COPYCENSE

“After a year on line and a tremendous amount of media coverage, the company changed ‘Google Print’ to Google Book Search.

“What gives? Well, it was increasingly clear that Google had a major branding problem on its hands. I had told a Google lawyer that as much a few weeks back after a debate we had in Washington, DC. Despite — or more likely because of — hundreds of journalists taking an interest in the project to scan millions of books, the problem was not getting any better.

“Over the past few months I have done dozens of radio, television, and print interviews about this project. With rare exceptions (Salon.com’s brilliant Farhad Manjoo among the exceptions) reporters tended to conflate the portion of the project called ‘Google Print Library’ with the larger umbrella project, ‘Google Print.’ The problem was, of course, that ‘Google Print’ also included another sub-project, the authorized and licensed content then called ‘Google Print Publisher.'”

Sivacracy.net. On the ‘Google Print Book Search Publisher Partner Library Project Program’: How We Know Google Is Not Like Other Companies. Nov. 22, 2005.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“Hollywood studios announced an agreement with Bram Cohen, the creator of the popular BitTorrent file-swapping technology, that will keep him from helping users find pirated copies of movies online. Cohen had launched a service on his Web site last May that searched the Internet for file downloads that use his BitTorrent technology. While many of these are legal files, such as open-source software packages, inevitably the search engine also found feature films.”

“In an event held at the American Film Institute in Los Angeles, Cohen and executives from the Motion Picture Association of America said they were united in thwarting piracy.”

John Borland. Hollywood, BitTorrent Creator Strike Deal. News.com. Nov. 22, 2005.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“The biggest mistake the [recording] labels are making is, they’re letting their lawyers make technical decisions. Lawyers don’t have any better understanding of technology than a cow does algebra. They insist on chasing this white whale.” — Phil Leigh, analyst for Inside Digital Media (story)

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“Concern has grown over the past year that Linux could be under legal threat from claims it infringes certain software patents. No court cases have been filed, but the issue is serious enough that several companies have pledged not to use their patent portfolios against the open source operating system.

“An industry consortium devoted to Linux, Open Source Development Lab (OSDL) has decided to coordinate this process. OSDL launched a Web site last week to help developers check which patents have been pledged. Patent Commons contains more than 500 patents so far, but that may not be enough to significantly affect the problem.”

Graeme Wearden. Saving Linux from the Lawyers. News.com. Nov. 21, 2005.

See also:

Jim Wagner. Patent Commons Library Opens Doors. IntenetNews.com. Nov. 15, 2005.

Open Source Development Lab. OSDL Launches Online Patent Commons Reference Library. (Press release.) Nov. 15, 2005.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

Commentary by K. Matthew Dames, executive editor.

I have found two more examples of copyright doublespeak that I’d like to analyze.

The first is from a WashingtonPost.com article that the paper posted to its Web site on Nov. 3, and involves Big Content’s use of the word “harmonization.” According to my dictionary, “harmonize” means “to bring into harmony, accord, or agreement.” Within the context of the copyright debate, “harmonization” means the process by which intellectual property laws of different nations and sovereignties are made consistent in order to facilitate transnational commerce and strengthen international intellectual property protection. An analogous term is “standardization.”

The word seems innocuous, and suggests cooperation and conciliation. The word certainly does not suggest coercion. But as with any term favored by Big Content, things — including words — are not what they seem.

The Post article describes an effort by Big Broadcasting to secure new copyright protections for video they transmit over the Web, even if that content is in the public domain. In the article, Post writer Jonathan Krim describes the National Association of Broadcasters’ efforts to get the bill passed. “[NAB senior associate general counsel Benjamin F.P. Ivins] and his allies, including the federal government, see the treaty as a simple effort to standardize international laws on what they call ‘signal theft.’ In certain Caribbean countries, for example, cable programming has been effectively intercepted and pirated by rival broadcasters.” (Emphasis added.)

Here’s what “harmonization” and “standardization” really mean: if a country wants to do trade with the United States, it must adopt laws that are consistent with the United States’ intellectual property laws. “Harmonization” suggests a mutual, communal effort by all parties involved to create some level of consistency. In fact, the U.S. routinely leverages its economic power in trade negotiations to force “developing” countries (like the Caribbean countries that are intercepting cable signals) to unilaterally change its laws so that those laws are consistent with the United States’ laws.

Given a “carrot-stick” conundrum proposition, Caribbean countries choose the “carrot” of changing their intellectual property laws to become virtually identical to those passed by the United States. The practical result is that instead of each country having its own distinct laws on intellectual property, the United States’ intellectual property law effectively becomes the world’s intellectual property law. This is not bilateral harmonization; it’s unilateral economic thuggery.

The second doublespeak example I want to identify is included in a Slate article authored by Adam L. Penenberg. Penenberg’s article is on digital rights management, an area which is a doublespeak treasure trove. Since Penenberg does such a good job of identifying the doublespeak, I’ll just quote him.

Companies like Apple claim that digital rights management—”digital restrictions management” to critics—is a tool to dampen the threat of piracy, which the record industry claims has cost it billions in revenues. But DRM also locks consumers into using their technologies over those of competitors. The term “FairPlay” is a classic example of technological doublespeak. Since Apple sells about 80 percent of legal music downloads in the United States, FairPlay effectively stunts competition and consumer choice.

The copyright debate is chock full of doublespeak material, so I will continue to analyze it as I find it. More chuckles are sure to come.

Adam L. Penenberg. Digital Rights Mismanagement. Slate. Nov. 14, 2005.

Jonathan Krim. Weighing Webcasters’ Rights to Content. WashingtonPost.com. Nov. 3, 2005.

See also:

Consumers Digital Rights.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.