-
Brazil Moves Forward With Plan To Ignore US Patents And Copyrights After US Refuses To Abide By WTO Ruling
Two years ago, we noted that Brazil had asked the WTO for permission to ignore certain US patents and copyrights as a retaliation against the US's refusal to abide by a WTO ruling. This is, of course, typical of the US. When the WTO sides with the US on certain issues, you see the US and industry lobbyists go nuts about how those countries need to capitulate due to "international obligations." But when the WTO rules against the US, the USTR has a long history of ignoring the ruling or even pretending (falsely) that it "won." Given that most countries can't do much if the US just ignores the WTO, there's been a new push to allow countries to ignore US copyrights and patents up to a certain dollar amount. In Antigua, for example, the WTO said it could ignore up to $21 million worth of US IP.
Brazil is now moving forward with a plan to actually ignore US patents and copyrights. It's putting forth a retaliation plan to the WTO that includes various tariffs and other sanctions -- but most interestingly, a plan to ignore $238 million annually in US copyrights and patents -- expected to cover both pharmaceutical patents and entertainment copyrights. As is typical in such situations, the USTR is wagging its finger and warning, "don't do that," but doesn't seem willing to admit that the WTO already ruled against the US.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
 
-
Lessig Gives A Well-Timed Speech To The Italian Parliament On Internet Freedom
We have noted, recently, that Italian laws and politicians seem to have a somewhat troubling view of the internet, where they are quick to blame the internet for anything bad that happens, and then look to pass laws that would throw out plenty of good just to protect against the possibility of any bad happening. This, of course, culminated just recently in the ruling in an Italian court that three Google execs were guilty of criminal violations, over a Google-hosted video.
Given all that, it's quite interesting timing to see that Larry Lessig just gave a speech to the Italian Parliament about how Internet is Freedom. You can see it below (assuming YouTube doesn't take it down) and it runs a little over half an hour:
He does not address that particular case (or, actually, any of the stories coming out of Italy concerning the internet). However, he does an excellent job setting up the issues related to regulating the internet -- detailing how there is a generational divide going on here, and how the digital generation is effectively "waiting for the dinosaurs to die off," but are still worried about the damage they might do in the meantime. And, with that, he suggests a rather gentle touch when it comes to regulations -- a "regulatory humility."
Not surprisingly, there's plenty in the video that I agree with -- but also plenty that I disagree with. While he does a great job highlighting three areas (copyright, journalism and transparency), where the internet does both good and bad, I disagree with his suggestions for "minimizing the bad." I do agree that we should always look to see if there are ways to minimize the "bad," but I'm not sure I agree with what he considers to actually be "harm" in all three of those cases. What he calls "harm," looks to me an awful lot like disruption. And you can't minimize disruption (at least not successfully).
Still, it is a worthwhile video to watch, with especially interesting timing and audience, given all that's been happening in Italy lately. It would be nice to know how the audience reacted and responded to the speech as well.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
-
Leaked Documents Show UK Web Censorship Proposal Written By Record Labels
Lobbying groups and activists write proposed legislation all the time -- it's part of how the process works. But with controversial legislation, you would at least think that politicians would be sensitive to some of the concerns of others before essentially doing a copy-and-paste on what the lobbyists give them. Not so when it comes to copyright in the UK, apparently. We had already discussed the silly proposal to alter the already ridiculously bad (and also written by the entertainment industry) Digital Economy Bill, to allow the courts to block weblocker type sites, if they were regularly used to infringe on copyrights. Now some leaked documents are showing that it was a pretty blatant copy-and-paste job from the BPI, the UK's equivalent of the RIAA. The BPI wrote up a draft and the politicians basically proposed it as is. You would think, at the very least, knowing the controversy over this topic, that they would have considered what others had to say on the issue. But I guess when your role as a politician is to be little more than a sock puppet for the industry, it's easier just to propose the legislation given to you.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
-
Skype Deliberately Crippling Functionality of iPhone and WinMo and Verizon Apps?
There's something anti-competitive afoot in the 'VoIP over 3G' space this year. Let me run you through a timeline, and see if you can't spot the dirty pool:
- Skype has had a highly functional VoIP client for Windows Mobile devices for a few years. It allowed smartphone customers to use most features of Skype over WiFi OR a carrier's cellular data network. It was distributed around the carriers direct to customers of Skype, and was designed for those customers' benefit.
- March 2009: Skype on iPhone is launched, but is unable to do VoIP over the 3G data channel because AT&T and Apple blocked that functionality. Skype, Google, the FCC, and consumers cried "foul" at AT&T and Apple.
- Oct. 2009: After considerable FCC and consumer pressure, AT&T relents, and allows VoIP over 3G (and was even publicly applauded by Skype's CEO Josh Silverman). Skype users, naturally, expect an updated Skype version that will leverage 3G data.
- Jan 16, 2010: Skype releases a new iPhone version which DOESN'T take advantage of the new leeway AT&T (and ostensibly Apple) allow for VoIP over 3G. Skype points fingers, mostly back at Apple.
- Jan 27, 2010: Apple removes any 3G VoIP restrictions. Now there is nothing holding Skype from doing VoIP over 3G on iPhone.
- Mid Feb, 2010: At MWC in Barcelona, Verizon and Skype announce a special version of the Skype app that will run on Verizon. While most press outlets rejoice at the "openness" Verizon wireless is finally showing, it turns out to be a limited, crippled version, which is designed to fit Verizon's agenda, NOT customer wishes. This version can use the 3G data network, but just for chat and 'control', not for voice. It requires a >$10/mo data plan, is not available for phones with Wi-Fi, and 'Skype out' cannot be used to make domestic phone calls. In this deal, it appears that VZW paid Skype for some exclusivity in the USA.
- Mid-Feb, 2010: Also at MWC, Skype CEO Silverman tells Om Malik that we can expect 3G VoIP on iPhone "Very soon", with no firm commitment.
- Feb. 26, 2010: Skype completely pulls it's very functional Windows Mobile apps with little explanation, and no suggestion of when they might return. The app, which works fine, just goes away. Why pull the most functional Skype mobile app and leave only crippled versions?
Looking at the timeline above, it's pretty easy to guess what's going on here. Skype has been negotiating with Verizon Wireless for some exclusive deal in the USA. But unlike the relatively good, open Skype deal enjoyed by Hutch "3" subscribers in the UK, the Verizon version is crippled with confusing limitations, complications, conditions. It's clear the Verizon goal is to use Skype to upsell data plans to users who don't yet have one, and to drive or retain Minutes of Use of cellular voice traffic. Skype just sold its US mobile users down the river! Skype still promotes "Skype Mobile" on its US web pages, but if you click on any OS like Android or Blackberry, you'll see the bold headline "Coming Soon: Skype on America's most reliable wireless network." And are basically told to wait for the exclusive product.
The only reason Skype offered for retracting the WinMo app is "because we want to offer our new customers an improved mobile experience – much like the version that has proved so popular on the iPhone..." Wait...Is that the same version that annoyed users because it couldn't do VoIP on 3G? And how does killing a product with no replacement offer an "improved mobile experience"? Seems like more of an absent mobile experience.
Going forward, this also could position Skype well for offering a premium paid version of a fully functional app at a future date, when exclusive deals expire. A freemium model would be less unsavory than the exclusive/crippled structure that we apparently have for now. At least with freemium, the free market can choose to pay or not from any given carrier. With the exclusive/crippled structure, customers have little choice - except the choice to use another VoIP provider who is focused on giving end users what they want.
The result of this exclusive deal is, essentially, to deprive an entire country of the value of a good VoIP service (Skype) on mobile phones, and instead to offer us a crippled version that is designed not to delight any user, but to delight a carrier. How ironic, then, that Skype's Silverman has been at the forefront of the push for more "open" networks:"Nonetheless, the positive actions of one company are no substitute for a government policy that protects openness and benefits consumers. We're all looking forward to further developments that will let people use Skype on any device, on any network." or when he said this from a September lobby trip to DC: "We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to phone calls delivered over data networks and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. And as many members of the Internet community and key congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons to be concerned about the future of openness." Compelling reasons, indeed. It seems that in this case, AT&T actually followed through with their promises to be more "open" while Skype and Verizon have just painted a big "open" sign on the gates of the walled garden. Enter at your own risk.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
-
Obama: We Must Move Forward On ACTA
With the EU Parliament soundly voting against ACTA secrecy and current proposals, lots of folks have been wondering how the US was going to respond. So far, it's not looking good. The USTR gave a giant no comment, and President Obama (who had been pretty quiet on ACTA himself) addressed ACTA in a speech, where he expressed strong support for continuing to move forward with ACTA.
What was telling, however, was how he described ACTA -- which is that he used the bogus arguments for what people think ACTA is about, rather than what's actually in the agreement. It's a political trick:
"There's nothing wrong with other people using our technologies, we welcome it -- we just want to make sure that it's licensed, and that American businesses are getting paid appropriately," Obama said. "That's why [the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative] is using the full arsenal of tools available to crack down on practices that blatantly harm our businesses, and that includes negotiating proper protections and enforcing our existing agreements, and moving forward on new agreements, including the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement."
Except, of course, ACTA goes way, way, way beyond that. It's disappointing that Obama, who keeps insisting he's in favor of greater transparency in government seems to be ignoring the fact that the USTR has been anything but transparent on ACTA, and that the whole effort has really been a blatant push by the entertainment industry and pharma to engage in legislative laundering to push through all sorts of restrictive rules that have nothing, whatsoever, to do with protecting against counterfeiting.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
|
TechDirt RSS Feed
