A Bug in Early Creative Commons Licenses Has Enabled a New Breed of Superpredator

Copyleft trolls, robosigning, and Pixsy.

A hand on a multibutton mouse, the body behind it is blurred and out-of-focus; a larger “DANGER” label in red, white and black, has been superimposed over it. Nenad Stojkovic (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hand_on_the_computer_mouse_-_50202556601.jpg CC BY 2.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

Here’s a supreme irony: the Creative Commons licenses were invented to enable a culture of legally safe sharing, spurred by the legal terror campaign waged by the entertainment industry, led by a literal criminal predator who is now in prison for sex crimes.

But because of a small oversight in old versions of the licenses created 12 years ago, a new generation of legal predator has emerged to wage a new campaign of legal terror.

To make matters worse, this new kind of predator specifically targets people who operate in good faith, only using materials that they explicitly have been given permission to use.

What a mess.

Continue reading "A Bug in Early Creative Commons Licenses Has Enabled a New Breed of Superpredator"

The Internet Heist (Part III)

We are family

The anti-piracy “You Wouldn’t Steal A Car” title-card, modified to read “You Wouldn’t Steal the Future.”
FACT (modified)

Note: This is Part III in a series; Part I is here, Part II is here.

Even today, I can’t tell if the entertainment execs and their tech collaborators that I sparred with in the DRM wars were brilliant schemers or overconfident fools.

When these men — almost all men — set out to create laws that would give their corporations a collective veto over which programs all computers could run, and which real-world data could be captured by computers, were they really doing it all for the sake of controlling how we watch TV? Or did they grasp just how this power over our digital tools would translate into control over our lives in an increasingly digital era?

I still don’t know. It’s easy to believe in unlimited corporate hubris, but it’s just as easy to believe in unlimited corporate foolishness. What’s more, it’s possible that some of the players were along for the ride, while others had a very precise understanding of the stakes.

What were those stakes?

Well, for starters, how about the definition of “the family.”

Continue reading "The Internet Heist (Part III)"

Pluralistic: 10 Jan 2022


Today's links

Continue reading "Pluralistic: 10 Jan 2022"

The Internet Heist (Part II)

From broadcast flags to the analog hole

The anti-piracy “You Wouldn’t Steal A Car” title-card, modified to read “You Wouldn’t Steal the Future.”
FACT (modified)

Note: This is Part II in a series; Part I is here, Part III is here.

Last week, I began the story of the Broadcast Flag, a law that would make it illegal to build a general-purpose computer unless it conformed to a set of privately negotiated restrictions. The law had been promised by Billy Tauzin, then a lavishly corrupt Congressman, and its contours were being hammered out in an inter-industry body called the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG), convened by the MPAA and attended by movie studios, TV studios, broadcasters, consumer electronics companies, and PC companies.

Continue reading "The Internet Heist (Part II)"

Pluralistic: 07 Jan 2022


Today's links

Continue reading "Pluralistic: 07 Jan 2022"

Pluralistic: 04 Jan 2022


Today's links

Continue reading "Pluralistic: 04 Jan 2022"

Pluralistic: 03 Jan 2022


Today's links

Continue reading "Pluralistic: 03 Jan 2022"

The Internet Heist (Part I)

The early days of the war to control the future

The anti-piracy “You Wouldn’t Steal A Car” title-card, modified to read “You Wouldn’t Steal the Future.”
FACT (modified)

Note: This is Part I in a series; Part II is here, Part III is here

“A polite marketplace.”

That’s what the movie studio executive said he wanted to create.

It was my first day at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. One of our supporters had been at the National Association of Broadcasters show in Las Vegas the week before; coming back through the Convention Center late at night, he stumbled on an “open meeting” being held by the Motion Picture Association of America’s Copy Protection Technical Working Group. It was an “open meeting” in the sense that anyone who knew about it was welcome to attend, but they didn’t actually tell anyone it was happening, and they held it in the dead of night.

On the spur of the moment, that supporter decided to attend. What he heard was genuinely bizarre, and would have been absurd if it wasn’t so alarming.

That dead-of-night NAB meeting’s purpose was to announce the formation of a new interindustry consortium: the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG), which would hold its inaugural “open meeting” the following week, at an LAX airport hotel that would be convenient for tech reps who flew in from Silicon Valley and for studio and TV reps based in LA.

BPDG’s purpose? To steal the future.

Continue reading "The Internet Heist (Part I)"

Nonstandard Measures

‘Stay Down’ rules reinforce monopoly and do nothing to put money in working creators’ pockets

A trio of sinister black robots on a black background; their eyes and the rollers on their tank-treads are circle-c copyright symbols. The front-and-center robot has a chest display that reads 'STAY DOWN.'

The U.S. Copyright Office has issued a Notice of Inquiry, seeking comment on whether online services should be legally required to filter all their users’ communications to block copyright infringement, as part of a “Stay Down” system.

The idea is that once a copyright holder notifies a service provider that a certain work can’t be legally posted, the service must filter all their user communications thereafter to ensure that this notice is honored.

I think that creators and creators’ groups should oppose this. Here’s why.

The “standard measures” being discussed are not standard. Indeed, they’re largely found in just two companies: Google (through its Content ID system for YouTube) and Meta/Facebook. There’s a reason only two companies have these filters: They are incredibly expensive. Content ID has cost $100,000,000 and counting (and it only does a tiny fraction of what is contemplated in the proposed rule).

That effectively cements Googbook as the permanent rulers of the internet, since they are the only two social media companies that can afford this stuff.

A nearly identical proposal to this one — Article 13 of the Copyright Directive, since renumbered to Article 17 — went through the EU Parliament in 2019, and both Facebook and YouTube came out in favor of it. They understand that this is a small price to pay for permanently excluding all competitors from the internet.

(It’s worth noting that actually implementing Article 17 with automated filters is likely a violation of both the e-Commerce Directive and the GDPR, both of which ban automated judgements of user communications without explicit opt-in and consent, and there’s every chance that Article 17 will not survive a constitutional challenge in the European Court of Justice.)

Now, some people may be thinking, why should I care if Googbook get to take over the internet, so long as they’re forced to police my copyrights?

I think those people are going to be very disappointed, for three reasons:

Continue reading "Nonstandard Measures"