Internet: August 2007 Archives
Earlier in August, the New South Wales Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the eBay Wirraway case -- more formally known as Smythe v Thomas [2007] NSWSC 844. That judgment pre-dated the establishment of this blog, but it's quite a significant case -- at least so far as eBay buyers and sellers in Australia are concerned -- so it's worth a recap.
The facts, briefly stated, are that Thomas listed a rare and valuable Wirraway aircraft on eBay, with an auction duration of 10 days and a minimum price of $150k. Smythe, after a phone conversation with Thomas (the substance of which was disputed) placed a bid for $150k and, there being no other bidders, "won" the auction.
[I'd rather buy a T-38, or a nice Embraer bizjet, but I digress...]
Thomas was unhappy because he was hoping to obtain $250k for the aircraft. He refused to complete the transaction, and Smythe sued. Thomas' defence was:
Despite the fact that eBay were downplaying the potential effect on their business model and online commerce via eBay in Australia generally, it would seem that if Thomas had succeeded on any of his first three defences, it would have thrown a serious spanner into eBay's collective works. It's reassuring to see that this didn't happen.
The facts, briefly stated, are that Thomas listed a rare and valuable Wirraway aircraft on eBay, with an auction duration of 10 days and a minimum price of $150k. Smythe, after a phone conversation with Thomas (the substance of which was disputed) placed a bid for $150k and, there being no other bidders, "won" the auction.
[I'd rather buy a T-38, or a nice Embraer bizjet, but I digress...]
Thomas was unhappy because he was hoping to obtain $250k for the aircraft. He refused to complete the transaction, and Smythe sued. Thomas' defence was:
- There was a contract (the eBay User Agreement) between Thomas and eBay, and between Smythe and eBay, but there was no contract or agreement between Thomas and Smythe;
- The eBay listing was analogous to a classified advertisement -- i.e. an invitation to treat;
- Even if there was offer and acceptance, the time for payment was to be negotiated and the agreement was therefore incomplete;
- Smythe waived his right to bid on the auction, based on the content of the disputed phone call.
Despite the fact that eBay were downplaying the potential effect on their business model and online commerce via eBay in Australia generally, it would seem that if Thomas had succeeded on any of his first three defences, it would have thrown a serious spanner into eBay's collective works. It's reassuring to see that this didn't happen.
Slashdot have a story concerning a major outage in the "Windows Genuine Advantage" servers. This outage resulted in a large number of genuine, legitimate installations of Microsoft Windows products incorrectly identifying themselves as "non-genuine" with a subsequent lessening of functionality [see e.g. this or this] -- presumably to encourage those damn dirty software pirates to buy a copy of the real thing. Even though they already had.
Microsoft have dropped the ball on this one. Even though the problem is now fixed, and they have apologised, and provided instructions on how to rectify systems that were incorrectly stigmatised as non-genuine during this period, this demonstrates what can happen when even apparently-well intentioned DRM systems malfunction. No word on whether any compensation will be forthcoming, but Microsoft have their EULA's to hide behind, so I doubt this will happen, possibly except as a goodwill gesture and without admission of liability.
If my business had been disrupted by something such as the inadvertent activation of the MS Office "kill switch" described in this article, or I was prevented from working on an assessment item for university by it, I would be wanting Microsoft's corporate head on a platter, and some monetary compensation.
Microsoft have dropped the ball on this one. Even though the problem is now fixed, and they have apologised, and provided instructions on how to rectify systems that were incorrectly stigmatised as non-genuine during this period, this demonstrates what can happen when even apparently-well intentioned DRM systems malfunction. No word on whether any compensation will be forthcoming, but Microsoft have their EULA's to hide behind, so I doubt this will happen, possibly except as a goodwill gesture and without admission of liability.
If my business had been disrupted by something such as the inadvertent activation of the MS Office "kill switch" described in this article, or I was prevented from working on an assessment item for university by it, I would be wanting Microsoft's corporate head on a platter, and some monetary compensation.
There has been something of a media feeding frenzy today over revelations that Australian government agencies, including the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have been editing Wikipedia articles -- in some cases, to change the slant of the articles, in others, engaging in puerile vandalism. (Unless there's some valid reason for inserting "Poo bum dicky wee wee" into an article on martial arts)
The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet edited a Wikipedia article on "Mandatory detention in Australia" to change a reference to inhumane conditions of detention" to read "allegedely [sic] inhumane conditions of detention" and inserted a "Some commentators argume [sic] that" elsewhere in the article. Perhaps they need to learn how to spell check their work? In any case, those changes were reverted less than six hours later because of the use of "weasel words". Thus, the system worked.
The edits made by the NSW Premier's Department are more concerning, as they involve the editing of articles to remove or sanitise potentially embarrassing information. Since the story broke this morning, the Wikipedia entry for Morris Iemma (the NSW Premier) has been the subject of repeated vandalism.
Alexander Downer has accused Wikipedia of being "anti government", and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet are denying that they were responsible for the edits in question. Despite the fact that the APNIC WHOIS database records the IP address in question as being in a block assigned to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, they deny it was in fact used by them.
The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet edited a Wikipedia article on "Mandatory detention in Australia" to change a reference to inhumane conditions of detention" to read "allegedely [sic] inhumane conditions of detention" and inserted a "Some commentators argume [sic] that" elsewhere in the article. Perhaps they need to learn how to spell check their work? In any case, those changes were reverted less than six hours later because of the use of "weasel words". Thus, the system worked.
The edits made by the NSW Premier's Department are more concerning, as they involve the editing of articles to remove or sanitise potentially embarrassing information. Since the story broke this morning, the Wikipedia entry for Morris Iemma (the NSW Premier) has been the subject of repeated vandalism.
Alexander Downer has accused Wikipedia of being "anti government", and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet are denying that they were responsible for the edits in question. Despite the fact that the APNIC WHOIS database records the IP address in question as being in a block assigned to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, they deny it was in fact used by them.
inetnum: 210.193.176.96 - 210.193.176.127EFA has been deluged by calls from the media wanting comments on this issue. I've done several radio interviews on the subject today. It's nice to know that at least someone listens to these interviews :)
netname: MCT-pmc-04
country: AU
descr: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
descr: Intellicentre Gateway Internet Service
admin-c: MCT2-AP
tech-c: MCT2-AP
status: ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE
changed: cgacis@macquarie.net.au 20050107
mnt-by: MAINT-AU-MCT
source: APNIC
Slashdot reports that a website, whyfirefoxisblocked.com, is trying to start a campaign to block all users of the Firefox web browser from accessing websites. Why? Because Firefox supports an extremely useful plug-in by the name of Adblock Plus, which as the name suggests, allows users to block advertising from websites.
Why is this bad? According to whyfirefoxisblocked.com:
In a 2002 interview with Jamie Kellner, chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting (a company that controls a number of cable TV channels, including CNN, and a part of Time Warner) said that the increasing penetration of PVRs (Personal Video Recorders, e.g. Tivo, many of which allow you to skip advertising) was not good for his industry. When asked why, he responded:
The whyfirefoxisblocked.com page links to a brief but interesting blog posting suggesting that blocking advertising is an infringement of copyright, and that the makers of Adblock Plus could be liable for contributory infringement. Yet another issue to explore in a future blog posting...
Why is this bad? According to whyfirefoxisblocked.com:
- blocking advertising "is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers";
- website operators have the right to insist that users of their website view advertising;
- accessing those websites while blocking the ads is "no less than stealing";
- blanket ad-blocking is "theft";
- the makers of Adblock Plus "refuse to allow website owners control over their own intellectual property";
- etc
In a 2002 interview with Jamie Kellner, chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting (a company that controls a number of cable TV channels, including CNN, and a part of Time Warner) said that the increasing penetration of PVRs (Personal Video Recorders, e.g. Tivo, many of which allow you to skip advertising) was not good for his industry. When asked why, he responded:
Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming.Everything old is new again. It will be interesting to see if this campaign gains any serious traction. It could just be a troll. In any case, the technical countermeasures that they suggest site owners take could be trivially circumvented. I wonder if they will then rely on the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA to help their cause? If this campaign is serious, and spreads, it could lead to a real copyright bunfight.
The whyfirefoxisblocked.com page links to a brief but interesting blog posting suggesting that blocking advertising is an infringement of copyright, and that the makers of Adblock Plus could be liable for contributory infringement. Yet another issue to explore in a future blog posting...
