brilliant criticism of internet copyright

Sunday, August 17, 2008--Andis Kaulins [8/17/2008 05:30:00 PM] - Home - About -Our Book

Usain's Bolt : Jamaica Lightning Runs 9.69 100-Meter in the 2008 Olympics : But Will You Ever See It? Copyrights Limit the Sports Broadcasting World 

Toss the idea of the Internet as a large open worldwide community out the window.

Our copyright laws and the invisible webs of business and monopoly powers and dependencies impose substantial limits on the Internet, not even to mention the intentional squelching of Internet content by governments.

One example is provided by the video rights for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games (officially, Games of the XXIX Olympiad), which are clearly "out of the hands of the people", even if the Games are being held in the People's Republic of China. As written at the Wikipedia:

"Exclusive broadcast rights holders in large markets in Europe, North America and Australia have plans to show thousands of hours online." Furthermore, for the first time "live online video rights in some markets for the Olympics have been separately negotiated, not part of the overall 'broadcast rights,'"; these new media of the digital economy are growing "nine times faster than the rest of the advertising market."^[105]online streaming video for the 2006 winter games but produced approximately 2,200 hours American broadcaster NBC produced only 2 hours of coverage for the 2008 summer games.

Globally, however, the 2008 Olympics is subject to extensive copyright restriction –which amounts to territorial restrictions– whilst still being covered extensively online within various exclusive copyright autarkies. Thus despite the international nature of the event and the global reach of the Internet, the coverage world wide of assorted nation-states and television networks is not readily accessible; there is no global orsupranational media coverage as such. The international European Broadcasting Union(EBU), for example, provides live coverage and highlights of all arenas only for certain of its own territories^[106] on their website eurovisionsports.tv.^[107] Many national broadcasters likewise restrict online events to their domestic audiences.^[108]

Despite the contractual obligations of the digital economy, some of the same technologies used to circumvent the Great Firewall of China (such as UltraSurf) can be used to subvert the Olympic media autarkies on the Internet as well.

YouTube has removed a video of a regional German network's (NDR) coverage of the opening ceremonies as "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by a third party.^[109][110]; a video from Australia's Seven Network has been removed "for violation of terms of service." Furthermore, the General National Copyright Administration of China has announced that "individual (sic) and websites will face fines as high as 100,000 yuan for uploading recordings of Olympic Games video to the internet,"^[111] part of an extensive campaign to protect the pertinent intellectual property rights.^{[112][113][114]}"

Hence, Usain Bolt's 100 meter dash surely also will set records in fixing sports broadcasting limits on who can publish what videos about whom and where. In other words, don't even think about putting your own video of Usain's run on YouTube or your own website. 100,000 China Yuan Renminbi are nearly US $15,000.

You can, only within the United States, see Usain Bolt's 100-meter 9.69 second sprint athttp://www.nbcolympics.com/, and that only if you install Microsoft's Silverlight 2.0 Beta first. What would an economist call that kind of linkage?

If you can not see that video, you might try to see Usain Bolt's Olympic Game winning 100-meter dash video at CastTV.

If then you are still having trouble finding a video of this magnificent sprint, as written at the Washington Post:

"Usain Bolt of Jamaica won gold 100m dash in 9.69 seconds, a new world record...and he didn't even have to try after the first half of the race. But you wouldn't know it if you were here in U.S...well, if you were not online actively searching for a video clip of it. NBCOlympics.com has a lame text story online, and with a lamer Getty Images-supplied photo slideshow. Not that we were expecting anything different from NBC today, but it does add up to the growing frustration with the "bottled-up" (not my phrase...Jeff Zucker used it in a CNBC interview yesterday) coverage by the network.

If you want to watch the clip, don't go to YouTube...the "illegal" copies are being squashed every second by the regulators there. Go to DailyMotion, the French site, and search for "Usain Bolt: and sort by "Most Recent"...plenty of French language clips from Canal Plus, in decent resolution. The best way: use a proxy server to log into BBC's sports site, which has the full race and interview with Bolt in high res."

However, the UK video sites only work in the UK.

We have no idea of knowing who of the above is rightfully publishing a video of Usain's bolt and who is not, since this is all a function of contracts which the viewer is unable to see and/or interptret, and this is one of the great problems still to be solved in enforcing intellectual property law on the Internet.

Nomen est omen: "the name says it all". Jamaica sprinter Usain Bolt, known also as "Lightning Bolt", just shattered the World Record and Olympic Record in the 100-meter dash by crossing the finish line after 9.69 seconds in the fastest ever "lightning" speed by a human running on two legs. For other reasons too, it may become one of the most spectacular runs ever:

"Bolt won the Olympic 100 metres final in 9.69 (+0.0 m/s). He was well ahead of second place finisher Richard Thompson, who finished in 9.89 seconds, and shattered his own world record.^[18][19][20] Not only was his time made with no tailwind (indicating the quality of his performance), but he slowed down slightly and started to celebrate near the finish line upon looking to his right and realizing he had secured the gold medal. This was just after he had run past the 80-metre line.^[21] In addition, his left shoelace came undone.^[22][23]"

Bolt still needs to learn Coach John Wooden's penchant for paying proper attention to shoes, socks and shoelaces.

Mark Zeigler, Union-Tribune Staff Writer in San Diego, puts Bolt's run into an analytical perspective:

"Bolt had, for him, a decent start and began accelerating through the field at 40 meters. At 70 meters, he turned to his right to look for former world-record holder Asafa Powell in Lane 7, knowing that reigning world champion Tyson Gay – still suffering the effects of a hamstring injury – had washed out in the semifinals.

Bolt didn't see Powell. Didn't see anybody.

At 80 meters, he spread his arms to his sides and began to slow. At 95 meters he reached his right palm across his body and thumped his heart. As he crossed the line, he was practically turned sideways. His left shoe was untied.

It was hard enough for people to wrap their minds around 9.69. Now they were being asked to calculate how fast “Lightning Bolt,” as he's known, would have gone had he run through the line....

“When I first saw the time, it was like, 'Wow,'” said Trinidad and Tobago's Marc Burns, who was seventh. “Then when I saw him on the replay slowing down way out, it was indescribable. Just indescribable. I mean, he could have run 9.55.”

Richard Thompson, also of Trinidad, ran a 9.89 and still finished in second place by two-tenths of a second, equaling the largest margin of victory in Olympic history. American Walter Dix was third in 9.91. Powell was fifth in 9.95.

“I could see him slowing down,” Thompson said, “and I'm still pumping toward the line.” 

...

Bolt needed just 41 strides to cover the 100 meters yesterday; most world-class sprinters need 45, even 46."

louisiana & the death penalty

Louisiana seeks change on death penalty

Monday, July 21st, 2008 5:51 pm | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post

Email this • Share on Facebook • Share on LinkedIn • Digg This!

The state of Louisiana on Monday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling a month ago striking down the death penalty for the crime of child rape. The rehearing petition, citing an omission in the Court’s opinion of any mention of a federal law on that issue, was filed late Monday afternoon. The petition in Kennedy v. Louisiana (07-343) can be found here.

Noting that the Court “almost never grants petitions for rehearing,” the state’s filing said this was “the rare exception.” It cited an 1875 ruling (Ambler v. Whipple), saying that an omission “material to the decision of the case” makes “a strong appeal for reargument.”

The petition said that either the rehearing should be granted, or the Court should “first seek the views” of the U.S. Solicitor General. Earlier, after the discovery of the omitted statute from the Court’s opinion, the Solicitor General’s office said that, if a rehearing plea were filed, it would examine it and “consider what steps are appropriate.”

Under the Court’s rules, a rehearing petition is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court “at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.” The other side in a case is not allowed to file a response, unless the Court specifically asks it to do so.  The Court’s rules add that, unless there are “extraordinary circumstances,” rehearing will not be granted unless a response is first requested.

The decision in the Louisiana case, issued on June 25, came on a vote of 5-4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing for the majority.  One of those five would have to support rehearing, presumably along with the four dissenters, for that to happen.

The Court’s decision had two parts: a survey of laws and official actions, leading the Court to conclude that there was a consensus against the death penalty for child rape, and a separate expression of the Court’s own “independent judgment” about whether capital punishment should ever be available for a crime that did not result in the victim’s death — a point on which the Court said no.

In the first part, the Court noted the absence of any federal law imposing a death penalty for child rape. After the decision was issued, a military law expert noted that omission. The expert noted a 2006 law by Congress which, the expert said, authorized the death penalty for rape of a child under military law — the law that prescribes crimes and penalties for members of the military services.

A spate of publicity, beginning in The New York Times, led the U.S. Solicitor General’s office to notify the Court of the omission, and to offer to comment on it, if asked.  The government was not a party in the case, but it said it should have noticed the fact of the federal law’s existence and told the Court.

Monday was the deadline for Louisiana to seek rehearing of the case. It did so in a petition signed by counsel of record, Georgetown law professor Neal K. Katyal.

The death row inmate involved in the case, Patrick Kennedy, was represented by Stanford law professor Jeffrey L. Fisher.  On Monday, responding to media inquiries, Fisher issued a statement saying the 2006 provision could not have applied to a civilian like Kennedy, and, in any event, that provision may not even remain valid.

The rehearing plea said that the omission would bear not only on the Court’s discussion of a “national consensus” against the death penalty for child rape, but also would have an effect on the part of the ruling in which the Justices relied on “independent judgment.”

Louisiana conceded that the Court might reach the same decision again if it reheard the case, but said rehearing was warranted because that “protects the public’s trust that the Court has before it all relevant information before reaching a final decision,” it “safeguards the perception of fairness,” and it “ensures that the Court’s final decision accurately reflects the state of facts and the law.”

If the Court believes that its decision could stand alone on the exercise of “independent judgment,” that should still lead to rehearing, because, the petition argued, that would make the “national consensus” calculus less important in future cases on applying the death penalty.

A denial of rehearing, the petition argued, would sow confusion about which side of the Court’s calculus weighed the most.

law tomorrow