Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS): Consultation Paper - Engaging New Media

My friend Cool Insider, Walter, alerted a bunch of us to the recently published report and recommendations by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society, or AIMS (www.aims.org.sg)

AIMS, started in 2007, is a 13-member panel appointed by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) to study the impact of new media on Singapore.

The panel was tasked to:

• To study the far-reaching social, ethical, legal and regulatory implications of a rapidly-growing Interactive Digital Media sector (IDM); and
• To make recommendations to the Government on how these issues should be managed while keeping pace with the development of IDM in Singapore.

The panel's first report can be downloaded via this link (there's more reports to come, apparently).

The report would interest those interested in how the new media scene in Singapore would develop (gee, this line sounds like a bad book review, LOL!)


The 105-page report has four main chapters: E-Engagement, Online Political Content, Protection of Minors, Intermediary Immunity for Online Defamation -- what the panel calls "time-sensitive issues".


From their Executive Summary (p.5-17), the main recommendations are:

• On E-Engagement: For the Singapore Government to reconsider its "cautious approach to engaging the public through new media" (p. 6) and to "push further ahead with e-engagement". The panel acknowledges there are risks if e-engagement is not properly thought through and implemented. They propose that the Government continue to invest in research and learn from countries which have started the process of e-engagement. Page 8 has a summary of some concrete steps on how to embark on e-engagement.


• On Online Political Content: To liberalise Section 33 of the Films Act that prohibits the making, distributing and exhibiting of party political films. The ideal situation would be to create "maximum space for political discourse, but be sensitive at the same time to the need to keep out harmful material online". The panel suggests these ways to liberalise the law -- One is to narrow the scope of the law; Two is to repeal Section 33 altogether; Three is a combination of One and Two and repeal the Films Act in phases.


• On Protection of Minors: The panel suggests that the longer term solution is to focus on education (on online dangers and safeguards) among the young and their parents. The current Family Access Network service provided by all ISPs [see editor's note at this page] should be made free to Singaporean households who wish to have it. More local research is needed to find solutions tailored to Singapore's context. Also, to collaborate with overseas counterparts to share research, ideas and resources on the universal issue of protecting minors. The panel also called for volunteers and community participation in the area of Cyber-safety. And to implement the above recommendations, AIMS also recommends an annual fund for the protection of minors and to a dedicated coordinating agency for the protection of minors. Finally, to lift the (symbolic) ban on 100 websites, once all the proposed measures are in place.


• On Intermediary Immunity for Online Defamation: For the law to give limited immunity for Internet content hosts and aggregators where civil and criminal liability for defamation are concerned, if those intermediaries have acted in good faith and implement "take down" actions of defamatory content.

I spent maybe 35 minutes going through the report. It's an easy to read report with some illuminating insights on how other countries are dealing with similar issues.

For example, page 18 (E-Engagement) briefly explains how a student Facebook campaign forced HSBC bank to re-think its move to scrap its interest-free overdraft facility for British students leaving university (BBC article here, as cited in the report).

Pages 19 to 23 talks about the trends in New Media, Web 2.0, Blogging as a significant development, the "mass democratisation of information", using new media as a public forum.

Pages 23 to 24, and 27 to 30 suggests why the Singapore government needs to engage online.

Chapter Two - Online Political Content - was useful to me in understanding the background and issues surrounding the Films Act, Internet election advertising and political broadcasts. There's a coverage of how Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Canada deal with online elections advertising.

It also mentions the Singapore government's Light Touch policy towards Internet regulation. On page 41, the report asks if current regulations are still relevant, citing instances from the 2008 Malaysian general election and the 2007 Australian elections.

On the start of the report, on page four, it says:

The Council is aware that these recommendations will not satisfy everyone. There is always room for improvement and areas to study more closely. The Internet is a never-ending worldwide conversation. We see the recommendations in this report as part of an ongoing conversation that started when the Internet became part of our lives. To aid us in our efforts, we welcome feedback from the public to help us improve on our recommendations.

At the AIMS website, there is a feedback form for public to submit comments.

They plan to launch a blog on 1 September 2008. [Update: the blog is at blog.aims.org.sg]

[Related - TODAYonline's article on the Protection of Minors recommendation].

Part 3: "Refute VueStar Patent Claims Website" - Official clarification from IPOS

[From Part 2]

This is a significant development concerning the Vuestar Patent Claim issue.

Read this.

Turned out someone by the nickname of "Upset Singaporean" wrote to his Member of Parliament (MP) about the Vuestar Claim. The MP, Dr. Ong Seh Hong, subsequently directed the enquiry to the Intellectual Property Office Singapore (IPOS). Which then lead to the IPOS Director-General, Ms Liew Woon Yin, responding with this reply.

"Upset Singapore" wrote that he/ she specifically sought permission from the IPOS Director-General to share the response at RefuteVueStarPatent.

When I read the post yesterday, I was elated.

Because not only did the IPOS response clarified alot of murkiness about the Patent Claim, it also raised doubts as to the validity of Vuestar's Claim.

Specifically, items 2, 4 and 6 from the IPOS reply (emphasis are my own):

2. According to IPOS’ records, the patent for “Method of locating web-pages by utilising visual images” (Singapore Patent No. 95940) stands in the name of Langford, Ronald, N. The patent was granted in Singapore, albeit not to VueStar...

4. As Singapore Patent No. 95940 was not granted to VueStar, the relationship between VueStar and the patentee would first have to be ascertained before the question of whether VueStar can actually demand payment arises. The basis on which VueStar is making their demand and their interest in the patent certainly requires examination.

6. Under the Patents Act and Rules, the validity of a patent may be challenged by way of defence in proceedings for patent infringements. There are also other relevant provisions...

At the same time, my librarian's training must have kicked in, 'cos I posed this question to Alice: "How do we know "Upset Singaporean" really obtained permission from IPOS?"

Alice had considered this point already. She decided to use Upset Singaporean's comment in good faith.

I suggested to her that she could do better. Just ask IPOS direct!

Which Alice did immediately. She emailed IPOS. And she received a call from IPOS the very next day confirming that everything was as stated.

The clarification from IPOS doesn't change the fact that companies who have received invoices from Vuestar must still go though due process to resolve the matter.

But in my opinion, the words from IPOS really tips the balance in favour of those being invoiced by Vuestar.

Yet another example that information is power.

[Update: FAQ compiled at RefuteVuestarPatent.biz, 8 Jun 08]

Part 2: "Refute VueStar Patent Claims Website" - Why you might want to care

[From Part 1]

I asked some people (online) if they knew about the Vuestar Patent issue, and whether they felt it applied to them. These friends and contacts are generally IT-savvy people. A few of them own their websites.

I was mildly surprised to learn that most responses typically went along these lines:

• "Yes, I've heard about the Vuestar patent case, but I don't think it applies to me" (note: have you actually read Vuestar's patent claims?)
  
• "So sad that a Singaporean is doing this" (note: Vuestar is a company that chose to register in Singapore. That doesn't make it Singaporean)
  
• "Oh, wait, you mean if I'm a website owner and I enable links via images, I have to pay them a license?" (that seems to be the case)
  
• "Is it possible for them to sue every owner?" (Does it matter?)
  
• "OMG, this is a worldwide license?" (It's a worldwide patent - My error. See this comment. I've also verified that patents apply to only to an individual country. No such thing as "worldwide patent". There is a "Patent Cooperation Treaty" of which Singapore is a signatory, but it doesn't make a patent registered in Singapore applicable outside of Singapore.)

In my view, Vuestar has done nothing illegal. The legal ramifications of Vuestar's patent claims is something to be settled through due legal process.

So why am I concerned about the case when I don't run a website of my own (Vs. using a blogging service)?

Well I'm interested in whether the collective insights by knowledgeable individuals (bloggers and non-bloggers) would make a difference to the issue.

For most Singaporeans who've read the related newspaper articles or blog posts about this case, they'd assume only "IT people" will be affected.

But what if you're a student who runs a website using the so-called "technology to link to images" and you're suddenly faced with an invoice asking you to pay for the license?

Close down the site or blog?

Pay up?

Settle in court?

Whatever the choice, I believe in being prepared. To resolve some of the information-murkiness surrounding this whole affair.

Of course there's the saying that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

In this case, I think the issue for many of us is really the lack of specific knowledge, i.e. Intellectual Property and Patent laws.

The conundrum that I have is that I'm not that well informed about IP and Patent laws either.

I can only suggest that before we dismiss this Vuestar Patents issue as something that "doesn't apply to me", let's think about it further.

What are the implications for yourself, or for the website owners whom you reply on to obtain your news and information?

Or if you're a website owner, find out as much about the issues involved. See if Alice's efforts at RefuteVueStarPatent can help. Or contribute to what she's trying to do.

Surely, being informed through credible sources is a first line of defense.

[Part 3 - Official clarification from IPOS]

Part 1: Singaporean starts a "Refute VueStar Patent Claims Website"

I learned about the VueStar Patent Claim controversy today.

From ZDnet Asia:

Long story short, Singapore-based Vuestar Technologies has hit the town with a stern message that any company that uses photos and graphics to link to other Web sites or Web pages, must obtain a "license of use" from Vuestar. It has begun sending out notification letters to selected companies, urging them to sign a licensing agreement in order to continue using image linking, legally.

VueStar -- www.vuestar.biz -- a Singapore-registered company (not Singaporean per se) has asked companies and individuals to pay up in order to use its technology for ‘locating Web pages by utilising visual images’.


As I understand it, VueStar is not bringing people to court. Yet.

They are telling individuals to pay them.

Because Vuestar holds the patent to what it says is the technology whereby websites "use visual images to hyperlink to parts of the worldwide web":


Meaning, if you access a webpage by clicking on any of the images in this blog, you're using their technology. Since Google owns Blogger.com, then VueStar has a case against Google.

Or so it seems.

My instant gut-reaction was that VueStar is using the threat of law, not the actual law itself, to scare individuals into compliance.



But my post isn't only about Vuestar's claims.

It's about a Singaporean who decided create a website for the purpose of refuting VueStar patent claims, aptly named "Refute VueStar Patent".


It's poetic that a Singaporean has initiated this against a Singapore-registered company.

Initially her site was named "SueVueStar.biz" but I suggested to her that "Refute VueStar" might be a better term. Less acrimonious.


Alice explains why she set up the site, here.

Clearly, it's active citizenry in action.

Alice also tells me the matter is quite complicated. What she's found out is that it's hard to challenge a valid patent. The onus is also on the defendent to prove that there's no infringement (there are some legal precedents which I don't understand fully, so I won't attempt to cite it here).

She adds that in VueStar's case, there are 39 claims to the patent. The defendent has to refute all 39 claims.

It seems that patents rights will always be enforced until the patent is invalidated. Or at least till there is an application for re-examination.

Kevin points me to Lawrence Lessig's 1999 article on "The Problem with Patents", and now I can better appreciate why Lessig feels there's a problem. Here's a quote:

On average it takes $1.2 million to challenge the validity of a patent, which means it is often cheaper simply to pay the royalties than to establish that the patent isn't deserved.

That's USD $1.2 million, at 1999 dollars.

I can believe how some companies in the US can make it their business to just file patents and claim payments or damages.

To me, the sad part is that the whole issue is less about Intellectual Property rights, but more about attrition, i.e. whoever cannot afford the legal fees (and loss of time) may choose to pay up rather than go to court.

It reminds me of gangsters extorting money from commoners, who choose to pay "protection fees" rather than fight the gangsters.

I suppose every business has its risks.

And educated bullies.

I feel an impotent rage right now.

But I take comfort in knowing at least one Singaporean is doing what she can to be constructive about it.

[Update: I shared this case with some web developers I know, like Divya. I was interested in how the Singapore web developer community would react. At first, Divya was ambivalent towards it. But after further discussion, she thought it might be prudent to think further about the implications of this case.

I think we need to do that -- discuss and raise awareness. While we cannot directly effect a change in US patent law, the least we can do is to raise awareness among those who might be affected.]


Some related posts:

• Simply Jean: Imaging linking is patented, websites and blogs affected, Advertlets, Nuffnang and Blog2U may have to call it a day, 27 May 2008
• Hong Kiat: You breached our patent by using images as links - says Vuestar, 27 May 2008 (check out the comments in the post)
• Alice Cheong: Analysis of a prior art refuting patent troll VueStar claims, 2 June 2008

Next: Part 2 - "Why you might want to care"