Noam Cohen writes in the NYTimes today about the love-hate relationship between publications and the search engines link here. Some of the publications want to be paid for the use of their texts. At the same time, they exploit the search engines, trying the jigger the search results so that they come up high on the list of sites identified and the sites get more traffic and respect and ultimately, more money. Having given up on fee-based web content, they clearly would like a cut of the search engine advertising revenue.

Cohen moves on to the Automated Content Access Protocol (ACAP) which is supposed to replace the currently used robots.txt protocol (RTP). To an outsider, that seems quite flexible and restrictive as matters stand since it is already voluntarily accepted by the search engines. The search engines using RTP agree to be excluded from all or part of a web site. Reading between the lines, the ACAP advocates will want to exclude access for any search engine not paying up.

It is not clear how much clout the ACAP has. Its members, principally European, notably include AFP and AP and several book publishers but none of the large American or European papers as best as can be told from the ACAP website link here. They would like you to believe that their only interest is to benefit the consumer and they are coy about what their protocol would actually do, other than to apply "metadata to data."

Where "fair use" plays in all this is not clear, but be suspicious. Expect an attack in Congress to try to impose the ACAP on search engines, an ACAP with real teeth.

We have all been painfully aware of patent trolls, those monopolists who exploit their possession of patents, often of questionable validity, to extract money from users who find it more attractive to pay off the "owner" than to challenge him in court. They now have their own website providing a running record of the damage they impose. Trolltracker link.

Great news. Have a look.

Economist magazine has a great story on Larry Lessig and his attack on copyright extensions link here. Because the article is open, I will not try to summarize it. But the subhead conveys the essence of what Lessig is up to: "Copyrights will not expire so long as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again."

His approach is refreshing. He doesn't oppose copyright but rests his case on the constitution which allows a monopoly limited in time. He argues that in practice there is no limit. Since his appeal to the courts failed to get one, he has chosen the political route, to force legislators to enact one.

The US Congress is working overtime to create new coyright cops while in Canada they busy passing a new DMCA - with such minor considerations as fair use to be considered at some future time by a committee.

It isn't widely recognized, but a variety of private contracts have implications similar to government mandated "intellectual property." One of the most significant things is the enforcement by goverment of non-compete clauses. This makes it impossible for employees to leave a firm to work for a rival or start their own firm in competition with their employer. As with most anti-competitive contracts, this is popular with would-be monopolists, but the consequent lack of competition is not especially good for innovation. There is a literature that suggests that Silicon Valley became...well Silicon Valley... and Route 128 in Boston became not much of anything despite Route 128 having the same starting conditions of computer firms and strong universities as Silicon Valley because Massachusetts enforces non-compete agreements, and California will not. If you want to find out more about this the ever valuable Mike Masnick has done a nice job of digging into some of the literature and details.

Technical people have always doubted that DRM would work, and always suspected that the recording industry was sold a bill of goods by various techno-charlatans who told computer illiterate CEOs what they wanted to hear. We now have confirmation - the CEO of Universal Music is quoted as saying

I wouldn't be able to recognize a good technology person anyone with a good bullshit story would have gotten past me.

To which we can add the obvious "would and did." You can find more with discussion on Freedom to Tinker.

Jeffrey H. Birnbaum at the Washington Post begins, "Trial lawyers sue each other all the time. Now they are suing each other over what to call themselves." The story goes on link here; the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) decided that it was poor PR to keep the distrusted term, trial lawyer, in the title and rechristened themselves as the American Association for Justice (AAJ). Another group of lawyers formed a competing group, the American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA). AAJ then went to court, arguing the new group's name confused people and violated its trademark on the ATLA acronym. How can you trademark an acronym?

Then a third group, the American College of Trial Lawyers, sued, arguing that the name would confuse people with it. If you are confused as to who has the best case, hire a trial lawyer. It is nice to see them taking each other's money. And making current IP law look ridiculous.

NYTimes writer ERIC PFANNER reviews the growth of restrictions to protect copyrighted material in several European countries link here. He starts with the involvement of French President Sarkozy.

"Last month Mr. Sarkozy outlined an aggressive proposal to crack down on Internet piracy of music and movies. Under the plan drawn up by a government-commissioned panel, Internet service providers have put aside their objections to cooperating with copyright owners in the fight against illegal file sharing."

"If legislation to enact the plan is approved, the service providers will work with a new, independent authority to identify pirates and warn them to stop. People who ignore the warnings can face suspension, and eventually termination, of their Internet accounts."

"In return for persuading the service providers to crack down, French media owners agreed to remove some of the digital strings they have typically attached to their works. That could allow service providers to enhance their digital music stores and other online content offerings, generating more revenue from them."

Pretty clearly, the ISP's are going to be under growing pressure to fight piracy, including perhaps the use of filters and the monitoring of heavy traffic. France is not alone, as similar pressure has been growing in Britain, Sweden, and Belgium, according the Pfanner.

As far as I can see, there seems to be no disposition to question the whole basis of copyright as inhibiting innovation rather than promoting it. Or to realize that performers and companies can change their business model to prosper without depending on copyright.

via John Bennett

Chen Shoufu, an innovative Chinese computer scientist, was jailed August 16 in Beijing for violating the copyright of China's leading instant-messenging service, Tencent Holdings Ltd., owner of the popular QQ program. Mr. Chen's program Coral QQ made QQ more user friendly by blocking ads, resolving internet addresses, and identifying the computer from which a message is sent at no charge. (Tencent charges for the ID service.) He had previously paid a 100,000 yuan fine, about $13,600. Here is the article in the Wall Street Journal.

He has become a hero in China, the second largest internet market. One blogger decried Tencent for "bullying Chinese users by monopolizing the market."

This is yet another chilling example in a long list of violations of the liberty of people to use their property in non-invasive and very often innovative ways that ironically could improve the lives of their prosecutors, as well as countless other people.

Historians and analysts of the monopoly formerly known as intellectual property, who are critical of patent and copyright, usually emphasize the drag on innovation caused by these monopolies. Here is another reminder that the assault on liberty and property, rightly understood, is every bit as detrimental to the progress of society.

It's vitally important that critics of intellectual monopoly make this case in their briefs and remonstrations.