In Beijing, Obama Pitches Trans Pacific Partnership, No Censorship Fix?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 10 -- In Beijing US President Obama is promoting the "Transpacific Partnership," which would among other things export pro-corporate (and pro-censorship) laws like the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 

  After telling the media to hurry up and get out of the room, "we have some work to do," a statement emerged on November 10, that 

"We, the Leaders of Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam, welcome the significant progress in recent months, as reported to us by our Ministers, that sets the stage to bring these landmark Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations to conclusion."

   But if the TPP is so good, why would an organization like the Electronic Frontier Foundation be sounding the alarm? And why and how can the UN be promoting and praising this TPP?

 The UN has a joint agency with the World Trade Organization, and on March 6, 2014, at the UN the director of the joint agency the International Trade Centre Arancha Gonzalez, formerly of the WTO, spoke at the UN and praised the pending Trans Pacific Partnership.

Inner City Press when able asked Gonzalez to explain working on the TPP as a UN project, given the range of groups opposed to the TPP, including for example the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Click here.

  As the Free UN Coalition for Access is pursuing, TPP would essentially globalize the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which can be used for censorship -- not only has used by Reuters UN bureau chief to ban from Google's Search an anti-Press complaint he filed with the UN, but more recently to take-down videos of protests.Click here.

  Gonzalez gave a lengthy answer, that trade deals are up to member state, but added that the ICT works so that rules are consistent and not fragmented.  To some this sounds like "race to the bottom."

  Since the press conference was billed as concerning the Commission on the Status of Women, Inner City Press asked Gonzalez which countries ban women from having bank accounts. Saudi Arabia came to mind, but Gonzalez cited Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. We hope to have more on this issue.

   Back on March 4 another UN agency UN HABITAT unveiled "The City We Need" booklet on Tuesday at the UN, in advance of an event at the nearby Ford Foundation. 

  Inner City Press, when able, asked about the corporate sponsors listed in the booklet, including GDF Suez (protested for example about a hydro-electric dam in Brazil), Siemens (Western Sahara) and Veolia, a French firm recently contracted on Syria chemical weapons which does business in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

After thanking the panel including HABITAT's Joan Clos on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, Inner City Press asked: how were these corporate sponsored vetted?

  The answer, from Nick Yu of the World Urban Campaign, was as is so often the case at the UN that the private sector is important, is a stakeholder. Yes, but what about these particular companies? What is the process? And what is their involvement, beyond paying to be listed in promotional materials?

A goal of the campaign seems to be to try to get a holistic "Cities" Sustainable Development Goal. Inner City Presshas reported on a similar move, involving Palau, to get an Oceans SDG. The list is growing.

A panelist who was also a New Yorker, Eugenie Birch, answered Inner City Press question about the last and the current New York City mayors. Bill de Blasio, Birch said, is a corrective on issues of affordable housing and free kindergarten (what about pre-K?). Michael Bloomberg, whose meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry has yet to be summarized by the UN as Inner City Press has requested, will be at the Ford Foundation. Watch this site.

   

Iraq Bans Social Media, Twitter Suspends ISIL, UNdisclosed Complaints Censored at UN by Reuters

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- Iraq has blocked much of social media, and Twitter has suspended an account associated with ISIL, which live-tweeted ISIL's advances.
  
   Was Twitter's suspension of @Nnewsi at governmental request (and to confirm, which government?) and has disclosure been made, like these from Turkey:

Turkish Request To Block Tweets - Country Withheld Content, From: Ankara 5th Criminal Court of Peace, Turkey, To:Twitter, Inc., June 08, 2014

  Turkish Criminal Court Request To Block Tweets, From: Istanbul 5th Criminal Court of Peace, Turkey, To:Twitter, June 08, 2014

Turkish Request To Block User - Country Withheld Content, From: INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES AUTHORITY TELECOMMUNICATION PRESIDENCY, Turkey, To:Twitter, Inc., June 05, 2014

In March, Turkey blocked Twitter citing a court order, after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in order to get his leaked phone calls removed from Google's YouTube hasreportedly "copyrighted" his calls.

   Both censorship moves have echoes in the United Nations, which as part of its renovation accepted money and named an area by the Security Council previously open to all accredited journalists the "Turkish Lounge."

   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.

   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, theElectronic 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?

  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 in Italian, to which we link and give full credit, translated into English (NOT for now by Google)...

US Call and Q&A on Ban Ki-moon's Reversal Has No Iran Media, Shares Free Press Lack With Reuters, Abuser of DMCA?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 21 -- The day after the US said it would pressure UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to read out a statement that he had decided that the Montreux talks will proceed without Iran's participation, which he did, US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf took select questions by phone about it.

  According to the transcript issued Tuesday night by the US, no Iranian media were on the call or wanted to ask about this. Instead, Harf took a question about this from a correspondent from Reuters -- in New York.

  Normally the State Department briefings are in-person; Inner City Press for example has attended them and asked questions. Due to snow, the January 21 briefing was a conference call. But who was given notice of it? Are the notices transferable? Does the US State Department actually practice freedom of the press? 

  Does Reuters? The Reuters UN bureau chief, as previously exposed, got a leaked document blocked from Google's Search by filing with Google a specious complaint under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which the US is seeking to globalize through the Trans Pacific Partnership. Click for that, including comment from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

  By the Reuters DMCA complaint's logic, leaked documents that Reuters is given and publishes, on topics from Iran to sanctions in Africa, could be removed from Google's Search by such a complaint.

   On January 21 in New York as snow fell outside the UN, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about Ban's reversal.Video here.

  Inner City Press asked Haq for the UN's response to Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif saying "Ban Ki-moon contacted me several times last week and I stated to him explicitly that we don’t accept any preconditions for participating in the meeting. We regret that Mr. Ban Ki-moon has withdrawn his offer and believe that such an attitude is not appropriate for the status and dignity of the Secretary-General."

  Haq said Ban believed he had "oral understandings" with Zarif. 

  Inner City Press asked Haq, since the Geneva I Communique requires a commitment to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms, how are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of which are among those still providing weapons and more to armed groups in Syria, invited to Montreux? Where's Ban's dismay at that?

   Haq said that Ban is dismayed at the militarization of the conflict. Video here. 

  Earlier on January 21, Inner City Press spoke with Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin about Ban Ki-moon about-face.

  Churkin told Inner City Press, exclusively, "some people let him down, and not necessarily the Iranians."

  Others have analogized Ban to the American Charlie Brown, kicking at empty space when the football is taken away at the last second. Was Ban Ki-moon set up?

   Since the Geneva I Communique requires a commitment to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms, how for example are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of which provide weapons and more to armed groups in Syria, invited to Montreux?
 
   Also, where are the Kurds?  Those who actually control territory in the north, Rojava, are not part of Ahmad al Jarba's turkey-based Syrian Coalition, and were not separately invited to the talks. What about theirdismay? We'll have more on this.

   On January 20, Inner City Press asked Iran's Ambassador about Ban's dismay or disappointment. Video here.

 Outside the UN Security Council later on January 20, Inner City Press asked Iranian Permanent Representative to the UN Khazaee about Ban having been "dismayed" by the Iranian foreign ministry's spokesperson's comments.

  Kazaee replied, "I think all of you are very well aware about the consistency in our position about G2, so the high political officials are expected to act based on realities."

   Yes, realities: minutes after Ban's spokesperson's disinvitation announcement, Jarba's Syrian Opposition Coalition returned to the position voted on with 44 members absent: they will attend the talks in Switzerland.

 At 12:30 pm on January 20, Inner City Press asked Nesirky if Ban is equally dismayed at the Syrian National Coalition's spokesperson calling Ban's bait and switch invite "immoral, even in politics."  Nesirky declined to specifically express dismay at this comment, only saying that a number of comments have been disappointing.  "This one?" Nesirky would not answer.

  Given the SNC's 2 pm ultimatum on Ban to disinvite Iran, Inner City Press asked Nesirky if the invitation to the SNC was the only one to non-Assad Syrians, or if for example Kurds could be invited. Nesirky said: one unified delegation. Hardly -- 44 members of the SNC already dropped out before the vote to attend. What would the vote count be now?

Before the Middle East meeting of the UN Security Council on January 20, the Permanent Representatives of France, the UK and Russia spoke to the press about Iran being invited to the Syria talks beginning in Montreux January 22.

  Ambassador Gerard Araud of France, which Bashar Assad called a proxy state of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, said the ball is in the court of Iran, to explicitly accept Geneva I. The UK's Mark Lyall Grant said the UK position is that Iran must clarify, publicly, that it accepts Geneva I.

  Others ask why should Iran accept a communique of Geneva I to which it was not invited. Others say Iran does in its way accept the communique - it just interprets it differently.

  Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin said "of course" the US had been consulted before Iran was invited. If the SNC now does not attend, Churkin said, it would be a "big mistake."

   Ban Ki-moon went into the Security Council suite with a big entourage; there was a time he was not on UNTV in the chamber. Inner City Press can report that UNTV technicians were asked to pipe in a feed of the public meeting into a side room. There was talk of Ban's selective meetings, using the code name EU P2. 

  The Istanbul based Syrian National Coalition set a deadline of 2 pm in New York on January 20 for the invitation to be rescinded. 

  Soner Ahmed, an SNC spokesman, said Ban "waited to invite Iran until after the coalition’s decision to attend the conference. That is immoral, even in politics."

    Ban previously met with the SNC's Ahmad al Jarba in Ban's UN provided residence; when the Free UN Coalition for Access asked why it had not been on his schedule, the meeting was called personal.  Now, things have really gotten personal.

  Among UNanswered questions is whether the SNC would or would have brought any Kurdish representatives, and why or whether the Kurds will not now be invited.

  Saudi Arabia shot back at the invitation of Iran by saying they should not attend because it "has military forces in Syria." But doesn't Uganda have fighting forces in South Sudan, while being a member of "mediator" IGAD? UN-consistency.

   Ban made his Iran invitation announcement in a hastily thrown togetherpress conference held Sunday evening in an nearly empty UN building, on barely an hour's notice.

Nevertheless, Ban's spokesperson automatically gave the first question to the United Nations Correspondents Association, a partisan group which for example held a faux "UN briefing" for Ahmad al Jarba of the Turkey-based Syrian Coalition. Click here for Inner City Press story on that.

Ban Ki-moon dodged and did not answer on the weakness of Jarba's Coalition, from which over 40 members decided not to attend the vote approving attended at the talks in Switzerland. Nor until the end of this press conference did Ban mention the inclusion of women. Has he asked Jarba about that?

  Ban said he spoke with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, who "committed to play a constructive and positive role." Ban repeated this line when asked about the litmus test of accepting that Geneva II is about Geneva I which was about "establishing a transitional governing body with full executive powers" -- on mutual consent, whatever that means.

  Ban also announced supplemental invitations to Montreux for, among others, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands and, yes, South Korea.

  It was at 4:21 pm that the UN sent out an email that Ban would appear for a "brief and important statement" in the UN at 5:30 pm. When that time arrived, the so-called UNCA chair (or "Holy Seat") on which the UN has affixed a metal tag was filled -- and from that seat a complaint was made to try to get another correspondent moved. 

  UNCA's president Pamela Falk of CBS was not there; nor was her first vice president, who nonetheless was heard to call into the room. It is time to end the practice of the UN automatically giving the first question toUNCA - a group of which executive committee members tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN (and to get leaked documents removed from Google's search under a specious DMCA filing by Reuters' bureau chief) and which has not reformed in any way since then.

The Free UN Coalition for Access additionally asks why this announcement was made this way. There is more and more staging at the UN, faux Q&A and UNTV footage put out hoping it will be used as B roll. The UN should be more transparent, less of a scam. We'll have more on this.

   

Fast Track for Trans Pacific Partnership Could Globalize DMCA Copyright Abuse of Free Press, Like Reuters' Complaint to Google

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 3 -- The Trans Pacific Partnership is the subject of protests this weekend in snowy New York, and a push in Congress in Washington for "fast track" approval starting as early as January 8. TPP would institutionalize across the Pacific the very deregulation of financial services which led to the predatory lending meltdown in 2008. But there's more.

   While free press protections are in some ways advanced in the United States, as the Free UN Coalition for Access has begun highlighting, the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act can be and has been used as an end-run attack on freedom of the press.

    Specifically, as exemplified by an August 14, 2013 bad faith complaint to Google by Reuters' UN bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, DMCA's provisions for "take-down" or blocking of information with no prior judicial review allow for abuse.

   Leaked documents used in an investigative story can be blocked, as the Reuters' complaint to Google blocked from Google's search its bureau chief's e-mail to the UN seeking to get Inner City Press thrown out. This is a perversion of the concept of copyright (as well as a contradictory argument for Reuters or anyone in journalism to be making, that such documents should be taken down or blocked.)

   In Chile, for example, any such take-down requires the requester to get a court order. But DMCA provides, and Google allowed, blocking based on a non-reviewed, bad faith complaint.

  As the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry told Inner City Press about the 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."

  Along with other pro-corporate provisions, TPP would internationalize this abuse of copyright to undermine freedom of the press.  

 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?

  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, and continues to develop. Watch this site.

Reuters Misuses DMCA "Copyright" Act To Cover Up Its Attacks on Press, Charbonneau E-mail to UN Removed from Google

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 27 -- Can Reuters use the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act to get Google to remove a telling document from its search engine? 

  Based on a sworn statement under the DMCA by Reuters' bureau chief at the United Nations Louis Charbonneau, Google has blocked search access to a leaked copy of a written request by Charbonneau of Reuters to get an investigative journalist from Inner City Press thrown out of the UN. Click here to view the DMCA notice.

  The DMCA was enacted after massive industry lobbying 15 years ago. It has been used to take copyrighted movies and video games off free Internet sites; it has been subject to abuse in these fields. 

  But to misuse the DMCA to cover-up a Reuters complaint to the UN against a smaller competitor? This is a new low, for Reuters, the DMCA, the UN and Google (which have a previous and perhaps related history together.)

  Reuters, like Inner City Press and other media, seeks to obtain and publish documents without the consent of their authors. These are called leaks, and Reuters brags when it gets them, calls them exclusives.

   But it has emerged that on August 14, 2013, Reuters' Charbonneau made a sworn statement to Google under the DMCA seeking and obtaining the exclusion from Search and thus censoring of a complain he had filed with the UN's top two Media Accreditation officials in 2012.

  Ironically, Charbonneau later in 2012 leaked an internal anti Inner City Press document of the United Nations Correspondents Association, of which he was first vice president, to the UN. So the user of leaks tries to misuse the DMCA law to censor others' leaks.

Here is what Charbonneau told Google, under oath:

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

Original work URL(s): http://www.innercitypress.com/reutersLC3unmalu.pdf

Allegedly infringing URLs: http://www.innercitypress.com/reutersLC3unmalu.pdf

SWORN STATEMENTS

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. [checked]

The information in this notification is accurate, and I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

  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 sought to censor from 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.

  It is a spurious use of copyright. The e-mail was complaint to UN officials to try to get another journalist thrown out of the UN. 

  It came after Inner City Press published a story reporting that then UNCA president Giampaolo Pioli (referred to as a witness in Charbonneau's "copyrighted" email) had a previous financial relationship with Sri Lanka's ambassador and then agreed to screen inside the UN;s Dag Hammarskjold Library (DHL) auditorium a Sri Lanka government film denying war crimes. Click here and here for more on that.

  This, then, is a cover-up. Previous misuses of the DMCA, cataloged in March 2013 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, include for example Apple threatening Blu Wiki "for hosting a discussion about reverse engineering iPods to inter-operate with software other than Apple's own iTunes."

  "Censorware" vendor N2H2 claimed that the DMCA should block researchers like Seth Finkelstein from examining its software, and blocked a variety of legitimate websites, evidence that assisted the ACLU in challenging a law requiring the use web filtering software by federally-funded public libraries. See, e.g., Mainstream Loudoun v. Bd. of Trs., 24 F.Supp.2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998), available (for now) at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13796536557265673818.

  Sony threatened the Norwegian website Gitorious, "a platform for open-source programmers to collaborate on new projects."

  But to misuse the DMCA to cover-up a Reuters complaint to the UN against a smaller competitor? This is something new.

  The new Free UN Coalition for Access has been formed to oppose censorship attempts by and at the United Nations, including by UNCA now headed without reforms by Pamela Falk of CBS. How will Google and the UN, and Reuters now that it has been exposed, act on the false statement under and misuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

  Reuters has been on notice. Inner City Press asked Reuters editor Stephen J. Adler and three "ethics" colleagues about ThomsonReuters' policies, including how its UN bureau chief's attempts to oust Inner City Press from the UN complied with the wire services' claimed commitment to freedom of the press. Now the DCMA has been misused to try to cover up just one such Reuters attempt. This is a new low. Watch this site.