I got an email this morning from a kottke.org reader, Meghann Marco. She's an author and struggling to get her book out into the hands of people who might be interested in reading it. To that end, she asked her publisher, Simon & Schuster, to put her book up on Google Print so it could be found, and they refused. Now they're suing Google over Google Print, claiming copyright infringement. Meghann is not too happy with this development:
Kinda sucks for me, because not that many people know about my book and this might help them find out about it. I fail to see what the harm is in Google indexing a book and helping people find it. Anyone can read my book for free by going to the library anyway.
In case you guys haven't noticed, books don't have marketing like TV and Movies do. There are no commercials for books, this website isn't produced by my publisher. Books are driven by word of mouth. A book that doesn't get good word of mouth will fail and go out of print.
Personally, I hope that won't happen to my book, but there is a chance that it will. I think the majority of authors would benefit from something like Google Print.
She has also sent a letter of support to Google which includes this great anecdote:
Someone asked me recently, "Meghann, how can you say you don't mind people reading parts of your book for free? What if someone xeroxed your book and was handing it out for free on street corners?"
I replied, "Well, it seems to be working for Jesus."
And here's an excerpt of the email that Meghann sent me (edited very slightly):
I'm a book author. My publisher is suing Google Print and that bothers me. I'd asked for my book to be included, because gosh it's so hard to get people to read a book.
Getting people to read a book is like putting a cat in a box. Especially for someone like me, who was an intern when she got her book deal. It's not like I have money for groceries, let alone a publicist.
I feel like I'm yelling and no one is listening. Being an author can really suck sometimes. For all I know speaking up is going to get me blacklisted and no one will ever want to publish another one of my books again. I hope not though.
[My book is] called 'Field Guide to the Apocalypse' It's very funny and doesn't suck. I worked really hard on it. It would be nice if people read it before it went out of print.
As Tim O'Reilly, Eric Schmidt, and Google have argued, I think these lawsuits against Google are a stupid (and legally untenable) move on the part of the publishing industry. I know a fair number of kottke.org readers have published books...what's your take on the situation? Does Google Print (as well as Amazon "Search Inside the Book" feature) hurt or help you as an author? Do you want your publishing company suing Google on your behalf?
Because I occasionally do or say things that get me in trouble with The Man (see Ken Jennings/Sony and Simply Porn), I'm often asked my opinion on what to do when other people find themselves in similar situations. After lots of disclaiming (I'm not a lawyer, but...), I usually end up giving very little useful advice because I don't know much about the issues involved with any case beyond my own. But now, I will be able to point people to the EFF's Legal Guide for Bloggers:
Whether you're a newly minted blogger or a relative old-timer, you've been seeing more and more stories pop up every day about bloggers getting in trouble for what they post.
Like all journalists and publishers, bloggers sometimes publish information that other people don't want published. You might, for example, publish something that someone considers defamatory, republish an AP news story that's under copyright, or write a lengthy piece detailing the alleged crimes of a candidate for public office.
The difference between you and the reporter at your local newspaper is that in many cases, you may not have the benefit of training or resources to help you determine whether what you're doing is legal. And on top of that, sometimes knowing the law doesn't help - in many cases it was written for traditional journalists, and the courts haven't yet decided how it applies to bloggers.
But here's the important part: None of this should stop you from blogging. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and Internet bullies shouldn't use the law to stifle legitimate free expression. That's why EFF created this guide, compiling a number of FAQs designed to help you understand your rights and, if necessary, defend your freedom.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...the EFF is doing great work in defending our rights online and is worth supporting.
Just got back from seeing Wilco's Jeff Tweedy, Larry Lessig, and Steven Johnson talk about "Who owns culture?" at the New York Public Library. They webcast the event, so if you've never seen Lessig wield his formidable PowerPoint clicker, you may be able to catch it archived there at some point. I'm not going to try to weave this into something narrative, so here are a few random thoughts/observations:
My favorite quote of the evening, from Tweedy (I think I got this down accurately): "I'd like people to hear my music and say they don't like it rather than not be able to hear it because they can't afford it".
Tweedy: "Music is finished in the audience". He credited the audience with 50% ownership in the creation of a musical piece...the creator is not much until someone listens to the music they've created.
Lessig: Fair use doesn't apply to music or movies like it does for text. I can excerpt a book and critique it, but if I wanted to play a clip of a new Fischerspooner song on a podcast and then review the album, I'd need to secure the rights ahead of time.
Johnson: Why isn't there a company that has come along and basically done what the record companies do for artists (distribute and promote records) but do it without all the overhead and let the artists keep the rights to their material? This is probably being done on a small scale (Factory Records comes to mind), but at first blush, this seems like a fantastic business opportunity. All the economies of scale without the monopoly.
Wilco's cover of Don't Fear the Reaper. I think it goes without saying that it needs more cowb, ah screw it.
Tweedy: Wouldn't it be great if an artist like Paul McCartney decided that he had made enough money and just started giving his music away to people to enjoy because that's what music is all about for him. Quote from this Wired article: "If Metallica still needs money then there's something really, really wrong."
Tweedy: What the music and movie companies are asking of artists, to create in a vacuum, is impossible. Not being able to sample, use a piece as a jumping off point for another piece, borrow tunes from other songs, or otherwise be influenced by an artist or poet or writer, it's not possible because that's what art is.
Lessig/Tweedy: Legislating against things like remixing and sampling is racist (also mentioned briefly in this Wired article). The argument goes that genres that tend to rely heavily on sampling and remixing (like hip-hop and rap) tend to be practiced by minorities and that legislating against them is de facto racism. More generally, it's about the powerful (who, in the US, tend to be middle-aged white men) trying to keep their power by limiting the powerless (i.e., the poor and otherwise disenfranchised, who, in the US, tend to be minorities). (Apologies if this is confusing or I misrepresented Tweedy's views on this or overused the word "tends"...racism is one of those hot button issues and I don't want anyone to fly off the handle and say Tweedy or I said that all poor people are black and like rap music or some nonsense like that. Anyway, tried to be careful with it, but the above may not necessarily reflect the nuance of Tweedy's views on this issue.)
At one point, Johnson and Tweedy started talking about alternative models for music distribution and Tweedy made the point that music has been around for a lot longer than the record companies and there's lots of ways that music (and other forms of media) has traditionally been distributed, like via subscriptions and patronage. And Steven missed the perfect opportunity to say, "a friend of mine is exploring a micropatronage model for blogging...." ;)
This is the best thing I've seen on the web in the last few weeks. An artist from the UK named Banksy went into four of NYC's most prominent museums -- the Met, the Museum of Natural History, the Brooklyn Museum, and the MoMA -- and installed four of his own pieces of art:
Dressed as a British pensioner, over the last few days Banksy entered each of the galleries and attached one of his own works, complete with authorative name plaque and explanation.
He says - "This historic occasion has less to do with finally being embraced by the fine art establishment and is more about the judicious use of a fake beard and some high strength glue." Banksy continues -"They're good enough to be in there, so I don't see why I should wait"
Staff at the New York Met discovered and removed their new aquisition early Sunday morning while Banksy's discount soup can print took pride of place in the MoMA for over three days before being torn down.
As of now, the other two pieces currently remain firmly in place.
Be sure to click through to see the photos. As far as I'm concerned, this is probably more interesting than most of whatever else is happening in the art world right now and instead of tearing it down, the MoMA should move it into their contemporary art collection. Thanks to cityrag for the link.
Update 3/9/05 @ 9:16 AM: Dave Sifry, CEO of Technorati, has a nice writeup of the situation from Technorati's perspective. Not only are they not censoring their employees' weblogs, they are sticking by an employee (and a relatively new one at that) who did something foolish when they could have just pulled the plug on him. I especially liked the point about the speed at which the situation was handled...people these days want instant results (it's easy to see how weblogs tie into this), but things don't always work that way. Note to self: slow down sometimes, will ya?
Update 3/8/05 @ 9:11 AM: Niall has posted an apology on his site with a little more information on what happened. Here's his most recent take on Technorati's policy:
It is for this reason it is recommended that Technorati employees seek the opinion of a coworker if they are unsure of how a post might be interpreted by others, to lend a fresh pair of eyes and an experienced mind to your intended message.
Read the whole thing...I don't think Technorati's position on this is unfair at all. It's a tough issue and it's going to be messy at times (as we saw with Mark Jen's situation at Google). Companies in the past have typically been very top down with everything, including the "message", emanating from upper management. As companies have become more open, they've relied on their employees "drinking the Kool-Aid" to ensure a uniform message to the outside world. But lately, customers have been wanting something more authentic and some companies, particularly in the blogging space, are attempting to provide it. And they're probably gonna get a little bloodied for it in the short term. Is it even possible for a company to participate in a conversation in the marketplace with multiple opinions represented, some of which may even be in direct opposition with each other? How will customers react to a company disagreeing with itself in public? (Answer: probably not very well in the short term.)
Note: I modified the title of the post to something more accurate and less inflammatory given the situation as it currently stands.
Original post
On Saturday, Niall Kennedy posted some Photoshopped "propaganda posters from the 1940s to express how corporations would like to control what their employees say on a weblog, at a bar, or even to their families". At some point after that, he took the post down after Technorati (his employer) complained about it and replaced it with the following:
Technorati would rather I did not express an opinion on issues such as corporate blogging policies that are affecting the world of weblogs. This post has been overwritten and my artwork posted to Flickr is now marked as private and available only to Flickr contacts marked as friends.
Yes, I was threatened with "serious consequences" for not seeking corporate approval for a weblog posting relating to an industry issue. Tomorrow will undoubtedly bring many conversations about if employees are allowed to have their own voice and write weblog entries without passing through an executive mouthpiece first.
It should be interesting. A blogging company applying strong filters to employee weblogs about public issues that affect the community.
If my original post is not up for a while, you will know how things turned out. I love the industry and writing about weblogs, technology, and search and hope to continue to share my personal point of view in the future.
The original post is back up on Niall's site (update: looks like the post is down again) with the following disclaimer:
The commentary expressed on this weblog is my point of view and may not necessarily represent the point of view of Technorati.
On a post about this on Buzzhit, Niall explains what happened (italics mine):
Technorati executives are concerned about how employee weblogs expressing opinions may be interpreted as an official Technorati position. All Technorati employees have been asked to review weblog posts with staff members before posting. I reinstated my original post this morning and I am ready to willing to hear the community's response to my individual voice. I hope to continue to share my passion for the industry through my weblog without editorial oversight.
For a company that relies on aggregating content by scraping full posts from almost 8 million blogs, vetting their employees' personal writing seems like a curious (not to mention ironic and hypocritical) position for Technorati to take. Aside from this specific incident, I've noticed that blogs written by people who go to work in the blogging industry usually get updated less, are less about blogging than they were before as well, and are also less critical of blogging. If everyone who's really into blogging gets snatched up by blogging companies and eventually clam up, I don't see that as a positive thing for the industry as a whole.
Things may be a little quieter around here in the short term as I deal with some stuff going on in the real world. One of the reasons for the silence is that my legal difficulties with Sony about the whole Ken Jennings thing have yet to be resolved. I can't say too much about it (soon perhaps), but it sure has had a chilling effect on my enthusiasm for continuing to maintain kottke.org. As an individual weblogger with relatively limited financial and legal resources, I worry about whether I can continue to post things (legal or not) that may upset large companies and result in lawsuits that they can afford and I cannot. The NY Times can risk upsetting large companies in the course of their journalistic duties because they are a large company themselves, they know their rights, and they have a dedicated legal team to deal with stuff like this. In the current legal climate, it may be that the whole "are blogs journalism?" debate is moot until bloggers have access to a level of legal resources similar to what large companies have. I'm certainly thinking very seriously about whether I can keep this site going in this kind of environment.
Update: Thanks for all the support everyone...I've gotten many nice emails and various offers of assistance. Several people have asked if they can help monetarily, which I very much appreciate, but the process is not quite to that point yet (and might never reach it) and I don't want to be responsible for refunds or anything like that. But again, I appreciate the support.
Hollywood is living in some sort of fantasy land. George Lucas had this to say when questioned about why he moved up the release of the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD (bold mine):
Just because the market has shifted so dramatically. A lot of people are getting very worried about piracy. That has really eaten dramatically into the sales. It really just came down to, there may not be a market when I wanted to bring it out, which was like, three years from now. So rather than just sit by and watch the whole thing fall apart, better to bring it out early and get it over with.
In the words of a famous sports announcer, let's go the videotape. The Web site for the DVD Entertainment Group (their BOD is stocked with bigwigs from the large entertainment and electronics companies) states that "DVD [is] the fastest adopted consumer electronics product ever". There have been literally thousands of news articles written about the explosive growth of DVD sales; here are some quotes from an article on the CBS News Web site (from 10/2003):
Home video sales now account for nearly 60 percent of Hollywood's revenue. DVD sales are not only the fastest growing part of the movie business, they're changing the way Hollywood does business.
He says DVD sales can save a film like "Dark Blue," which pulled in a modest $9 million in theaters. "It actually did more revenues in DVD than it did at the box office," says McGurk, because the DVD market is a man's world.
Blockbuster films now often sell more than 10 million DVDs in the U.S. alone. And that's at $20 a pop. And with DVD players still in only half of American homes, Hollywood believes those soaring sales will just get hotter still.
Finding Nemo grossed $320 million from DVD sales in 2003. "Consumers spend more money on the DVD version of almost every movie than they do on that same movie in theaters, including blockbusters such as The Lord of the Rings, Finding Nemo and Pirates of the Caribbean" (USA Today). CNN/Money reports that the movie studios "pocket roughly 80 cents of every dollar on each DVD sold, a take well above the 50 cents for each dollar at the box office" and The Hollywood Reporter says that "studios are earning about 60% more upon initial release from video sales of theatrical feature films than they did during the VHS-only era". So, not only are video sales up overall, DVDs are more profitable for the media companies than VHS or the box office.
And the future looks rosy as well. PriceWaterhouseCoopers has a sample chapter of their Global Entertainment and Media Outlook 2004-2008 report** online which says:
We project filmed entertainment spending in the United States, EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa), Asia/Pacific, Latin America, and Canada will rise at a 7.5 percent compound annual rate, reaching $108 billion in 2008 from $75.3 billion in 2003. EMEA will be the fastest-growing region, rising by 10.3 percent compounded annually to $36.9 billion in 2008 compared with $22.6 billion in 2003. The U.S. market will expand at a 6.3 percent rate, from $34.3 billion in 2003 to $46.6 billion in 2008. Spending in Asia/Pacific will increase from $13.3 billion to $17.3 billion in the five-year period, growing at a 5.4 percent compound annual rate. Filmed entertainment in Latin America will total $1.6 billion in 2008, up from $1.3 billion in 2003, representing a 4.6 percent gain compounded annually. Spending in Canada will rise from $3.9 billion in 2003 to $5.6 billion in 2008, 7.7 percent compounded annually.
This is anything but piracy "dramatically" eating into sales. Mr. Lucas, would you like to change your answer?
** The same report also says that "piracy will cut into spending, particularly on rental, with the most pronounced impact in Asia/Pacific and Latin America, although all regions will be affected", but there is no evidence given. In fact, in all the articles I read, piracy was handled in a very hand-waving fashion with no numbers or evidence to back up claims.
Went and took photos of the main protest march today. More tomorrow maybe. (Not more photos, more words.)
Here's the video of Bikes Against Bush creator Josh Kinberg being arrested on Saturday afternoon after demonstrating the bike for MSNBC (he was being interviewed by Ron Reagan) and the NYPD:
Torrent of video from DV Guide (please use this one if you can)
Link to video on kottke.org (20.6 MB, QuickTime)
Mirror At Spymac (20.6 MB, QuickTime) (thx Keld)
After seeing that demonstration and being assured the chalk was easily removed from the sidewalk with water, officers consulted with their superiors, placed Josh under arrest, and confiscated his bike & equipment. He was charged with vandalism and released on Sunday morning.
kottke.org reader Andrew sends along this link to an essay called Keep Big Brother's Hands Off the Internet by none other than the reigning US Attorney General, John Ashcroft, then a Senator from the great state of Missouri:
There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?
The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights.
That doesn't sound like the John Ashcroft we know and love. To use the charming language of the anti-Kerry folks, that's a big stack of waffles. Two things: 1) the sitting President at the time (Clinton) was a Democrat, and 2) this was before September 11th. In politics, the opposition is always wrong and with terrorists running around, hiding in your carry-on luggage and in Internet chat rooms, everyone is the opposition.
I also found this gem from Ashcroft's remarks on child pornography and peer-to-peer networks:
Peer-to-peer is unlike ordinary use of the Internet, where thousands of users' computers link to a main Internet server. Peer-to-peer networks allow users, through installation of peer-to-peer software, to go online and connect their computers directly to one another.
You know, in the event of a terrorist or nuclear attack that could take out the main Internet server, we should invent a worldwide network of computers such that the network remains robust when individual nodes are taken out. We could call it the Internet. It's so crazy, it just might work.
Eyebeam has launched their latest project, ForwardTrack. It's a system for diseminating petitions that not only keeps track of who supports the petition, but how that support has developed. The description from the site:
ForwardTrack is a new system created by Eyebeam R&D designed to promote on-line activism. The system tracks and maps the diffusion of email forwards, political calls-to-action, and petitions. Our goal is to help people understand decentralized networks and see the power of "6 degrees of separation." ForwardTrack technology helps prove that one person can make a difference.
It'll be interesting to see if petitions are more viral when people can see exactly how they've made a difference in spreading the message. The first project they've set up is Tom's Petition, an effort to renew the national Assault Weapons Ban which automatically expires at the end of the summer. If you'd be interested in signing this petition (or in seeing a neat map detailing how I got signed up and how many people I've signed up), you can go to my Personal Petition Page and enter your name, zip, and email address to get the petition sent to you. When you forward that email back to Tom, I'll get credit for introducing you to the petition. You can forward the petition to friends, family, etc. and, if you've got a Web site, also point people toward your Personal Petition Page.
kottke.org is grey today because I believe that musical sampling without prior consent of the copyright holder should be legally allowed because it does our society more good than harm.
Late last year, a DJ named Danger Mouse took The Black Album by Jay-Z, mixed it with samples taken from the Beatles' White Album, and produced The Grey Album. He sent the album to a few folks and now -- blame the Internet -- everyone has a copy.
EMI, one of the big five record companies, parent of Capitol Records, and owner/controller of the Beatles musical catalog, sent Danger Mouse a cease-and-desist letter, claiming that he had infringed on their copyright of the Beatles tunes in question. (Jay-Z, on the other hand, released an a capella version of The Black Album so that precisely this type of sampling/remixing would occur.) Andy Baio and several other people posted MP3 copies of The Grey Album on their Web sites and were also sent letters by representatives of EMI ordering them to remove the songs from their sites.
Believing that "the record industry has become a huge drag on creativity", music activist group Downhill Battle organized Grey Tuesday (Feb 24) and urged Web sites to turn grey and/or host MP3 versions of The Grey Album. I'm not hosting any of the MP3 files (you can find the files on these sites), but I have turned the site grey for the day to show my support for more permissive copyright laws. Instead of locking creativity up, I say set it free and see what happens.
Nice fluffy article in the NY Times about the design process that led to the TiVo remote control, complete with a thumbs-up (bing!) from usability quote-whore Jakob Nielsen. I like TiVo and all, but why does tech journalism have to be so soft all the time?
The TiVo remote has a really huge, much-discussed design flaw, namely that you cannot tell which end to point at the TV unless you look at the remote or take a few seconds to feel for the buttons in your hand (if the room is dark). I've been using TiVo for almost 4 years now and while I've learned to look at the remote before I pick it up, the symmetry problem still gets me more than it should.
Here's another pitch that the Times let sail by in the article: "TiVo holds four design patents on the remote's basic shape and key layout." Say what? Trademark maybe, but how do you patent the shape of a remote control? By now, this question has a fairly pat and dissatisfying answer ("well, the busted and overworked patent system let us so we did"), but I'm tired of seeing patents like this given credibility by being mentioned in big newspapers.
Update: Neil sent me a link to the USPTO's guidelines for granting design patents. Here's their definition of design:
A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture.
If businesses buying design don't have any idea what design is, I guess you can't expect the US gov't to have any better understanding.
I love what the judge had to say to one of MGM's lawyers in the MGM vs Grokster case:
Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it 'theft.' You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language.
The audio transcript is available on MP3 and is in the public domain, which means you can share it with your friends, share it with strangers with P2P software like Grokster, or do a remix of it with GarageBand and release that into the public domain (which you could then share with your friends or strangers however you see fit). Gosh, wouldn't it be nice to have a collaborative culture instead of a culture dictated to us by Universal, Sony, EMI, Time Warner, and BMG? (link via bb and Copyfight)
Customized Classics takes novels & stories that have passed into the public domain (A Christmas Carol, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Alice in Wonderland, among others) and prints personalized paperback versions of them on demand..."starring YOU!" Instead of "Call me Ishmael" or "Oh Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?", you could get "Call me Jason" or even "Oh G. Gordon Liddy, G. Gordon Liddy! Wherefore art thou G. Gordon Liddy?" They've even modified Romeo and Juliet to make a "happy ending" version:
SCENE IV. IN THE SEPULCHRE.
[Romeo and Juliet awaken, rubbing their eyes]
Romeo: What uncommon commotion stirs these folk? Ah, blessed apothecary, whose potion miss'd its mark!
Juliet: And perhaps 'twas the keenness of mine love that hath dulled the dagger's blade.
Romeo: What sayest thou we hasten to Verona?
Juliet: Come, prince, love, husband, shining angel! Let's leave this cold sepulchre for Verona's warm embrace.
[Exeunt Romeo and Juliet hand in hand]
This is exactly the type of thing that gets Michael Eisner's panties in a wad w.r.t. Mickey Mouse, but I think it's fantastic. (thx Jenn)
Nokia cell phones are exploding in people's pockets and Nokia wants to put the blame on using non-Nokia batteries, which they call "counterfeit" [boldface mine]:
Nokia has cited faulty batteries from independent electronics manufacturers for similar incidents in the past. The company has said these manufacturers violated security requirements that should prevent the battery heating up after short-circuiting, for instance, after the phone is dropped.
According to Bruce Schneier in his book, Beyond Fear, Nokia intentionally cripples non-Nokia batteries:
Nokia spends about a hundred times more money on battery security than on communications security. The security system senses when a consumer uses a third-party battery and switches the phone into maximum power-consumption mode; the point is to ensure that consumers buy only Nokia batteries. Nokia is prepared to spend a considerable amount of money solving a security problem that it perceives -- it loses revenue if customers buy batteries from someone else -- even though that solution is detrimental to consumers. Nokia is much less willing to make trade-offs for a security problem that consumers have.
I'm wondering if Nokia's lack of concern for the consumer and this "maximum power-consumption mode" business might have something to do with the exploding battery problem, adding an explosive deterrent for those who don't wish to pay $17 for "security" features that they don't need.
Have you noticed that Google is acting more and more like a stupid marketing/advertising company lately? It's one of the side effects of not really being a search engine company and seems to fly in the face of Sergey Brin's Google rule #1: "Don't be evil".
According to this post on Russell Beattie's site, Google recently changed their Terms and Conditions to prohibit criticism of their AdSense "service" terms and conditions on participating sites. Yuck. This move follows Russell's analysis of the AdSense T&C as a result of Erik Thauvin's removal from the program.
Since when is Google providing a service by paying people for advertising placed on their sites? This seems backwards; people are providing a service by placing the Google's ads on their sites. Google has every right to place whatever limits they wish on people who use their "service", but terminating said service without recourse when money is potentially owed by Google *and then* not allowing any site using Google AdSense (which may eventually include media sites like Salon, NY Times, MetaFilter, Slashdot, and even kottke.org) to comment on the Terms and Conditions that brought about the termination is just plain bad (evil?) and should give serious pause to anyone considering using any Google service.
You Google employees out there in weblog land, take a look at these links and see if it's worth taking this issue to someone internally who can do something about it. I might run into Larry Page at a retreat next weekend...we'll see what he thinks about it.
Update: Lest you think I'm aimlessly Google-bashing here, Cory Doctorow's comments on this matter sum up my feelings very well:
But that doesn't mean that they should get a free ride. Google wants to be a company that makes money wihtout being evil, and I support that goal! Being not-evil is good, and so's making some dough. But part of being not-evil is that you have to incur liability over and above that which your counsel recommends as the safest path -- just as a shop-owner can't reasonably ask all her customers to submit to a strip-search to contain shoplifting liability, Google shouldn't ask all its users to submit to an unreasonable restriction on their speech in order to contain the spread of negative information about its service.
Derek Powazek got the boot from AdSense for "inappropriate clicks" as did Kathy Shaidle. Kathy writes:
When I complained [about the ads that were showing up on the site], they explained: my blog, which deals with religion, politics and other non-dinner-table topics, was 'potentially negative'. I asked (on the blog) if there was gonna be a 0th Amendment drawn up to protect 'potentially negative' speech.
We back and forth'd a bit, my readers complained to them on my behalf, but Google wanted me to go through my archives, delete everything I'd ever said about them, good and bad, then republish. You can guess my response.
Now that people have had a couple of weeks to tinker with it, it's become apparent that in iTunes, Apple has created their own little Napster. Well, half of Napster anyway. Just like with Napster or Kazaa, users of iTunes can share their music libraries with anyone with anyone they want. Several public sites and applications have already sprung up to help people find folks who are sharing their music, most notably ShareiTunes and SpyMac.
The catch is that you can't save songs from someone else's library to your local library using iTunes. However, a few enterprising developers looked at how iTunes shares music and have been building applications that provide the other half of the Napster experience, the downloading of music from remote libraries. iLeech is a very simple, tiny program that lets you download music from any publically available iTunes library (and there are other apps that do similar things).
Conventional wisdom is that Apple seriously fucked up, the RIAA is going to sue Apple's pants off, and Apple's new iTunes Music Store will be shut down by the some seriously pissed off record companies.
I'd like to believe an alternative theory. Apple had to know what they were doing with iTunes. Their engineers aren't stupid. They left the whole thing wide open and had to know how trivial it would be for developers to figure out the protocol and write apps to download the music directly. Maybe Apple is taking a stand here, saying that this type of software is not illegal and that it is individual users who choose to break the law. Apple knows that it's in our nature to want to share music, photos, and movies with each other and is building applications (social software?) to support that behavior. Apple wants to make a business out of this and maybe they're daring the RIAA to sue them over it. Or daring the RIAA not to sue them. After all, Apple and the record companies are all buddy-buddy now with the iTunes Music Store...are they willing to sue Apple right after getting Jobs on the cover of Fortune with Sheryl Crow? If Apple is in fact taking a stand here, I say, go Apple!
It was such a nice, sunny day in New York yesterday that I went for a walk down Broadway with 200,000 anti-war protesters. After exiting the subway at Times Square, I joined up with the March for Peace and Democracy on 41st and Broadway. Because I went to observe rather than protest, I zipped along the outskirts of the crowd, taking pictures as I went:
The enthusiasm of the crowd was impressive; they really believe in what they were marching for. Despite the strong feelings, the march was peaceful until it reached Washington Square Park. The march permit expired at 4pm and police moved in to disperse the crowd. I didn't witness it, but some protesters maced or pepper sprayed the police and the police responded in kind and with arrests.
Kevin Sites, a CNN correspondent currently in Iraq covering the war, was "asked to suspend" writing for his weblog. It's unclear who asked him to stop. Most likely it was CNN, but could have been his wife for all we know. Many folks are disappointed because news from Iraq that is unfiltered by major news organizations is hard to come by and is a welcome addition to the regular coverage.
Some people in the discussion thread that accompanies his final post are flipping out a little bit...and unnecessarily so. If CNN did tell him to stop, it's not a case of corporate censorship or crushing the little guy (jeez, talk about paranoia). Kevin is over in Iraq on CNN's payroll and probably has a contract that doesn't allow him to report on the war for anyone else, even for himself.
Hopefully he and CNN can come to an agreement to let him keep blogging from Iraq, either on his site or on CNN.com. It would be a good thing for CNN to do to generate some goodwill among online news readers and to give an innovative, experienced correspondent a little freedom to explore new methods of war reporting.
There's an additional angle here concerning the nature of weblogs and other online writing. When looking at weblogs in a legal sense, is a weblog a personal diary or is it journalism? If Kevin's site is a personal diary, CNN might not have any right to make him stop, contract or not. But given his occupation and the simple fact that he is publishing information on an open network for anyone to read, that seems to make it journalism. As it stands now, many webloggers want the best of both worlds: the legal protection and benefits offered to journalists combined with the flexibility and freedom of keeping a personal diary. It will be interesting to see how (or if) this changes in the future.
French Week continues over at Idlewords, and Sunday's installment compares French & American school cafeteria menus, rightly blasting Americans for providing our children (widely marketed to us by our government and corporations as "our future") with substandard, unimaginative, unhealthy and corporate-controlled food. Here's a sample:
Finally, notice how hard it is to eat a healthy diet at the American school. You would be relegated to a ghetto of garden salads, 'soups of the day', and whatever nutritious innards you could pull out of the breaded main dish. The message American kids get is that healthy food is second-rate and tastes bad, that they should eat lots of meat, cheese and potatoes, and that eating fast food every day is a normal diet.
There is no suggestion (like in the French schools) that a palate is something that must be nurtured and formed over time. Instead, kids are taught to favor sweet, fatty, salty foods and treat eating as just another source of entertainment.
The process shows no signs of slowing, either. The current push for irradiating meat (under the euphemism of 'cold pasteurization') is an attempt by the beef industry to make meat safer not by improving hygiene at the slaughterhouse, but by rendering contaminated meat harmless. Presumably, it doesn't matter whether meat in school lunches has been in contact with cowshit, as long as it is no longer infectious.
In celebration of Michelangelo's birthday, Google has changed their logo to a bit of stone depicting the sculptor's best known work, David. In the tradition of covering the bare breast of a female statue in the Great Hall of the Justice Department and hiding Picasso's Guernica during Colin Powell's UN presentation in February, Google's resident logo sculptor appears to have chisled David's schlong clean off, leaving only a dark, fuzzy area.
What did Michelangelo do to deserve such shoddy treatment on his birthday? Surely a small, pixelated phallus isn't going to offend anyone or corrupt the young. Five minutes in Photoshop and David's dong is back in its rightful place:
The change is small (sorry Mrs. David), but the man's wang deserves to be shown in all its glory.
(Oh, and I derive much satisfaction in applying my years of graphic design experience to the task of cutting wee private parts from one tiny statue and pasting them on another tiny statue, thank you very much for asking.)
Watching the news on CNN right now. The anti-war protests are happening around the world...everywhere, it seems, but Israel (Israel too). 100,000+ in NYC, 50,000 in Paris, 500,000 in Berlin, several hundred thousand in dozens of cities across the world. Reporters on the scene are stressing that the protesters are not "the usual suspects" (students, full-time activists, &c.) but are from all age groups and walks of life. As the cameras scanned the crowds in London and NYC, that appeared to be true. Here are some pictures of the protests taken by people on the scene (BBC News is asking for photos). (thx to Raza for the pics link)
If you're against the US going to war against Iraq and in NYC tomorrow, you might want to show your support at the Anti-War Rally. The rally starts at noon on 1st Ave stretching north from 49th street (approx. here near the Dag Hammarskjold Plaza).
You might notice that this is a rally and not a march. NYC rejected a request from the organizers to hold a march past the United Nations complex. I can understand both sides of the issue, but I get uncomfortable when the government tells people where and when they can assemble, march, and protest. I hope they march anyway, permit or no.
Vivian writes:
The police are not issuing a permit to the rally organizers for the Anti-War March/Rally on Feb 15th in New York. There are many people calling but more people need to call! They will most likely only cooperate if they see public opinion is turning against them.
Call all the numbers below and remind the mayor & commissioner that this is a free speech issue! The police need to work with the people not against the people. Issuing a permit at the last minute is an attempt to limit the potential of the event. That translates into supression of free speech!
Please immediately contact the following officials and urge them to grant the permit now:
**NYC Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg: 212-788-3040, 212-788-3210, and/or 212-788-9600
**NYC Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly: 646-610-8526
**NYPD Chief of Department Joseph Esposito: 646-610-6910 or 646 610-6910
We also encourage you to contact media outlets about this situation. You may give them the Feb. 15 UFPJ office number for follow-up: 646-473-8935.
You may also want to post this on your weblog if you have one.
"The Perpetual War Portfolio is an evenly weighted basket of five stocks poised to succeed in the age of perpetual war. The stocks were selected on the basis of popular product lines, strong political connections and lobbying efforts, and paid-for access to key Congressional decision makers."
The PWP is up 3.25% since its inception on 12/2/02, compared to a 4.68% drop in the S&P 500. The five companies included in the index are Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Alliant Techsystems.
The HESSLA is a new open source-ish software license agreement that includes some terms that allows "both Hacktivismo and its end-users to go to court if someone tries to use the software in a malicious manner, or to introduce harmful changes into the software." Furthermore:
"The most novel innovation in the license distributes enforcement power instead of concentrating it in Hacktivismo's hands. If a private citizen happens to violate the license, then Hacktivismo is in charge of enforcement. But the situation is different if the violation is by a government or a governmental official. When Governments subvert human rights, and try to use Hactivismo-licensed software as part of any aspect of such a project, then the license empowers end-users act as enforcers too.
"The Hacktivismo license makes it clear that the act of voluntarily using Hacktivismo software, if it is used by a government as a part of any project that has the effect of violating human rights, explicitly constitutes a waiver by that government of its sovereign immunity in the courts of other countries.
"In other words, if Myanmar or China want to keep violating human rights -- then they have no choice but to steer clear from using Hacktivismo's software in connection with any of their wrongful projects. If not, then this software license just may be the victims' long-needed ticket into court; their pathway over the obstacle to justice previously presented by sovereign immunity."
I'm not quite sure how "malicious manner" or "harmful changes" are defined by the license or will be intepreted by the courts, but the whole thing is an interesting idea. (Thx, Oxblood.)
Don Henley to fans at a concert about downloading his songs:
"Download all you want. The record companies have been ripping artists off for years. Go ahead. I'd rather lose money to you than them. I don't have a contract with you."
via brushstroke
Matt has written a great article today about Eldred v. Ashcroft and what a creative commons could mean. Like Matt, I'm concerned that the case is not going to be won, but I've got my fingers crossed for the L Train.
I'd love to live in a country where copyright protection is available, does not last forever, is not renewable, and the price you pay for that protection is you have to give it up after a reasonable amount of time (10-20 years seems more than fair). That way individuals have incentive to create and publish original works and thoughts, but we all benefit from those creations after a time. There's no right answer to the copyright question -- it's a matter of preference -- but as both a creator and consumer of copyrighted works, I'd prefer to be part of a society that values both protection and a plentiful amount of intellectual and artistic energy in the public domain.
Update: The hearing is over. Some coverage: High court hears arguments in case of Congress, copyright and Mickey Mouse, Live from Eldred v. Ashcroft I, a summary of the arguments, NY Times: Supreme Court Hears Copyright Challenge.
How's this for a change: a bit of heartening news regarding the music business. A bunch of musicians, including heavy hitters Elton John, Madonna, No Doubt, and Eric Clapton, are going up against the RIAA in hopes of leveling the playing field for artists in the music industry. It's nice to see some big names speaking out against the RIAA, especially since of all the artists out there, they have the most to lose. Big-name artists actually make money in the current system, whereas small artists generally don't...Madonna could keep her mouth shut and continue raking in the dough.
Daryl Westfall, the creator of the thank you for financing global terror stickers writes in to say that his ad got pulled by Google. The ad in question reads:
A Full Tank Of Terrorism?
Controversial sticker educates them while they're standing at the pump!
Here's an excerpt from the letter he received from Google:
"At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of 'Hate/anti' on our website. We also do not permit sites that sell these products to advertise on Google. As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, we reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site."
Others have called Google's rejection of ads "censorship", hoping to cash in on that term's Constitutional connotation, but Google has the right to reject whatever ad they want. It's just advertising and Google isn't the U.S. Government.
Because of Google's position as a nearly essential Web tool, it's unfortunate that they won't run this particular ad as is and I wish they'd change their mind, but they've got legal liability to worry about. Not running certain types of ads, even though some legitimate ads might get pulled unfairly, limits their liability. Hopefully Daryl can rephrase his ad and get it back on the site.
If you want to point fingers, point them instead at America's lawsuit-happy citizenry and corporations. The duels of yesteryear are outdated; there's plenty of satisfaction to be had in the courtroom and everyone from insurance companies to the families of tragedy victims to goofy Hollywood-backed cults to computer manufacturers to people too stupid to know that coffee is hot is glove-slapping the faces of anyone unlucky enough to get in the way.
When Germany invaded Denmark at the beginning of World War II, exporting gold became a crime. Niels Bohr, entrusted with the Nobel Prize medals of Max von Laue and James Franck, didn't want those gold medals to fall into German hands or risk smuggling them out of the country. He and a colleague hid the medals for the duration of the war by dissolving them in acid, each medal in its own jar. When the war ended, the gold was recovered from solution and recast by the Nobel Foundation. (from The Making of the Atomic Bomb)
A great post on BoingBoing this morning about Howard Rheingold's talk at Reboot:
"Tim [Berners-Lee] didn't need to go to the owner of the Internet and ask for the architecture to be changed. Because the Internet was created as an open platform, he could just do it. He did it. He put it in the public domain. Journos ask him if he regrets not earning money from each page, but while there's nothing wrong with being an entrepreneur, most innovation comes out of the public domain."
Damn, I wish I was at Reboot right now.
I just watched the Daniel Pearl execution video. To say the least, it was disturbing. I'm not sure if I'm glad I watched it or not (if it helped my understanding of anything, etc.), but I am glad that I was able to make the decision without worrying about if my government or some network news department concerned with ratings wants me to or not.
Paraphrase from Brewster Kahle's presentation of his Internet Archive project: "leaving everything up to the publishing industry is not the best way to run a culture." The Internet Archive's policy with regard to archiving materials is to take first and ask questions later because the information on the Internet is too culturally valuable to lose. Damn the copyright laws, full speed ahead!
Brewster also said "stealing from the library is dorky", but I can't remember the context.
Top Ten New Copyright Crimes. Even more funny (if it weren't so scary) is Jamie Kellner's remark that "your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots". I don't recall signing any contract or making a verbal agreement with NBC to agree to watch Toyota commercials during The West Wing. My only contract with regard to the TV is my cable bill, which entitles me to watch as much or as little of 50-some channels as I want. How the networks make money is their business...if advertising isn't working anymore, you need to try something else. Don't come crying to me about some bogus contract that exists only in your mind.
The downside of this is what happens if ad-supported television can't function profitably due to PVRs and such? Will TV go away? Will it become for-pay across the board with $300-500 monthly cable bills? Are consumers going to get screwed or will a better form of TV broadcasting emerge from the rubble (imagine all your favorite shows on one network)? The future is so fun that way...impossible to predict.
Eldred v. Ashcroft: "Just as Walt Disney used the works of the Brothers Grimm to produce some of the best of the Disney stories, so too should the next Walt Disney be able to build upon the stories told by Disney."
Free the Mouse. When Copyright Attacks. Create Like It's 1790.
In Artist's Freeway Prank, Form Followed Function. L.A. artist Richard Ankrom made his own highway sign and attached it to an existing sign to help aid motorists at a confusing freeway exit. State officials didn't notice for nine months until an item showed up in a local paper. Excepts from Ankrom's video show how he made and hung the sign. Brilliant. (thx nicole)
What the Net might look like in the overregulated next millennium: Snailmail from the 21st Century. As inaccurate as most gazing-into-the-future is (just read some old entries on kottke.org for proof), Mark did a pretty good job with this one from May 1997.
A metamap of surveillance and privacy, a cartographic depiction of various global efforts and resources related to "surveillance, privacy, free speech and open infrastructure projects". A good resource presented with great information design.
It wasn't as much as I had hoped, but I just donated $150 (proceeds from my Q1 Amazon Associates revenues) to the EFF because, well, they need it to combat stuff like this, this, and this. When I get myself a full-time job again, I'm going to start donating to them on a more regular basis because I believe that the EFF is doing necessary fundamental work, not just for folks in "cyberspace", but for everybody that comes into contact with technology (and who isn't included in that group these days?).
In keeping with the photo analogy theme of the past few days, Nick offers his view of the Web circa 2002, complete with historical comparison.
And Mike expresses his feelings about dealing with ISPs right now.
Inspired in part by Rusty's donation, I've decided to donate my Amazon Associates revenue for this quarter (Jan-Mar) to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. My Associates revenue came to about $275 for Q4 2001, but hopefully it'll be more this time around. So for the next couple months, if you see me link to something you'd like to buy at Amazon, a portion of the purchase price (5-15%) will go to the EFF.
I'm donating money to the EFF because I'm concerned ("upset" would be a better word) about current copyright laws, the U.S. patent system, and the like, and the (grossly understaffed and underfunded) EFF is fighting to do something about these issues. If you're interested in helping out, here are some things you can do:
- Support the EFF through membership or donation.
- Volunteer with the EFF. They are looking for media people, research assistants, & Perl/CGI folks for a variety of projects.
- If you have a weblog and link to books, movies, or music at Amazon, why not donate your revenues or link to Amazon using the EFF's Associates code ("electronicfro-20")? Using the EFF's code is easy: here's a link to Amazon's front page and here's one to EFF board member Larry Lessig's new book, The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. Me donating my little bit of revenue is one thing, but a whole lot of weblogs donating their revenues...now that would be something else. Let's go!
The issues discussed in The Test Tube Forest, an article on genetically modified trees, are going to become more and more important as genetic engineering becomes commonplace. Yet, I don't really see anyone doing anything about it...this type of thing will most likely just slide under the radar of most people (myself included). I'm not entirely sure why that is, but I think it has something to do with our short attention span (i.e. how does this directly affect me, right now).
Anil has some thoughts about Jones Diner, my favorite NY restaurant (having been to a total of about four), and points to a Village Voice article about its possible closure.
Meg and I saw a "don't close us down" petition on the counter when we stopped in last week, but I didn't know the story behind it until I read the article. I hope it doesn't get shut down. Jones Diner is part of that neighborhood's culture and history. Cities need places like that...they add diversity, character, culture, and history to the neighborhoods in which they are located.
Andrew Glassberg, one of the folks trying to build an upscale modern diner in place of Jones Diner, asserts "we are all about eggs and burgers [and we] want that classic diner feel". He's missing the point; it's not just about the type of food or some carefully crafted & marketed "classic diner feel", it's a lot more than that. When we were there the other day, about five minutes after we had ordered, a man walked in with hellos to both men working behind the counter, obviously a regular. Four minutes after that, way before we got our food, the man dug into a turkey dinner which he hadn't ordered, but which they knew he wanted anyway. That's just a taste of what places like Jones Diner give you in the context of a neighborhood that a modern diner just can't.
The Ten Worst Corporations of 2001: "Southern dumps more money into the political process than any utility, according to U.S. PIRG. In the first six months of the 2002 election cycle, according to U.S. PIRG, Southern has outdistanced every energy company in the United States, including the profligate political spenders in the oil and gas industry. The company spends millions on lobbyists, and employs nearly a dozen outside lobby firms. It runs a network of political action committees to funnel money to candidates, and is a major donor to political parties. Its campaign cash targets key members of energy and environment committees, who work hard to deliver the goods." (via bb)
More movie stuff (apologies to all those that don't care about such things): Kevin Smith's Dogma has found a North American distributor and will be showing at a theatre near you in November. Yay!
Simply Porn gets some more press on Wired News.
CSL GmbH in Germany is offering two year domain name registrations for about US$45, almost half of what Network Solutions sells them for. This is great...prices are finally going down. Hopefully, Network Solutions will be undercut by some competitive pricing and go out of business. Couldn't happen to nicer folks.
People buy $25 Tommy Hilfiger clothing items for their toddlers. There's something fundamentally wrong with that.
Saw a story on the evening news about the first woman-commanded Space Shuttle mission. While I realize that it's good to bring attention to such stories, it saddens me that they are necessary at all.
Simply Porn got some play on ZDTV's Silicon Spin today....in a roundabout sort of way. If you want, you can even watch the entire show via RealVideo....or fast forward to 23:45 for the good stuff.
I know a lot of people find it funny, but I just can't laugh at Dilbert. Dilbert depresses me because big companies are really like that. What depresses me even more is all the managers out there laughing at it probably don't understand that they're the butt of the joke...which is, of course, the problem.
Has anyone else had any bad experiences with egghead.com? I ordered a Palm Pilot from them about two and a half months ago and they just shipped it today. Granted, the Palm V was back ordered for a while, but then when I called their support center, it took them two days (!!) to track down my order status. They couldn't even tell me if they had any Palm Vs in stock. And it turned out that they had somehow lost my order and had to reinstate it. WTF? I would have cancelled the damn thing long ago if it hadn't been such a good deal. Let's just hope it shows up in one piece.
And when I do get my Palm, I expect I will be looking around the Web for neat little gadgets and apps to put on the damn thing. The bad news is that I shall be forced to tell you good folks all about it. So, do you know of any gotta-have-it apps that you want to share with this Palm newbie?
James Lileks over at the Star Tribune writes about those annoying severe weather warnings during tv shows. I couldn't agree more. Some of the persistant warning garbage they put up on the screen is akin to having your microwave continue to beep loudly even after you've removed the food from it. A small scrolling bit of text (and no sound!) at the bottom of the screen every once in a while is sufficient. Anything more ruins the viewing experience.
Reading Where Wizards Stay Up Late : The Origins of the Internet depressed me...even though it was really good. The people who developed what eventually became the Internet were ever so smart and cared about what they were doing and why they were doing it. The Internet today is increasingly in the hands of people concerned only with power and money. I'm going to try to do my small part to keep the spirit of the Internet founders alive.
Tons of things have been happening with 0sil8 so I will summarize. The Simply Porn ads are still off of my site, but can be reached on several other sites (a list is available). They've also garnered some press coverage, most notably in The Wall Street Journal, news.com, The San Jose Mercury, The St. Paul Pioneer Press, and Salon.
0sil8 was selected as Rave of the Day over on Netscape's What's Cool page.
A new episode of 0sil8: Simply Porn. It's a parody of 3Com's new ad campaign featuring a nude woman holding a Palm V organizer. The ads are tastefully done (sort of), mine are not.
The crap week from hell continues. I fell asleep whilst reading my book in a mall food court over my lunch hour and got rousted by a police officer who told me to wake up and move along. I don't look that much like a vagrant, do I?
Fuck the Police.
I'm sure most of you have seen this by now, but eBay didn't accept their CSotY award for cool shopping site, someone else stepped in and accepted it, and it's now up for auction on eBay.
It's a thing of beauty...one of those absolutely perfect moments.
Excessive advertising & promotion makes everything about products, services, events, movies, songs, and companies irrelevant except for the fact that it is being advertised and promoted in an excessive manner.
"AOL Drops Backing From Film For Lack of Product Placement!" is playing over at the Drudge Retort. It's about that film "You've Got Mail". I love writing fake press releases and news articles.
I got my first cease and desist letter today. Sort of. Here's the letter:
Jason,
I am contacting you to let you know that the site:
http://www.0sil8.com/episodes/98/05/06/index2.html
is in violation of logo usage and copyright infringement and you could face legal litigation if the usage continues.
Thank you,
Matthew Barnes
Senior Multimedia Designer
This letter is really strange for two reasons:
a) It's not from a lawyer. It's from the "Senior Multimedia Designer" from a company called Rossroy Interactive. I guess this guy is cheaper than a lawyer. Of course, the lawyer might have realized that the Apple Dodge Neon page is a parody of both the Dodge Neon and the Apple iMac and is therefore probably protected under copyright laws.
b) It's unclear what is wrong with the page. Is it the Dodge logo or the Apple one? I did some checking and Rossroy Interactive is in Michigan...making it a good bet that the Dodge logo is the one in question. It might have been nice of them to mention that.
Anyway, I don't think I'll be taking the page down right now. I've got a couple letters to write and some legal codes to pore over.
From Wired News (side blurb on front page) concerning the sentencing of Terry Nichols in the Okla. City bombing:
"The judge said the bombing was not so much a crime against the 169 people who died and their families as it was a 'crime against the Constitution of the United States. That's the victim.'"
This pisses me off more than I thought it would. While in some cases I would agree that the interests of the govt. should supercede those of a few people, comparing the lives of all those people (and their families) to the Constitution was a huge fuckup on the judge's part. What an idiot.
