John Young is a brave and tenacious man, an architect based in New York whose website, cryptome.org, has been a safe online repository for documents that someone, somewhere does not want published.
Since 1996 he has resisted pressure from governments, companies and individuals, using the strong protection against prior restraint provided by the US Bill of Rights to publish information about secret surveillance, spying, war crimes and many other topics.
Thanks to a robust policy on the part of his current internet service provider, his site has remained online despite the best efforts of those who are embarrassed by its contents.
Until last month, that is, when cryptome.org disappeared from the internet after Network Solutions disabled access to the site’s domain.
Mr Young had not revealed military secrets that put the lives of soldiers at risk, or published the finer details of Britain’s nuclear deterrent capability.
The document that got the site kicked offline was not a detailed map of the presidential escape route from the White House, or a list of the lobbyists who have visited Downing Street in the last year, but a 22-page document written by Microsoft.
It details how US government agencies can request access to customer data stored on Microsoft servers, like your Hotmail messages, and Microsoft used copyright law to achieve what the US government could not.
The company has since withdrawn its complaint, noting that it only wanted one document removed and was not attempting to restrict access to the whole of Cryptome.
Network Solutions has put it back online – with the offending file still present. But the fact that laws passed to protect the commercial interests of creators of original content can evidently have more force than national security concerns should make us all pause.
Comic capers
John Young is not the only one in trouble at the moment. My friend Mark Kobayashi-Hillary had uploaded more than 900 videos to YouTube over the years, most of them related to his specialist area of globalisation and outsourcing, but his account has been removed because of claims that he is infringing copyright.
After some investigation Mark has been told that since he has had three videos removed at the request of rights holders he is a “repeat offender”.
His account was terminated to comply with Federal law after comedian Jimmy Carr’s management company complained of a video he had taken at a recent Carr performance.
YouTube is a US company, so applying US rules seems reasonable, but there has been no legal process and his account was closed without any notice being given to him, so he had no opportunity to question it in advance.
And what tips this particular case over from mere irritation into something worthy of Kafka is that the camera phone clip that got Mark’s account removed showed the audience waiting for Jimmy Carr to appear on stage, and not a second of the comic’s performance.
Yet Chambers Management claims that it holds the copyright in any material filmed inside the venue and so his video is infringing.
I haven’t seen Mark’s ticket and it may well be that he has assigned copyright to the company by agreeing to the terms and conditions printed in one-point on the back, but even if this is so the absurdity remains.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8544935.stm