Archive for the ‘facebook’ tag
News, blog posts, etc
Lisa Campbell, ‘Is Netflix just a novelty?‘ (Broadcast 14 February 2013). Given my interest in VOD (primarily how it is regulated but to get there requires understanding the market), the last few weeks have provided much to think about. I can’t decide whether to be impressed at the Netflix coup of launching House of Cards as an all-at-once release or cynical about how its press releases were parroted by some in the press. I think both. Anyway, the coverage in Broadcast does look at it from a number of different angles. (Thought I will return to although I’ve probably said it before: if the standard for being covered by EU audiovisual media law includes being ‘TV-like’ subject to interpretation in a ‘dynamic’ way, does this sort of move make a difference?)
Jeremy Phillips, ‘Save our hyperlinks! Paws for reflection as Profs Opine‘ (IPKat 15 February 2013). Commentary on the intervention of academic group the European Copyright Society (does it have a website? cannot find) in a very important case on hyperlinks, Svensson. The case is before the Court of Justice of the EU shortly and takes up a question much loved by IT textbooks more or less since they started to exist: is a link one of the acts restricted under copyright law? If so, then the consent of the author of the target page may be necessary – but the consequences are significant.
Claire Porter, ‘Google ‘flaw’ puts users’ details on display‘ (News.com.au 16 February 2013). Another tricky story about apps and privacy; this one is about the Google Play store. Worth noting that there is a bit of discussion about the way the story has been reported (and amended) – see e.g. here. Original link via Slashdot.
David Streitfield, ‘Tech Industry Sets Its Sights on Gambling‘ (New York Times 18 February 2013). Discusses the implications of any change in the law on online gambling in the US for social networks and for the casual gaming sector. Also mentions the interesting issue of gambling and Diablo.
William Turvill, ‘News agencies’ fear over impact of copyright law proposals‘ (Press Gazette 20 February 2013). It looks like the lobbying against the proposed implementation of the Hargreaves Review is well underway now. I think there is a fair point to be made about the constitutional problems (the typical, pernicious turn to secondary legislation in place of proper parliamentary scrutiny), although the substantive arguments tend to the alarmist. For example, I can see why the photographer groups who were critical of orphan works proposals in the past are sceptical about extended collective licensing. Less obvious to me is why that opposition extends to the long-overdue proposals on parody. Perhaps there’s just general opposition. We’ll see. Given that some of these recommendations are still overdue from Gowers 2006, it would be a shame to get stuck at this stage..
Speaking of parody: Kris Erickson, ‘Evaluating the Impact of Parody on the Exploitation of Copyright Works: An Empirical Study of Music Video Content on YouTube‘ (Bournemouth University for IPO, 2013). Fascinating attempt to measure the consequences of protecting (or not protecting) parody. Via Rebecca Tushnet.
And more on copyright: Lee Edwards, Bethany Klein, David Lee, Giles Moss, and Fiona Philip, ‘Framing the consumer: Copyright regulation and the public’ (2013) 19 Convergence 9-24 (£). Multi-disciplinary perspective on attitudes to copyright, with a particular interest in downloading (other articles in the same issue also explore the theme of attitudes and IP)
Double edition! At the end of January, I was caught up in the excitement of the official launch of CREATe. I was taking notes on laptop and paper, so more to follow on that soon.
News, blog posts, etc
Eric Goldman, ‘17 USC 512(f) Is Dead–Lenz v. Universal Music‘ (Technology & Marketing Law Blog 25 January 2013). Goldman discusses the latest decision in the Lenz case (the infamous ‘kid dancing to Prince‘ video and how it was taken down at the request of the record label). He reports on the way in which section 512(f) of the DMCA (misrepresentation in takedown notices) has been read in a narrow fashion by the court and argues that it will have little purpose in the future. This is interesting (as is his neat point that because a lot of takedowns now happen outside of the DMCA process, it’s already becoming irrelevant) – for me, having argued that the EU should apply its ‘groundless threats’ approach to notice and takedown to come into line with the DMCA, it’s a warning to draft that suggestion more carefully.
Mike Madison, ‘Coulton, Glee, and Copyright‘ (Madisonian 28 January 2013). On a theme of legal and other considerations – this is an article responding to a scandal which I confess had escaped me (involving Glee!), about a legal issue I’m more familiar with ‘covers of covers’. For the interest of non-US readers – this is a particular feature of US copyright law where a ‘cover version’ can be the subject of a compulsory licence. (Actually – as discussed in the post – this isn’t always the solution, as there can be negotiation or going through the Harry Fox Agency instead). However the situation here (the rights of B in its cover version of A’s composition against C’s cover version of A which is derived from B’s) may stretch the effectiveness of that solution (and, as Madison talks about in the second half of his post, suggest questions about the purpose of the law and about the ethics of the situation.
‘WhatsApp breaches privacy laws‘ (CBC News 28 January 2013). You know I like stories about apps. This one is about one of the success stories of last year, WhatsApp (instant messaging). As the CBC story explains, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (along with equivalent authorities in the Netherlands) has investigated a bunch of issues regarding the service and privacy. Some were resolved through changes to the operation of the service, but one major continuing breach was noted – the requirement to grant access to full address books in order to use the service. The full report is here.
Liat Clark, ‘WTO grants Antigua right to launch ‘pirate’ site selling US media‘ (Wired UK 29 January 2013). This story, widely reported during this period, is about Antigua’s success before the World Trade Organisation (some time ago now – see case file DS285) in its criticism of US violation of world trade law in respect of the regulation of online gambling. As suggested for a few year now – but now getting more likely as the measure has been approved – it proposes to use the WTO mechanism of trade retaliation, because the US has failed to implement the binding decision of the dispute settlement process. The US is professing shock and dismay. However, as a strong proponent of free trade (and indeed the sanctions associated with the WTO process), I’m sure that an understanding can be reached. Remember: the US took the case to an appeal and lost, and arbitration has also been pursued.
Jason Del Rey, ‘YouTube Set to Introduce Paid Subscriptions This Spring‘ (Advertising Age 29 January 2013). There’s been a flurry of stories in 2013 about how to build a model of charging for video-on-demand; this story explains the proposal to identify selected channels and charge a monthly (and possibly PPV) fee. Answers on a postcard – will this, if it succeeds, encourage broadcaster-managed non-archive VOD (e.g. the ‘catchup’ bit of 4od, for example) to try and build a charging system – and if so, is it Spotify-style or micropayments per programme? (I say non-archive VOD because there is a relatively clear mixed economy emerging for archive VOD with various forms of charging and ad support)
Kevin Chao, ‘Mobile Kills the Console But Advances the Gaming Industry‘ (Wired 31 January 2013). Is this finally the year of mobile gaming? Lovely stats here and a framing of the issue as being about reach, engagement and monetization. (There is however an ongoing and very significant issue in the UK – and no doubt elsewhere – about monetization and mobile, the role of mobile network operators vs (e.g.) Facebook credits vs other models and the role of PhonePayPlus (regulates premium rate calls and texts which is one of the ways the charge can be set) – see the very perceptive market study for that very organisation.
Bob Tarantino, ‘What the *BLEEP*? Coarse Language in Radio Broadcasts‘ (Entertainment & Media Law Signal 31 January 2013). Round-up of Canadian broadcast standard decisions on language and radio. (On that note, I noted subsequently how the New York Times reported the well-deserved Grammy success of Jay-Z & Kanye West as being for ‘___ in Paris’, and the awkward pacing of the bowdlerised broadcast version of the new UK no. 1 single, Thrift Shop; compare the editing on this page (short silencing of the offending part making the result ‘This is ___ing awesome’) with what actually went on air in the chart show (looping, making the result ‘This is aws-aws-awesome’), here at 2h54m)
Josh Halliday, ‘YouTube study shows children ‘three clicks away from explicit material’‘ (Guardian 5 February 2013). Oh dear. Apparently if you find a video aimed at children and then click and then click and click again you end up at a less suitable video. Traumatic I’m sure, but has anyone figured out a way to prevent that without making ‘related videos’ completely unworkable? Say a video has 20 ‘similar video’ links, then by the third click we are at up to 8000 possible videos – and by click five it’s over three million possibilities. See also Six Degrees of Separation, etc.
Adrienne Jeffries, ‘Why Amazon wants its own currency‘ (The Verge 5 February 2013). I was reminded about The Verge by a student recently – just in time for this piece on e-money, with a nice approach to the practical as well as legal or technological reasons to adopt a particular model of payment.
Patrick Wintour, ‘Peers pass low-cost arbitration law for victims of press defamation‘ (Guardian 6 February 2013). Somewhat overtaken by events since, but this was a tricky development in the post-Leveson story – specifically, adding in one bit of the recommendations to the Defamation Bill. Although I’m not convinced by this approach, I still hold to the view that the Defamation Bill needs to be properly linked up with the Leveson settlement. I appreciate that some people have waited a long time for defamation reform, and that there is work that needs to be done…but its changes will be more legitimate and sustainable if they form part of the new approach to press regulation (particularly as many of the Bill’s changes are specifically defended as pro-press).
Human Rights in Ireland is a group blog that contains many useful posts on, as you might expect, human rights in Ireland. I was very pleased to write a guest post for the blog, which has just been published. I’m republishing it here for those who have not already seen it. I do recommend that you subscribe to the full HRinI feed!
The recent attempt by JP McManus to secure the removal of ‘fake profiles’ on Facebook (reported by the Irish Times on 30 May) through an application for an injunction (struck out after the pages were taken down) is just the latest reminder of the importance of intermediaries when it comes to law and the Internet. In this situation, McManus appears to have been doing something that isn’t difficult to understand – turning to the law to make the offending page disappear from the Web. In the UK, of course, we have seen the last few weeks as a significant time in the development of the law on privacy injunctions, with judges, newspapers and certain Twitter users taking fairly different approaches.
However, it’s far from a new problem. Within the then-novel field of what some called cyberlaw, the middle part of the 1990s was dominated by earnest debates in journals, courts and parliaments on the future of law. John Perry Barlow’s assertiveDeclaration on the Independence of Cyberspace of 1996 told governments they were not welcome in this new world that was governed by its own social contract, dismissing laws on everything from property to identity; ‘they are all based on matter, and there is no matter here’. Many responded by pointing to existing legal principles or forms of technological enforcement. Regarding Facebook, Twitter and other sites, the key resolution of these early debates, which continues to shape their rights and responsibilities as well as those of their users and those their users write about, was in new statutory principles on liability. For example, article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31), transposed into Irish law as SI 68/2003, points to a ‘notice and takedown’ approach. This means that Facebook is not liable for – say – a defamatory statement posted by one of its users, as long as it ‘upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness [of the unlawful activity], acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information’. In the case of ISPs acting as ‘mere conduits’ (like your friendly broadband provider), a greater degree of immunity is provided.
The position is a little different in the US, where a distinction is drawn between intellectual property (governed by a notice and takedown system in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and other (non-criminal) claims (close to absolute immunity without a takedown requirement, under the Communications Decency Act). Other provisions may also be relevant at a national level, such as s 27 of the Defamation Act 2009 in Ireland on innocent dissemination.
Whatever the position of the intermediary, important rights are at stage. Too much immunity, and the aggrieved person will say that they cannot see their rights vindicated; Danielle Keats Citron also argues that there are consequences for equality. Too little, and the intermediary becomes risk-averse, taking down content at the mere hint of potential possible illegality, as Ahlert, Marsden & Yung’s famous study demonstrated in 2004, with deleterious consequences for the right to communicate. Even where conditional immunity is pursued, there are further questions to be answered – what is expeditious, for example, and does it vary based on the gravity of the situation or the number of people who have retweeted the information? What of providers located in the US without meaningful assets, customers or facilities in the EU? Furthermore, beyond the big issue of liability, hosts may also be faced with Norwich Pharmacal orders, to disclose the name of a user where the host is ‘mixed up’ without fault in the wrongs of others.
Although much of the news coverage of Twitter seems to have glossed over this point, such an order was granted in respect of Facebook as far back as 2008: Applause Store Productions v Raphael  EWHC 1781 para 10. There are some unresolved issues (which the ECJ has hinted at) on the balance between privacy and e.g. copyright enforcement, and of course, there are limits to (a) how tolerant a court is of mass applications and (b) how much information is available (or useful) through this process.
Indeed, the Irish Times also reports that McManus had raised constitutional and data protection claims. Neither are particularly surprising, and it surely won’t be long before an Irish court has the opportunity to try and deal with this balance. The most significant case so far has been about a betting chat room (Mulvaney v Sporting Exchange t/a Betfair  IEHC 133), but that was a fairly straightforward application of the Directive; the various ‘music’ cases did discuss (albeit unsatisfactorily) the need to balance various rights in the context of the claims of record companies against ISPs. Certainly, reliance on Convention rights has been important in the grant of privacy injunctions in England; the recent cases have been about the need for injunctions in the face of disclosure (e.g. CTB  EWHC 1326 (QB)), rather than takedown disputes. However, if the Irish courts see a fully-argued constitutional claim, difficult issues of EU law will need to be negotiated. It must surely be hoped that the current reviewof the E-Commerce Directive will take note of the decade’s worth of development and interpretations and sets out a system for intermediaries, including a method (despite its title) to give thorough consideration to relevant fundamental rights as part of the process, whether they are engaged directly or indirectly.
Some further coverage of this issue, which I was pleased to contribute to:
Twitter worries police (ITV Anglia News)
Facebook and Twitter ‘double-edged sword’ for police (BBC News website)
Prompted by some post-trial comments from Norfolk Constabulary regarding this recent murder trial, I was asked to say a few words on BBC Radio Norfolk about rumours, social networking and the like. The interview (conducted by Chris Goreham) is available here – the feature starts at 39 minutes in). The issue raised by the police was that they had particular problems in the investigation after people became aware of the discovery of a body and started to speculate, to the extent that there was confusion between accurate ‘new’ information and the repeating of things seen on the Web. I spoke more generally about the challenges of dealing with information published through social media, how it might differ from how a broadcaster approaches something like contempt (although I should have said that many papers were very naughty during the Joanne Yeates (Bristol) investigation over the New Year), anonymity (or not), and so on. Unfortunately we ran out of time; I would otherwise have added that even from a policing point of view, social media can be an opportunity as well as a threat – see for example the use of Twitter for semi-direct communication with protesters when ‘conventional’ media might not be particularly useful (who is reading tomorrow’s newspaper while marching?). And more broadly, the same system that is used for spreading gossip can also be spreading anti-dictatorship campaigns (as well as the identity of footballers who play away from home).