If Google's Book Scanning Violates Copyright Law, What About The AP's Book Scanning?

from the hard-to-see-the-difference dept

Danny Sullivan does a great job calling out the hypocrisy of the Associated Press yet again. The organization, which has taken a very maximalist position on copyright, where fair use gets mostly ignored, apparently had no problem scanning Sarah Palin's entire book into a computer so that reporters could search it. Of course, this is no different than what Google is doing with its book scanning program (which, again, I still believe is a clear case of fair use). Yet, since the AP seems to take such a limited view on fair use (and has a habit of accusing Google of "stealing" content), it's amusing that it's now trying to defend its actions by claiming that it was legal because it was for the sake of journalism, and the scan wasn't for public consumption. Except, of course, Google's book scanning isn't for "public consumption" of the entire work either, but so people can do a search to find the relevant tidbit of info within the book. The AP's statement on the matter is laughable:

"The book, purchased several days ahead of its on-sale date by the AP, was scanned after the first spot stories moved on the wire from New York so that staffers in bureaus in Washington and Alaska with knowledge of various parts of Gov. Palin's life and political career could read those relevant sections the next day."

Yes, you can understand why they did it, and even why it seems reasonable. But that doesn't change the fact that it appears the AP made an unauthorized copy of the book, in violation of its own interpretation of copyright law. Funny how the law seems oh so different when it limits what you can do, than when it's about limiting what your competitors can do...

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Sarah Palin Joins Al Gore In Not Realizing That Everyone's A Reporter These Days

from the something-in-the-veep-sauce? dept

Last year, we wrote how odd it was that former VP Al Gore banned reporters from a speech he gave, where all audio-video equipment was also banned. These days, such "no reporters allowed" speeches make no sense -- because anyone can be a reporter. Yet, it seems that there's something in the veep sauce (or veep wannabe sauce) that leads to these sorts of positions, as former VP candidate, Sarah Palin, is trying to do the same thing, barring "reporters" along with any kind of recording devices from a talk that she is giving. You can understand, perhaps, why politicians like to do this, but it seems both out of touch and completely pointless. Every single person in that room can be a reporter in one way or another -- and it doesn't take a recording device, but a pencil and some paper (or a decent memory). Trying to block out the "official" press is just a waste of time.

43 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Palin Threats To News Organizations Seem Misguided

from the why-would-you-do-that dept

I'm hoping the comments here don't turn into a political snowball fight that does no one any good. Personally, I don't care much about "politics" or political parties, and there are few things I could care less about than why Sarah Palin resigned from her job as Governor of Alaska. However, what does interest me is the news that apparently her lawyers sent a letter threatening to sue the press for writing anything defamatory about Palin, specifically mentioning some of the speculation found on various blogs about why she suddenly quit. It's difficult to understand the thinking behind sending such a letter. People will speculate -- it's what they do, and it's perfectly legal. Defamation is declaring something that's patently false as fact, and I don't see any mainstream news sources doing that. But, speculating on the reasons why it might have happened isn't defamation. Even worse, as Jay Rosen notes, in sending such a threatening letter, Palin's lawyers have just "legitimized the story." Now the press has even more to cover, in that they can simply report on the legal threat, and explain the "speculative" stories behind it. Pre-threatening the press not to report on some speculation found on blogs seems like a sure-fire way to get coverage of that story you're trying to suppress.

54 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Palin Email Hacker Says Emails Were Public Record... So No Crime?

from the legal-twists-and-turns dept

Last year, we noted two separate problems with trying to prosecute the guy accused of figuring out Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account password and posting it to the internet. First, the Justice Department has stood behind a position that opened emails are not private, based on a very literal reading of the law (you can check the link to understand the reasoning). Second, the law used to charge the guy specifically said that it was only a felony if it was used to further a criminal activity. That is, the hacking, by itself, wouldn't be seen as a crime unless it was a part of a larger criminal activity -- which it wasn't. Prosecutors changed the charges earlier this year to address that -- claiming that the criminal activity was a violation of Palin's privacy.

The accused guy, David Kernell, and his lawyers are trying a variety of different defenses (not surprisingly, of course), including claiming that Palin's privacy was not violated, because Palin's emails were a public record because (due to a separate lawsuit) a court had ruled that Palin was required to preserve her Yahoo account email. Because of this, the argument goes, the emails are part of the public record (which, given the first DOJ definition above, could fit under the DOJ's interpretation of the law). It's difficult to see this line of reasoning succeeding directly, as it seems to defy common sense, so it would be surprising if a judge bought into it.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

State Of Alaska Threatens CrackHo After Confusing Redirect With Hijacking...

from the why-lawyers-should-have-some-tech-knowlege dept

It's always bad news when the technically illiterate start filing lawsuits over technology issues. A few folks have sent in the news that the state of Alaska, under Sarah Palin's governorship, has (we're not making this up) sent a cease and desist letter to the website CrackHo.com supposedly for hijacking a page from the state's website and using the official seal of Alaska without permission -- which the state claims violates both state laws (fines up to $500 or six months in prison) and federal copyright laws.

So what did the site CrackHo.com do to deserve this? Well, it simply redirected anyone who went to Crackho.com to Sarah Palin's website on the state webpage. Yes. A simple redirect. And the state claims that this is hijacking the website, a misuse of the seal of the state and a violation of federal copyright laws. Based on that logic, with a few simple magic tricks, I've just made TinyUrl, Bitly and Is.gd guilty of the same things.

I mean... I'm sure the lawyers working for the state of Alaska have some free time on their hands right now... but... seriously? Did no one bother to actually investigate what they were threatening?

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Day After Veteran's Day Is April Fool's Day 2.0

from the fake-fake-news dept

When The Daily Show ran with its "Palin is so dumb" jokes, I was actually wondering where the jokes ended and the truth began (while laughing at the same time). And it seems I'm still left somewhat puzzled -- due to the reports that MSNBC fell for a hoax in which Martin Eisenstadt claims to be the source for the rumor that Sarah Palin didn't know if Africa was a country or a continent.

... the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months.

But the reported hoax is about how Eisenstadt isn't a real person and that his blog and job at the "Harding Institute" are entirely made up. That doesn't quite address whether or not Fox News (which broke the Africa story) used Eisenstadt as a source, though.... And it's actually very easy to mis-read the report on the hoax as saying that the whole Africa anecdote is untrue because the source was fake. However, no one knows who the real source is for Fox's story (except for Fox News, of course). So it's very possible that Fox didn't use Eisenstadt as a source, and with all the hoaxes going around recently, it's also possible that there's a very elaborate string of hoaxes going on. In fact, the joke continues as Eisenstadt states on his blog: "I deny any and all accusations that I somehow don't exist."

I'm willing to grant that Palin knows Africa is a continent, but Fox News isn't running an apology for its own reporting (as far as I can tell) -- so where does this joke really end?

73 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is The Indictment Of The Palin Email Hacker Legally Correct?

from the truthiness dept

Stephen Colbert famously coined the term "truthiness" on the very first episode of The Colbert Report. The word is used to explain a person who knows something is true in his or her "gut" rather than via any facts (and, of course, continues to believe that it's true even if the facts contradict the claim). I'm beginning to wonder if there needs to be a similar world for the legal world, where you believe something must be illegal, in your gut, even if the law itself doesn't appear to cover it. That's what we see with folks who want to string up Lori Drew, the woman whose online conversations with a former friend of her daughter may have resulted in that girl's suicide, despite little evidence that Drew's actions broke any actual law. Yet, because of the quasi-lynch mob mentality of folks who felt in their gut that it must be illegal, prosecutors eventually twisted a law to charge her.

Now it's looking like the recent indictment of a teenager for breaking into Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's email may be facing a similar situation. We had already noted that Justice Department's own definition of the law might make it difficult to prosecute the hacker. However, now a friend sent over an interesting analysis of the indictment itself, by Orrin Kerr, which suggests the entire indictment is legally flawed. Specifically, the statute used, claims that the intrusion is only a felony if used to further a criminal activity.

As Kerr notes, it's not clear what criminal activity was "furthered" by hacking into the email -- unless you read the whole thing recursively, such that the act itself is illegal, and thus doing it is furthering that illegal act. But, obviously, that's legally problematic. So once again, it looks like a situation where plenty of people believe that the act was illegal (very reasonably so, I might argue), but the feds are having trouble finding a law that actually makes it illegal. So, do we have any Colbertian suggestions for what this should be called? Illegalism? Illeginess? Illegfulness?

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will The DOJ's Interpretation Of Email Privacy Make It Difficult To Prosecute Palin Email Hacker?

from the we-said-what-now? dept

While plenty of folks are talking about the cracking of Sarah Palin's personal email account, the EFF is noting that the Justice Department's own interpretation of email privacy laws may actually make it difficult to prosecute the hacker under the most obvious statute, the Stored Communications Act. You see, since the DOJ would prefer that your email not be considered private, it has interpreted emails that you've opened, but not deleted, as not being subject to the SCA. That's thanks to a somewhat contorted reading of the law that suggests that an opened email is no longer considered either in temporary or intermediate storage -- nor is it considered saved for backup purposes. Those happen to be the two requirements under the law. Thus, if the hacker accessed emails that Palin had already read, the DOJ may have trouble using the SCA, since its own statements (though, thankfully, not the courts) seem to believe that hacking in and reading already read emails is not covered by the law.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

McCain Campaign Ignores Cease-And-Desist; Keeps Playing 'Barracuda'

from the legal,-yes,-smart? dept

Last week, we noted that the band Heart had sent a cease-and-desist letter to the McCain campaign for its use of their song "Barracuda" as part of the intro for VP candidate Sarah Palin (nicknamed Sarah Barracuda -- or, as someone noted, Sarahcuda). As we pointed out, it appeared that the cease-and-desist was pretty worthless on legal grounds. As long as the venue had paid the proper performance license they could play whatever songs they wanted. However, just because it was perfectly legal, didn't mean that it made sense. After all, picking songs from artists who disagree with your positions seems like a recipe designed to give someone else a platform to speak out against you.

However, it looks like the McCain campaign is sticking with the fact that this is a perfectly legal use of the song, and is ignoring the cease-and-desist. Video Savant writes in to let us know that the campaign is still using the song at campaign appearances by the candidates.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Heart Demanding McCain Campaign Stop Using Its Song

from the not-much-leverage dept

Last month it was singer Jackson Browne suing the McCain campaign for using his song in a commercial. As we noted at the time, since it was used in a commercial, it was most likely infringing, but if McCain wanted to use it at an event, he could as long as he paid the proper performance licensing fees. So, now we have another situation where exactly that scenario has happened. At the Republican National Convention earlier this week, the speakers played the Heart song "Barracuda" for VP candidate Sarah Palin (who apparently went by the nickname "Sarah Barracuda"). This is perfectly legal, assuming that the RNC has paid the required performance license, and there's no reason to think they didn't, given how much music was used at the convention.

But, that's apparently not good enough for the band, who complained and had its label, Sony BMG, and its publisher Universal Music Publishing send cease-and-desist letters to the campaign. On what legal basis? They don't seem to have an answer for that. The whole thing is kind of silly. There's almost certainly no legal leg to stand on here, but it's surprising that the RNC wouldn't check first, given how others, like Browne, have reacted and the fact that the press would almost certainly cover the story (as they are). So, while there may be no legal basis for the complaints, it still is surprising that the RNC and/or the McCain/Palin campaign wouldn't bother to first check with the band to see if the members would be upset about the usage.

112 Comments | Leave a Comment..