Tag Archives: playboy

The devil wears Pravda

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original https://blog.erratasec.com/2018/05/the-devil-wears-pravda.html

Classic Bond villain, Elon Musk, has a new plan to create a website dedicated to measuring the credibility and adherence to “core truth” of journalists. He is, without any sense of irony, going to call this “Pravda”. This is not simply wrong but evil.

Musk has a point. Journalists do suck, and many suck consistently. I see this in my own industry, cybersecurity, and I frequently criticize them for their suckage.

But what he’s doing here is not correcting them when they make mistakes (or what Musk sees as mistakes), but questioning their legitimacy. This legitimacy isn’t measured by whether they follow established journalism ethics, but whether their “core truths” agree with Musk’s “core truths”.

An example of the problem is how the press fixates on Tesla car crashes due to its “autopilot” feature. Pretty much every autopilot crash makes national headlines, while the press ignores the other 40,000 car crashes that happen in the United States each year. Musk spies on Tesla drivers (hello, classic Bond villain everyone) so he can see the dip in autopilot usage every time such a news story breaks. He’s got good reason to be concerned about this.

He argues that autopilot is safer than humans driving, and he’s got the statistics and government studies to back this up. Therefore, the press’s fixation on Tesla crashes is illegitimate “fake news”, titillating the audience with distorted truth.

But here’s the thing: that’s still only Musk’s version of the truth. Yes, on a mile-per-mile basis, autopilot is safer, but there’s nuance here. Autopilot is used primarily on freeways, which already have a low mile-per-mile accident rate. People choose autopilot only when conditions are incredibly safe and drivers are unlikely to have an accident anyway. Musk is therefore being intentionally deceptive comparing apples to oranges. Autopilot may still be safer, it’s just that the numbers Musk uses don’t demonstrate this.

And then there is the truth calling it “autopilot” to begin with, because it isn’t. The public is overrating the capabilities of the feature. It’s little different than “lane keeping” and “adaptive cruise control” you can now find in other cars. In many ways, the technology is behind — my Tesla doesn’t beep at me when a pedestrian walks behind my car while backing up, but virtually every new car on the market does.

Yes, the press unduly covers Tesla autopilot crashes, but Musk has only himself to blame by unduly exaggerating his car’s capabilities by calling it “autopilot”.

What’s “core truth” is thus rather difficult to obtain. What the press satisfies itself with instead is smaller truths, what they can document. The facts are in such cases that the accident happened, and they try to get Tesla or Musk to comment on it.

What you can criticize a journalist for is therefore not “core truth” but whether they did journalism correctly. When such stories criticize “autopilot”, but don’t do their diligence in getting Tesla’s side of the story, then that’s a violation of journalistic practice. When I criticize journalists for their poor handling of stories in my industry, I try to focus on which journalistic principles they get wrong. For example, the NYTimes reporters do a lot of stories quoting anonymous government sources in clear violation of journalistic principles.

If “credibility” is the concern, then it’s the classic Bond villain here that’s the problem: Musk himself. His track record on business statements is abysmal. For example, when he announced the Model 3 he claimed production targets that every Wall Street analyst claimed were absurd. He didn’t make those targets, he didn’t come close. Model 3 production is still lagging behind Musk’s twice adjusted targets.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/

So who has a credibility gap here, the press, or Musk himself?

Not only is Musk’s credibility problem ironic, so is the name he chose, “Pravada”, the Russian word for truth that was the name of the Soviet Union Communist Party’s official newspaper. This is so absurd this has to be a joke, yet Musk claims to be serious about all this.

Yes, the press has a lot of problems, and if Musk were some journalism professor concerned about journalists meeting the objective standards of their industry (e.g. abusing anonymous sources), then this would be a fine thing. But it’s not. It’s Musk who is upset the press’s version of “core truth” does not agree with his version — a version that he’s proven time and time again differs from “real truth”.

Just in case Musk is serious, I’ve already registered “www.antipravda.com” to start measuring the credibility of statements by billionaire playboy CEOs. Let’s see who blinks first.


I stole the title, with permission, from this tweet:

Playboy Brands Boing Boing a “Clickbait” Site With No Fair Use Defense

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/playboy-brands-boing-boing-a-clickbait-site-with-no-fair-use-defense-180126/

Late 2017, Boing Boing co-editor Xena Jardin posted an article in which he linked to an archive containing every Playboy centerfold image to date.

“Kind of amazing to see how our standards of hotness, and the art of commercial erotic photography, have changed over time,” Jardin noted.

While Boing Boing had nothing to do with the compilation, uploading, or storing of the Imgur-based archive, Playboy took exception to the popular blog linking to the album.

Noting that Jardin had referred to the archive uploader as a “wonderful person”, the adult publication responded with a lawsuit (pdf), claiming that Boing Boing had commercially exploited its copyrighted images.

Last week, with assistance from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Boing Boing parent company Happy Mutants filed a motion to dismiss in which it defended its right to comment on and link to copyrighted content without that constituting infringement.

“This lawsuit is frankly mystifying. Playboy’s theory of liability seems to be that it is illegal to link to material posted by others on the web — an act performed daily by hundreds of millions of users of Facebook and Twitter, and by journalists like the ones in Playboy’s crosshairs here,” the company wrote.

EFF Senior Staff Attorney Daniel Nazer weighed in too, arguing that since Boing Boing’s reporting and commenting is protected by copyright’s fair use doctrine, the “deeply flawed” lawsuit should be dismissed.

Now, just a week later, Playboy has fired back. Opposing Happy Mutants’ request for the Court to dismiss the case, the company cites the now-famous Perfect 10 v. Amazon/Google case from 2007, which tried to prevent Google from facilitating access to infringing images.

Playboy highlights the court’s finding that Google could have been held contributorily liable – if it had knowledge that Perfect 10 images were available using its search engine, could have taken simple measures to prevent further damage, but failed to do so.

Turning to Boing Boing’s conduct, Playboy says that the company knew it was linking to infringing content, could have taken steps to prevent that, but failed to do so. It then launches an attack on the site itself, offering disparaging comments concerning its activities and business model.

“This is an important case. At issue is whether clickbait sites like Happy Mutants’ Boing Boing weblog — a site designed to attract viewers and encourage them to click on links in order to generate advertising revenue — can knowingly find, promote, and profit from infringing content with impunity,” Playboy writes.

“Clickbait sites like Boing Boing are not known for creating original content. Rather, their business model is based on ‘collecting’ interesting content created by others. As such, they effectively profit off the work of others without actually creating anything original themselves.”

Playboy notes that while sites like Boing Boing are within their rights to leverage works created by others, courts in the US and overseas have ruled that knowingly linking to infringing content is unacceptable.

Even given these conditions, Playboy argues, Happy Mutants and the EFF now want the Court to dismiss the case so that sites are free to “not only encourage, facilitate, and induce infringement, but to profit from those harmful activities.”

Claiming that Boing Boing’s only reason for linking to the infringing album was to “monetize the web traffic that over fifty years of Playboy photographs would generate”, Playboy insists that the site and parent company Happy Mutants was properly charged with copyright infringement.

Playboy also dismisses Boing Boing’s argument that a link to infringing content cannot result in liability due to the link having both infringing and substantial non-infringing uses.

First citing the Betamax case, which found that maker Sony could not be held liable for infringement because its video recorders had substantial non-infringing uses, Playboy counters with the Grokster decision, which held that a distributor of a product could be liable for infringement, if there was an intent to encourage or support infringement.

“In this case, Happy Mutants’ offending link — which does nothing more than support infringing content — is good for nothing but promoting infringement and there is no legitimate public interest in its unlicensed availability,” Playboy notes.

In its motion to dismiss, Happy Mutants also argued that unless Playboy could identify users who “in fact downloaded — rather than simply viewing — the material in question,” the case should be dismissed. However, Playboy rejects the argument, claiming it is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law.

Citing the Grokster decision once more, the adult publisher notes that the Supreme Court found that someone infringes contributorily when they intentionally induce or encourage direct infringement.

“The argument that contributory infringement only lies where the defendant’s actions result in further infringement ignores the ‘or’ and collapses ‘inducing’ and ‘encouraging’ into one thing when they are two distinct things,” Playboy writes.

As for Boing Boing’s four classic fair use arguments, the publisher describes these as “extremely weak” and proceeds to hit them one by one.

In respect of the purpose and character of the use, Playboy discounts Boing Boing’s position that the aim of its post was to show “how our standards of hotness, and the art of commercial erotic photography, have changed over time.” The publisher argues that is the exact same purpose of Playboy magazine, while highliting its publication Playboy: The Compete Centerfolds, 1953-2016.

Moving on to the second factor of fair use – the nature of the copyrighted work – Playboy notes that an entire album of artwork is involved, rather than just a single image.

On the third factor, concerning the amount and substantiality of the original work used, Playboy argues that in order to publish an opinion on how “standards of hotness” had developed over time, there was no need to link to all of the pictures in the archive.

“Had only representative images from each decade, or perhaps even each year, been taken, this would be a very different case — but Happy Mutants cannot dispute that it knew it was linking to an illegal library of ‘Every Playboy Playmate Centerfold Ever’ since that is what it titled its blog post,” Playboy notes.

Finally, when considering the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, Playbody says its archive of images continues to be monetized and Boing Boing’s use of infringing images jeopardizes that.

“Given that people are generally not going to pay for what is freely available, it is disingenuous of Happy Mutants to claim that promoting the free availability of infringing archives of Playboy’s work for viewing and downloading is not going to have an adverse effect on the value or market of that work,” the publisher adds.

While it appears the parties agree on very little, there is agreement on one key aspect of the case – its wider importance.

On the one hand, Playboy insists that a finding in its favor will ensure that people can’t commercially exploit infringing content with impunity. On the other, Boing Boing believes that the health of the entire Internet is at stake.

“The world can’t afford a judgment against us in this case — it would end the web as we know it, threatening everyone who publishes online, from us five weirdos in our basements to multimillion-dollar, globe-spanning publishing empires like Playboy,” the company concludes.

Playboy’s opposition to Happy Mutants’ motion to dismiss can be found here (pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Линкинг: Playboy съди BoingBoing

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/11/17/playboyg/

Playboy Entertainment Group съди BoingBoing – блог с публикации по разнообразни въпроси, свързани с културата и технологиите. Делото е   по повод връзка към колекция от изображения. Според Playboy който отразява една колекция по магически начин носи отговорност за използването на изображенията, пише techdirt.comBoingBoing не разпространява  файловете, не ги хоства и не ги копира, сайтът просто съобщава за съществуването им (и казва хубави неща за тях).

Очаква се ново решение за линкинг,  междувременно Playboy участва в  дело за линкинг  пред Съда на ЕС – C-160/15, GS Media BV v. Sanoma Media – където според решението

за да се установи дали поставянето на уебсайт на хипервръзки към произведения, обект на закрила, които са свободно достъпни на друг уебсайт без разрешение от носителя на авторското право, представлява „публично разгласяване“ по смисъла на тази разпоредба, следва да се прецени дали тези връзки са предоставени, без да се цели получаване на печалба, от лице, което не е знаело и нормално не е могло да знае, че публикуването на тези произведения на другия уебсайт е незаконно или, напротив, посочените връзки са предоставени с цел печалба, в който случай знанието се предполага.

вж  и тук

Filed under: Digital, EU Law, Media Law, US Law Tagged: линкинг, съд на ес

The Pirate Bay & 1337x Must Be Blocked, Austrian Supreme Court Rules

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-1337x-must-be-blocked-austrian-supreme-court-rules-171014/

Following a long-running case, in 2015 Austrian ISPs were ordered by the Commercial Court to block The Pirate Bay and other “structurally-infringing” sites including 1337x.to, isohunt.to, and h33t.to.

The decision was welcomed by the music industry, which looked forward to having more sites blocked in due course.

Soon after, local music rights group LSG sent its lawyers after several other large ISPs urging them to follow suit, or else. However, the ISPs dug in and a year later, in May 2016, things began to unravel. The Vienna Higher Regional Court overruled the earlier decision of the Commercial Court, meaning that local ISPs were free to unblock the previously blocked sites.

The Court concluded that ISP blocks are only warranted if copyright holders have exhausted all their options to take action against those actually carrying out the infringement. This decision was welcomed by the Internet Service Providers Austria (ISPA), which described the decision as an important milestone.

The ISPs argued that only torrent files, not the content itself, was available on the portals. They also had a problem with the restriction of access to legitimate content.

“A problem in this context is that the offending pages also have legal content and it is no longer possible to access that if barriers are put in place,” said ISPA Secretary General Maximilian Schubert.

Taking the case to its ultimate conclusion, the music companies appealed to the Supreme Court. Another year on and its decision has just been published and for the rightsholders, who represent 3,000 artists including The Beatles, Justin Bieber, Eric Clapton, Coldplay, David Guetta, Iggy Azalea, Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga, Metallica, George Michael, One Direction, Katy Perry, and Queen, to name a few, it was worth the effort.

The Court looked at whether “the provision and operation of a BitTorrent platform with the purpose of online file sharing [of non-public domain works]” represents a “communication to the public” under the EU Copyright Directive. Citing the now-familiar BREIN v Filmspeler and BREIN v Ziggo and XS4All cases that both received European Court of Justice rulings earlier this year, the Supreme Court concluded it was.

Citing another Dutch case, in which Playboy publisher Sanoma took on the blog GeenStijl.nl, the Court noted that linking to copyrighted content hosted elsewhere also amounted to a “communication to the public”, a situation mirrored on torrent sites like The Pirate Bay.

“The similarity of the technical procedure in this case when compared to BitTorrent platforms lies in the fact that in both cases the operators of the website did not provide any copyrighted works themselves, but merely provided further information on sites where the protected works were available,” the Court notes in its ruling.

In respect of the potential for blocking legitimate content as well as that infringing copyright, the Court turned the ISPs’ own arguments against them somewhat.

The ISPs had previously argued that blocking The Pirate Bay and other sites was pointless since the torrents they host would still be available elsewhere. The Court noted that point and also found that people can easily upload their torrents to sites that aren’t blocked, since there’s plenty of choice.

The ISPA criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling, noting that in future ISPs will still find themselves being held responsible for decisions concerning blocking.

“We do not support illegal content on the Internet in any way, but consider it extremely questionable that the decision on what is illegal and what is not falls to ISPs, instead of a court,” said ISPA Secretary General Maximilian.

“Although we find it positive that a court of last resort has taken the decision, the assessment of the website in the first instance continues to be left to the Internet provider. The Supreme Court’s expansion of the circle of sites that be potentially blocked further complicates this task for the operator and furthers the privatization of law enforcement.

“It is extremely unpleasant that even after more than 10 years of fierce discussion, there is still no compelling legal basis for a court decision on Internet blocking, which puts providers in the role of both judge and hangman.”

Also of interest is ISPA’s stance on how blocking of content fails to solve the underlying issue. When content is blocked, rather than removed, it simply displaces the problem, leaving others to pick up the pieces, the Internet body argues.

“Illegal content is permanently removed from the network by deletion. Everything else is a placebo with extremely dangerous side effects, which can easily be bypassed by both providers and consumers. The only thing that remains is a blocking infrastructure that can be misused for many purposes and, unfortunately, will be used in many places,” Schubert says.

“The current situation, where providers have to block the rightsholders quasi on the spot, if they do not want to engage in a time-consuming and cost-intensive litigation, is really not sustainable so we issue a call to action to the legislature.”

The domains that were listed in the case, many of which are already defunct, are: thepiratebay.se, thepiratebay.gd, thepiratebay.la, thepiratebay.mn, thepiratebay.mu, thepiratebay.sh, thepiratebay.tw, thepiratebay.fm, thepiratebay.ms, thepiratebay.vg, isohunt.to, 1337x.to and h33t.to.

Whether it will be added later is unclear, but the only domain currently used by The Pirate Bay (thepiratebay.org) is not included in the list.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Съд на ЕС: отново за отговорността за линкинг

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/ecj-16/

Стана известно решението на Съда на ЕС по дело С –  160/15 с предмет преюдициално запитване, отправено на основание член 267 ДФЕС от Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Върховен съд на Нидерландия)  в рамките на производство по дело GS Media BV срещу Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc.,Britt Geertruida Dekker.

Фактите

 Sanoma издава списанието Playboy. Фотографът г‑н C. Hermès прави  снимки и предоставя на Sanoma изключително разрешение за публикуване на тези снимки в списанието.

GS Media е оператор на сайта Geenstijl, на който според предоставената от този сайт информация се намират „новини, скандални разкрития и журналистически разследвания по развлекателни теми и закачливи безсмислици“ и който всеки ден се посещава от над 230 000 души, което го прави един от десетте най-посещавани новинарски сайта в Нидерландия.

GeenStijl получава  хипервръзка към електронен файл  на австралийския уебсайт за съхраняване на данни Filefactory.com  с процесните снимки и публикува следното съобщение: „А сега и линкът със снимките, които очаквате. […]“ След кликване върху придружаваща този текст хипервръзка интернет потребителите се препращат към сайта Filefactory, на който друга хипервръзка им позволява да заредят единадесет електронни файла, съдържащи по една от посочените снимки.

 Sanoma и др. предявяват иск пред rechtbank Amsterdam (Районен съд Амстердам, Нидерландия), като по-специално изтъкват, че с поставянето на хипервръзки ес нарушава авторското право. РС в Амстредам се съгласява, но Апелативният съд приема, че няма нарушение, при положение, че още преди това снимките са станали публично достъпни с качването им в интернет на сайта Filefactory.

Въпросите

При тези обстоятелства Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Върховният съд на Нидерландия) решава да спре производството и да постави на Съда следните преюдициални въпроси:

„1)      a)      Налице ли е „публично разгласяване“ по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29, когато лице, различно от носителя на авторското право, препраща — посредством хипервръзка в уебсайт, на който e оператор — към друг, достъпен за всички интернет потребители уебсайт с оператор трето лице, където произведението е предоставено на публично разположение без разрешението на носителя на авторското право?

      б)      Във връзка с това от значение ли е дали произведението преди това е било предоставено по друг начин на публично разположение без съгласието на носителя на авторското право?

      в)      От значение ли е дали създалото хипервръзката лице е знаело или е трябвало да знае, че носителят на авторското право не е дал разрешение за публикуването на произведението на посочения в първия въпрос, буква a) уебсайт с оператор трето лице, и евентуално че произведението също така не е било вече публично разгласено по друг начин със съгласието на носителя на авторското право?

2)      a)      При отрицателен отговор на първия въпрос, буква a), в този случай налице ли е или би ли могло да е налице публично разгласяване, ако уебсайтът, към който препраща хипервръзката — а заедно с него и произведението — са публично, но не и лесно достъпни за интернет потребителите, така че поставянето на хипервръзка в голяма степен улеснява намирането на произведението?

      б)      От значение ли е за отговора на втория въпрос, буква а), дали създалото хипервръзката лице е знаело или е трябвало да знае, че уебсайтът, към който препраща хипервръзката, не може да бъде намерен лесно от интернет потребителите?

3)      Следва ли при отговора на въпроса дали е налице публично разгласяване да бъдат взети предвид други обстоятелства, когато посредством хипервръзка се предоставя достъп до произведение, което не е било преди това предоставено на публично разположение с разрешение на носителя на авторското право?“.

По преюдициалните въпроси

Акт на разгласяване има,  когато, като съзнава напълно последиците от своето поведение, ползвателят се намесва, за да предостави на клиентите си достъп до произведение, което е обект на закрила, и по-специално когато без намесата му тези клиенти по принцип не биха могли да се ползват от разпространеното произведение. [т.35]

Публичност има, при неопределен брой потенциални адресати – като се предполага наличие на доста голям брой лица.[ т.36 ]

Според решението Svensson и определението BestWater предоставянето   на хипервръзки към свободно достъпни на друг уебсайт произведения не представлява „публично разгласяване“. 

Сега Съдът казва обаче, че – видно от мотивите – намерението на Съда в Svensson u Best Water е било да се произнесе единствено относно поставянето на хипервръзки към произведения, които са станали свободно достъпни на друг уебсайт със съгласието на носителя на правото, като той стига до извода, че липсва публично разгласяване, тъй като актът на разгласяване не е извършено пред нова публика. [т.41]

И вече – според новото решение –  за целите на индивидуализираната преценка за наличие на „публично разгласяване“ се гледа дали (1)  поставянето на хипервръзка към произведение, което е свободно достъпно на друг уебсайт, е извършено от лице, което с поставянето ѝ не е целяло получаване на печалба,  и (2) дали  това лице не знае и нормално не може да знае, че това произведение е публикувано в интернет без разрешение на носителя на авторско право – или, напротив, посочените връзки са предоставени с цел печалба, в който случай знанието се предполага. [т.55]

Обобщение на Martin Husovec  – по The IPKat:

linking

 

Filed under: Digital, EU Law, Media Law Tagged: съд на ес