Turkey
Bans YouTube,
Secrets &
Copyright As
Svoboda, Ban's
UN &
Reuters
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 28 --
Turkey has
banned all of
YouTube, after
its foreign
minister Ahmet
Davutoglu
declared, "a
cyber attack
has been
carried out
against the
Turkish
Republic, our
state and our
valued
nation."
Actually, the
leaked call
concerned plans
to intervene
in Syria,
ostensibly to
protect the
tomb of
Suleyman Shah,
grandfather of
the founder of
the Ottoman
Empire,
including the
proposed
creation of a
false rocket
incident.
Intelligence
chief Hakam
Fidan says,
"if there is
to be
justification,
the
justification
is, I send
four men to
the other
side. I get
them to fire
eight missiles
into empty
land. That's
not a problem.
Justification
can be
created."
The national
security
argument for banning
YouTube, by
the country
sponsoring the
Press-less
"Turkish
Lounge" right
next to the UN
Security
Council,
follows Prime
Minister Tayyip
Erdogan
claiming he
could
copyright his
leaked telephone
calls,
like Reuters
at the UN
claimed of its
e-mail to the
UN, sketched
below and shown here.
This use of
copyright to
try to censor
has echoes in
the UN -- and
in Ukraine,
where the
Svoboda Party
tried to get videos
of its Members
of Parliament
beating up a
news executive
taken down
as violations
of copyright.
On
the Guardian
website on
March 21,
where the
video had been
was a notice
that "This
video is no
longer
available due
to a copyright
claim."
The
New York Times
reported
that late on
March 20,
YouTube copies
of the video
were taken
down "for
violating the
copyright of
the Svoboda
party
spokesman, who
seems to be
working to
erase the
evidence from
the Internet
through legal
means."
This is a
growing trend.
As set forth
below, an
anti-Press
complaint to
the UN's
Stephane
Dujarric, now
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesperson,
has been banned
from Google's
Search by an
invocation of
copyright
similar to
Erdogan's.
On March 21,
Dujarric from
Kyiv told
Inner City
Press neither
he nor, he
assuumed, Ban
had seen the
Svoboda
beat-down
video. This
seems
noteworthy,
given its
prominence in
Ukraine. Now
we can add:
perhaps Ban
and Dujarric
didn't see it
due to the
same
censorship by
copyright that
has for now
banned an anti
Press
complaint to
them from
Google's
Search.
But, as Inner
City Press first
reported on
March 23, Ban
while in Kyiv
DID meet with
the leader of
the Svoboda
Party. The
UN
has for now
refused to
answer whether
Ban knew in
advance who
would be
present.
As to Twitter,
Dujarric in
his previous
post in charge
of UN Media
Accreditation
grilled Inner
City Press about a
tweet
mentioning
World War Two
- the basis
for example of
France's veto
power in the
Security
Council, which
it parlayed
into
essentially
permanent
ownership of
the top post
in UN
Peacekeeping,
now though Herve
Ladsous
(coverage of
whom Dujarric
tried to
dictate, or
advise, Inner
City Press
about.)
Dujarric's now
bipolar
tweeting has
intersected
with a
recently
revived
anonymous
trolling
campaign which
originated
in the UN
Correspondents
Association,
in support of
the Sri Lankan
government,
alleging that
any coverage
of the abuse
of Tamils must
be funded by
the now
defunct Tamil
Tigers.
These outright
attempts to
censor are
echoed, more
genteelly,
even as part
of the UN
press
briefings
these days.
When Dujarric
took eight
questions on
March 20 on
Ban's
essentially
failed trip to
Moscow, fully
half went to
representatives
of UNCA's 15
member
executive
committee,
including
state media
from Turkey,
France and the
United States.
Other
questions --
by Twitter --
were not
answered,
except those
from
explicitly
pro-UN
sources. These
are the UN's
circles.
Google
has accepted
and acted on DMCA
complaints
about leaked
e-mails,
for example
from Reuters
to the United
Nations
seeking to get
the
investigative
Press thrown
out, and
has then blocked
access to the
leaked
documents from
its search.
Of this abuse
of the Digital
Millennium
Copyright Act,
the Electronic
Frontier
Foundation's
Intellectual
Property
Director
Corynne
McSherry told
Inner City
Press about
the Reuters
case:
"Unfortunately,
it
is all too
easy for a
copyright
holder
(assuming that
the person
that sent this
notice
actually held
copyright in
the email) to
abuse the DMCA
to take down
content and
stifle
legitimate
speech. As
countries
outside the US
consider
adopting
DMCA-like
procedures,
they must make
sure they
include strong
protections
for free
speech, such
as significant
penalties for
takedown
abuse."
In
this case,
copyright is
being (mis)
claimed for an
email from
Reuters' Louis
Charbonneau to
the UN's chief
Media
Accreditation
official
Stephane
Dujarric --
since March 10
Ban Ki-moon's
new
spokesperson
-- seeking to
get Inner City
Press thrown
out of the
UN.
Access to the
document has
been blocked
from Google's
search based
on a cursory
take-down
request under
the Digital
Millennium
Copyright Act.
If
this remains
precedent,
what else
could come
down?
Why
not an email
from Iran, for
example, to
the UN's
International
Atomic Energy
Agency? Why
not a
sanctions
filing by a
country? Here
is Reuters
logic,
accepted if
only
automatically
by Google:
The
copyrighted
material is a
private email
I wrote in
April 2012 and
for which I
never gave
permission to
be published.
It has been
published on a
blog and
appears in on
the first page
of search
results for my
name and the
firm I work
for, Reuters.
It can be seen
here:
http://www.innercitypress.com/reutersLC3unmalu.pdf
But
this is true
of ANY leaked
document: it
can be said
that the
entity or
person exposed
"never gave
permission
[for it] to be
published."
Does that mean
Google can or
should block
search access
to it?
Reuters'
Charbonneau
hands to Ban
at UNCA: banned
from Search?
Can a
complaint to a
Media
Accreditation
official
against a
competitor
legitimately
be considered
"private"? In
any event, the
DMCA is not
about
protecting
privacy.
Iran
or North Korea
could say a
filing or
status report
they make with
the IAEA is
"private" and
was not
intended to be
published.
Would Google,
receiving a
DMCA filing,
block access
to the
information
on, say,
Reuters.com?
Charbonneau's
bad-faith
argument says
his complaint
to the UN was
"published on
a blog." Is
THAT what
Reuters claims
makes it
different that
publication in
some other
media?
The
logic of
Reuters' and
Charbonneau's
August
14, 2013
filing with
Google, put
online via the
ChillingEffects.org
project,
is profoundly
anti free
press.
The
fact that
Google accepts
or didn't
check, to
remain in the
DMCA Safe
Harbor, the
filing makes
it even worse.
The request to
take-down
wasn't made to
InnerCityPress.com
or its server
-- it would
have been
rejected. But
banning a page
from Search
has the same
censoring
effect.
The US
has a regime
to protect
freedom of the
press, and
against prior
restraint. But
this is a
loophole,
exploited
cynically by
Reuters. What
if a media
conducted a
long
investigation
of a mayor,
fueled by a
leaked email.
When the story
was published,
could the
Mayor make a
Reuters-like
filing with
Google and get
it blocked?
Here
is the text of
Charbonneau's
communication
to the UN's
top Media
Accreditation
and Liaison
Unit official
Stephane
Dujarric and
MALU's
manager, to
which he
claimed
"copyright"
and for now
has banned
from Google's
Search:
Hi
Isabelle
and Stephane,
I
just wanted to
pass on for
the record
that I was
just
confronted by
Matt Lee in
the DHL
auditorium in
very hostile
fashion a
short while
ago (there
were several
witnesses,
including
Giampaolo).
He's obviously
gotten wind
that there's a
movement afoot
to expel him
from the UNCA
executive
committee,
though he
doesn't know
the details
yet. But he
was going out
of his way to
be as
intimidating
and aggressive
as possible
towards me,
told me I
"disgust" him,
etc.
In
all
my 20+ years
of reporting
I've never
been
approached
like that by a
follow
journalist in
any press
corps, no
matter how
stressful
things got.
He's become
someone who's
making it very
hard for me
and others in
the UN press
to do our
jobs. His
harassment of
fellow
reporters is
reaching a new
fever pitch.
I
just thought
you should
know this.
Cheers,
Lou
Louis
Charbonneau
Bureau Chief.
United Nations
Reuters News
Thomson
Reuters
reuters. com
This
email
was sent to
you by Thomson
Reuters, the
global news
and
information
company.
"UNCA"
in the for-now
banned e-mail
is the United
Nations
Correspondents
Association.
The story
developed
here, as to
Sri Lanka;
here
is a sample
pick-up this
past weekend
in Italian,
to which we
link and give
full credit,
translated
into English
(NOT for now
by Google) --
The fool of
Reuters to the
UN
by Mahesh -
12/27/2013
-calls for the
removal of a
letter from
the head of
his bureau at
the United
Nations,
pursuing a
copyright
infringement
on the part of
the
competition
Try
to make out a
small
competitor
from the UN
press room and
then, when
these publish
proof of
intrigue,
invokes the
copyright to
release a
letter from
compromising
the network.
MOLESTA-AGENCY
Inner
City Press is
a small
non-profit
agency
covering the
work of the
United Nations
for years,
with an
original cut,
which become
distasteful to
many. Unlike
other matching
its founder
master sent
never tires of
asking account
of
inconsistencies
and
contradictions
and often
refers to
unpleasant
situations
involving
colleagues and
their
reportage, too
often twisted
to obvious
political
contingencies.
THE
LAST CAVITY –
In
this case the
clutch is born
when Matthew
Lee, Inner
City Press
ever since he
founded and
made famous in
the 90 's,
challenged the
screening of
"Lies Agreed
Upon" in the
auditorium of
the United
Nations, a
filmaccio of
propaganda in
which the Sri
Lankan regime
tries to deny
the now tested
massacres (and
destroyed by
International
Crisis Group).
In
the piece, in
which
denounced the
incident, Lee
also announced
that the
screening was
organized by
the President
of the United
Nations
Correspondents
(UNCA),
Italian Giampaolo
Pioli,
skipping the
normal
consultation
procedure for
this kind of
events. Pioli
then, was also
accused of
being in a
conflict of
interest,
given that he
rented an
apartment in
New York an
apartment to
the Deputy
Permanent
Representative
to the UN in
Sri Lanka,
named Palitha
Kohona and is
suspected of
war crimes.
TRY
WITH THE
COPYRIGHT-
So
he comes to
the letter
with which
Louis
Charbonneau,
Reuters bureau
chief at the
United
Nations, wrote
to the Media
Accreditation
and Liaison
Unit (MALU)
calling for
the ouster of
Lee, which the
UN being there
for years as
his
colleagues,
but we see
that this was
not done. Lee,
however, comes
into
possession of
the letter and
publish it,
and then
writes to
Google
millantando
Charbonneau
the copyright
on the letter
and asking
for removal
pursuant to
the Digital
Millennium
Copyright Act.
That
is a bit like
if a company
request the
removal of a
compromising
document from
a journalistic
investigation,
in the name of
copyright, a
claim clearly
absurd and
disingenuous.
HARASSMENT
AND THREATS-
In
the letter
published,
Charbonneau
complained
about the
aggressive
behavior of
Lee and cited
among the
witnesses to
cases where
Lee had been
"aggressive"
towards him
even Pioli. Lee
with that
piece has
gained
throughout a
hail of
protests from
Sri Lanka and
an
investigation
by the UNCA,
along with
death threats
and other
well-known
amenities the
refugees away
from the
clutches of
the regime,
but it is
still there. Behold
then the
brilliant idea
of
Charbonneau,
improperly
used copyright
law to censor
the
objectionable
publications
to a colleague
and
competitor. Pity
that Lee has
already
resisted
successfully
in similar
cases, in 2008
was the same Google
to remove your
site from
being indexed
in the news
in its search
engines, it is
unclear what
impetus
behind, only
to regret it
soon after
that even Fox
News had cried
scandal.
* * *
These
reports
are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click here
for Sept 26, 2011 New Yorker on Inner City
Press at UN
Click
for
BloggingHeads.tv re Libya, Sri Lanka, UN
Corruption
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest service,
and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2013 Inner City Press,
Inc. To request reprint or other permission,
e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
|