The WNBA’s Twitter gaffe

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” — unknown (“probable misattribution” to Edmund Burke according to Wikiquote)

I’d like to know what the person in charge of the WNBA’s Twitter account was thinking when he or she blocked a well-known fan account associated with a blog called, oddly enough, WNBA Outsiders. The latter’s words on the matter include the following:

Let me explain to you a lesson that my mother taught me when I was just ten years old. When someone is bothering you and trying to get under your skin, the best thing that you can do to minimize that voice is to ignore it. But, @WNBA (whoever you really are), you have failed to practice this wisdom. Instead of pretending that the authors of this website do not have a voice or an audience, you have chosen to actively work against us. By blocking us, you have recognized our influence on the coverage of the league. We deem it a foolish action by a league that seems to specialize in such ill-advised decisions.

And further down:

The aggressive action against the Outsiders has been noted, but it will not be tolerated. Let it be known that a failure to accept the olive branch of peace we have graciously extended will be interpreted as nothing less than a declaration of war.

“Foolish” is a bit too mild for me; I have tagged this with “galactically-stupid” which is a tag I reserve for the most decisive lapses in intelligence. I don’t know how anyone at the WNBA could possibly see this as a wise move.

If it’s a trademark or trade dress issue, that’s a complete non-starter. For one, it is impossible to get the WNBA Outsiders blog mixed up with any real, genuine WNBA publication. The site design is completely different. The WNBA would never use a minimalist design with only a 770×150 pixel or so tight crop of a generic basketball.

I have remained a WNBA fan despite the folding of the Houston Comets (which I think may well be one of those “ill-advised decisions” that WNBA Outsiders makes reference to). I’m beginning to wonder if that’s not a mistake now.

Apple rejects C64 emulator on iPhone

Few computer users from the 1980s will soon forget the rivalry between the myriad computer companies in business at the time. Apple and Commodore were at the forefront of that rivalry, as IBM’s PC didn’t really take off until later in the decade.

In fact, my earliest BBS experience from 1991 involved a fellow user–at the time he was actually a sysop–making a “Commode Commodore” joke to a friend (or maybe rival) of his who insisted upon using one of the things well past its prime. (Commodore was still in business making the Amiga line until their bankruptcy in 1994.)

So maybe it is only fitting, in a bizarre way, that Apple rejects a Commodore 64 emulator for the iPhone, as reported by Touch Arcade. It would almost be humorous except for the fact that the programmer spent several months on his project only to be censored by Apple. And I do use the term censored for a reason: this is censorship, and I fail to see a good reason for it. Several other emulator applications exist for the iPhone, and Apple still continues to leave them be.

Yet more evidence that Apple requiring the “seal of approval” on every iPhone application is unsustainable.

ASCAP vs. Mobile Phone Users – The money song

It’s a bit out of character for me to take AT&T’s side anywhere. Yet when the
EFF reported on ASCAP’s lawsuit against the telecom behemoth, this is exactly what I wound up doing.

This is the same ASCAP that tried to extort the Girl Scouts for singing
songs around campfires. Some of you may be less familiar with that story so I’ll post an excerpt of the Web site linked above:

After reportedly opening its negotiations with the American Camping Association with an offer of $1,200 per season per camp, ASCAP eventually settled on an average annual fee of $257. But once ASCAP’s plan went public, and people learned that the Girl Scouts were among the 288 camps being dunned, the group beat a hasty and embarrassed retreat.

This story does not mention the number of camps that would have had to pay this amount. Still, $257 times hundreds or thousands of camps across the US adds up to a huge chunk of change for someone.

Fred von Lehmann, who is credited for writing the EFF’s blog post, takes a no-nonsense approach towards blasting ASCAP for the lawsuit, citing a lesser-known part of the copyright act, 17 USC 110(4), and continuing with an excellent explanation of why ASCAP’s arguments are completely out of tune.

I can understand representing the interests of the composers, who have expenses just like the rest of us. However, there is a line between fair compensation and greed. ASCAP’s proposal crosses way over the line.

A lot of this could be avoided if copyright restrictions were capped to a sensible length of time. The original 28 years of US copyright law is much more reasonable than today’ length which is effectively forever (life of the author plus 75 years, and that’s if it doesn’t get extended yet again, which is always possible given the history of copyright law). Had we stuck with 28-year copyright, here’s a small sampling of what would be public domain today:

  • Any surviving recordings of sporting events held during or before 1980, including Super Bowls I through XIV and the World Series staged in those years
  • Any recordings of the Olympic games up to and including the XXII Summer Olympiad and XIII Winter Olympiad (both in 1980, held in Moscow and Lake Placid, respectively), which would include the original game tape of the 1980 Miracle on Ice
  • Every movie copyrighted in 1980 or earlier, including: Rollerball, The Godfather trilogy, the first two Star Wars movies (episodes IV and V), American Graffiti, and any film which predates these (a very long list indeed)

Of course, the list goes on and on far beyond what I could hope to include here. While I don’t realistically see us going back to 28-year copyrights, I do think the pendulum has swung way too far towards “copyright it now, it’s yours forever” and ASCAP’s greedy grab is only a symptom of the disease.

A closer look at Microsoft’s unethical business practices

A recent reader’s article on boycottnovell.com offers a very insightful look into the unethical side of Microsoft’s business.

The author, Roy Schestowitz, makes a number of very good points. In particular:

  • Microsoft abuses “guerilla” or “viral” advertising more than other companies, disguising recommendations as “impartial” when in reality they are anything but that. An unfortunate choice for a company that really should not need to resort to these tactics.
  • Microsoft combines products into “bundles” solely to squeeze out competing products. Examples abound: perhaps the best known is Windows 95, where MS-DOS was no longer available as a separate product. Another example is the inclusion of Web browser and media player software within Windows.
  • Microsoft abuses standards and in fact the entire standardization process to suit their needs. While this is not really explored in Roy’s article in detail, the most obvious example I can think of is the confusingly named Office Open XML format. Microsoft appears to have chosen this name to confuse on purpose as the first version of the OASIS OpenDocument standard (sometimes called ODF) was finalized about a year before.
  • Microsoft’s “partner” network is a sham, as the “partners” really aren’t partners in the truest sense of the word. In essence, the partnership arrangement is coercive; “partners” are agreeing to support and recommend Microsoft’s products exclusively and are threatened with loss of competitiveness if they want to back out.
  • Microsoft also refers to free software, and particularly the GPL, as “Communist” and “un-American.” This is a transparent smear tactic to anyone who is paying even the smallest amount of attention to Microsoft’s motives.

More insanity about photography

This pair of stories from the UK, plus one from Miami, Florida, US, are enough to make any decent person’s blood boil. While these first two are both UK stories, these are equally likely in the US (and other “free” countries).

The first is a report from the Telegraph about parents not being allowed to photograph their own children at a sports day event. The second is a story from the Mail Online about a policemen deleting a tourist’s photos in the name of security. The third story comes from Carlos Miller who documents an absolute absurdity with regard to his long-running legal action. The courts want Carlos to transcribe the entire trial at his expense, not just the portions he believes are pertinent to the appeal. This will cost Carlos at least US$2,500 at US$5 per page.

I don’t know what the schools are attempting to accomplish by keeping parents from taking pictures of their own children. Have we really reached the point where a camera is more feared than a firearm?

With regard to the second, this story is evidence that security paranoia has gotten way out of hand. At least in the US, police or private security guards almost never have legal basis to delete photos (or video or audio). As a general rule, one should never voluntarily surrender one’s camera or recording media.

Finally, Carlos is already appealing his case pro se mainly due to lack of money for a lawyer. Every lawyer Carlos spoke to wanted upwards of US$10,000 to handle the appeal. It disgusts me that our “justice system” expects people who obviously can’t afford it to spend thousands of dollars to get what is rightfully theirs.

For those unfamiliar with Carlos’ story, he maintains an excellent blog entitled Photography is Not a Crime which has complete archives dating back to the first post on 2007-04-28.