteed access. I enjoy listening to TWIG, and many other programs on the TWIT network, but this idea immediately made me think of an old SNL skit:

Compared to turning the Internet into something like the highway system, the ideas in that clip are absolute genius. Consider what the government routinely does on the highway:

It limits speed, sometimes in opposition to highway engineers’ opinions
It sends out patrols searching for contraband
It claims the right to stop and inspect travelers’ cars based on the judgment of the police officer (probable cause)
It levies taxes on machines which use the highways, above and beyond the taxes it already collects on the purchase
It licenses users, charging them for the right to drive, on top of the taxes it already levies on the sales of vehicles and license plates
It mandates insurance, corrupting the insurance industry and incentivizing them to support government policies and donate to political campaigns
It forbids the use of technology to hide the interior of the car (window tinting laws) as well as technology to avoid speeding tickets (bans on radar jammers and detectors)

Turning the Internet into something like the highway system would mean government inspecting Internet traffic, blocking it, or even arresting users for things like copyright violations, setting policies on how traffic is prioritized, banning encryption except for approved encryption which the government can decrypt at will, taxing users for the right to use the Internet, and mandating the purchase of security programs. It is hard to imagine a finer example of a Bad Idea.

Putting the Highway in Information Superhighway Read Post »