The Tyranny of Copyright?

            A loose organization of reformers, mostly lawyers and professors at the nation’s top universities, known as the Copy Left are working to reform Copyright Law in the Internet age that they argue hinders the spread of culture and the growth of creativity.  According to the Copy Left, the extension of copyright laws over the years has slowed down the growth of public domain material, which is “essential” in order to allow new ideas to be made through the borrowing and using of past ideas to lend toward new ideas.

            Many believe that copyright laws were intended to simply bolster creativity through protecting creative ideas for a limited time, making it necessary for people to continue to create new works over time in order to maintain possession of new copyrights.  The extensions of the length of time that material is protected has made it so that people may benefit from their creative works for a longer time, reducing the need to create.

            In the most recent years, copyright law has grown to make it so that material does not have to be formally registered for it to be protected.  Copyright laws created in 1976 defined material as “copyrighted the moment it was ‘fixed in a tangible medium.’”  This is why the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was able to be applied to a case following the 2000 presidential election in which Diebold Election Systems, the largest maker of electronic voting machines in the country, demanded the removal of e-mails obtained by students of Swarthmore from their website on the school’s server.  The e-mails contained information about weaknesses in the software that hackers may easily take advantage of.  The students saw it as a form of whistle-blowing, but Diebold, using the restrictive parameters of the DMCA, was able to have the material removed without going through the legal steps that were so important to making such decisions in the past.

            Opponents to the Copy Left are sympathizers with the “romantic notion of authorship.”  They also believe that culture is a market in which everything of value should be owned by somebody.  Because copyright arises from creating a work, the author has a moral claim that can’t be claimed by either corporations or consumers.  Lastly, the argument that the iTunes store model for distributing material is the most effective in building the culture because it allows the consumer to democratically show the producers of material what kinds of culture it is that they want.

            In order to ensure that the creators of material may profit from their work, the Copy Left is proposing that all works that could be transmitted online would be registered with a central office, whether government or independent.  This central office would monitor how frequently a work is used and the creators would then be paid out of money that is collected through the taxation of devices such as DVD burners and blank CDs.

            The solution proposed by the Copy Left is a more restrictive system than the copyright system could ever dream of being.  They seem to have failed to realize that registering the works is the exact point of copyright laws to begin with, and the use of taxation to pay the creators of material is absurd as it means that consumers would be paying for material simply through raising the costs of other products in the market rather than by simply paying for the material that they want when they decide that they want it.

            The Copy Left is overly concerned with eliminating the existing laws rather than working to revise the new laws that are making things too protected.  By simply fighting the part of the laws that state that material is instantly copyrighted upon creation, we allow people to choose whether they want to protect their own material, returning the power to the authors, rather than to a group such as the Copy Left who can use their power to manipulate the culture, rather than letting the creators simply create the culture.

Cyber Bullying

            The growing world of electronic media such as e-mail, instant messaging, chat rooms, and other forums, as well as the development of technologies such as cell phones and PDAs, is allowing for the growth of a new form of harassment known as cyberbullying.  Cyberbullying includes using any of these mediums or devices to spread rumors, harass, threaten, or even stalk a victim.  While it may happen to a person of any age group, it has become most common among teenagers and young adults.

 

            Cyberbullying allows a person to expand upon the methods that most bullies used for years, which included physical intimidation, postal mail, and the telephone.  With the new technology that is available, bullies can take advantage of a number of helpful tools.  One such tool is the anonymity that the internet can allow someone.  With physical intimidation, a bully was forced to be face to face with their victim, but the internet allows them the opportunity to threaten someone without disclosing anything about their own identity.  This same lack of physical contact also makes it easier for a bully to be more vicious in their attacks.  Another tool that cyberbullies are able to take advantage of is the ability to spread information, pictures, video, and so on, to a larger audience much faster than they could using older practices.  Through the use of the mediums mentioned before, many people are able to be quickly alerted to the newest rumors or activities of a bully’s victim.  Also, because of the amount of personal information that is easily available on the internet, bullies may choose their victims at random.

 

            However, there are ways of protecting oneself against cyberbullies.  The biggest and most important thing someone can do to protect themselves is by being careful of where you post personal information.  By posting information about yourself such as an address, phone number, e-mail, or details about personal interests and hobbies, you make it easier for potential cyberbullies to gather details about you which they can use to harass you.  By controlling where you post this information and who has access to it you limit your risk of being victimized, as well as making it easier to identify the bully in the event that you do.

 

            Bullies generally thrive on the reactions of their victims.  By responding with hostility, you are likely to provoke the bully and worsen the situation.  Because of this, ignoring minor threats and harassments may make a bully less likely to bother you in the future.  Similarly, changing an e-mail address after receiving unwanted e-mails will protect you from further harassment.  And then if the bully reaches you at your new e-mail you have a stronger case for legal action.  Another way to build a case is by documenting, and even printing, instances of harassment.  And in the case that you feel you are being harassed or threatened, you can take this information to the appropriate authorities, be it a school or work official, or the local police department or FBI branch.

 

            Cyberbullying is a dangerous new form of attack that people can use to damage the lives of the people that they are targeting.  It can be difficult to track and keep an eye on, but if people are aware that there are means of dealing with cyberbullying by being smart in protecting themselves, as well as by documenting any cyberbullying that happens to them, it will make it a lot easier for the proper authorities to do their jobs in dealing with these bullies.

Google as Big Brother?

            In recent history, the number of relevant search engines has dwindled to a select few.  Of these few engines left, Yahoo, Google, and a new crawler created by Microsoft have taken the lead as the two most popular and powerful search engines on the web.  However, Google is definitely king.  Google, Inc. has done the most of any search engine to expand the depth of their WebCrawler’s searching ability and it has paid off well for the company.  At the time of this article, Google provided about 75% of external references to most websites.

 

            Given its supremacy, Google has also created a formula for advertising that has helped make the company massive profits.  By posting ads on the side of the search page based on keywords in the search term, Google and other engines have spread the popularity of “personalized” advertisements that reflect the items that match with what we most commonly search for.  On the other hand, Yahoo and Microsoft are happy with their current systems of pay-for-placement to generate revenue.

 

This new system, (new because when Google was first taking off, it was ad-free), leads people to wonder what interest the company has in the trouble and expense of crawling the World Wide Web’s non-commercial sector.  Because the org, edu, and gov domains do not provide direct income to the company, it is curious that nobody has established a search engine specialized for public-sector websites.

 

Since 9/11, there has been an increase in a desire of gathering information on Internet users themselves.  This increase in interest has come directly from our own Federal Government.  Google has made no statements about their stance on the rights to privacy of their users or the rights of Washington spies who desire access to that information.  Because the information that Google has access to is so far-reaching, the ultimate decision of Google, Inc. on these issues are incredibly important and could be a huge statement on the position of government and Internet.  Either decision, whether siding with consumer protection or government surveillance, would be very critical to deciding how the future of the Internet operates.

 

It is not a statement of fact that Google is evil, it is simply that many people believe that Google is at a major turning point where they could very likely change the lives of all users of the web.  In 2003, Google Watch and “500 others” nominated Google for the Big Brother Award, citing a nine points, which included:

1.     A cookie that does not expire until 2038.  Google was the first engine to make such a long lasting cookie file.

2.     Google’s indefinite retention of collected data.

3.     Secrecy over why they need this data.

4.     Spyware toolbar.

5.     This toolbar updates itself without permission.

And more.

 

            This fear that Google is watching our every move and is simply building a database of our deepest darkest secrets in order to sell to the government is an absolutely ridiculous and paranoid vision.  By selling information to the government and becoming a tool for the “spies in Washington” who are supposedly chomping at the bit for this information, Google stands to make a lot less money than they are currently making.  By simply working with an incredibly successful business plan of providing results to users at no cost than to have to “put up with” advertising on the side of the page, Google will continue to grow and make record profits.  Google is already becoming one of the biggest names in business and is generating incredible wealth for the company.  Jumping into bed with the government holds no financial benefits for a company this large.  Most of the points made to show how Google can possibly use their incredibly in-depth WebCrawler to ruin our lives is nothing more than speculation.  Everything that Google takes part in is something that most people with a healthy understanding of the Internet already understand.  If there are things that you don’t want anybody to know about you, don’t live those secrets out over the web, even in the privacy of your own home.  Google simply accesses information that we have generated on our own.  Also, if a person has a mistrust of the Google Toolbar, simply don’t install it.  While the implications of what Google may one day be capable of are astounding, the idea that they would partake in action that are damaging to their consumer base is even more astounding in its absurdity.

Domain Names

 

            Beginning on January 1, 2000, domain name registrars began a new dispute policy that incorporates ICANN’s new Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).  Along with complying with ICANN’s dispute methods, they are also following the policies and laws set forth in an amendment to the United States Trademark law, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“The Act”).

 

            These dispute policies are intended to resolve arguments over whether the registered owner of a domain name is acting in good faith by owning a domain name that violates another party’s registered trademark.  In order for a registration for the domain name use to be found illegal, the domain must be identical or “confusingly similar” to the trademark, as well as be found to be used in bad faith.

 

            Whether use is in bad faith is decided on a case by case basis.  The issues considered include: if the domain name owner acquires the domain name with the express intention of selling, renting, or in some other sense transfer it to a party who owns a registered trademark, or to a competitor of that trademark; registration with the intention of preventing the trademark owner from registering the domain; using the domain to disrupt the business of a competitor; or attempting to draw visitors through creating a chance of confusion between the domain and the trademark.

 

            Finding the domain owner to be in bad faith is a tool for the trademark owner to use in order to warrant a dispute claim.  The defendant (domain name owner) then has the right to attempt to defeat the claim of bad faith by proving they have a legitimate right to own the domain.

 

            Claims against a domain name registration may be made through the United States trademark law or through the UDRP, with different variations on actions to be made, depending on the route through which the claimant decides to proceed.

 

            Before the new policies were put in place, a hold would be put on a domain name simply by the claimant proving to have a registered trademark dated prior to the domain name registration date.  However, because this acts as a non-judicial injunction, this practice has been repealed.  Under the new policies, the registrar will cancel, transfer, or otherwise change a domain status only after it receives either authorization from the domain name owner, a court order requiring such changes, or a decision requiring changes by the ICANN panel.

 

            In the case of Julia Roberts v. juliaroberts.com, the famous actress filed a dispute against the owner of juliaroberts.com.  The owner of the domain name was also the owner of several other celebrities and had put juliaroberts.com up for sale on an auction.  Once the dispute was filed, the UDRP had to determine: whether the domain was identical to the actress’s name; whether the actress had a trademark or trademark rights; whether domain owner had any legitimate rights to the domain name; and whether the domain owner was in bad faith.

 

            Issue 1 was simply solved because Julia Roberts and juliaroberts.com are clearly identical names.  In the case of issue 2, the actress did not have a trademark on her name, but it was decided that the name had established a “secondary meaning,” and therefore held “trademark rights,” even without a registered trademark.  A secondary meaning implies that the name is instantly recognizable by the general public as meaning one particular thing (i.e.: Kleenex tissue, Band-Aids, Xerox, etc.).  In issue 3, the domain name owner was found not to have rights to the domain name through fair use because the owners name was not the same as the actress, and the page did not relate to the actress in any form, such as a fan-club or parody site.  Lastly, because the owner had created a pattern of buying and selling domain names of famous celebrities for profit, the owner indeed owned the domain name in bad faith.  The UDRP ordered the domain’s ownership to be transferred to Julia Roberts.

 

            A similar case involving the domain name “jimihendrix.com” ended with the domain owner transferring the domain to the estate of the famous Jimi Hendrix.  When it was found that “The Jimi Hendrix Fan Club” that owned the domain also owned various other domains including jethrotull.com and elvispresley.com, it was decided that the owner possessed the ownership in bad faith.

 

            When Jerry Falwell filed a similar case against the owner of both jerryfalwell.com and jerryfallwell.com, his case was overturned because the ownership was found to be in fair use and good faith.  The owner was using the websites as parody sites, which are protected as fair use practices.  The ownership was also in good faith because there were no attempts made to sell these domains back to Jerry Falwell himself in order to make a profit.

 

            I believe that the courts’ decisions in all three cases were completely fair and right.  The owners of the domains containing Julia Roberts and Jimi Hendrix’s names were acting in the sole expectation of making money off of the ownership and exploitation of the famous people’s successes.  Had the owners been using the sites for anything useful, such as a fan club, or as in Jerry Falwell’s case, a parody site, and NOT be attempting a sale of the domain, their ownership would have been justified and there would be no case against them.  This reasoning was upheld in the case of Jerry Falwell’s crusade against the owner of the domain containing his name.  His attempts at blocking the site were purely political, attempting to block a completely legal parody of his character.  Had his case succeeded, it would have been a huge blow to First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights.

Precis #1 Net Neutrality

          On January 9^th of 2007, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and Democrat Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota introduced a second attempt at a bill requiring strict Net Neutrality from Internet service providers.  Both Senators had worked together on 2006’s Internet Freedom Preservation Act, an identical bill that failed to pass the Senate the first time around.  Snowe was the only Republican to co-sponsor the bill alongside Sens. Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

          Without Net Neutrality laws in place, service providers like AT&T and Verizon are able to prioritize content and services as they see fit.  This includes the right to charge extra fees from companies like YouTube in order to ensure that their services are delivered faster.  Companies that don’t pay the fees will risk having their content or services suffer from slower delivery rates or even blocked altogether.

          Net Neutrality became a public issue when representatives of service providers started warning that they may begin charging for premium placement to ensure that they are making enough money off of the investments they have made in the Internet’s network structure.  This announcement has caused numerous Internet companies and their high-profile supporters- including Vinton Cerf, widely known as the “Father of the Internet”- to start grassroots campaigns to promote attention to the issue of net neutrality in order to “save the internet”.

          The Snowe-Dorgan bill would prohibit the blocking or degradation of any content or services except for security and other protective purposes for the consumer.  Prioritization of content would only be allowed if all of that type of content is equally prioritized, and for no fee.  This means that if a specialized system were put in place to allow for the faster delivery of YouTube content, all other websites based on user-generated videos would have to be delivered on that same specialized system, at no cost to them or the consumer.

          As a part of the bill, companies will be required to offer standalone broadband service, meaning that while packaged deals of internet/tv/phone or any combination thereof will be allowed, but cannot be the only option.

          While an opponent of Net Neutrality legislation, AT&T agreed to a provision in their merger with Bell South to maintain neutrality in their service.  AT&T states that the decision was made because the FCC was deadlocked on the decision to allow the merger.  This provision won them the merger, and they now practice net neutrality.  The company, and the two Republican representatives of the FCC do not wish to see any broader applications of net neutrality.

          2006’s version of the Net Neutrality bill died in the Senate Commerce Committee when it was voted to an 11-11 deadlock.  The House version of the same bill was defeated with a 269-152 vote.

          Rep. Edward Markey is expected to introduce his own Net Neutrality bill to the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the Republican majority when it was defeated on its first attempt.  With a Democratic Party majority, the second attempt is being made in hopes of having a greater chance of passing this time around.

          Hopefully, this time around, Congress will pass the Net Neutrality bills and secure the safety of equal representation on the Internet.  The government’s intervention on the issue is being accused of stepping outside of its bounds and stifling business, but allowing service providers to degrade service or block content is flat-out censorship.  The Internet is intended to be accessed by all consumers to its full and equal potential.  We as consumers should not have to pick and choose which provider we want to sign with in order to experience more of the Internet, and still have it laid in front of us the way that the ISPs want us to experience it.  From the viewpoint of an Internet-based company like Amazon.com, Google, or YouTube, if ISPs are allowed to go against net neutrality, their freedom to do business and access consumers is severely hindered based on the will of corporate decision makers who don’t own any actual rights to the system they are threatening to deprave.  With the help of lawmakers who hold a respect for the rights of citizens, Net Neutrality laws will be passed in order to protect web service, and, as has been said before, “Save the Internet”.