foxtailposts-blog

[foxtailposts-blog]

There are good reasons, from national security to corporate secrecy to many kinds of malfeasance, for obscuring what’s inside the cloud. What evaporates is agency and ownership: most of your emails, photos, status updates, business documents, library and voting data, health records, credit ratings, likes, memories, experiences, personal preferences and unspoken desires are in the cloud, on somebody else’s infrastructure. There’s a reason Google and Facebook like to build data centres in Ireland (low taxes) and Scandinavia (cheap energy and cooling). There’s a reason global, supposedly post-colonial empires hold onto bits of disputed territory like Diego Garcia and Cyprus, and it’s because the cloud touches down in these places, and their ambiguous status can be exploited. The cloud shapes itself to geographies of power and influence, and it serves to reinforce them. The cloud is a power relationship, and most people are not on top of it.

from “New Dark Age: Technology and the End of the Future” by James Bridle

@newdarkage @stml

(via kenyatta)

[foxtailposts-blog]

Old house, new house: Old house, data ghosts

I have news: I moved out. New life, new apartment. As you may wonder, I had an ordinary house. A bed, sofa, pans, tables, chairs, books and a dog. We all know how a moving works, I put everything in a truck and Toodle-oo. That was the schedule, my new house has its own fridge, oven, heater and other things. It was much more comfortable and more relaxed. Thus I move lighter. 

https://tenor.com/view/friends-moving-satisfy-gif-4824872

It was all happiness until I got a call from the new residents of my former home. They said: "Wow, you did like your home very warm in the mornings! And why do you like Gilmore Girls so much?". WTF? Are they seeing me right now? Is this a horror movie? Are the buyers stalking me? Or, worst, I am a ghost I haven't notice it? 

https://me.me/i/no-you-cant-see-me-i-am-a-ghost-no-3099400

After too much thinking and a little visit to my old place, I got the answer. I was the ghost. Well, not me, not my soul nor my spirit. It was more like my data was haunting these people. It turns out that during the time I lived there the heater, the TV, the fridge stored and used my data to, basically, help me live. When I left, I forgot that "tiny, minuscule" detail. 

How to solve the problem? This is the annoying part, a lawyeresque answer. As it usually happens with "new technology" (i.e. the smart TV, and overall the so-called IoT), it may seem we need rocket law. But no, if we think about them as things, ancient Rome already solved the problem. I have a house: the real state is an immovable good. The fridge, TV, heater, dishwasher are immovable goods too (I know, I know, "do not they move?", you may say). They were added to the house, and they cannot be removed without damaging the property. So they are added immovable goods. Then, the software that connects them to the Internet, that is immovable too (Again, I know, "but they are not even visible?"). You need the software to use the devices. Thus that software is immovable as per its purpose. 

So, no way to remove the software or the devices. It would be, legally speaking, as unrooting the house from the ground. But I have to reunite with my data phantom. I cannot believe what I am about to write, but my data was exorcised with a pure source, the holy grail of data, GDPR. Hallelujah!

https://www.pedestrian.tv/film-tv/sister-act-reboot/

Data portability. Article 20 of this regulation stated as a data subject's (a.k.a. me) right the possibility to transfer him/her data from one controller to another without any hindrances. Thus, migrating my data from my old devices to my new tools not only freed the occupiers from the phantom but also, ensured something else I was missing. My right to access. I was missing the chance to control, update and rectify the data that was stored at my place. 

I wish I could tell you how was the process of moving the data if only there were a truck for that... But I have to say, in this new house there is no space for Tumblr.

[foxtailposts-blog]

I don’t use Twitter, because I think it’s just a digital version of posting “Lost Dog” posters on utility poles. I have a presence on Facebook, but I rarely post anything to it or read others’ posts. But I like what Jack Dorsey and Twitter are doing, which is a perfect in your face laugh on Zuckerberg and Facebook. Excerpt from this Rolling Stone story:

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced on Wednesday that the platform will no longer host political advertisements, a major shift in the social media giant’s policy ahead of the 2020 elections. “We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally,” he wrote. “We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.”

Dorsey posted a lengthy explanation of his rationale, threaded over several additional tweets. “A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet,” he wrote. “Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money. While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions.”

Here is his jab at Facebook:

[foxtailposts-blog]

Online intermediaries have performed several roles within the Internet. In the cases of Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, at some point, there were seen as paladins of free expression. However, after atomizing millions of users, they are the virtual monopolies of information and sharing. With this, concerns on how to balance their ultra-powerful roles are a daily-life issue. Establishing their liabilities is necessary. Still, as long as they unilaterally define the extent of free expression and (unlawfully) tell users the scope of their responsibility,  this topic will be pending.

Social Media Censorship

It was reported widely in 2017 that facebook was shutting down accounts to combat “fake news.” Earlier this year, Twitter began shutting down accounts to combat “fake news.” This week, Tumblr followed suit. Tumblr’s announcement exposes inconsistencies and holes in its own logic, and the widespread efforts to silence internet speech come with troubling implications.

Tumblr states that the Internet Research Agency “employs more than 1,000 people who engage in electronic disinformation and propaganda campaigns around the world using phony social media accounts. Their goal is to sow division and discontent in the countries they target. What makes them so difficult to spot is that they’re not spambots. They’re real people who get trained and paid to spread propaganda.” Much of the same could be said about Fox News, which spreads partisan disinformation that creates “division and discontent” within society. That organization has been accused of spreading propaganda countless times. They, too, are not bots but real humans. Will Tumblr, facebook, and Twitter disable the accounts of Fox News, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and others affiliated with that propagandizing network?

Additionally, other groups that may not be state-sponsored spread disinformation and propaganda on social media. David Brock’s Correct the Record PAC is just one example. Non-state-sponsored groups like white nationalist organizations spread inflammatory disinformation online, too. America, through Voice of America and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, sponsors and spreads pro-America information around the globe. It seems unlikely that America doesn’t use VOA as a tool to spread disinformation antagonistic to other countries’ governments. Will social media giants silence disinformation not just from Russia, but from America, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other states? A key question here is where does this censorship ultimately stop?

This is a particularly important question in light of Tumblr’s next steps: Tumblr will combat state-sponsored disinformation moving forward by terminating those accounts and deleting their posts, notifying you if they determine that you’ve interacted with a propaganda account, add the username to the public record, and alert law enforcement. Right now, it’s politically expedient to delete Russian accounts. What if it becomes politically expedient for Tumblr and others to remove accounts of people who interact with these accounts? What if it becomes advantageous for Tumblr to delete accounts of people in America who post information that sows discord and anger in American society? That is, after all, the purpose of these Russian accounts according to Tumblr. So why not go further? Again, we must ask: where does the line in the sand ultimately get drawn?

Notice, too, the system that Tumblr has organized to address this problem: wiping your account of any original posts and annihilating it, publicly naming and shaming you, and then reporting you to the authorities with seemingly no recourse or appeal process. This is a disturbing, authoritarian process where Tumblr becomes an official, proactive police informant.

These anti-propaganda efforts may be attempts by people with good intentions to help limit the spread of disinformation and propaganda online, but these are also attempts to curtail free speech. Government and corporations colluding to restrict speech and silence dissent online should concern us all. Moreover, we need to be wary of government attempts to use the 2016 election as an excuse to limit or penalize free speech and dissent. The line has clearly been drawn at Russian disinformation, and we need to make sure it creeps no further, in spite of whatever seemingly urgent, valid rationale we’re given in the future.

Peace,

Tom

@staff

[foxtailposts-blog]

One of my first memories of the internet was how easily I could get to know new things. All of them almost impossible to know for a girl in a small town somewhere in the Americas. One of those things I remember the most was music and the avid use of Napster, Limewire and Kazaa. I never felt that as a bad thing... Today, I swear I use licensed apps for music. However, when recalling filesharing, there is a question that still pops in my head. Is copyright regulation still protecting its original goal? Or is a tool to create distribution monopolies of agents different from the authors?

On this day in music history: July 26, 2000 - The P2P file sharing service Napster is ordered by a US federal judge to cease trading copyrighted music on their website within 48 hours. The music focused online website founded by Shawn Fanning, John Fanning and Sean Parker in 1999, is the subject of lawsuits of numerous recording artists like Metallica, Dr. Dre and various record labels when they find the sites millions of users illegally downloading mp3 digital files of their music. Metallica discover that a demo version of their song “I Disappear” (from the as yet to be released film “Mission Impossible 3”) is being freely circulated before the song is even released. Also the single “Music” by Madonna" is also leaked on to the website before its official release. Among the allegations leveled at Napster include That its users were directly violating the plaintiffs’ copyrights. That Napster was responsible for contributory infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyrights. And that Napster was responsible for vicarious infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyrights. Napster loses the case in District Court and is forced to close the website, though they file an appeal. In May of 2002, Napster announces that is selling its assets to the German media firm Bertlesmann for $85 million, then filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on June 3rd. An American bankruptcy court blocks the sale on September 3, 2002, forcing Napster into Chapter 7 status, making them liquidate their assets. Napster’s brand and logo trademarks are purchased in an auction by Roxio who re-brand their Pressplay paid music download service as “Napster 2.0”. Roxio sells Napster to Best Buy who in turn sell it to Rhapsody in 2011, who is the current owner of the company. It is also available as an app through the multi-media corporation iHeart Radio.

[foxtailposts-blog]

I am torn about this. On one side, I am a lawyer, then I acknowledge the legal grounds that Scooter Braun has. Still, something feels off. I am on Tay Tay's side. She has moral rights. But legally, there is nothing to do. I remember listening to a radio station, and they were saying that Taylor wanted to record all her songs again, so they can be hers again. Technically, she will not be copying what Braun has in his hands (she does not need or want to). But, neither copyright regulation or a judge will allow that...

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3qpk9w

For years I asked, pleaded for a chance to own my work. Instead I was given an opportunity to sign back up to Big Machine Records and ‘earn’ one album back at a time, one for every new one I turned in. I walked away because I knew once I signed that contract, Scott Borchetta would sell the label, thereby selling me and my future. I had to make the excruciating choice to leave behind my past. Music I wrote on my bedroom floor and videos I dreamed up and paid for from the money I earned playing in bars, then clubs, then arenas, then stadiums. 

Some fun facts about today’s news: I learned about Scooter Braun’s purchase of my masters as it was announced to the world. All I could think about was the incessant, manipulative bullying I’ve received at his hands for years. 

Like when Kim Kardashian orchestrated an illegally recorded snippet of a phone call to be leaked and then Scooter got his two clients together to bully me online about it. (See photo) Or when his client, Kanye West, organized a revenge porn music video which strips my body naked. Now Scooter has stripped me of my life’s work, that I wasn’t given an opportunity to buy. Essentially, my musical legacy is about to lie in the hands of someone who tried to dismantle it.

This is my worst case scenario. This is what happens when you sign a deal at fifteen to someone for whom the term ‘loyalty’ is clearly just a contractual concept. And when that man says ‘Music has value’, he means its value is beholden to men who had no part in creating it. 

When I left my masters in Scott’s hands, I made peace with the fact that eventually he would sell them. Never in my worst nightmares did I imagine the buyer would be Scooter. Any time Scott Borchetta has heard the words ‘Scooter Braun’ escape my lips, it was when I was either crying or trying not to. He knew what he was doing; they both did. Controlling a woman who didn’t want to be associated with them. In perpetuity. That means forever. 

Thankfully, I am now signed to a label that believes I should own anything I create. Thankfully, I left my past in Scott’s hands and not my future. And hopefully, young artists or kids with musical dreams will read this and learn about how to better protect themselves in a negotiation. You deserve to own the art you make.

I will always be proud of my past work. But for a healthier option, Lover will be out August 23. 

Sad and grossed out,

💔

Taylor

[foxtailposts-blog]

Miscellany of Thoughts

Upon my last weeks' readings, I have found myself thinking about consent and copyright. Off course, that is the point of the class. Also, it is the point of the blog.

 Consent: I do. Do we?

 The first question arose after reading about HCI (1). The authors analysed, among others, domestic IoT technologies, and the consent involved in its use. Such technologies intend to serve families.

 So, my doubt popped: Technologies are used by a group of people. How does consent work here?

Considering Recital 32 of GDPR, consent has to fulfil many things, for instance, be explicit. But "be direct" is not one of them. That is the problem: whether it does not have to be direct, it has to be explicit. I will give an example of my real life: I share a Family Premium Spotify account with friends. One of them, OI, is the manager of the account, he consented and, then I started using it. I did not give consent directly to Spotify, I just use the account. Naturally, this means that I want to listen to music via Spotify but does not say I know and am OK with its T&C.

 Copyright v. right to work

 It was a revelation that as per commissioned works, the copyright belongs to the contractor. It does not matter that the commissioner paid for such work.

 During yesterday class, we worked on a typical business scenario: a company hires a publishing/design agency to design the company's logo. Who has the copyright? The agency. But, legally it can be re-assigned to the commissioner (the company). So we picked that option, and then I added, "Maybe, we can advise the company to include a full exclusivity copyright clause." I do not know if that could be enforceable or lawful.

 Agencies live out of their expertise, clients and works. It is a usual practice to create portfolios, including their previous projects to present and get new clients. That is how they develop their business. So, when including a full exclusivity copyright clause, it seems that they will not be able to add that work in the portfolio (remember that it pursues a commercial purpose). Is this fair? Is it lawful?

 On the one hand, the company must feel safe that no one (nor the agency nor any of the agency's clients) will copy the logo. Nevertheless, on the other hand, this restriction somehow limits the agency's right to work, it cannot be that freely. 

 When quoting program code

 You can quote literary work (2). Program codes are recognised as literary works. Thus, a code can be quoted. Bearing in mind article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2001/29/ECI, I think that in code quotation it cannot be simply identified the original source. Moreover, in the source code, a note can be added regarding the copy. But after the object source runs, that may no longer be possible to verify.

 (1) Urquhart, L and Rodden, T "New Directions in Information Technology Law: Learning from Human-Computer Interaction" (2017) International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 31(2), 1-20.

(2) Copyright: permitted acts, Practical Law UK Practice Note 8-584-8065 (2019). © 2019 Thomson Reuters.

[foxtailposts-blog]

Thing One and Thing Two

https://seuss.fandom.com/wiki/Thing_One_and_Thing_Two

Regarding the UsedSoft v. Oracle dispute, it seemed that the ECJ missed Dr. Seuss’ Thing One and Thing Two features. They are twins, they look alike, but are not the same. I think of this metaphor as that the ECJ used the online and offline equivalence (OOE) to equate the term “sale” between the analog world (Thing One) and the digital world (Thing Two). The equalization attempt misled the legal nature of what sale is. 

I start with the concepts of ownership, sale, and OOE. Then, with the interpretation of “sale.” that the ECJ did. I finish by outlining the incoherence of the application of the OOE to the term “sale”.

1. Ownership refers to the fact and standing for using, enjoying, and disposing of something. Intuitively, if I own a car, I can drive, uber, and sell it. All in my own terms. Additionally, those three elements can be separated (bare property). 

2. A sale is a legal contract in which one person gives away something to someone and receives payment. Two hints are outstanding. It does not imply to give away the ownership right (it could be sliced). The sale is regulated and abided by the buyer’s and seller’s wills and conditions.

3. OOE is an acknowledgment that digital things have the same legal effects and evidence treatment as the ones in the analog world.

Now, the “sale” definition: 

“According to a commonly accepted definition, a ‘sale’ is an agreement by which a person, in return for payment, transfers to another person his rights of ownership in an item of tangible or intangible property belonging to him.”

It is stated “rights of ownership”. Remember that if I own, I use, enjoy, and dispose of. If J.K. Rowling sells me a Harry Potter book, I could: read it (use), do origami with the pages (enjoy), and give it to my brother (dispose of). But, that extent of ownership cannot be applied to this case. I cannot do origami with the software (e.g., as decompiling it, article 5 of the Directive 2009/24). This impossibility takes away, or at least restricts, the enjoyment that comes with ownership. 

Probably, the confusion with this broad definition was the equalization of sale to tangible and intangible property. Of course, we can sell books and services (intangible), but within the tangible property, there are movable goods, where the sole possession allows to assume ownership. And again, this could have been the problem when the online and offline equivalence was applied. 

Finally, remember that a sale is ruled by the buyer’s and seller’s own wills and conditions. If this were true, there is no ground for this part of the ruling: 

“(...) [I]f the licence acquired by the first acquirer relates to a greater number of users than he needs (…) the acquirer is not authorised (…) to divide the licence and resell only the user right for the computer program concerned corresponding to a number of users determined by him”.

Thus, despite the first acquirer’s will to sell the unused remaining users of the license, he is not authorized. Why? Why if he is supposed to be the owner of the copy? I did not come with an answer, but this is a hint: upon this reasoning, the new sale is not ruled by the parties’ own terms. In contrast, they are subordinated by Oracle’s designing terms (Oracle is now an outsider).