The chemist and the institute came together through InnoCentive, a company that links organizations (seekers) with problems (challenges) to people all over the world (solvers) who win cash prizes for resolving them. The company gets a posting fee and, if the problem is solved, a “finders fee” equal to about 40 percent of the prize.
The process, according to John Seely Brown, a theorist of information technology and former director of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, reflects “a huge shift in popular culture, from consuming to participating” enabled by the interactivity so characteristic of the Internet. It is sometimes called open-source science, taking the name from open-source software in which the source code, or original programming, is made public to encourage others to work on improving it.
The approach is catching on. Today, would-be innovators can sign up online to compete for prizes for feats as diverse as landing on the Moon (space.xprize.org/lunar-lander-challenge) and inventing artificial meat (www.peta.org/feat_in_vitro_contest.asp).
In its ruling Tuesday, the federal appeals court concluded that the Child Online Protection Act also violates the First Amendment because filtering technologies and other parental control tools offer a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online. The court also ruled that the law is unconstitutionally overly broad and vague.
The opinion: ACLU v Attorney General of the US. It’s kind of an interesting one, because it is substantially a revisiting of several earlier decisions by this court, (one reversed and one upheld by the Supreme Court), whose parameters for remand, which led to a permanent injunction on COPA, are being challenged by the Government. It leads to this interesting conclusion, suggesting that, no matter how you slice it, it still comes up baloney:
In sum, COPA cannot withstand a strict scrutiny, vagueness, or overbreadth analysis and thus is unconstitutional. We reach our result both through the application of the law-of-the-case doctrine to our determination in ACLU II and on the basis of our independent analysis of COPA and would reach the same result on either basis standing alone. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s March 22, 2007 order.
A violation of the APA forms the grounds for a vacate and remand in CBS v FCC:
The FCC possesses authority to regulate indecent broadcast content, but it had long practiced restraint in exercising this authority. During a span of nearly three decades, the Commission frequently declined to find broadcast programming indecent, its restraint punctuated only by a few occasions where programming contained indecent material so pervasive as to amount to “shock treatment” for the audience. Throughout this period, the Commission consistently explained that isolated or fleeting material did not fall within the scope of actionable indecency.
At the time the Halftime Show was broadcasted by CBS, the FCC’s policy on fleeting material was still in effect. The FCC contends its restrained policy applied only to fleeting utterances – specifically, fleeting expletives – and did not extend to fleeting images. But a review of the Commission’s enforcement history reveals that its policy on fleeting material was never so limited. The FCC’s present distinction between words and images for purposes of determining indecency represents a departure from its prior policy.
Like any agency, the FCC may change its policies without judicial second-guessing. But it cannot change a well established course of action without supplying notice of and a reasoned explanation for its policy departure. Because the FCC failed to satisfy this requirement, we find its new policy arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act as applied to CBS.
[…] In finding CBS liable for a forfeiture penalty, the FCC arbitrarily and capriciously departed from its prior policy excepting fleeting broadcast material from the scope of actionable indecency. Moreover, the FCC cannot impose liability on CBS for the acts of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, independent contractors hired for the limited purposes of the Halftime Show, under a proper application of vicarious liability and in light of the First Amendment requirement that the content of speech or expression not be penalized absent a showing of scienter. And the FCC’s interpretation and application of 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1) are not sufficiently clear to permit review of the agency’s determination of CBS’s direct liability for a forfeiture penalty based on broadcast indecency.
Further action by the Commission would be declaratory in nature, as the agency may not retroactively penalize CBS. […]
With digital distribution of entertainment as the focal point, the TV/film and music industries are embroiled in several disputes between those who create the content and those who distribute it. But while those disputes in Hollywood are well-documented — with powerful unions like the Writers Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild staging high-profile negotiations and, in some cases, strikes — the perception in the music industry is that artists are largely left to themselves to fight for whatever they can get on their own.
[…] To date, the bulk of artist-label disputes have centered on details contained in individual contracts, leaving artists with few options to engage their union for support.
[…] Take the revenue split for digital downloads. The standard practice is that labels pay artists the same cut they get under their contract for CD sales — around 15% after recoupable costs. However, many artists, managers and their lawyers argue digital sales should be treated as a third-party license, in which case they would get 50% of digital revenue.
“Every artist contract is an individual situation, and the labels use that to their advantage,” says Perry Resnick, a business manager with RZO, which represents David Bowie. “Labels haven’t budged on this issue at all . . . I can’t think of any way to address it other than through the courts.”
That’s exactly what’s happening. Sony BMG is facing a class action lawsuit initiated by the Allman Brothers Band and Cheap Trick over this issue for digital downloads and ringtones, and Universal Music Group faces a non-class status suit by some artists regarding a similar issue.
According to AFTRA national executive director Kim Roberts Hedgpeth, the unions have stayed out of that particular fight because they wanted to let the legal process take its course. However, she expects unions will take a much larger role in the near future.
It was suggested that TPP set up a Facebook page as a part of our student recruiting strategy, so I decided I’d better get a look at the platform by joining. It’s still something of a mystery to me what it’s all about, but this Reuters article certainly illustrates one key feature of modern life that a lot of folks still haven’t managed to grasp: Web networking photos come back to bite defendants (pdf)
Two weeks after Joshua Lipton was charged in a drunken driving crash that seriously injured a woman, the 20-year-old college junior attended a Halloween party dressed as a prisoner. Pictures from the party showed him in a black-and-white striped shirt and an orange jumpsuit labeled “Jail Bird.”
In the age of the Internet, it might not be hard to guess what happened to those pictures: Someone posted them on the social networking site Facebook. And that offered remarkable evidence for Jay Sullivan, the prosecutor handling Liptons drunken-driving case.
Sullivan used the pictures to paint Lipton as an unrepentant partier who lived it up while his victim recovered in the hospital. A judge agreed, calling the pictures depraved when sentencing Lipton to two years in prison.
See, stupidity *is* a criminal offense!
I recently finished this remake/reframing of 1984 that touches on exactly this theme: Blind Faith by Ben Elton – I picked it up when transiting Heathrow a couple of weeks ago. The premise is that, while in 1984 the primary crime against the State was “thoughtcrime,” Elton paints a comparable world where “privacy” is the worst crime one can commit. What’s so awful about reading this entertainingly written (albeit still pulp) fiction is that you can see the kernels of this possible trend all around you.
Later: Another Facebooker looks at its use — Hey, Friend, Do I Know You?
The year was 1974: gas prices were high, inflation was rampant and an unpopular Republican occupied the White House. McDonald’s introduced a spirit-lifting jingle: “Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame-seed bun.”
Now it is 2008, and McDonald’s is reviving it as a TV commercial. The company has asked consumers to write their own songs using the exact words of the jingle, and submit them to a contest on MySpace.com. The official reason is this year’s 40th anniversary of the Big Mac, but the then-and-now cultural similarities are not entirely lost on the company.
[…] But today the McDonald’s channel of choice is a social networking site geared to people who were not yet born in 1974. Nevertheless, nearly 1,000 songs have been submitted, and judges have selected five finalists. The public has been invited to vote, and a winner will be announced Tuesday. In keeping with the tone of today’s economy, the winner won’t get any cash, but his or her song will be featured in a commercial later this month.
Mattel Inc., maker of the Barbie doll, won a jury verdict concluding a former employee made original drawings of MGA Entertainment Inc.’s Bratz dolls while working at Mattel.
A federal jury in Riverside, Calif., agreed yesterday that designer Carter Bryant made most of the first sketches of the pouty Bratz characters while he was employed by Mattel in 1999 and 2000. The verdict might clear the way for Mattel to seek damages for copyright infringement.
Faced with soaring prices for textbooks, cash-strapped students have discovered a tempting, effective, but illicit alternative – pirated electronic books, available for free over the Internet.
“We think its a significant problem,” said William Sampson, manager of infringement and antipiracy at Cengage Learning Inc., a reference book publisher in Farmington Hills, Mich. Sampson said that in any given month, 200 to 300 of the companys titles are posted illegally as free Internet downloads. Distributing books for free without permission violates copyright laws and deprives publishers of revenue.
Its not just textbooks that are being downloaded improperly. Ed McCoyd, director of digital policy at the Association of American Publishers in New York, said a survey in May located about 1,100 titles available illegally online, including novels and books on current events.
But textbook piracy is particularly seductive, McCoyd said, because students are often hard-pressed to pay for academic books that can cost more than $100, three times the price of most other books.
An Internet provider based in Kansas used a monitoring technology earlier this year to track sites visited by its users, apparently without directly notifying them, according to a congressional panel investigating the action.
Embarq, which serves 1.3 million Internet customers in 18 states, including Virginia, acknowledged that it used “deep packet inspection” technology provided by the Silicon Valley firm NebuAd to direct targeted advertising to users.
Some lawmakers and others question whether such actions violate users’ rights to keep their Internet behavior to themselves. The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet will take up the subject at a hearing today.
MASSACHUSETTS residents are on the verge of losing a fundamental protection from government spying if the Legislature and governor approve a bill to give prosecutors the power to seize Internet, telephone, and electronic communications records – without judicial oversight and without notifying a citizen they have done so.
The attorney general and district attorneys have attached their power grab to a bill aimed at increasing sentences for sex offenders, which is named “An Act to Further Protect Children” or “Jessica’s Law.” However, the power that they seek isn’t limited to investigations of suspected sex offenders or child abuse cases. It is a general grant of unchecked power to district attorneys and the attorney general that can be used against all of us.
The provision would enable prosecutors to acquire private records from the Internet and other communications providers merely by issuing an “administrative subpoena” – a demand letter – without telling a person that those records are being sought. Local district attorneys and the attorney general would need only “reasonable grounds” to believe that the records were “relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation” – which is a low standard.
All we can hope is that them members of this legislature aren’t as tainted by criminality as Congress has been alluded to be (See Glenn Greenwald’s musings on the topic).
This bill merely updates the law in order to provide law enforcement with the critical tools necessary to keep pace with technology and investigate various computer crimes such as child pornography and on-line threats, without disrupting the privacy of citizens who use the Internet. I commend the Legislature for giving law enforcement the tools necessary to fight crime in a high-tech age.
SECTION 3. Chapter 271 of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out section 17B, as so appearing, and inserting in place thereof following section:-
Section 17B. Except as otherwise prohibited under section 2703 of Title 18 of the United States Code, whenever the attorney general or a district attorney has reasonable grounds to believe that records [emphasis added] in the possession of (i) a common carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the department of telecommunications and energy, as defined in paragraph (d) of section 12 of chapter 159; or (ii) a provider of electronic communication service as defined in subparagraph (15) of section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code; or (iii) a provider of remote computing service as defined in section 2711 of Title 18 of the United States Code, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation, the attorney general or district attorney may issue an administrative subpoena demanding all such records [emphasis added] in the possession of such common carrier or service, and such records shall be delivered to the attorney general or district attorney within 14 days of receipt of the subpoena. No such common carrier or service, or employee thereof shall be civilly or criminally responsible for furnishing any records or information in compliance with such demand. Nothing in this section shall limit the right of the attorney general or a district attorney otherwise to obtain records from such a common carrier or service pursuant to a search warrant, a court order or a grand jury or trial subpoena.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a subpoena issued pursuant to this section shall not be used to obtain records disclosing the content of electronic communications [emphasis added], or subscriber account records disclosing internet locations which have been accessed including, but not limited to, websites, chat channels and newsgroups, but excluding servers used to initially access the internet. Nor shall the recipient of such a subpoena provide any such records accessed, in response to such a subpoena.
So, although it is threatening, Ms. Coakley’s assertion that the bill does not empower the collection of content, only traffic records, is correct. So, maybe I’ll vote for her again.